The International Maritime Organization is voting today in London on the Net-Zero Framework, which would impose carbon taxes of $100 to $380 per metric ton on international vessels starting in 2027 to support low-emission technologies and aid for developing nations. President Donald Trump expressed outrage on Truth Social, urging a no vote and declaring the US will not adhere to the measure, which he called a scam increasing costs for American consumers. HOWEVER, more broadly, it appears there is yet another war on the sovereignty of nations around the world, and it is being curated through the United Nations’ efforts at a global climate tax.

THE UN IS ATTEMPTING TO IMPLEMENT A GLOBAL CLIMATE TAX

The war on the sovereignty of nations around the world, through the United Nation’s efforts at a global climate tax; and to begin with, while nations around the world reject climate policy, the unelected bureaucrats at the United Nations are looking to force an international tax on carbon emissions. This week, the UN agency called the International Maritime Organization (IMO) gathered in London to vote on a “net-zero framework” on shipping. It’s the first time the UN has attempted to levy a tax. Implement

Now, if the proposal is approved, ships over 5000 gross tonnage will be subject to regulations and a pricing mechanism. Current talks set the fee at around $100 per ton of CO2. Future increases will be decided by an unelected 170-member committee. MEANWHILE, shipping is responsible for a mere 3% of global emissions, but this tax will have a major impact on consumers. Experts say it will raise shipping costs by up to 10% and will increase the cost of most household goods.

Then, regarding the money and overall utility of the tax, first, the UN will collect an estimated $11-13 billion every year from this tax. The money will go into a new fund, controlled by the UN, to push decarbonization and “mitigate negative impacts” of climate change in developing countries. The fund will also apparently “reward low-emission ships” and forward green innovation. This means that an unelected international agency, not a sovereign state, would set a price on carbon, collect the money, and decide how to spend it. Essentially, the UN has found a way to do what it has sought for decades: which is to create a global tax base, and one where once established, there would be no logical or political limit to where that power expands next — be it aviation, logistics, manufacturing, agriculture, or even individual consumption.

Meanwhile, the UN’s long record of corruption, mismanagement, and political bias makes it unfit to handle global taxation, and this is not even considering that taxation is itself a horrible system. But, this is to say that this plan for global taxation severs the link between taxation and representation, transferring fiscal power from nations to unelected bureaucrats, thus creating a multi-billion-dollar fund with no accountability. And by rewarding compliant states and punishing dissenters, this global taxation system further undermines national sovereignty over energy, trade, and emissions policy, by placing control in the hands of those who stand to profit from the rules.

Well, unsurprisingly, the United States—which is the UN’s largest sponsor—is balking at the prospect of taxation without representation. The Trump Administration has threatened sanctions on any country that votes for it, among other actions which we will address shortly. And in addition, some lawmakers, like Senator Mike Lee of Utah, say it is time for the US to pull out of the UN altogether.

THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION’S PROPOSAL TO NATIONS IN FAVOUR OF THE NET ZERO FRAMEWORK

Now, in light of the actions considered by the Trump administration on nations that support the net zero framework, Secretary of State Rubio, Secretary of Energy Wright, and Secretary of Transportation Duffy issued a Joint Statement in response to the UN’s efforts; and it states the following. First, the statement details that “President Trump has made it clear that the United States will not accept any international environmental agreement that unduly or unfairly burdens the United States or harms the interests of the American people.”

The joint statement continued to remark that “The Administration unequivocally rejects this proposal before the International Maritime Organization and will not tolerate any action that increases costs for our citizens, energy providers, shipping companies and their customers, or tourists. The economic impacts from this measure could be disastrous, with some estimates forecasting global shipping costs increasing as much as 10% or more. We ask you to join us in rejecting adoption of the NZF at the October meeting and to work together on our collective economic and energy security.

Then finally, the joint statement proceeds to highlight notable considerations from the Trump administration. Here, the joint statement notes that: “The NZF proposal poses significant risks to the global economy and subjects not just Americans, but all International Maritime Organization member states to an unsanctioned global tax regime that levies punitive and regressive financial penalties, which could be avoided. The United States is considering the following actions against nations that support this global carbon tax on American consumers:

(1) The first is Pursuing investigations and considering potential regulations to combat anti-competitive practices from certain flagged countries and potential blocking vessels registered in those countries from US ports; (2) Second is imposing visa restrictions including an increase in fees and processing, mandatory re-interview requirements and/or revisions of quotas for C-1/D maritime crew member visas; (3) Third is imposing commercial penalties stemming from US government contracts including new commercial ships, liquified natural gas terminals and infrastructure, and/or other financial penalties on ships flagged under nations in favour of the NZF; and (4) Fourth is imposing additional port fees on ships owned, operated, or flagged by countries supporting the framework; and the final measure considered by the Trump administration is evaluating sanctions on officials sponsoring activist-driven climate policies that would burden American consumers, among other measures under consideration.

Now, you heard in the excerpt that we’ve just watched, where Ambassador Mike Walz stated that this net zero tax would primarily be a win for the EU and Chinese corporations; and before this is quickly dismissed as standard US government official banter; I’d like for us to look into these remarks further, because they reveal something important about the shadow activities of diabolical corporations in influencing government action – which is another crucial aspect on the war on the sovereignty of nations.

UNPACKING THE UN’S INTERNATIONAL MARITIME ORGANISATION’S “NET ZERO FRAMEWORK”

But first, let’s proceed to zoom in on the Net-Zero Framework, and what exactly it entails. In essence, the Net-Zero Framework is: The International Maritime Organization’s regulatory framework aimed at achieving net-zero greenhouse gas emissions in international shipping by or around 2050. The Net-Zero Framework introduces legally binding requirements on GHG fuel intensity, pricing, and rewards mechanisms, applying to large ships engaged in international trade. It is designed to accelerate the adoption of zero or near-zero GHG fuels, technologies, and energy sources in the maritime sector, with implementation expected to begin from 2028 if formally adopted.”

Secondly, it is a specialized agency of the United Nations. The International Maritime Organization was established by a UN conference and operates under an agreement that defines its relationship with the UN, focusing on setting global standards for shipping safety, security, and environmental performance. Its framework and regulatory authority derive from the UN system, but it functions independently to create and enforce legally binding shipping regulations. Here’s more on this:

Then thirdly, (and this is where we begin to look further into the remarks we watched from Ambassador Mike Walz) there is also a driving force behind this push for the International Maritime Organization’s Net-Zero Framework; and this driving force comes from a coalition of European nations, UN-aligned climate institutions, and major green fuel and maritime associations, with endorsement from several international business groups linked to the clean energy transition. The major entities involved in green shipping fuels, often referred to as “green fuel” companies or organizations, include both large international shipbuilders and fuel producers. Key players actively developing and deploying green fuels for maritime decarbonization are:

(1) First, HD Hyundai Heavy Industries (in South Korea) and they are leading in building dual-fuel vessels capable of running on what is said to be green methanol and other low-carbon fuels. (2) Second is Samsung Heavy Industries (also in South Korea) and they focus on developing what are said to be sustainable ships powered by green ammonia and methanol. (3) Third is COSCO Shipping Industries (in China): and they are working on green vessel technology, including methanol and alternative fuels. (4) Fourth is Huangpu Wenchong Shipbuilding (also in China): Designing what are deemed eco-friendly, dual-fuel vessels, including green methanol ships. (5) Then finally, is Shanghai Shipbuilding (in China): and they are developing what are said to be environmentally friendly vessels capable of operating on green methanol.

In addition, fuel production firms and renewable energy projects supporting green fuels such as e-methanol, green hydrogen, and ammonia include corporations like European Energy and other renewable energy firms involved in scaling up green hydrogen and e-fuels. It also involves projects like the Copenhagen Infrastructure Partners’ Murchison project in Western Australia, which aims to produce green ammonia using renewable energy. And (as you would probably already expect) it also involves various public-private partnerships pushing for the scaling of green hydrogen and methanol, such as Hyphen Hydrogen Energy in Namibia. And so, ultimately, the development of green fuels is closely tied to major shipbuilding conglomerates and energy firms that are investing heavily in low-emission vessel technologies and infrastructure.

In other words, while the International Maritime Organization’s regulatory framework aimed at achieving net-zero greenhouse gas emissions in international shipping will significantly increase consumer costs, it also sounds like a lucrative endeavour for corporations who have invested in green policies – first because they are key players that are actively developing and deploying green fuels for maritime decarbonisation; but also because they stand to receive rewards for “ low-emission ships” and forward green innovation.

This is crucial to note because it brings to mind something that the President of Loveworld incorporated highlighted in light of concerning agendas that are supported by governments; and it is that there are often diabolical corporations that serve as the culprits driving these concerning agendas. It is the case with free speech restrictions, and evidently, even with climate tax policies.

THE NET ZERO FRAMEWORK WOULD ULTIMATELY AMOUNT TO CLIMATE IMPERIALISM

In reality, the net zero framework it is a test run for a global taxation regime — one no citizen voted for, no parliament authorized, and no nation can easily opt out of. If adopted, it would mean that for the first time in history, taxation without representation would be enshrined at the global level — imposed not by kings or empires, but by an international bureaucracy claiming moral authority through “climate activism.”

Secondly, embedding this mechanism into what is called MARPOL Annex VI, which is the legally binding part of the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships that regulates air emissions and sets mandatory energy efficiency standards for nearly all international vessels, and which is already ratified by 108 nations covering 97% of the world’s merchant shipping fleet by tonnage, the UN actually aimed to make participation mandatory! In other words, what was presented as climate policy in April has, by October, become the framework for the world’s first global tax, created and administered by unelected officials — without a single citizen’s consent – thus amounting to climate imperialism, and a war on sovereignty.

However, beyond being climate imperialism, the NZF is particularly a European inspired climate imperialism. More specifically, the NZF was written largely by European delegations and backed by the European Commission, the U.K., and a handful of Pacific island states. It is framed as climate solidarity but functions as regulatory imperialism — exporting European-style carbon policies through the UN to countries that never voted for them. And so, Europe, having already imposed its own shipping emissions rules regionally, now seeks to universalize the cost through the UN so its industries don’t lose competitiveness. The result is a global redistribution of costs from Europe’s climate ambitions to the developing world — and to consumers everywhere.

However, it is also worth remembering that this system did not emerge from nowhere. Many of its founding figures were not defenders of liberty but disciples of liberal eugenics — men like Brock Chisholm of the WHO and Julian Huxley of UNESCO, who openly argued that humanity must be “scientifically managed” through psychological reconditioning and population control. After World War II, these ideas were rebranded as global health, global education, and global governance. The language changed, but the underlying principle remained: the UN and its satellite organisations see ordinary people as too ignorant to rule themselves.

And so, the same logic that justified the World Health Organization deciding “global health emergencies,” UNESCO dictating “educational standards,” and the IMF enforcing “fiscal responsibility” on sovereign states now seeks to tax the world. The institutions may differ, but the ideology is the same: which is that these institutions seem to think that unelected bureaucrats and self-appointed experts should govern humanity in the name of what they define as science, efficiency, and progress. This is UNACEPTABLE.

But furthermore, we already see the cost of carbon taxes on a national scale, when we look at Canada as a case study. Canadians protested the carbon tax on the grounds that it makes life too expensive, punishes citizens for requiring basic necessities; and that it is ultimately not working.

REMINDER: AFTER COVID FAILED, CLIMATE ALARMISM WAS THE NEXT CONSIDERATION

What is interesting to note is that it is not so long ago that we were warning against new efforts at drumming up climate alarmism, as we were offering rebuttal to a Times Magazine article about so-called scientists claiming we have passed the first tuning point towards irreversible environmental harm; and yet meanwhile, globalists were working since April to implement a global carbon tax! BUT, here is a crucial nuance we ought not to miss: the globalists efforts at using climate alarmism as a conduit for authoritarianism is an implicit concession of their failures to subjugate the world, with earlier strategies – especially the COVID plandemic.

In fact, you’d recall the footage of a CNN staff member who was caught on camera conceding that they were working towards climate alarmism as the new and predominant fear-mongering message, because COVID was no longer an effective bogeyman for the globalist cause.

HOWEVER, just as efforts at the subjugation of nations and the robbing of their sovereignty were thwarted by the Church, even the climate change hoax will not progress, and is restrained only until He who restrains is taken out of the way.

Written By Lindokuhle Mabaso