Giving carbon-tax revenue to corrupt governments (all and or any of them) is an amusing idea. And it puts the "climate change summit" in proper perspective. Climate change has been, and will continue to be a sacred-cow political excuse for politicians to do what they always do: line their pockets.



Meanwhile, back in the real world, we are about to pass the 40-gigaton per-year carbon-release milestone this year, and while some may be slow to admit it, there is a general consensus in the scientific community that we are already well-past the tipping point where any amount of 'conservation' will prevent the accelerating pace of global warming.



If you posed the question: If we cut our carbon-emissions in half right away (from 40-gt to 20-gt per year), would it have any noticeable impact on the continued warming of the atmosphere and oceans?



Most with qualifications to opine would say "probably not". The fact that politicians have focused on carbon-taxes as a means of establishing their credentials as "green-activists" fbo "green-consuming" professional altruists on the left, simply underscores a common theme: liberalism is a big business, and the goal is the same as for all big businesses: make more money.



In fact, we need leaders capable of recognizing the magnitude of the threats we face now, and start thinking about how to do something about them. What are they?



1. What are we prepared to do to prevent the continued melting of land-ice in Greenland and the Antarctic?



2. At what point will major developed countries confront the possibility of sudden, cataclysmic releases of water or land-ice? For example, researchers have discovered at least one massive iiquid water aquifer under the ice-pack in Greenland covering 70,000 sq. km. with enough water to raise sea-levels 0.5mm alone (and this does not take into account the potential domino effect on surrounding faults, should that one aquifer find an open pathway to the ocean).



The fact is, while the official scientific forecast for sea-level increases is in the vicinity of 1-meter by 2100, there are numerous un-quantified (but plausible) risk scenarios which could contribute to something far more dramatic, much sooner. How about 6-meters by 2030? If you own property in Manhattan, or Florida, you'll want to keep an eye on this.



3. Then there's the frozen methane problem. Climate scientists estimate from 1000 gigatons, to 3000 gigatons of frozen sea-bed methane, and frozen tundra methane are at risk of producing sudden "burps" of 50 to 300 gigatons as temperatures continue their steady march upwards.



To put that in perspective: these same scientists estimate the total human-caused emissions in the last 200 years at roughly 350-gigatons. Given that even if we were to actually able to halt the increase in the amount of carbon we emit each year, and hold it steady at 40-gt, temperatures will continue to rise, which leaders of which wealthy highly industrialized nations have put the question on the table:



What can we do to prevent one or more massive releases of methane into the atmosphere, the possibility of which already exists right now? For example: might it not be a good idea to deploy sensors in the shallow seas off the coast of Siberia to monitor the release of frozen methane from those sea-beds?



Since it appears some melting is inevitable, perhaps we should engage our energy companies to find ways to extract the methane before it melts?



The bottom-line of this rant? The political class globally is driven by two things: personal monetary enrichment, and preservation of their hegemony over whatever public authorities they've managed to usurp. If would really be better if those people would retire. We need leaders who recognize the magnitude of the global carnage which will ensue if we simply stand by and do nothing while sea-levels rise 2-meters, 5-meters, 20-meters... I wonder if anyone has a computer model which will predict at what sea-level increase, a nuclear war will inevitably break out due to the displacement and incipient starvation of "a billion or so" human beings?



Even more sinister: I wonder if they've already done the calculations, and are planning on it.