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 the Daily Caller News Foundation

By Joe Duarte

Federal agencies like the National Institutes of Health (NIH) continue to fund invalid, ideologically driven “scientific” research that subsidizes leftist activists and harms conservatives and the American people at large. There’s currently no plan to stop.

Conversely, NIH does not fund obvious research topics that would help the American people, because of institutional leftist bias.

While serving as a senior advisor at NIH, I discovered many active grants like these:

“Examining Anti-Racist Healing in Nature to Protect Telomeres of Transitional Age BIPOC for Health Equity” — Take minority teens to parks in a bid to reduce telomere erosion (the shortening of repetitive DNA sequences as we age). $3.8 million in five years and no results published – not surprising, given their absurd premise.

“Ecological Momentary Assessment of Racial/Ethnic Microaggressions and Cannabis Use among Black Adults” – This rests on an invalid leftist ideological concept – “microaggressions.” An example of a “microaggression” is a white person denying he’s racist. They can’t be validly measured since they’re simply defined into existence by Orwellian leftist ideology, with no attempt to discover the alleged aggressor’s motives.

“Influence of Social Media, Social Networks, and Misinformation on Vaccine Acceptance Among Black and Latinx Individuals” — from an activist who said the phrase “The coronavirus is genetically engineered” was “misinformation” and also conducted a bizarre, partisan study based entirely on a Trump tweet about recovering from COVID.

I will be leaving the great Walter Reed Medical Center today at 6:30 P.M. Feeling really good! Don’t be afraid of Covid. Don’t let it dominate your life. We have developed, under the Trump Administration, some really great drugs & knowledge. I feel better than I did 20 years ago!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) October 5, 2020

The study claimed that people saw COVID as less “serious” after the tweet. I apologize for the flashback to when Democrats demanded everyone feel the exact level of COVID panic and anti-optimism they felt (and share their false beliefs on the efficacy of school closures, masks, and vaccines ). NIH funded this study and gave him another $651,586 in July for his new “misinformation” study, including $200,000 from the Office of the Director.

I’m a social psychologist who has focused on the harms of ideological bias in academic research. Our sensemaking institutions have been gashed by a cult political ideology that treats its conjectures and abstractions as descriptively true, without argument or even explanation, and enforces conformity with inhumane psychologizing and ostracism. This ideology – which dominates academia and NIH – poses an unprecedented threat to our connection to reality, and thus to science, by vaporizing the distinction between descriptive reality and ideological tenets.

In March, I emailed Jay Bhattacharya, Director of NIH, and pitched him on how I could build an objective framework to eliminate ideological bias in NIH-funded research.

Jay seemed to agree with my analysis. We spoke on the phone, and I started in May as a senior advisor to Jay in the Office of the Director (NIH-OD).

I never heard from Jay again beyond a couple of cursory replies.

For four months, I read tons of grants, passed a lengthy federal background check, started to build the pieces, and contacted Jay about once a week with questions, follow-up, and example grants. Dead air – he was ghosting me.

Jay also bizarrely deleted the last two months’ worth of my messages to him but kept the older ones. I’d sent him a two-page framework summary, asked if I should keep working on it, and also asked if I’d done something wrong, given his persistent lack of response. No response.

In September, the contractors working at NIH-OD, me included, were laid off. No explanation was given.

I have no idea what happened here. It’s been the strangest and most unprofessional experience of my career.

The result is that NIH is still funding ideological, scientifically invalid research and will continue to ignore major topics because of leftist bias. We have a precious opportunity for lasting reform, and that opportunity will be lost without a systematic approach to eliminating ideology in science.

What’s happened so far is that DOGE cut some grants earlier this year, after a search for DEI terms. It was a good first step but caught some false positives and missed most of the ideological research, including many grants premised on “microaggressions,” “systemic racism,” “intersectionality,” and other proprietary, question-begging leftist terms. Leftist academics are already adapting by changing their terminology – this meme is popular on Bluesky:

DOGE didn’t have the right search terms, and a systematic, objective anti-bias framework is necessary to do the job. It’s also more legally resilient and persuasive to reachable insiders — there’s no way to reform a huge bureaucracy without getting buy-in from some insiders (yes, you also have to fire some people). This mission requires empowered people at every funding agency who are thoroughly familiar with leftist ideology, can cleanly define “ideology,” and build robust frameworks to remove it from scientific research.

My framework identifies four areas of bias so far:

1. Ideological research
2. Rigged research
3. Ideological denial of science / suppression of data
4. Missing research – research that would happen if not for leftist bias

The missing research at NIH likely hurts the most — e.g. American men commit suicide at unusually high rates, especially white and American Indian men, yet NIH funds no research on this. But they do fund “Hypertension Self-management in Refugees Living in San Diego.”

Similarly, NIH is AWOL on the health benefits of religious observance and prayer, a promising area of research that Muslim countries are taking the lead on. These two gaping holes suggest that NIH is indifferent to the American people and even culturally and ideologically hostile them.

Joe Duarte grew up in small copper-mining towns in Southern Arizona, earned his PhD in social psychology, and focuses on political bias in media and academic research. You can find his work here, find him on X here, and contact him at gravity at protonmail.com.