Hey ho, IMO has gotta go!

The "Revised IMO GHG Strategy" of 2023 "includes indicative check-points for international shipping to reach net-zero GHG emissions for 2030 (by at least 20%, striving for 30%) and 2040 (by at least 70%, striving for 80%) compared to 2008."

The 2023 strategy "emphasizes capacity building, technical cooperation, and research and development." But the 2025 framework "refers to a new set of international regulations aimed at reducing GHG emissions from ships [of a] global fuel standard [and] pricing mechanism."

A "comprehensive impact assessment" (CIA) was also considered in 2024. However, this did not include any risk analysis (RA) nor any cost-benefit assessment (CBA), unlike what is required, for example, in a Formal Safety Assessment (FSA) for use in the IMO rule-making process.

Sound CBA, that includes proper RA, is the 'gold standard' in economics to properly judge any proposed new tax or regulation. This is best done by using a 'red teaming' approach in order to try to counter the 'bootleggers and Baptists' within the IMO and without.

The 2024 CIA did include some elasticity analysis, but "one primary gap arises from the need for robust historical or empirical evidence within the shipping domain … the varied elasticities observed across different countries, commodities, types of vessels, and travel distances."

As even a pro-carbon tax researcher reminds, "the reaction of producers [like international shippers] and consumers to changing prices depends on price elasticities of supply and demand … furthermore determines the incidence of carbon taxes on [them]."

IMO has been 'captured' by energy 'bootleggers' and climate 'Baptists' and is now part of the globalist 'deep state.' They have slightly delayed, but will not abandon, their grandiose climate vision for 2050.

Thus, the one-year pause on a global shipping carbon tax, to quote Rick and Morty, "just sounds like slavery with extra steps." Therefore, one way or another, "hey ho, IMO has gotta go!"