Even more to the point, see this (http://www.scribd.com/doc/131811730/China-and-the-blunt-temptations-of-geoengineering-the-role-of-solar-radiation-management-in-China’s-strategic-response-to-climate-change) current draft article on China and geoengineering:
"Some Western scholars have expressed concern that China may already be working on unilateral research and implementation of SRM. Although we cannot discount this possibility, we have found no evidence supporting this contention in published Chinese literature or our discussions with Chinese scientists. In fact, consideration of SRM currently seems to be confined to epistemic communities that are deeply cautious about the possible downsides of deliberate intervention into natural systems." (p. 28) Josh On Wednesday, March 27, 2013 8:58:33 PM UTC-4, Fred Zimmerman wrote: > > Before we go too far on this "China priorities meme" let me suggest that > we make it a practice of the list to always cite Jason Blackstock's very > persuasive post of 11/26/2012 > > https://groups.google.com/d/msg/geoengineering/wKAas01rdDA/h2eZpjmvviAJ > > the "money quote" of which is this from Kingsley Edney: > > So "geoengineering and global change" is one "important research > direction" among a total of more than 50 that are listed in the field of > earth science alone. Once we consider all the other categories of > scientific research it seems quite possible that, as Blackstock claims, > geoengineering would not make the top 100. If we focus solely on the > narrower category of solar radiation management then there is no evidence > to claim that SRM is a priority at this stage." > > Fred > > > On Wed, Mar 27, 2013 at 7:23 PM, Bill Stahl <bsta...@gmail.com<javascript:> > > wrote: > >> The comments I have on this excellent article are: >> 1, China is popularly used as an example of a country that will go it's >> own way on climate issues (and on anything else). This is natural- >> especially for an Australian like Hamilton! - but it's also true of Canada >> (as is sometimes overlooked in the battle over the Keystone pipeline). >> Rather than give up its tar sands it might be willing to be the first to >> take the plunge into geoengineering. And, unlike China, it has plenty of >> Arctic territory to give it both acute awareness of permafrost melting and >> easy entree into high-latitude SRM to cool the Arctic. Given the pace of >> Arctic melting that issue will be forced long, long before 2035, and >> because the directly affected zone is so much smaller than that of global >> SRM the governance barriers are lower (though still high). Canada is then >> at least as good a candidate for 'first adopter' as China. >> >> 2. That would not directly help China but Hamilton's description suggests >> that China's interests would lead it to support Canada (or any other >> high-latitude plunge-taker) to give itself more options later. >> >> 3. Hamilton's hypothetical 2035 scenario describes an interaction between >> China and the U.S. as one between two isolated states, as if the US would >> have available a practical option of shooting down planes. But there is no >> conceivable scenario in which only one country wants to do SRM, and none in >> which only one opposes it. Let's assume that a large number of low-lying >> countries (Pacific island states in particular) are ready to cool the >> Arctic & Greenland, as soon as possible - starting next Thursday afternoon >> if they can. These 10 or 20 states are shopping around for a larger state >> or states with the political and technical muscle to implement it - China >> and Canada, since we've already mentioned them. A slew of mid-size players >> sign on for various reasons, leading to a coalition of 30 countries of >> varying size, location, wealth & motives. Those opposed or undecided will >> not be invited, as Caldeira et all described in a recent game theory >> paper. At the risk of being flippant, let's say they give themselves a >> noble-sounding title - Alliance for Something or Other Virtuous With a >> Snappy Acronym - and they pick as their figurehead someone who can >> persuasively don the mantle of righteousness. The leader of an endangered >> atoll state would do nicely, even if some relatively 'unsympathetic' >> country such as China is the real muscle. >> >> What will stop them? Surely not some moratorium voted out of a UN >> committee room a decade or two before. Shooting down planes? Imagine some >> nation's networks interrupting their regular programming for a Presidential >> announcement: "I have today authorized our armed forces to take action >> against Fiji, China, Malaysia, American Samoa, Mongolia, Zanzibar, Finland, >> The Seychelles and ... oh to hell with it, *lots* of others". >> >> Although I'm unsympathetic to those who oppose any geoengineering >> research as starting down a slippery slope to full deployment, I have to >> admit they have a point. >> >> >> >> >> >> On Saturday, March 23, 2013 6:26:35 PM UTC-6, andrewjlockley wrote: >>> >>> http://www.guardian.co.uk/**environment/2013/mar/22/** >>> geoengineering-china-climate-**change<http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2013/mar/22/geoengineering-china-climate-change> >>> >>> >>> Why geoengineering has immediate appeal to China >>> Beijing wants to cut emissions without hindering growth and avert a >>> revolt from a population under extreme climate stress >>> >>> Clive Hamilton professor of public ethics at Charles Sturt University >>> in Canberra >>> Friday 22 March 2013 14.01 GMT >>> >>> The political dilemma over geoengineering – deliberate, large-scale >>> intervention in the climate system designed to counter global warming >>> or offset some of its effects – will perhaps be most acute in China. >>> >>> In December, the country listed geoengineering among its Earth science >>> research priorities, in a marked shift in the international climate >>> change landscape noticed by China specialists Kingsley Edney and >>> Jonathan Symons. >>> >>> On the one hand, China's rapid economic growth has seen a huge >>> escalation in its greenhouse gas emissions, which on an annual basis >>> overtook those of the United States five years ago. Sustained GDP >>> growth provides China's Communist party with its only claim to >>> legitimacy, its "mandate of heaven". China's efforts to constrain the >>> growth of its emissions have been substantial, and certainly put to >>> shame those of many developed nations. >>> >>> Yet neither China's efforts nor those of other countries over the next >>> two or three decades are likely to do much to slow the warming of the >>> globe, nor halt the climate disruption that will follow. Global >>> emissions have not been declining or even slowing. In fact, global >>> emissions are accelerating. Even the World Bank, which for years has >>> been criticised for promoting carbon-intensive development, now warns >>> that we are on track for 4C of warming, which would change everything. >>> >>> China is highly vulnerable to water shortages in the north, with >>> declining crop yields and food price rises expected, and storms and >>> flooding in the east and south. Climate-related disasters in China are >>> already a major source of social unrest so there is a well-founded >>> fear in Beijing that the impacts of climate change in the provinces >>> could topple the government in the capital. Natural disasters >>> jeopardise its mandate. >>> >>> So what can the Chinese government do? Continued growth in greenhouse >>> gas emissions is a condition for its hold on power, but climate >>> disruption in response to emissions growth threatens to destabilise >>> it. >>> >>> Geoengineering has immediate appeal as a way out of this catch-22. >>> While a variety of technologies to take carbon out of the air or to >>> regulate sunlight are being researched, at present by far the most >>> likely intervention would involve blanketing the Earth with a layer of >>> sulphate particles to block some incoming solar radiation. >>> >>> Spraying sulphate aerosols could mask warming and cool the planet >>> within weeks, although it would not solve the core problem of too much >>> carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and oceans. >>> >>> Scientists and policy-makers in China have been watching the debate >>> over geoengineering unfold in the US and Europe where there has been a >>> boom in discussion and research since the taboo was lifted in 2006, >>> following an intervention by Nobel laureate Paul Crutzen calling for >>> investigation of "plan B". >>> >>> In the US, there have been several high-level reports arguing for more >>> research into geoengineering — the National Research Council, the >>> House of Representatives' committee on science and technology and the >>> Government Accountability Office. Influential Beltway thinktanks, like >>> the Bipartisan Policy Center, have joined the fray. Plan B is being >>> discussed in the White House, and the military is keeping a watching >>> brief, and maybe doing more. >>> >>> China's decision to initiate a research programme could be motivated >>> by no more than a desire to develop a national capacity to keep >>> abreast of what is happening in the rest of the world. Certainly, >>> there is a good deal of scepticism about geoengineering within China's >>> scientific community. >>> >>> Yet as the world remains paralysed by the scale of the warming crisis, >>> and watches while it becomes locked-in, the capacity to implement an >>> emergency response will become ever-more attractive. And in a global >>> emergency — a crippling drought, the Amazon ablaze, Greenland >>> collapsing — the gaze becomes focussed on the urgent to the exclusion >>> of all else, including the interests of other, less-powerful nations >>> whose plight may be worsened if a major power decided to regulate the >>> Earth's climate system. >>> >>> While western nations are not ruled by one-party states determined to >>> maintain power at all costs, in truth the tyranny of the economic >>> system is no less absolute. The 2008 financial crisis and its >>> aftermath demonstrated that the structures of power that underpin the >>> system — the banks, the markets, the major corporations and their ties >>> to the political system — are extremely resilient, perhaps every bit >>> as resistant to change as China's Communist party. >>> >>> After all, when it comes to responding to climate disruption every >>> report and recommendation — from the Stern report to the IPCC — >>> assumes that measures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions must >>> accommodate the first imperative, maintaining the rate of economic >>> growth, even though it is GDP growth that escalates greenhouse gas >>> emissions. >>> >>> So here is a plausible scenario for 2035. Facing a revolt from a >>> population under extreme climate stress, the Chinese government seeks >>> the US government's consent to cool the planet by spraying sulphate >>> aerosols into the stratosphere. Popular protests prevent Washington >>> endorsing the plan but it tacitly agrees not to shoot down China's >>> planes. That would be enough, and from that point there would be no >>> going back. >>> >>> • Clive Hamilton professor of public ethics at Charles Sturt >>> University in Canberra and the author of Earthmasters: The dawn of the >>> age of climate engineering, just published by Yale University Press. >>> >> -- >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups >> "geoengineering" group. >> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an >> email to geoengineerin...@googlegroups.com <javascript:>. >> To post to this group, send email to geoengi...@googlegroups.com<javascript:> >> . >> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en. >> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. >> >> >> > > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "geoengineering" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
