By Jo Nova
The United Nations, as nice as they are, just want to tax the evil corporate giants who polluted the world. What teenage doting girlie would not be happy with that? (What communist sympathizer could say “no”?) I mean, wouldn’t we all want a wealth tax on the uber rich to help stop storms and droughts and prevent obesity in polar bears? And wouldn’t we all want that money to go to an unelected, unaudited committee in Geneva?
In reality, of course, the UN dreams of taxing the likes of Shell and Exxon in order to … get back the money Donald Trump took away. But they can’t just ask the hardworking middle class of America to pay the UN directly, especially when they voted for Donald Trump. Instead they tax the big companies, and hope no one notices that Big Oil will just recover the costs by raising the price of oil and gas. Where do they think the money will come from?
The bill will be paid by pension funds and shareholders who lose profits, grandmas who want to heat their homes, and mums and dads filling up cars and buying frozen peas. Everything will cost more and a few cents of everything will go to the UN.
Fossil fuel firms may have to pay for climate damage under proposed UN tax
Framework Convention on International Tax Cooperation could also force ultra-rich to pay global wealth tax
by Fiona Harvey and Heather Stewart, The Guardian (of The Blob)
Fossil fuel companies could be forced to pay some of the price of their damage to the climate, and the ultra-rich subjected to a global wealth tax, if new tax rules are agreed under the UN.
Negotiations on a planned global tax treaty will resume at the UN headquarters in New York on Monday, with dozens of countries supporting stronger rules that would make polluters pay for the impact of their activities.
But developing countries are worried the current draft of the proposals is too weak,…
Dozens of third world countries support stronger rules because the UN will have more cash to buy their votes with.
It’s a rush, even though the cost of natural disasters has been falling for a century. Hurry, hurry!
Negotiating the convention, which could be adopted as soon as the end of next year if countries can iron out details, was now urgent, she added, as more countries were afflicted by climate-related disasters. “This [tax] is critical for domestic resource mobilisation so that countries can sustainably rebuild and become resilient to increasingly devastating climate impacts, rather than become more dependent on borrowing and debt,” she told the Guardian. “There can be no sustainability without dealing with climate change in the way we design our global tax rules.”
If it comes to pass, the UN will effectively be taking money from the poorest of the poor in the West, and siphoning the money through corporate profits, straight into Antonio Guterres frequent flyer account.
It makes no sense, of course, to blame fossil fuel companies for what millions of their customers choose to do or not do with their products. But it’s a good way to hide the UN climate tax on all our citizens.
Yet again, the UN wants to be the One World Unelected Government.
Yet again, we are reminded we need to cancel all funding to parasitic globalist committees.
What FUN .
F the UN
😉
580
Who do the UN think they are?
An UN-elected body.
GET STUFFED!!!
Looooooooooooooooooong past time Australia exited this commo mob.
580
Agreed, but no chance of that happening.
The uniparty (Labor and the “conservative” Liberal party for our OS readers) would be lucky to scrape up one backbone and one functioning common sense brain between them.
290
So we live in the safest period in Human history and yet these clueless Communist donkeys want to tax us even more because they live in a fantasy world?
Why can’t they spend just 5 minutes online and look up the data and save us another 30 years of BS and delusional nonsense and trillions more $ wasted straight down the drain?
When will the OECD countries wake up and tell the UN to get stuffed?
360
Neville. They know that the whole climate scam is a lie; they just don’t want you to know. They have many useful idiots also known as clueless idiots just like Greta and Bowen. There are also many who are effectively helping the communists to achieve their goal of world domination, people like Albanese and every other politician who promotes Net Zero or capping emissions.
430
Again, here’s the GLOBAL death rates for extreme weather events from OWI Data 1900 to 2025.
https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/natural-disaster-death-rates?country=Flood~Extreme+weather~Wildfire~Drought~Extreme+temperature
120
Mention of clueless Bowen reminds me that, in one of the quiz shows a few weeks ago, one of the questions was “who was treasurer after Wayne Swan”. The answer, Chris Bowen. If the country is a mess now how much worse could it have been with Bowen as treasurer
150
And time as Minister for Immigration during the Labor years 2007-2013 when they abandoned Howard Government Pacific Solution people smuggling and illegal immigrant deterrents including offshore processing of claims for asylum, and permitting entry into Australia of over 50,000 illegal immigrant asylum seekers with no passport, visa or other means of identification for authorities to use for background checking of claims
181
Globally, we are in a terrible state. The human race is of course totally dependent on environmental organisations for its very existence, and those vital organisations are being destroyed by climate change. Deaths from extreme weather are down – way down – and global food production is up around record highs. Global plant cover is increasing in spite of South Americans clearing thousands of football fields (we all know they are mad about football but do they really need that many football fields in the Amazon?), Svalbard polar bears are getting fatter (no-one dares to check the others in case they are fatter too), the Great Barrier Reef is in great shape (scientists can’t explain why corals are surviving in warm water), and only a few whales are being killed by offshore wind farms. Oops maybe I got a bit confused by that last one, but the point is that climate change is a real killer, it is killing the environmental organisations on which we all depend. We need to do something about it before it’s too late, but what can we actually do? Alter some data, stop the media from reporting snow, go out and quietly shoot some walruses to get their numbers down? We need good ideas and we need them fast.
240
Mike, 1st green tick ✅ of the day for you, because, y’know, green is good, green is clean, that’s why Antonio Gutless lusts after everyone else’s hard-earned ‘green’ $$$.
As Sweet Old Bob said: F-UN.
140
Communist countries used to be the biggest polluters of all because they socialised the externalities. Making polluters pay through a tax is the free market solution to minimising environmental damage. It’s the complete opposite of Communism.
230
It’s not a free market solution.
An intervention in the market (such as a tax) is not a free market solution.
Free market would be buyers choosing not to buy because they don’t want the product on the merits of the product, service, or need.
Making buyers not want the product because a tax makes it more expensive or uncompetitive is an intervention in the free market. It’s an artificial lever designed to achieve a market outcome. The opposite of free market.
It’s like the “carbon tax” we had. Make the fossil fuel associated product too expensive so manufacturers find ways to adopt the subsidised “renewables”. Ultimately the customers are choosing which fools you into thinking the change is a free market effect. But you ignore the intervention by government that contrived an outcome.
You made a similar erroneous claim about free market the other day in relation to the Oxford city traffic exclusions.
https://joannenova.com.au/2026/01/the-15-minute-city-is-back/#comment-2894006
See reply #8.7 You must have missed it given you’re repeating the same misconception.
Of course, the reality is the UN knows how vital fossil fuels are now and well into the distant future, forever. It’s simply a grab for money and not what you consider a noble attempt to minimise environmental harm.
260
Strop,
I favour the hypothesis that by far, most people prefer to act personally with adequate concern for the rest of society.
Historically, as manufacturing grew in scale, so did its undesirable offshoot we call pollution. Reasonable people were cleaning it up, but it cost money that was scarce and wanted for other purposes. As the polluters became more wealthy over time, more was spent on cleanups.
This was fine in pure theory, but then we saw the growth of people paid to tell others what they could and could not do. Here was an opportunity for a big new block of bureaucrats and politicians to own the management of pollution. Economic laissez faire was overtaken, by economic fines and threats, by mandates with costs and timetables invented by theorists and profiteers who had no skin in the game.
Now, we can look back on this disaster to see what can be improved. There ARE better ways than at present, but the better ways require major culprits to admit mistakes and change their ways, often by taking new jobs.
Fat chance.
Resistance to bad ideas has a major tool, which is to ignore or refuse to do what is harmful to independence of thought and action. If it takes a civil war, that is mere history repeating. The stupid, selfish, greedy, ignorant people who want to command us know what they are doing. It is past the day when group or individual action forces their elimination.
A personal aim should be to put into society much more than you take out over your lifetime. Silly old me has achieved this, so most others should be able. The aim should NOT be to maximise your personal rip-off at the expense of others. Geoff S
200
Nah, it’s classic Marxist “from each according to his means for each according to his desires”.
Coercive taxation is pure marxism and the complete antithesis of capitalism.
140
As in Fabian Society of UK, and Australia, and PM Albanese a follower of the late Russian revolutionary Marxist Leon Trotsky.
Also consider ALP National Constitution and references to socialism objectives.
90
If you don’t like a tax, the alternative is an emissions trading scheme where an organisation can choose to either avoid the emissions or pay for them. There are advantages and disadvantages to both mechanisms. Either way, the least efficient producers get forced out of the market. An emissions tax is simpler and less able to be gamified.
020
The most efficient producers get forced out by having an artificial cost imposed.
If they were not efficient then the free market would have already made them adapt.
The inefficient producers get to stay in while their efficient competitors get artificially handicapped and booted.
120
They aren’t the most efficient if they aren’t sustainable. That’s the tragedy of the commons. Price in the externalities and they will survive if they are still the most efficient. There are always alternatives and potential product substitution available once new infrastructure is available.
010
Simon,
The Tragedy of the Commons in written form was justifiably popular after the late 1960s, mostly describing much earlier times. Things changed. Sixty years later, we have young folk doing home invasions, stealing goods and cars and carving each other with machetes. These are not citizens with the intellectual capacity or interest to appreciate such fine concepts. Geoff S
100
So let the higher emitters die or change their ways through natural inefficiency without a tax. Not because the govt whacks a tax on them but not on their low CO2 footprint competitors.
If the higher emitters were truly inefficient the tax wouldn’t be necessary to get them to reduce emissions. If they only become inefficient because of the tax then that is government intervention and not the free market.
If a tax or trading scheme is really the path you want to go down, then put the tax on them once the infrastructure is available. A new business that starts from scratch can build that new technology into their start-up. The older business that has already tooled up for the older methods is still paying off that investment. So forcing them to re-tool is a handicap that makes them less competitive. Putting a tax on them if they don’t makes them less competitive. Which is clearly your desire. Too bad for you if they still remain competitive. But then you’d just increase the tax.
You started out by talking about the free market deciding. And then saying that with the tax or trading scheme the least efficient will be forced out. Those two things are not compatible. Because in the latter, the business that was efficient may become inefficient through the tax or changing their infrastructure.
As for the tragedy of the commons. We’re not talking about depleting a rare resource or pouring cyanide into a river. We’re talking about CO2 emissions and it’s by no means clear it’s a problem. You won’t agree. But at least agree that your tax is not free market.
50
I refuse to pay for my breathing emissions which contains about 5% CO2 every breath.
I wonder if the loony fear mongers have thought about a breathing tax?
Why tax CO2 anyway? It is the building block of life without which all plant and animal life dies.
All those predictions that never eventuated and the fear mongers wonder why we don’t believe/trust them? They’re even worse than our politicians.
110
It’s a “solution” to a non existent problem.
CO2 is not a pollutant, it is plant food.
If you are really serious about lowering CO2 emissions then you should set an example by lowering yours to zero.
Start with not polluting the internet, then remove everything in your life that is not a product of your own hands.
And as a last resort, you can reduce you personal emissions to zero by ceasing to respire.
30
Since the introduction of carbon taxes in the west, following Kyoto, the rate of emissions growth in the rest of the world rose at unprecedented levels, creating the biggest 30 year increase in CO2 in human history. This is because the UNFCCC only mandates western countries to act on emissions, a rule that will never be changed. Western countries now only make up 30% of all emissions and the rest of the world lead by China are laughing all the way to the bank as they take advantage of the uneven playing field to rake in billions and move to take over the global economy.
20
Define polluters.
40
Strange isn’t it. The UN start squealing about running out of money and then come up with another tax. Cynical money grab or what!!! No wonder reasonable and intelligent people have no time for these freeloading bloodsuckers who actually achieve nothing and are unaccountable for where the money goes. As per the Guardian https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2025/nov/03/international-climate-aid-just-transition. only 3% of the UN climate money goes to transitioning communities. Way past time that the UN was disbanded and the climate grifters put in jail for the massive fraud they have perpetrated.
120
So do we get a choice? If we fund the UN with taxpayers dollars as “good global citizens” or “synchophantic bedwetters”, do fossil fuel companies still pay their “taxes” from increased costs in Australia? If so, we are getting robbed twice for that stupid organisation.
330
Fuel excise (tax) is often quoted by leftists as being subsidy to mining companies and others but they ignore that the purpose of fuel excise is roads repairs and maintenance, when fuel is used off public roads rebates can be applied.
120
Well, that’s the theory but in the UK fuel duty and ‘road’ tax are just more money for the big spending pile and not ring fenced for the roads. We do have something called ‘red diesel’ which is sold with a lower tax for use off the highway but there have been creeping increases in the restriction of its use. Diesel can be used as a fuel for heaters and now you can only use ‘red diesel’ for domestic heaters and have to sign a declaration form to that effect when you buy it. For commercial heating you must use fully taxed diesel.
10
“Foreign aid is a system of taking money from poor people in rich countries and giving it to rich people in poor countries.” – Peter Bauer.
The UN just takes money from poor people for itself.
380
GFYs
140
I look forward to being able to vote for my local UN delegates at my nearest petrol station. Driver’s licence required as ID … one litre one vote.
220
No taxation without representation.
I don’t believe the USA will allow this.
The UN are unrepresentative swill and many countries are kleptocracies always looking for a new scam.
270
Given the Australian Government’s fanatical commitment to UN decrees plus, the climate change scam, and gross misuse of Section 51(xxix) of the Constitution to effect extraterritorial governance of Australia, our Government will love to use this as an excuse to further overtax the Australian people.
180
That’s because our politicians have to look forward to their retirement and a meaningless, but well-paid, sinecure at the UN!
10
I believe that President Trump has been right about the United Nations stepping well outside its orginal post-WW2 Charter and that they must stop interfering in the affairs of sovereign member nations. And that of course would require the elected representatives of each member nation’s government/s to act on behalf of their constituents and not legislate and regulate UN agreements and agendas into law and avoiding constitutional laws of the sovereign nation.
170
“legislate and regulate UN agreements and agendas into law”
But.. but.. in a real democracy WE would get to decide that by a vote. Every time an election comes around there would be a list of the current UN proposals to be voted for or against. This IS the 20th century and we are all connected, so voting over the net is simple!
10
“This IS the 20th century …”
No, this is not the 20th century.
20
Today we’re living in a cool period compared to the last 125,000 years and the Holocene optimum was much warmer than today and the Eemian interglacial was 8 c warmer than today in 2025. See also the co2 Coalition fact checks.
Here Linnea Luekin gives us the facts about warming in just 2 minutes.
https://www.bing.com/videos/riverview/relatedvideo?q=lueken+climate+the+facts&ajaxnorecss=1&sid=3FD27CBB19E2658B09636A4E187F644F&jsoncbid=0&ajaxsydconv=1&ru=%2fsearch%3fq%3dlueken%2bclimate%2bthe%2bfacts%26FORM%3dAWRE%26ajaxnorecss%3d1%26sid%3d3FD27CBB19E2658B09636A4E187F644F%26format%3dsnrjson%26jsoncbid%3d0%26ajaxsydconv%3d1&mmscn=vwrc&mid=76DCA8EDEB21751FFCE076DCA8EDEB21751FFCE0&FORM=WRVORC&ntb=1&msockid=7b60f7c0014711f1ab1afb6976b6e6d8
30
My area is under a total fire ban today – all primary schools, pre-schools and community houses are closed. At this time, according to the BOM’s own weather observations page, my nearest weather station is showing 26.6C, wind speed 6 kmh. WTF? A very pleasant summer’s day here, I’m currently on the deck with a gin and tonic, enjoying the cool breeze after splitting messmate for the winter.
By the way, our local primary school has just had it’s bushfire refuge upgraded at a rumoured cost of several hundred thousand dollars (information not publicly available) which follows a new $1.35m fire station across the road. Ain’t that enough protection?
40
The UN has no legal power to tax anyone in the World including Corporations.
Otherwise, they would have done it by now.
End of Story.
270
Or as former Prime Minister Howard once commented in reply to a question from a journalist, international law has no status in any sovereign nation, unless the government permits it.
300
160
Who are these little ‘people’ you speak of –
Give them football, beer & gambling and they won’t remember a thing, and if their children are hungry, let them eat bread.
90
How are they going to ‘force’ the uber rich and energy companies to pay the tax?
Laws only work when everybody agrees to abide by them. If they don’t, the cops come in and arrest them. But who are the enforcers of the UN?
To quote a famous movie, ‘you have no power here’.
130
UN Offical admission that the objective is to destroy capitalism (as the left call free enterprise, free markets)
https://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/climate-change-scare-tool-to-destroy-capitalism/
120
Ah, but there is a flaw in the Australian Constitution.
Any time Australia is signed up to a treaty there is an obligation to implement the terms into Australian law.
If Australia is stupid enough to sign on to a treaty which requires us to provide funds to an external body then passing legislation to appropriate the funds we must. Without limit.
And that’s how the nation got itself into this mess. It will take a brave government to get us out of these global treaties and often the exit has been well and truly sealed over to prevent escape.
140
Yes, the problem began when the UN was established soon after WW2 and most politicians were ex-service men and women and had the experience of hardship in between world wars of the Great Depression, or their parents had that experience and were continuing to be worried about loss of economic prosperity.
Establishing the UN for post war reconstruction and resettlement of refugees was considered to be very important.
The leftists infiltrated and took advantage of the goodwill prevailing in political circles and societies in general.
90
Every treaty and agreement has mechanisms allowing Parties to withdraw. Sometimes there is a cost stated in clauses.
The UN has no power to prevent Australia from leaving. Any imagined power could be overcome if needed by new domestic legislation. Geoff S
40
Agreed Geoff. In theory. In practice there are things like long exit periods and provisions preventing escape.
Looking at it from the other side you wouldn’t want your victims to sign up to a contract they can easily escape, would you?
10
To paraphrase America’s 7th President Andrew Jackson … they have made their ruling, now let them enforce it.
Good luck collecting those taxes with no enforcement mechanism.
140
UN of course relies on the support of fellow travellers in governments of member nations.
And as the record reveals too many notably in developed countries do.
70
I know this is boring to a lot of people but their lies and BS about their so called dangerous CC are easily dismissed with the data.
The world’s countries and even poor Africa are much safer today even though their population has increased by over 1.2 billion since 1950.
Over that time Africa’s life expectancy has increased from 36 years in 1950 to 64 years today and yet our UN donkeys and con merchants tell us we have a climate crisis or even an existential threat.
These liars and con merchants are barking mad and continue to ignore their own UN data that clearly proves they’re wrong.
So why aren’t the OECD countries calling out these liars and when will we charge these con merchants and ASAP?
100
We all know the phrase voting has consequences.
😱😱
So why do people think it is a good idea to vote for Far-Left governments who”
support censorship of truth,
enforce laws on religion on non-believers with prison sentences,
openly protect supporters of murderous terrorists,
threaten their victims with hate crimes because they dare complain and
will to take your savings and give them to unaccountable global-grifters? 👹🔥💀
Fact:
When governments go-woke we the people get broken.
130
Why do people vote the way they do?
Free stuff!
80
Why do people vote the way they do?
They don’t. The left cheats at elections.
30
Follow Trump and dump the UN. Way past its use-by date. They offer nothing of value. In fact they are extraordinarily harmful trying to build dependence in third world economies at the expense of wealthier economies.
The best way to build dependencies is to have forever welfare.
We can be thankful that the next UN General Secretary has to be a woman – it is a DEI hire. That excludes KRudd at this stage. But he may well identify as a woman to get the post.
140
Not sure I am thankful in advance about the appointment of a woman.
Exhibit 1: Von Der Leyen. Dr Evil in a pant suit.
150
Here are the possible candidates for next UN Secretary General. https://1for8billion.org/candidates-and-speculation
I guess they will have to be:
1) A DEI hire.
2) From a Third World country.
3) A person of colour.
4) A Mohammedan.
5) Female or indeterminate gender.
There is therefore only one candidate that fits those criteria, Amina Mohammed. She is Nigerian and Deputy Secretary-General of the UN.
51
Another from Africa does not meet the geographic requirement because the current one is from Africa.
10
Since when did Portugal ‘transition’ across the strait to Africa? Have I missed something…
Helengrad of NZ was passed by (phew!) though her protégé, She Who Shall Not Be Named (think teeth), is eyeing-up a new position; and please no, not that von der Lyin’ pant-suit thing, no… just no!
70
The ‘pretty communist’ gets a mention. A role she could really get her teeth into.
30
Apologies Gary, your comment wasn’t there when I posted (above) – just goes to show, great minds & great thinkers and, ‘Hey hey Comrade Cinders!’
No, just no.
30
The starting point was a move to address tax avoidance by multinationals.
The UN Framework Convention on International Tax Cooperation (UNFCITC) is a member-state-led initiative to create a fully inclusive, equitable, and effective global tax governance system, running from 2025–2027. Mandated by General Assembly Resolution 78/230, it aims to combat illicit financial flows, address tax evasion, and ensure multinationals pay taxes where economic activity occurs.
Arguably a reasonable economic proposition.
However, this was an open invite for the climate disasteratii, transfer payment development enthusiasts, sustainablistas, social engineers, and anyone with an eye on lashings of OPM.
A quick Goggle on ‘UN tax’ shows the rich diversity of interest in ‘tax justice’ and all the beautiful things that could be done if only the additional income tax raised passed into UN hands – and thence to NGO’s and special interest groups.
What the UN urgently needs is a good dose of Kevin Rudd, Cate Blanchett, and some sheets of butcher’s paper. A reality enema.
100
Not sure I’d wish Rudd or Blanchett on anybody.
But I agree that an enema for Rudd is well overdue. If only to keep him meaningfully occupied. Perhaps daily or hourly or simply whenever he opens his mouth.
90
Probably a bit harsh, I agree.
But the UN deserves nothing less.
80
Justice done (sort of) in Once Great Britain. (There is a more effective form of justice but it was abolished in 1965 in UK.)
An illegal immigrant committed an horrific murder and got 29 years in jail.
He didn’t seem capable of expressing remorse and bought alcohol after the crime and was bored during the trial.
Why does Herr Starmer, his regime and the Left keep encouraging these people to enter?
Obviously different standards apply to certain people .
https://youtu.be/dtKTnHBlN1c
70
I meant to put that in Unthreaded.
00
“UN dreams of siphoning a “climate tax”from The West through a tax on fossil fuel companies and the ultra rich.”
China alone burns 56% of the world’s coal.
In China coal accounted for 58% of the country’s primary energy consumption, 20% oil and 10% natural gas, so that’s 88% fossil fuel.
The UN wants to tax what countries??????
70
China won’t be taxed.
It is a “developing” nation, don’cha know?
10
For historical reasons Australia is one of the UN’s useful idiots. We will be one of the first to agree to a climate/ultra rich tax if it ever gets that far. It will be some past politician or faceless bureaucrat that will sign us up. It will probably get added on to our fuel excise. It wont matter if the government is Labor or LNP, the result will be the same as they are a Uniparty when it comes to international relations. I think the public service make sure of that as well.
101
Former Labor PM Rudd is preparing for another campaign to become UN Secretary General
21
He wants to be but see my post at #17.2.
10
If the UN pushes Climate Action – that’s enough to know they are prepared to lie about anything in order to get the munnee.
30
The despicable democracy of dictatorships that is the UN is in deep financial trouble thanks to Trump. And I mean thanks. It will have to scale down within months if things stay as they are.
20
The UN and the EU are both desperate to get a means of direct funding that is not accountable to anyone else. The EU has to get a budget approved by the member nations, whose people are going to pay for it one way or another, and want to avoid having to beg for money every budget round. Just like the UN, it is a bloated organisation that is poking it’s nose in all over the place. It is more directly connected to the economies of its members and is presiding over a period of sustained decline due to the policies it forces on members mainly via Net Zero.
While the UN is more detached from the member nations, it too is wedded to Net Zero and economic decline but works mainly by forcing the weak-willed nations to follow this path. They have hit a wall with Trump and the leadership he is providing for other nations to grow a pair and look to dump Net Zero.
10
Easily fixed.
ALL City, state, and federal taxes apply to denizens of Turtle Bay–
should they balk, the Communist Mayor can use the facility for “affordable” housing.
10