The political battles as to how much should be collected and spent for what purposes are what budgets and much of politics are about.

I agree with an “independent” trust fund and suggest it ought to be part of a global network of such funds. Income of such funds should come from general revenue like any other.

Can see argument for linking to a (small) carbon tax in order to appease and hopefully confuse advocates of a large carbon tax. But am instinctively inclined towards explicitly confronting them rather than appeasing them.

An important aspect is it should be public domain research, with no prospect of “commercializing” to recover research costs as royalties adding to cost of eventually deploying technology (and no commercial secrecy inhibitions on cooperation).

Lomborg has written a new book in which he favours a C tax. See Pielke jnr article (the smart ideas behind Lomborg’s new views) and links from that article for more information about Lomborg’s latest. Apparently he gets many of his ideas from Pielke and Richard Tol but does not usually acknowledge their source.

Mechanism for funding the R&D is a separate issue. Global institutions needed. Not necessarily based on hypothecated carbon tax. (There are well known efficiency and political arguments against such approaches).

Key point is funds being diverted to “green” idiocies should instead go to R&D.

An Analysis of a Technology-led Climate Policy as a Response to Climate Change by Isabel Galiana and Christopher Green (pdf, 68 pp)

The section (An “ incentiVe-compAtible” technologY rAce) which outlines the reasons for an initially low ($5.00/tCO2) hypothecated carbon tax to fund R&D into energy alternatives is pp. 34-37, extract:

There are at least three possibilities. Only the last meets the tests of sufficiency, consistency, and relative freedom from political influence. The first is funding out of general funds, which could fail the test on all three grounds. Such funding is inherently subject to political discretion, could be diverted to other uses when tax revenues fall, and may never be sufficient in amount. The second approach is funding with a carbon tax, but if the tax revenue is not isolated from the general budget, it is prey to political interference, diversion to other uses. This approach would fail the consistency criterion.

The third approach would use a “dedicated” carbon tax, the revenues from which would be placed in a “trust fund” managed by “trustees” independent of Congress and the Administration in power. The “model” might be the US Interstate Highway Trust Fund created during the Eisenhower administration to build and maintain America’s Interstate highways. It is funded by an 18 cents per gallon federal gasoline tax. Because that tax is viewed as providing clear benefits to a large part of the electorate and thus to most taxpayers, it has not generated the hostility that many other taxes have generated. A low carbon tax, dedicated to improving and strengthening the energy system, the funds for which are isolated in a “clean energy” trust fund, could be expected to be similarly welcome or at least not too unwelcome to pass political muster

The underlying logic is the opposite of “brute force” mitigation policies, the focus is on R&D guaranteed funding which is essential for further technological development into energy alternatives

For a more general outline of the approach taken by Pielke jnr and his associates he recommends:
The Hartwell Paper, pdf 42 pp

This approach is politically realistic and consistent with the aspirations of the Australian people for some action on climate change. It is a superior approach to:
a) the people have been duped by manipulative scientists
b) business as usual and lets hope we can fix the problem later with geo engineering or revolution

On reflection, I think the problem with Hansen’s position is not that he is necessarily wrong about the science but that he is not expert about politics and policy matters. ie. he sees the problem as politicians not understanding the science rather than scientists not understanding politics and policy formation. As Pielke points out the matter cannot be resolved by further clarification of scientific facts.

I re listened to the tape. You are correct that Hansen didn’t hesitate and immediately and confidently agreed with Adams thought float (Adams: “some of my friends worry that only an authoritarian society can solve this problem”). Hansen’s words were, “That is absolutely right”. Then immediately he went on to talk about China. It’s at 43-44 minutes into the interview. And as you say Adams pathetically backtracked from the suggestion at the first opportunity.

However, shortly before that Hansen says, “We are going to have to get the public into the streets before politicians will take the steps that are necessary”. He also says it’s a moral issue, “like slavery and like civil rights”. I think his political profile is that of an immature and naive activist, we have seen plenty of “revolutionaries” who believe so strongly in something that they become impatient at the slowness of the democratic process.

I haven’t read every word of Hansen’s book – I’ve concentrated mainly on the science chapters sometimes rereading certain chapters before finishing the whole thing – but haven’t noticed any anti democracy statements so far.

In his book he says he normally votes independent but did support Obama in the recent election. He did lobby the Bush administration but became disillusioned for obvious reasons. He mentions a book called Censoring Science which discusses the Bush admin attitude to some of these issues. He does see the funding process in American elections as a huge problem. At one stage Hansen supported McCain because McCain wanted restrictions on corporate political funding – but withdrew his support when McCain backtracked. Adams refers to that in the interview, the rules have recently been changed in the USA to enable unlimited funding. He makes many references to the strength of the fossil fuel lobby just as denialists make many references to the funding that flows from AGW alarmism.

He might be better off if he just stuck to the science since he’s not very good at the politics – but of course since he’s now an activist he does get more press time which he sees as necessary.

Thanks, Bill, for pointing out my mistake in confusing the two shelves.

Hansen’s Phillip Adams interview link

At the end on the Phillip Adams interview Hansen mentions the GRACE system (NASA’s Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment) as an accurate way to measure changes in land or ice mass.

I googled – GRACE Antarctica – and found this article (Is Antarctica Melting?) about Antarctica which attempts to evaluate the overall picture

I think in your post you mix up the East and West. The East has far more ice but is above sea level, it rests on the land, and some thickening has occurred there. Much of the West is underwater and the studies seem to show that it is melting. Further studies are being done, the article mentions a more rigorous study planned for 2011 which will measure the thickness of ice shelves directly because satellite data can’t do that.

All of this is consistent with what Hansen is saying.

The study you link to measures increases in sea ice which indicates local perhaps temporary cold but is not important for overall rise in sea levels, just as melting in the Arctic is not. I agree that this study is in contradiction to the proposition that the ocean is warming but maybe as arthur pointed out that is due to a local effect, the ozone hole, which will be temporary. As you say to evaluate the contradictory studies would require more expertise.

I agree that observation trumps computer modelling. I’ve already said that Hansen says that computer modelling is his third string of evidence behind paleoclimate data and observation. Actually, Hansen points out that the best model available in 2003 said that the ice sheets would grow as the world became warmer because a warmer atmosphere increases winter snowfall (p.81). Hansen sees the models as inadequate in many respects.

I listened to the Adams interview. Adams is a skilled political operator and Hansen is naive politically. Adams didn’t mean to lead Hansen into a denial of democracy statement and in the next question disassociates himself from it. What Hansen did in response to Adams democracy question was use it to say that China would lead the way forward on these questions. That’s probably true, the developing world decisions will lead the way on fossil fuel emissions. I did glean some new information about this wrt China’s sabotage of Copenhagen. Hansen thinks that China would accept a carbon price but not the cap proposed at Copenhagen. Anyway I agree with you that Hansen was stupid to make an anti democracy statement, or, rather go along with one, but if you listen to the interview I think it’s something he blundered into and would need further clarification as to his whether he really believes it. He does have to wear it because he has entered the political arena.

The whole interview is well worth listening to as an example of how people like Adams will use people like Hansen to promote his wider political agenda and how Hansen will allow that to happen and think he is doing the right thing. Green politics and the science of AGW make a pretty good fit. Not also though that Hansen is pro nuclear because he is a good scientist and takes the science to it’s logical conclusion. It’s a bit much to expect to Hansen to have a super political understanding given that he has spent his whole life on developing a super scientific understanding. If you deny that Hansen is wrong about the science because you correctly disagree with some of the political implications he draws from that then if he turns out the be correct about the science then your political message will not have been as persuasive as it could have been. I think arthur has worked that out but due to his general dislike of discussing the weather has only communicated it by drip feed. I would see this as issue having more importance in terms of teasing out the green from the red, since it is a hot issue in the public domain. To say that anything with a green flavour is BS reflexively is not good politics, it has to be explored more deeply.

Accelerating move from fossil fuels seems closely tied to wanting to not have to worry about Middle East same as they dont care much about Africa.

The link between reactionary green politics and reactionary authoritarian politics is interesting. Another expression of the world view of a moribund class that seeks to fetter the productive forces by force.

It says: “Satellite images show that since the 1970s the extent of Antarctic sea ice has increased at a rate of 100,000 square kilometres a decade”.

(That’s equivalent in area to one new ‘Tasmania’ each decade).

This is significant, given that Antactica has 90% of the world’s ice. And satellite data, being based on observation, trumps computer modelling – don’t you think? What I mean is that if the models aren’t matched by observed fact over time, then there’s something wrong.

It goes against the alarmism that says the main ice shelves are in retreat due to warming. For example, in 2008, the BBC used the headline “Antarctic Ice Hangs by a Thread” “due to unprecedented warming”. How can this be right, if it’s expanding by 100,000 sq kms per decade?

The East shelf is declining but West Antarctica, which is four times bigger than the east, is increasing and that gives an overall increase.

The North Pole, the Arctic, is a different matter, experiencing a decline but over the past few years seems to be regaining lost ice. Maybe this is due to warming, but there are other hypotheses within the science community, including an impact from sub-glacial volcanic activity. (Yes, there are volcanoes under both ‘Poles’! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_volcanoes_in_Antarctica http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/06/080625140649.htm )

I’ve no intention of doing a degree course into any of this but the British Antarctic Survey is the international scientific body that investigates on the ground, so to speak, with five research bases, plus 400 staff, two ships and five aircraft – plus it engages in international collaborations. It’s been around since the 1940s but became BAS in 1962. When it speaks, I listen. (Is there a more authoritative source on this question of Antarctic ice?)

As for Hansen, I heard him on Philip Adams’ show last night and was horrified by his answer to Adams’ question about what the global warming crisis should mean for democracy. You know, it’s the Clive Hamilton idea that such is the catastrophic nature of the problem that democracy is not a viable or appropriate system for dealing with it. People, who are empowered by democracy, are too stupid and selfish – we need ’some other system’. Hansen felt that the ‘authoritarian’ systems were best equipped for the looming catastrophe and cited China, with its huge investment in renewables, as his preferred model. Social-fascism the way to go?

By the way, I share the view that says there’s good reason for moving beyond fossil fuels regardless of the climate alarmism, and don’t pretend to have specialist scientific expertise – but I can read a BAS media release thanks to the Internet.