By Craig Rucker
The Trump administration should pull America out of the ridiculous UN airline carbon-offset scheme known as “CORSIA” immediately.
The clock is ticking!
As CFACT heads to Brazil for COP 30, the biggest and most dangerous UN climate conference of the year, we call on the Trump administration to finish the job and break America free of every useless redistribution scheme created in the name of climate.
Forcing you to pay more to “offset” your airline’s emissions every time you fly internationally does absolutely nothing meaningful to lower the temperature of the Earth. It does plenty to line the pockets of those looking to cash in.
President Obama pushed the United States into the UN’s Carbon Offsetting and Reduction Scheme for International Aviation (CORSIA) following the 39th Assembly of the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) in Montreal in 2016.
CORSIA seeks to address CO₂ emissions from international flights by requiring airlines to offset their emissions above a certain threshold by purchasing approved carbon credits.
The United States is currently participating in CORSIA’s “voluntary” phase through 2026. The scheme becomes “mandatory” in 2027.
CORSIA costs you every time you fly internationally. Experience teaches us that, if left unchecked, the costs of this aviation offset folly will grow and grow. Airlines even face a carbon-offset “shortage,” which will put upward pressure on fares.
China does not pay, as you might expect, despite transporting 59.3 million passengers in 2024.
We can expect the airline industry to have mixed opinions about exiting CORSIA.
Many industry insiders viewed forcing airlines to purchase carbon offsets as a lesser evil when they were faced with potentially far costlier schemes. CORSIA kept the airlines out of direct regulation under the Paris Climate Accord. CORSIA critics, both left and right, find themselves in rare agreement in viewing the scheme as a cover for corporate “greenwashing.”
However, President Trump initiated withdrawal of the United States from the Paris Climate Accord soon after taking office. That, coupled with increasing acceptance of the reality that offsets are not an effective method for reducing CO2 emissions, makes the case for exiting CORSIA an easy one to comprehend.
Ideally, President Trump would have included withdrawing from CORSIA in his January 20, 2025, executive order “Putting America First in International Environmental Agreements.” The Secretary of Transportation would have then notified the UN that America was exiting CORSIA before June 30, 2025.
Secretary Sean Duffy should inform the UN that America is pulling out of CORSIA now, before the scheme’s 2027 “mandatory” offsetting phase begins.
A legal argument can be made that America missed its chance to withdraw; however, CORSIA contains no international enforcement mechanism. If America’s air carriers cease reporting their emissions and purchasing offsets under the scheme, we will effectively be out.
The UN Carbon Offsetting and Reduction Scheme for International Aviation is a costly, wasteful, ineffective climate scheme only a UN bureaucrat or climate profiteer could love.
CFACT advises President Trump to order Secretary Duffy and any and all appropriate officials to withdraw the United States from this UN airline carbon-offset scheme without further delay.
Read the UN’s CORSIA
offset resolution at CFACT.org
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Very laudable. What is it supposed to mean?
In any case, opposing or supporting “carbon emissions” is a demonstration of the ignorance and gullibility of people who use the phrase “carbon emissions”.
The same sort of people who believe that adding CO2 to air makes thermometers hotter.
It doesn’t.
Why does opposing them demonstrate gullibility?
Anyone who uses the term “carbon emissions” without explaining what “carbon emissions” means, believes that adding CO2 to air makes thermometers hotter.
It doesn’t.
One definition of gullibility – “a tendency to be easily persuaded that something is real or true.”
Maybe CFACT hasn’t been persuaded that adding CO2 to air makes thermometers hotter, and is just opposed to “carbon emissions” for some reason which it is keeping secret!
Only joking – arguing for or against “carbon emissions” is a complete waste of time, isn’t it? “Carbon emissions” is a meaningless phrase used by the ignorant and gullible trying to pretend they know what they are talking about.
That’s my worthless opinion, of course. What’s yours?
“In any case, opposing or supporting “carbon emissions” is a demonstration of the ignorance and gullibility of people who use the phrase “carbon emissions”.”
****************
If this scheme of taxing carbon emissions gains traction, how much longer will it be before the U.N. and govts start taxing us for exhaling? With 8 billion of us on the planet now, the U.N. could rake in a fortune.
Taxing us for exhaling might be just what is needed for the world’s people to rise up in rebellion against this idiocy.
If they wish to tax soot (particulate carbon emissions), that is entirely different than taxing CO2. C is not CO2.
“The Trump administration should pull America out of the ridiculous UN” period!
You build dat sh!t.
NY financed Hitler to get a reason to create the UN.
And it’s on your territory.
And now you think you should be the only one to get out?
Sorry- it’s,just like NATO,EU,BiS etc.
A Hotel-California without pink champagne
The beast will never let you leave.
Hitler had lots of money, he didn’t need financing.
While it true that many elites agreed with Hitler, it’s also true that just like today, the elites are big on socialism. They idea that the elite should be allowed to run the world. Elites in Britain were also big on Hitler and national socialism.
The idea that these elites decided to support Hitler, so that he would start a war, then turn on him in order that Hitler’s defeat could be used as an excuse to form the UN has to be the wackiest conspiracy theory that I have ever heard. Not to mention it’s almost total lack of supporting evidence.
Interesting article title from Time magazine –
The swine! How dare he use the democratic process to his own advantage? These foreigners think they can steal American intellectual property without “consequences”! He should be shot!
Oh, he was, was he? Serves him right!
“NY financed Hitler to get a reason to create the UN.”
Wow.
Thought there was the League of Nations.
And historical documents show that the push to get Germany up and running with Hitler was to counter the Soviet Union in the sense we did not want another communist country in Europe.
I asked the internet: “how much does CORSIA offset carbon fee cost on a flight from usa to france” I didn’t get a specific answer. A couple I know will soon be making that trip and I wonder if the fee is known to the buyer. I don’t want to ask them. My second wonder: Who is getting rich for these indulgencies? Third: is there any decrease in emissions? I suspect it is like going to confession. “Father, I have sinned.” “Cleanse your soul by saying 3 Hail Marys and 3 Our Fathers, and go and sin no more.” 🙂
…and 3 Hail Gretas,
What is more useless than worthless crappy government? International worthless crappy government.
My carbon credits produced by my rooftop solar have been confiscated by the State of California and given to my grid-tie power provider. AB32 did that. It increased my payoff time of the system as designed substantially.
Can you sue?
You trusted California, or any Government, to live up to its promises?
What the government giveth, the government can taketh away.
Stroke of the pen. They do it all the time. Turns out they claim that’s what they were elected to do. I call it sticking your finger into the pie.
I cannot believe international airlines haven’t figured out what cruise ships have.
When you take a cruise you deposit money into an account. They don’t take the money out of the account to pay for your tickets until you hit international waters. Presto, the revenue is no longer subject to taxation from any country on earth.
First airline to figure this out wins.
Unfortunately, the cruise ships don’t stay in international waters. More countries are charging per passenger fees for tourists on cruise ships, as well as port fees, and various local taxes and imposts for supplies and services.
It’s surprising how many countries charge tourists to enter, and then charge them to leave, as well.
An exception seems to be the US, where tourists who enter the country by cunningly avoiding an “entry” (visa) fee, can actually be paid $1000 US plus a free plane ticket to leave the country.
Crime does pay, apparently.
I think that only applies to sales taxes, not to the whole package.
Grok: Airlines will likely spend $2–4 billion total for Phase 1 credits by the 2028 deadline. [] Over CORSIA’s Full Lifetime (2024–2035) [] Total airline expenditure: $30–62 billion (IATA/BloombergNEF estimates), potentially higher if prices exceed $90/t in later phases.
This money directly finances climate projects in developing countries, making CORSIA one of the largest drivers of demand for high-integrity carbon credits globally. [my bold]
What are these climate projects? In reality, administrative overhead takes most of the funds and very little money trickles down to the people.
And CO2 continues to rise inexorably making all climate control measures pointless. Particularly as there’s little evidence that humans affect the global carbon cycle.
There is no such phenomena as climate change because most of the earth’s climates are water, rocks, sand, snow and ice. Activities of humans will have no effect on the vast Pacific and Atlantic oceans, the Andes, Alps and Rocky mountains, or the Sahara and Gobi deserts.
Activities of humans can effect local climates of cities due the UHI effect.
CFACT is doing great work. Yes, absolutely, withdraw the U.S. from CORSIA. Was participation in this program submitted to the U.S. Senate for ratification as a treaty obligation? No. Don’t worry about the withdrawal “deadline.”
CFACT should also stop using language that concedes the core claim that emissions of CO2 matter to the climate system. That influence is readily demonstrated to be negligible. The modelers know this, as computed values of energy conversion within the general circulation massively overwhelm the minor computed increase in the IR absorbing power of the atmosphere. This is important for skeptics of climate alarm to understand, to more effectively refute the misconception that “warming” must result from rising pCO2. More here.
https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1PDJP3F3rteoP99lR53YKp2fzuaza7Niz?usp=drive_link
Thank you for listening.
Exactly. Only the ignorant and gullible believe that adding CO2 to air makes thermometers hotter. Why play their game using their rules?
Sir, the “Only the ignorant and gullible…” mode of argument is itself a weak line of persuasion, in my view.
But it’s true,
Most people accept what they are told without question (gullible).
Most people don’t understand the physics & can’t be arsed to find out (ignorant).
“But it’s true” about “most people.”
This is not in dispute. But better to persuade on positive ground, in my opinion, than to over-generalize.
Here you go, then.
It’s positively beyond dispute that adding CO2 to air does not make thermometers hotter.
You can “persuade” yourself to the contrary as much as you like. Your opinion, like mine, is totally worthless. Don’t you agree?
Valid point.
David, I’m not arguing. I’m saying that only the ignorant and gullible, (or certifiably insane, of course), believe that adding CO2 to air makes thermometers hotter.
Feel free to provide reproducible experimental results to show that adding CO2 to air makes thermometers hotter, and I’ll change my opinion. You can’t, can you?
Facts persuade me more than the vociferous and continuous bleating of the ignorant and gullible. You?
His point involved messaging, not message content.
The best way to get someone to not listen is to initiate with insults.
Signed: “Climate Denier”
Yes, that’s the tactic of the ignorant and gullible, who believe that physical facts are secondary to “consensus” and “messaging”.
The same sort of people who believe that adding CO2 to air makes thermometers hotter, but are too cowardly to come straight out and say so.
All they can do when faced with inconvenient fact, is to raise the back of a limp wrist to their delicate forehead, swooning as they mutter “Oh! I feel so insulted/offended/upset . . . “.
To each his own, I guess.
Starmer flew from the UK to Brazil, stayed for one day, then flew out, but we’re the ones who have to pay for Nut Zero!
But, he thinks he’s important !! (he’s the only one who thinks that )
So he contributed to the Climate Mitigation fund via the air flight tax.
And I thought the UN and the Climate Liars were merely nefarious.