Geoengineering A "Research Priority" for Chinese Government?

[Josh Horton]

Hi all,

I've just run across a transcript from a new Australian Broadcasting Corporation program on GE featuring Clive Hamilton (http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2012/s3639093.htm), in which he states that "This has not been revealed yet, but within the last few weeks the Chinese Government included for the very first time geo-engineering research in its top 12 scientific research priorities."

Does anyone have any idea what Clive Hamilton is talking about?  I haven't heard anything about this anywhere else.

Josh Horton

[Joshua Horton]

Jason,

Thanks for your further clarifications.  There is no question geoengineering is on the radar in China, but describing it as a "top research priority" seemed like quite a stretch.  In the original interview Hamilton implied that he had access to privileged information ("This has not been revealed yet ...")--it would be interesting to hear what he meant by this.

Josh

On Sun, Nov 25, 2012 at 4:56 PM, jjb <j...@iiasa.ac.at> wrote:

Hi Josh,

Further to my last email/post: From an email exchange with Clive over the last day -- and with a very helpful contribution from Kingsley Edney and Jon Symons (who have a forthcoming paper on China and geoengineering) -- it turns out I was incorrect about the misinterpretation about "diqiu gongcheng" as being geo-technical engineering in this context. To directly quote Kingsley:

"We are very confident that the use of the term "diqiu gongcheng" in this context does in fact refer to geoengineering as we understand it in English. Jason Blackstock is right that the term has also been used for what we would call geo-technical engineering, and that many scientists in China would still associate the term diqiu gongcheng with this kind of activity, but in recent years the use of diqiu gongcheng to refer to man-made techniques to alter the climate has increased markedly. More specifically, in the context of the funding guidelines, it is clear that the term is being used in the sense we understand it in English. If you look back at the translation I provided in my earlier email it is clear that "geoengineering and global change" sits alongside other aspects of the impact of human activities on the environment in one category, whereas the kinds of geo-technical engineering activities he mentioned (mining, oil and gas etc) fall into a separate category. 

However, we would agree that geoengineering is not among the top scientific research priorities in China. The funding guidelines we cite are only for earth science/geoscience research, not for all scientific research in China. "Geoengineering and global change" is listed as one important research direction within one category of research that focuses on human influence on the environment. That category is itself one of 11 different categories, the titles of which I listed in my earlier email. 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."

This detailed explanation by Kingsley is entirely in alignment with my understanding of recent developments. In fact, the Chinese Academies of Science and Social Science, and the Chinese Meteorological Administration (and its associated Academy of Meteorological Sciences - CAMS) have expressed increasing interest in geoengineering research, and some are starting collaborative research projects on the topic. This is a notable development, though it should be noted this follows several years of government funded research on climate engineering in the EU and Britain, and increasing attention to GE by institutions such as the African Academies of Science and TWAS.

In other words, my initial assumption (or benefit of the doubt) that Clive simply misinterpreted a translation of Chinese research priorities was not correct. Rather, Clive's public claim on ABC was simply factually wrong; it is not true that "This has not been revealed yet, but within the last few weeks the Chinese Government included for the very first time geo-engineering research in its top 12 scientific research priorities."

Clive declined to provide a reason in our email exchange for his incorrect public claim, and gave no indication of whether he would publicly correct the error.

Best,
jason

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "geoengineering" group.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/geoengineering/-/h2eZpjmvviAJ.

To post to this group, send email to geoengi...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to geoengineerin...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en.