The U.N.'s Latest Forecast: 100% Chance of Taxes

(Unlimited Nonsense: Saving the planet, one catered conference at a time.)

Just when you thought your tax dollars were already doing enough heavy lifting funding gender-neutral parking lots and seven-figure unconscious-bias consulting contracts, the United Nations has decided to get in on the action. The planet’s self-appointed mall cop—armed with the authority of a small army and the competence of a toddler with a clipboard—will be meeting in London today to vote on what amounts to a global climate tax, targeting emissions from the shipping industry that powers 90% of world trade. Because apparently, not even the weather gets a free ride anymore.

Where’s the lie, though?

The plan comes courtesy of the International Maritime Organization, which wants to charge ships up to $380 per metric ton of carbon dioxide they emit. The money will go into something called a “Net Zero Fund,” which, I’m guessing, will operate exactly like every other global fund in existence: expensively, unaccountably, and totally ineffectively. Think of it as GoFundMe for the atmosphere—except participation is mandatory and your card’s already been charged.

The framework, which inexplicably has the support of China, Brazil, and the EU, is widely expected to be approved.

Proponents call it progress. Opponents call it taxation without representation. Accountants call it job security.

But the U.N. really cares about climate change… right?

Oh, you sweet, innocent waif, you. Every “global fund” the tax-exempt intergovernmental bureaucracy creates means new offices, fresh staff, and a bigger budget. The organization takes a generous cut to “administer” the money—usually five percent or more—which, on a global scale, makes it less a charity and more a red-tape buffet. The more cash that flows, the more conferences, committees, and tax-free salaries it can justify. Saving the planet, as it turns out, is great business.

Nothing about the proposed plan is subtle. The U.N. is openly saying this new global levy will “reward low-emission ships.” Translation: it’s not about saving the Earth; it’s about redistributing money from productive economies to the same “developing nations” that have been developing since the Eisenhower administration.

Under the plan, the industrialized nations that actually produce, build, and ship things (hello, America!) would be forced to pay into a central climate fund, while nations that don’t—those with little industry, smaller fleets, or chronically underperforming economies—would get paid out. It’s Robin Hood economics, except Robin now drives a shiny green Tesla and works for the U.N.

And let’s not forget who’s running the collection plate: the same administrative swamp creatures that have spent decades proving they can burn through other people’s money faster than their private jets burn through fuel. The Net Zero Fund would be managed by international agencies that are unelected, unaccountable, and conveniently exempt from many of the very taxes they oversee. It’s like letting the kid who stole the bake sale money run the school budget. Hardly peak governing.

Meanwhile, the global finance crowd is vibrating with excitement. Carbon taxes mean new “green markets”—credits, offsets, bonds, and a trillion-dollar potluck of imaginary assets to be traded, packaged, and resold. Wall Street, the World Bank, and every ESG fund from here to Geneva are salivating. It’s capitalism with a conscience—except minus the conscience part.

Just so we’re clear, this isn’t about climate. It’s not about protecting Mother Nature or her precious people and resources. It’s about creating a permanent pipeline of money from high-performing nations to low-performing ones, managed by a global chokehold that somehow always needs another conference, another fund, and another urgent intervention in order to continue with their “charitable work.”

But here’s the twist no one saw coming: the United States actually said “no.”

In a rare display of spine and sanity, Washington basically told the U.N. to take its floating Ponzi scheme and sail it straight into the Bermuda Triangle. The administration has signaled it will use visa restrictions, port bans, and sanctions against any country that votes for the plan. For once, the State Department, Energy Department, and Transportation Department actually agreed on something—namely, that the proposal is little more than an unsanctioned global tax regime that punishes productivity and rewards dependency.

Of course, supporters say this tax would “fund sustainability” and “support vulnerable nations.” But what it really does is fund bureaucrats and support the hotel industry in Davos.

If the U.N. gets its way, everything will be behind a paywall. The air will come with a QR code. A drizzle will require two-factor authentication. Daylight will be a feature of the Pro Plan only. The real reason they care so deeply about the climate is because they want to turn nature itself into a premium feature.

Convince me I’m wrong.

When was the last time you bought yourself a little something-something? ;)