Passing along for Clive, whose message got bounced - I'll respond when I get a chance.
Josh Sent from my iPhone Begin forwarded message: > From: Clive Hamilton <[email protected]> > Date: April 1, 2013, 6:17:13 AM EDT > To: [email protected] > Cc: [email protected], [email protected], Andrew Lockley > <[email protected]>, [email protected] > Subject: Re: [geo] Re: Why geoengineering has immediate appeal to China > (Guradian) > > Dear All > > Kingsley Edney and Jonathan Symons have written the definitive paper on > geoengineering in China. They are Sinologists and have researched the > question in great detail, as their paper shows. I was sent an early draft and > it framed my understanding of the issue. Since then I have been in close > contact with these two scholars, not least in asking them to read carefully > and correct any mistakes or misinterpretations in my article that appeared in > the Guardian. > > The claims I made about geoengineering research in China are not in any way > contradicted by the quotes provided by Josh or Fred, as they seem to imply. > Indeed, it would be odd for Kingsley and Jonathan to both make the quoted > statements and approve the article I had in the Guardian if they felt there > was any contradiction. > > The fact is that China has included geoengineering among its Earth science > research priorities, and I don't understand why some participants in this > group are going out of their way to downplay this fact. > > In some unscripted comments I made in an earlier television interview I erred > in exaggerating the degree of priority being given to geoengineering research > in China. That is now corrected in the Guardian piece. Soon after my > television comment Jason Blackstock emailed me saying I had got it completely > wrong, that he is very well connected with Chinese scientists and officials, > and that he is quite certain that there is no official endorsement of > geoengineering in China. Those who think otherwise, he wrote, have > mistranslated the relevant Chinese word. He has since conceded that Kingsley > and Jonathan are right in their interpretation and in the facts regarding > official inclusion of geoengineering, which ought to be no surprise since > they know a lot more about China than he does. > > Clive > > > > > On 1 April 2013 00:57, Josh Horton <[email protected]> wrote: >> 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 <[email protected]> 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 >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> 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 [email protected]. >>>> To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. >>>> 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 [email protected]. >> To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. >> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en. >> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. > > > > -- > Clive Hamilton > Professor of Public Ethics > Charles Sturt University > www.clivehamilton.com -- 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 [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
