Summarised by Centrist
Two United Nations agencies are moving toward emissions charges on global shipping and aviation, prompting warnings that unelected international bodies are gaining tax-like powers over major sectors of the world economy.
Writing in The Telegraph, energy policy scholar Brenda Shaffer argues that the International Maritime Organization and International Civil Aviation Organization are seeking to impose costs on shipping and air travel without democratic accountability.
The IMO’s proposed Net-Zero Framework includes a global fuel standard and greenhouse gas emissions pricing mechanism for shipping.
Its adoption was delayed in 2025, with talks due to resume in 2026.
Shaffer argues the measure would increase costs across global trade while doing little to cut emissions because low-carbon shipping fuels remain expensive, limited and difficult to scale.
Shipping carries more than 80% of global trade and accounts for about 2% of global greenhouse gas emissions.
Aviation faces similar pressure through ICAO’s carbon offsetting scheme for international flights.
Supporters say such measures are needed to decarbonise hard-to-abate sectors and create incentives for cleaner fuels.
Critics say the costs will be passed on to consumers, favour large operators over smaller competitors and create a precedent for international institutions to raise revenue from economic activity without direct voter consent.
Shaffer says the question is not only about climate change, but about democratic control over taxation.
“If these precedents stand, the appetite of unelected institutions for fiscal power will only grow,” she wrote.
Editor’s note: The UN does not appear to be able to directly tax companies in the way a national government can. The more realistic mechanism is indirect: agencies such as the IMO and ICAO set international rules, which are then enforced through member states, port access, aviation compliance systems and industry obligations.
That distinction matters. If these measures are merely voluntary guidance or encouragement to buy offsets, that is familiar UN climate bureaucracy.
But if emissions charges or offset purchases become binding conditions for ships, airlines or international routes, the practical effect may still be tax-like. The cost would be embedded in freight, fares and consumer prices, despite voters having no direct say over the charge.
The question, then, is not only whether this is technically a “tax”. It is whether unelected international bodies are creating compulsory costs that national democracies merely administer.
