🔴 Website 👉 https://u-s-news.com/
Telegram 👉 https://t.me/usnewscom_channel
OAN Commentary by: Darren Brady Nelson
Friday, November 7, 2025
I made the case last month in “Hey Ho, IMO Has Gotta Go!” that the Trump administration, not only rightly persuaded the IMO (International Maritime Organization) to delay a pseudo carbon tax on global shipping, but they should pull out of this climate scheme or scam all together.
Another specialized agency of the UN met not long ago as well, but unlike IMO, they managed to ‘fly under the radar,’ pun intended, of the federal cabinet and right leaning media. That was the triennial meeting of ICAO (International Civil Aviation Organization) in September.
As the International Air Transport Association (IATA) put it: “As you can imagine, with a commitment to achieve net zero carbon emissions by 2050,…CORSIA—the Carbon Offsetting and Reduction Scheme for International Aviation—[was] in the spotlight…[at] this critical meeting[.]”
CORSIA “is the first global market-based scheme that applies to a sector,” boasts ICAO. And ICAO “adopted CORSIA in 2016 as the global carbon offsetting mechanism for aviation, rejecting carbon taxes and levies as effective solutions,” according to IATA.
“How does CORSIA work?” asks IATA. Their answer: “It requires airlines to purchase and cancel [Eligible Emissions Units (EEUs)] to offset their emissions over and above 85% of 2019 emissions.”
Advertisement
IATA goes on to note: “But there’s a big challenge: There aren’t enough EEUs on the market for airlines to purchase. … The resulting scarce supply of EEUs also distorts the market and drives up the price of the EEUs.”
However, according to Forbes in 2024: “There’s no current real-world data showing a direct correlation between the price of carbon credits for offsetting and airline ticket prices. … However,…as credits become more expensive or harder to find, the cost for airlines will rise.”
Also in 2024, IATA found that fuel costs were “28.7% of total airline costs” but these vary “significantly by region” such as “36.3%” “in Latin America and the Caribbean” “compared to 25.5% in North America.” And that capital costs of “depreciation and amortization make up 9.1%.”
In addition, a 2025 historical study of the pass-through by domestic aviation of fuel costs between 2000 to 2019, found that “the estimated results for 10% firm-specific fuel price increase are 2.4%, 2.9% and 1.3%,” for legacy, low-cost, and ultra-low-cost carriers respectively.
Regarding in maritime shipping, one projection for the price rise of fuel costs is 350%. And such costs have been estimated as representing “between 50–60 % of a ship’s operating cost.” Some media reports suggested that shipping prices could, thus, increase by more than 10%.
In contrast to the price hikes expected in international shipping, those in international aviation are forecasted to be quite miniscule by comparison. For example, some 2024 modeling estimated an increment “of less than USD $2 per ticket in Phase I and up to USD $5 in Phase II.”
Barack Obama once ‘said the quiet part out loud’ in 2008 regarding all these climate schemes: “Under my plan of a cap-and-trade system, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket.” It is unclear whether that is also the aim for CORSIA, after it becomes mandatory from 2027.
CORSIA’s apparent inability to make airline fares skyrocket, so far or anytime soon, has fueled, pun intended, not only much criticism from climate lobbyists, but also increasing allegations of “greenwashing” as well as green or climate “fraud.”
Stay Grounded accused the aviation industry of being “a greenwashing best practice case” because “CORSIA covers only a tiny part of aviation emissions [and] is a way for the industry to cheaply buy themselves out of climate commitments…like eliminating…fuel tax exemptions[.]”
Transport & Environment (T&E) went even further: “Offsetting is a climate fraud, perpetuated on unsuspecting passengers by an industry resisting real climate action. CORSIA is a non-starter[.] [And] ICAO…will never rise to the challenge of aviation’s climate problem.”
Fraud is defined as “a misrepresentation of fact that was either intentional or negligent.” Elements include: “The speaker…intended…whom the statement was made would rely on it. The hearer must then have reasonably relied on the promise and [was] harmed because of that reliance.”
Such terms are not mere semantics, as Dutch airline KLM’s “environmental measures” were deemed by the District Court of Amsterdam in 2024 to be “greenwashing,” declared “misleading due to being too vague,” and ruled to “only marginally reduce the negative environmental aspects.”
As in the case of IMO’s net zero scheme, President Trump 47 has issued executive orders at odds with ICAO’s CORSIA, such as: Putting America First In International Environmental Agreements; Reducing Anti-competitive Regulatory Barriers; and Leading The World In Supersonic Flight.
T&E warns: “Did Europe really think they could pass [IMO’s] global climate deal, (wrongly) dubbed the first global carbon tax, without a huge fight? … If Europe is not willing to seriously face off with Trump, it can forget about global deals…CORSIA being the prime example.”
Comparing jet fuel PPI (producer price index) from 1975 to 2025, vis-à-vis climate alarmism, is instructive. The high, low and average prior to Al Gore’s post-2000 climate crusade were: 109 (1990); 37 (1999); and 62. Since then: high 435 (2022); low 105 (2016); and average 202.
Even though ICAO and CORSIA have appeared to have caused little-to-no direct price harm to international airlines and passengers so far, nor are predicted to, the Trump administration should embrace the “precautionary principle” so beloved by the climate “bootleggers and baptists.”
That means getting out of CORSIA, before the mandatory phase starts in 2027. That might also mean withdrawing from ICAO too, before they, as a UN agency like the IPCC, eventually try to follow IMO with a global carbon tax. This is because, paraphrasing Star Wars:
“We must move quickly. The [globalists] are relentless. If they are not all [defunded], it will be civil war without end. … We will catch them off balance. … Do not hesitate, show no mercy! Only then, will you be strong enough with the [right] side to save [America].”
(Views expressed by guest commentators may not reflect the views of OAN or its affiliates.)
Darren Brady Nelson is a senior economist with the Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow (CFACT).
What do YOU think? Click here to jump to the comments!
Sponsored Content Below