Most Americans may not be familiar with the International Maritime Organization (IMO), a United Nations agency focused on shipping safety and environmental protection. The IMO is promoting what it calls a "green shipping revolution," urging countries to take strong steps to cut greenhouse gas emissions and fight climate change.
Recently, Alex Epstein, a commentator known for his views on energy policy, raised concerns about the IMO’s plans. He claims the organization is pushing for a global carbon tax on shipping that could significantly raise shipping costs. According to Epstein, this tax could double the freight costs for goods coming into the United States, which is the largest importer in the world. He argues that this move would lead to higher prices for everyday items like food, fuel, and clothing.
Epstein estimates that the proposed carbon tax of $150 per ton could add about $1.29 to the price of a gallon of gasoline. He believes this tax would be imposed on American consumers without their approval, as it bypasses Congress. The Biden administration has reportedly supported the IMO’s climate initiatives, making climate change a key focus of its agenda.
In response, Epstein suggests that the U.S. should oppose the IMO’s climate strategy. He advocates for the Trump administration’s State Department to vote against the proposal in upcoming meetings and encourages allies to do the same. He also mentions that the Environmental Protection Agency and the Coast Guard could refuse to enforce the tax if it is adopted, and he urges the Senate to pass a resolution requiring Senate approval for any such tax.
Many Americans might be surprised to learn that an international body could impose taxes without congressional consent. This situation echoes historical grievances against British taxation during the colonial era, which spurred the American Revolution.
This issue highlights a broader conflict between global governance proponents and nationalist leaders. Supporters of the IMO’s carbon tax are often seen as part of a movement that seeks to create a more interconnected world, while critics argue that it undermines national sovereignty and prioritizes international agendas over domestic concerns.
The push for global governance has been growing since the early 20th century, gaining momentum after both World Wars and during the decolonization period. The European Union is one example of how such governance can affect member states’ sovereignty. Groups like the World Economic Forum also advocate for a rules-based international order, which some view as a step toward a global government.
Critics of these initiatives, such as Epstein, label supporters as "coercive utopians," who believe they can create a perfect society through top-down control. They argue that these individuals see themselves as global citizens rather than national ones, often dismissing nationalism as outdated.
As discussions around the IMO’s carbon tax continue, it remains to be seen how the U.S. government and its citizens will respond to this potential shift in international policy.