From the Daily Caller News Foundation

By Samuel Peterson

Unelected regulators and bureaucrats from the United Nations have pushed for crushing the global economy in the name of saving the planet.

In October, the International Maritime Organization (IMO), a specialized agency within the U.N., proposed a carbon tax in order to slash the emissions of shipping vessels. This comes after the IMO’s April 2025 decision to adopt net-zero standards for global shipping.

Had the IMO agreed to the regulation, it would have been the first global tax on greenhouse gas emissions. Thankfully, the United States was able to effectively shut down those proposals; however, while these regulations have been temporarily halted, the erroneous ideas behind them continue to grow in support.

Proponents of carbon taxes generally argue that since climate change is an existential threat to human existence, drastic measures must be taken in all aspects of our lives to address the projected costs. People should eat less meat and use public transportation more often. In the political arena, they should vote out so-called “climate deniers.” In the economic sphere, carbon taxes are offered as a technocratic quick fix to carbon emissions. Is any of this worth it? Or are the benefits greater than the costs? In the case of climate change, the answer is no.

Carbon taxes are not a matter of scientific fact. As with all models, the assumptions drive the analysis. In the case of carbon taxes, the time horizon selected plays a major role in the outcome. So, too, does the discount rate and the specific integrated assessment models.

In other words, “Two economists can give vastly different estimates of the social cost of carbon, even if they agree on the objective facts underlying the analysis.” If the assumptions are subjective, as they are in carbon taxes, then they are not scientific facts. As I’ve pointed out, “carbon pricing models are as much political constructs as they are economic tools.” One must also ask whether carbon taxes will remain unchanged or gradually increase over time to advance other political agendas. In this proposal, the answer is that it increases over time.

Additionally, since these models are driven by assumptions, one would be right in asking who gets to impose these taxes? Of course, those would be the unelected bureaucrats at the IMO. No American who would be subject to these taxes ever voted for the people attempting to create the “world’s first global carbon tax.” It brings to mind the phrase “no taxation without representation.”

In an ironic twist, imposing carbon taxes on global shipping might actually be one of the worst ways to slash emissions, given the enormous gains from trade. Simply put, trade makes the world grow rich. Not just wealthy nations like those in the West, but every nation, even the most poor, grows richer. In wealthy countries, trade can help address climate change by enabling adaptation and innovation. For poorer countries, material gains from trade can help prevent their populations from starving and also help them advance along the environmental Kuznets curve.

In other words, the advantages of trade can, over time, make a country go from being so poor that a high level of air pollution is necessary for its survival to being rich enough to afford reducing or eliminating pollution. Carbon taxes, if sufficiently high, can prevent or significantly delay these processes, thereby undermining their supposed purpose. Not to mention, as of today, maritime shipping accounts for only about 3% of total global emissions.

The same ingenuity that brought us modern shipping will continue to power the global economy and fund growth and innovation, if we let it. The world does not need a layer of global bureaucracy for the sake of virtue signaling. What it needs is an understanding of both economics and human progress.

History shows that prosperity, innovation, and free trade are what make societies cleaner, healthier, and richer. Our choice is not between saving the planet and saving the economy; it is between free societies and free markets or surrendering responsibility to unelected international regulators and busybodies. The former has lifted billions out of poverty, and the latter threatens to drag us all backwards.

Samuel Peterson is a Research Fellow at the Institute for Energy Research.

From LifeSiteNews

By Clare Marie Merkowsky

“Promises were made that no doctor would ever be coerced to participate in euthanasia… No hospital would have to do it. No nursing home, no palliative care unit would be forced to host doctors killing patients who wanted to die. All of that was a complete fiction. All of those things have now happened”

Canadian doctors are warning that Health Canada’s push for euthanasia is forcing doctors to suggest assisted suicide to patients.

In a November 6 video by Christian filmmaker Frank Panico, three Canadian doctors, Will Johnston of Vancouver, David D’Souza of Toronto, and Catherine Ferrier of Montreal, revealed that physicians are forced to discuss euthanasia or so-called “medical assistance in dying” (MAID) with vulnerable patients according to Health Canada protocol.

“If a physician is suggesting euthanasia as an option or a treatment option for their pain or their suffering, then that is a very serious thing,” D’Souza, a family physician and a pain specialist in Ontario, warned.

“As a patient is more likely to take this option given that a health professional has suggested it,” he continued. “I think it does severe harm to the doctor patient relationship when physicians are now allowed and even suggesting euthanasia as a means to end their suffering.”

D’Souza’s concerns are in response to 2023 guidelines by Health Canada, titled “Model Practice Standard for Medical Assistance in Dying to Ensure Consistent and Safe Practice in Canada.” The document mandates that doctors and nurses must tell a patient about the assisted suicide options available to them while discussing medical care.

“[Physicians/Nurse Practitioners] must take reasonable steps to ensure persons are informed of the full range of treatment options available to relieve suffering,” subsection 6.1 notes, falsely presenting suicide as “treatment.”

Echoing D’Souza’s warning, Johnston, a Vancouver family physician and head of B.C.’s Euthanasia Resistance Coalition, explained that the regulations contradict previous promises that medical personnel would not be forced to participate in the practice.

“Promises were made that no doctor would ever be coerced to participate in euthanasia, no doctor or nurse would ever lose their job because they wouldn’t cooperate with euthanasia,” he declared.

“No hospital would have to do it. No nursing home, no palliative care unit would be forced to host doctors killing patients who wanted to die. All of that was a complete fiction. All of those things have now happened,” Johnston lamented.

Similarly, Ferrier of the Division of Geriatric Medicine at McGill University Health Centre recalled doctors pushing assisted suicide on a family member who had brain cancer.

According to Ferrier, when the first doctor assessed the man, he immediately presented only two options: euthanasia or palliative sedation. He offered no other alternatives, such as psychological or social support that could help restore his will to live.

The doctor eventually referred him to a psychiatrist, but Ferrier felt that the psychiatrist’s only focus was determining whether the patient was mentally competent to choose euthanasia – not on exploring ways to relieve his suffering while helping him continue living.

“These two doctors were guys his age, and I’m convinced that they looked at him and said: ‘I wouldn’t want to be in his shoes so he’s better off dead, and he is competent to make this decision,’” Ferrier recalled.

The doctors’ warnings come just a week after Inclusion Canada CEO Krista Carr revealed that many disabled Canadians are being pressured to end their lives with euthanasia during routine medical appointments.

Carr’s statement supports internal documents from Ontario doctors in 2024 that revealed Canadians are choosing euthanasia because of poverty and loneliness, not as a result of allegedly terminal illness.

In one case, an Ontario doctor revealed that a middle-aged worker, whose ankle and back injuries had left him unable to work, felt that the government’s insufficient support was “leaving (him) with no choice but to pursue” euthanasia.

Other cases included an obese woman who described herself as a “useless body taking up space,” which one doctor argued met the requirements for assisted suicide because obesity is “a medical condition which is indeed grievous and irremediable.”

At the same time, the Liberal government has worked to expand euthanasia 13-fold since it was legalized, making it the fastest growing euthanasia program in the world.

Currently, wait times to receive actual health care in Canada have increased to an average of 27.7 weeks, leading some Canadians to despair and opt for euthanasia instead of waiting for assistance. At the same time, sick and elderly Canadians who have refused to end their lives have reported being called “selfish” by their providers.

The most recent reports show that euthanasia is the sixth highest cause of death in Canada. However, it was not listed as such in Statistics Canada’s top 10 leading causes of death from 2019 to 2022.

Asked why it was left off the list, the agency said that it records the illnesses that led Canadians to choose to end their lives via euthanasia, not the actual cause of death, as the primary cause of death.

According to Health Canada, 13,241 Canadians died by euthanasia lethal injections in 2022, accounting for 4.1 percent of all deaths in the country that year, a 31.2 percent increase from 2021.