Hidden hand of the WEF revealed in policing shipboard CO2 emissions
 The World Economic Forum (WEF) has once again revealed itself as the hidden hand behind the push for global governance, this time through the policing of shipboard CO2 emissions.
Despite suffering a near-fatal setback last October - when the United States blocked the UN’s International Maritime Organisation (IMO) bid to impose a worldwide tax on shipping emissions - the WEF and its allies remain determined to keep the Net-Zero agenda alive.
That setback was no small matter. The US rejection came after US President Donald Trump told the UN General Assembly that Net-Zero was a scam, echoing a US Energy Department report that showed rising CO2 levels were far less alarming than the UN and its agencies claimed. Science, in other words, did not justify the hysteria.
But instead of abandoning the scheme, the IMO merely delayed its vote for a year, hoping to regroup. Washington, meanwhile, made clear that any IMO member state supporting the tax would face punitive treatment in US ports, something akin to “least favoured nation” status.
To counter American opposition, China, India, and Brazil - countries also committed to dethroning the US dollar as the world’s reserve currency - launched so-called “green shipping corridors.” These are trade routes designed to showcase zero-emission fuels, vessels and technologies.
According to the Getting to Zero Coalition and the Global Maritime Forum, 25 new corridors have been announced last yeare, bringing the total to 84 worldwide. But here’s the catch: the Getting to Zero Coalition is not an independent body at all. It is the principal activity of the Global Maritime Forum, a Copenhagen-based lobby group in which the WEF is listed as a “strategic partner.” In other words, the corridors are not grassroots initiatives but top-down projects orchestrated by the same elite institutions that have long sought to impose global climate governance.
Jesse Fahnestock, the Forum’s director of decarbonisation, claims that countries embracing green corridors will gain “competitive industrial and geopolitical advantages across energy, trade, and technology.” Yet he offers no specifics. What advantages, exactly? The rhetoric is vague, the benefits unproven. What is clear is that these corridors are less about environmental stewardship than about consolidating economic and political power under the banner of Net-Zero.
Countries like Chile, Ghana, and Kenya have joined the initiative, supposedly to seize “economic opportunities” in zero-emission marine fuels. But these nations have little in the way of ocean carriers or global corporate interests. Their participation is symbolic, their votes essential for legitimizing a multilateral taxation scheme. One can safely assume they will be compensated in one way or another, as is always the case when global bureaucracies need support from smaller states.
Meanwhile, the actual progress of these corridors is minimal. Many of the 84 initiatives remain stalled at what the Forum itself calls a “feasibility wall.” The reason is obvious: zero-emission fuels are far more expensive than conventional ones, and governments are reluctant to foot the bill. “Lack of action” is simply a euphemism for “lack of money.” The US, once the primary source of such funds, now views the entire project as a scam.
The UK, the next logical donor, is financially crippled, overtaxed, and politically unstable. The IMO’s Net-Zero framework was derailed by US-led opposition during a combative meeting of the Marine Environment Protection Committee in London. Yet the Global Maritime Forum insists that industry and governments must not adopt a “wait-and-see” approach. Translation: keep pushing, keep spending, keep building the bureaucracy - even if the science, economics and politics don’t add up.
The real beneficiaries of this scheme are not the environment or ordinary citizens but corporate giants like Maersk, MSC and Ikea. These companies stand to gain from strict enforcement of eco-fuel rules, emissions caps, and self-reporting regimes. The higher the costs, the better for them, since smaller competitors will be driven out of the market, leaving the giants to absorb abandoned market share. This is the essence of WEF-style governance: policies dressed up as moral imperatives but designed to consolidate corporate and bureaucratic power.
Although the UN’s global scheme has faltered, Europe’s emission trading system has already been in force for over a year. In many ways, the climate change agenda is “too big to fail.” Whether or not catastrophic warming is real matters less than the fact that trillions of dollars, thousands of jobs, and entire bureaucracies now depend on sustaining the narrative. This is why open debate is so fiercely resisted. In Australia, the Human Rights Commission is attempting to criminalize the spread of “misinformation” about climate change, claiming it obstructs public access to reliable information. In reality, it obstructs public access to dissenting views.
There is no shortage of qualified experts who argue that CO2 does more good than harm, that rising sea levels are not catastrophic, and that the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) does not represent a consensus of 98 per cent of climate scientists. Rather, its conclusions are drawn by bureaucrats from selective readings of executive summaries, then amplified by compliant media.
Because the arguments for catastrophic climate change are weak, debate must be avoided at all costs. If the public were allowed to hear both sides, the vast international regulatory edifice could collapse. Hence the push for laws resembling old blasphemy statutes, where the content of speech is irrelevant - the mere act of questioning the orthodoxy is the crime. Australia is leading the way, but similar measures are undoubtedly being brewed in other Western nations.
The Net-Zero project, despite its setbacks, continues to be propped up by bureaucrats, corporate giants, and a compliant media. Its survival depends not on scientific merit but on silencing dissent and manufacturing consent. The question is not whether the planet will be saved, but whether freedom of debate, national sovereignty, and economic fairness will survive the relentless march of the green machine. |
