Following up on the 2012 footnote in the preceding email:
 
http://www.academia.edu/1983811/China_and_the_blunt_temptations_of_geoengineering_the_role_of_solar_radiation_management_in_China_s_strategic_response_to_climate_change
 
China and the blunt temptations of geoengineering: the role of solar radiation 
management in China’s strategic response to climate change
Kingsley Edney and Jonathan Symons
The Pacific Review
 (forthcoming) http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09512748.2013.807865
 Kingsley Edney
 is a Lecturer in Politics and International Relations of China at the 
University of Leeds (as of Jan 2013). He has published in the
 Journal of Contemporary China, the Australian Journal of International 
Affairs,China aktuell – Journal of Current Chinese  Affai and The Ashgate 
Research Companion to Chinese Foreign Policy
.
 Jonathan Symons
 is a Lecturer in Politics and International Relations at Macquarie University, 
Sydney. He has published in journals including
 Review of International Studies,  Environmental Politics, Energy Policy
 and
Global Environmental Politics
. Jonathan is co-editor of
 Energy Security in the Era of Climate Change: The Asia-Pacific Experience
 (Palgrave Macmillan, 2012). Email: [email protected]
 
Abstract
Amid growing alarm over the rising atmospheric concentration of greenhouse 
gases, scientists and politicians are giving increasing attention to 
‘geoengineering’ technologies that could counteract some of the impacts of 
global warming by either reducing absorption of solar energy (solar radiation 
management (SRM)) or removing carbon from the atmosphere. Geoengineering has 
the potential to dramatically alter the dynamics of global climate change 
negotiations because it might cool the climate without constraining fossil fuel 
use. Some scholars have expressed concern that certain states may be tempted to 
act unilaterally. Focusing on SRM, this paper assesses the approach that China 
is likely to adopt towards governance of geoengineering and the implications 
this holds for broader international climate negotiations. We survey Chinese 
public discourse, examine the policy factors that will influence China’s 
position, and assess the likelihood of certain
 future scenarios. While Chinese climate scientists are keenly aware of the 
potential benefits of geoengineering as well as its risks, we find that no 
significant constituency is currently promoting unilateral implementation of 
SRM. China will probably play a broadly cooperative role in negotiations toward 
a multilaterally governed geoengineering  program but will seek to promote a 
distinctive developing world perspective that reflects concerns over 
sovereignty, Western imperialism and maintenance of a strict interpretation of 
the norm of common but differentiated responsibility.


Greg

--------------------------------------------
On Wed, 5/27/15, Andrew Lockley <[email protected]> wrote:

 Subject: [geo] Geoengineering: A Short History | Foreign Policy
 To: "geoengineering" <[email protected]>
 Date: Wednesday, May 27, 2015, 2:09 AM
 
 http://foreignpolicy.com/2013/09/03/geoengineering-a-short-history/
 Geoengineering: A Short History
 
 How hacking the climate came to be seen as our least worst
 option for averting a global climate catastrophe.
 BY TY MCCORMICK
 
 SEPTEMBER 3, 2013
 Geoengineering: A Short History 
 
 For most of human history, weather control has been under
 the strict purview of sky gods and science fiction. But
 today, as superstorms ravage coastal cities and pollution
 blankets entire countries, averting climate catastrophe has
 become a serious foreign-policy issue. Not that it appears
 that the world’s major powers are making much headway in
 their diplomatic efforts to stop global warming. Instead, it
 is falling to so-called geoengineers to game out strategies
 for deliberate, large-scale intervention — everything from
 dumping iron slurry into the ocean in order to create
 massive CO2-sucking algae blooms to bombarding the
 stratosphere with sulfate-laced artillery to deflect
 sunlight. With the world’s fate potentially resting on the
 shoulders of these climate hackers, it’s worth recalling
 the dubious history of weather manipulation.
 1841
 
 American meteorologist James Pollard Espy publishes The
 Philosophy of Storms, in which he lays out his thermal
 theory of storm formation and details a method through which
 "rain may be produced artificially in time of
 drought." By setting "great fires" and
 creating heated columns of air — something Espy lobbies
 Congress to allow him to do — he argues it would be
 possible to generate precipitation on command. The scheme,
 which rests on shoddier science than Espy’s theory of
 storm formation, earns him the moniker "Storm
 King." 
 1896
 
 Swedish chemist Svante Arrhenius investigates the impact of
 rising carbon dioxide levels on global temperatures in
 Philosophical Magazine and Journal of Science. He is the
 first scientist to calculate how doubling the amount of
 carbon dioxide in the atmosphere would affect the climate.
 His conclusion — that Earth’s temperature would increase
 by roughly 9 degrees Fahrenheit — leads him to suggest in
 1908 that by increasing the amount of "carbonic
 acid" in the atmosphere, "we may hope to enjoy
 ages with more equitable and better climates."
 1932 The Soviet Union establishes the Institute
 of Rainmaking in Leningrad, setting the stage for decades of
 experimentation with cloud seeding as a means of altering
 the weather. The United States follows suit in 1946, when
 researchers at the General Electric Research Laboratory in
 Schenectady, New York, discover that dry ice stimulates
 ice-crystal formation. In the Cold War’s early years, both
 superpowers carry out hundreds of experiments using solid
 carbon dioxide, silver iodide, and other particulate matter
 to trigger precipitation. The success of these experiments
 is greatly exaggerated, but scientists do manage to alter
 weather patterns on a small scale. 
 1958
 
 "If an unfriendly nation gets into a position to
 control the large-scale weather patterns before we can, the
 result could even be more disastrous than nuclear
 warfare." —Howard T. Orville, U.S. President Dwight
 Eisenhower’s weather advisor  
 1965
 
 U.S. President Lyndon B. Johnson’s Science Advisory
 Committee issues a landmark report, "Restoring the
 Quality of Our Environment," that warns of the
 potentially harmful effects of fossil fuel emissions.
 Considered the first high-level government statement on
 global warming, the report also raises the possibility of
 "deliberately bringing about countervailing climatic
 changes," including by "raising the albedo, or
 reflectivity, of the Earth." 
 1967-1972
 
 The U.S. Air Force flies more than 2,600 cloud-seeding
 sorties over North and South Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia as
 part of a covert effort to extend the monsoon season and
 inhibit North Vietnamese troop movements. Dubbed Operation
 Popeye, the program is the first known instance of hostile
 weather manipulation in military history. When columnist
 Jack Anderson reveals its existence in the Washington Post
 in 1971, the public is outraged. The subsequent scandal soon
 becomes known as the "Watergate of weather
 warfare." 
 1974
 
 Soviet climatologist Mikhail Budyko floats the idea of
 reversing global warming by burning sulfur in the
 stratosphere, thereby creating a reflective haze he
 describes as "much like that which arises from volcanic
 eruptions." Solar radiation management — or attempts
 to reduce the amount of sunlight that reaches the Earth’s
 surface — goes on to become one of two major branches of
 geoengineering (the other being carbon dioxide removal). In
 subsequent years, scientists propose everything from
 injecting particles into the stratosphere to lobbing great
 mirrors into space to reflect the sun’s rays. 
 December 1976
 
 Moved to act by the United States’ cloud-seeding
 activities in Vietnam, the U.N. General Assembly approves
 the Environmental Modification Convention, which bans
 weather warfare and other hostile uses of climate
 manipulation "having widespread, long-lasting or severe
 effects." The treaty goes into effect a little less
 than two years later and is eventually ratified by 76
 countries.  
 
 May 1990
 
 The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC),
 established in 1988 by two U.N. organizations to assess the
 risk of climate change posed by human activity, declares
 unequivocally that increased carbon emissions are
 substantially augmenting the greenhouse effect,
 "resulting on average in an additional warming of the
 Earth’s surface." Unless global emissions are cut by
 60 percent, the panel warns, global temperatures could rise
 by as much as 5.4 degrees Fahrenheit over the next 110
 years. 
 June 15, 1991
 
 Mount Pinatubo erupts, spewing molten lava over 250 square
 miles of the Philippine island of Luzon and throwing
 millions of tons of volcanic ash into the atmosphere. The
 debris forms a reflective aerosol cloud around the Earth,
 reducing the amount of sunlight that reaches the planet’s
 surface by roughly 10 percent for most of the next two
 years. As a result, the average global temperature drops by
 about 0.9 degrees Fahrenheit — or roughly the same amount
 that it had risen over the previous 100 years due to
 industrial activity. The eruption amounts to a perfect
 natural experiment, offering scientists a model for how
 deliberate efforts to counter global warming might play out
 in the future. August 2006
 
 Paul Crutzen, winner of the 1995 Nobel Prize in chemistry
 for his research on ozone, calls international action to
 reduce greenhouse gas emissions "a pious wish." In
 a now-famous article in Climatic Change, he advocates for
 additional geoengineering research, especially into the
 possibility of using reflective aerosols to decrease the
 amount of sunlight that reaches the Earth’s surface.
 Crutzen’s article provokes vigorous criticism —
 especially from scientists who fear it will hand governments
 an excuse not to reduce carbon emissions — but it thrusts
 geoengineering into the mainstream, inspiring reams of
 additional research. 
 November 2006
 
 At a NASA conference in Silicon Valley, Lowell Wood, a
 former top weapons designer at the Pentagon, lays out an
 "instant climatic gratification" scheme to reverse
 global warming. The plan involves using artillery to fire as
 much as 1 million tons of sulfate aerosols into the Arctic
 stratosphere in order to dull the sun’s rays and build up
 sea ice that could then cool the planet. Science historian
 James R. Fleming, writing in Wilson Quarterly, likens
 Wood’s plan to "declaring war on the
 stratosphere." 
 August 8, 2008
 
 Four hours before the opening ceremony of the Olympics in
 Beijing, Chinese authorities launch more than 1,000 rockets
 containing silver iodide into the sky outside the city to
 keep rain clouds away from the "Bird’s Nest"
 stadium. A storm that was forecast to hit on Aug. 8 holds
 off until the 10th, keeping the crowd of 91,000 dry for the
 evening’s pageantry. 
 October 2008
 
 Scientific American publishes an editorial titled "The
 Hidden Dangers of Geoengineering" that calls out the
 risks of trying to tinker our way out of a climate
 catastrophe. What used to be "fringe science," the
 editors write, has "gained respectability," but it
 could damage the ozone layer, reduce precipitation, or make
 rainfall more acidic. "And those are just the
 foreseeable effects." 
 April 2009
 
 U.S. President Barack Obama’s science advisor, John
 Holdren, says the United States doesn’t have the
 "luxury" of taking geoengineering options
 "off the table" in discussions of how to combat
 climate change. "The administration’s primary focus
 is still to seek comprehensive energy legislation that can
 get us closer to a clean energy economy," according to
 the advisor’s spokesman, but deliberate efforts to counter
 global warming, Holdren says, have "got to be looked
 at." 
 2009
 
 "Playing with the Earth’s climate is a dangerous game
 with unclear rules." —Robert Jackson, director of
 Duke University’s Center on Global Change   September
 2011
 
 A British academic consortium called Stratospheric Particle
 Injection for Climate Engineering attempts to carry out the
 world’s first large-scale geoengineering field test aimed
 at reversing global warming. But the experiment, a smaller
 version of the group’s grand plan to pump reflective
 particles into the atmosphere through a 20-kilometer-long
 hose held aloft by a hot-air balloon, never gets off the
 ground for political reasons. 
 2012
 
 The National Natural Science Foundation of China, which
 distributes research funds on behalf of the Chinese
 government, lists geoengineering as a scientific research
 priority. Already, China is spending at least $100 million
 per year on weather modification schemes — mostly to
 induce rain and prevent hailstorms. 
 March 2013
 
 The CIA partners with the National Academy of Sciences (NAS)
 to fund a 21-month, $630,000 "technical
 evaluation" of various geoengineering techniques,
 including proposed solar radiation management and carbon
 dioxide removal schemes. It is the first NAS geoengineering
 study funded by the intelligence community. 
 May 2013
 
 The average daily atmospheric concentration of carbon
 dioxide surpasses 400 parts per million — higher than it
 has been in at least 3 million years. The grim milestone
 prompts the New Yorker‘s Nicholas Thompson to opine on the
 "dangerous, fraught, and potentially essential prospect
 of geoengineering." He writes, "[I]t’s dreadful
 but it may be the only way to prevent mass
 calamity." 
 April 2014
 
 The IPCC’s working group for policy responses to climate
 change will evaluate geoengineering options — including
 the use of aerosols, iron fertilization, and lighter-colored
 crops — in its fifth assessment report, marking the first
 time that the U.N. body will have actively considered
 invasive measures for halting climate change. The move, as
 the Guardian put it when the IPCC’s research agenda became
 public in 2011, "suggests the UN and rich countries are
 despairing of reaching agreement" on how to combat
 global warming.
 
 
 

-- 
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.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Reply via email to