Explore the vast range of titles available.

From 1868–1872, German geologist Ferdinand von Richthofen went on an expedition to China. His reports on what he found there would transform Western interest in China from the land of porcelain and tea to a repository of immense coal reserves. By the 1890s, European and American powers and the Qing state and local elites battled for control over the rights to these valuable mineral deposits. As coal went from a useful commodity to the essential fuel of industrialization, this vast natural resource would prove integral to the struggle for political control of China. Geology served both as the handmaiden to European imperialism and the rallying point of Chinese resistance to Western encroachment. In the late nineteenth century both foreign powers and the Chinese viewed control over mineral resources as the key to modernization and industrialization. When the first China Geological Survey began work in the 1910s, conceptions of natural resources had already shifted, and the Qing state expanded its control over mining rights, setting the precedent for the subsequent Republican and People's Republic of China regimes. In Empires of Coal, Shellen Xiao Wu argues that the changes specific to the late Qing were part of global trends in the nineteenth century, when the rise of science and industrialization destabilized global systems and caused widespread unrest and the toppling of ruling regimes around the world.

China's carbon balance The publication of a comprehensive assessment of China's terrestrial carbon budget fills a major gap in the geographical spread of carbon balance data, and helps to further reduce uncertainties in the Northern Hemisphere carbon balance. Three different indicators were used to monitor China's carbon balance and its driving mechanisms during the 1980s and 1990s: biomass and soil carbon inventories extrapolated from satellite greenness measurements, ecosystem models and atmospheric inversions. The three methods produce similar estimates for the net carbon sink at 0.19 to 0.26 petagrams per year. Global terrestrial ecosystems, in comparison, have absorbed carbon at a rate of 1 to 4 Pg carbon per year during the 1980s and 1990s, which offsets 10–60% of fossil fuel emissions. Northeast China is a net source of CO 2 to the atmosphere as a result over-harvesting and degradation of forests. In contrast, southern China accounts for over 65% of the carbon sink, attributable to regional climate change, tree planting and shrub recovery. This paper analyses the terrestrial carbon balance of China during the 1980s and 1990s using biomass and soil carbon inventories extrapolated by satellite greenness measurements, ecosystem models and atmospheric inversions. These three methods produce similar estimates of a net sink of 0.19–0.26 billion tonnes of carbon per year, indicating that China absorbed 28–37 per cent of its fossil carbon emissions over these two decades, mainly attributable to regional climate change, large-scale plantation programmes and shrub recovery. Global terrestrial ecosystems absorbed carbon at a rate of 1–4 Pg yr -1 during the 1980s and 1990s, offsetting 10–60 per cent of the fossil-fuel emissions 1 , 2 . The regional patterns and causes of terrestrial carbon sources and sinks, however, remain uncertain 1 , 2 , 3 . With increasing scientific and political interest in regional aspects of the global carbon cycle, there is a strong impetus to better understand the carbon balance of China 1 , 2 , 3 . This is not only because China is the world’s most populous country and the largest emitter of fossil-fuel CO 2 into the atmosphere 4 , but also because it has experienced regionally distinct land-use histories and climate trends 1 , which together control the carbon budget of its ecosystems. Here we analyse the current terrestrial carbon balance of China and its driving mechanisms during the 1980s and 1990s using three different methods: biomass and soil carbon inventories extrapolated by satellite greenness measurements, ecosystem models and atmospheric inversions. The three methods produce similar estimates of a net carbon sink in the range of 0.19–0.26 Pg carbon (PgC) per year, which is smaller than that in the conterminous United States 5 but comparable to that in geographic Europe 6 . We find that northeast China is a net source of CO 2 to the atmosphere owing to overharvesting and degradation of forests. By contrast, southern China accounts for more than 65 per cent of the carbon sink, which can be attributed to regional climate change, large-scale plantation programmes active since the 1980s and shrub recovery. Shrub recovery is identified as the most uncertain factor contributing to the carbon sink. Our data and model results together indicate that China’s terrestrial ecosystems absorbed 28–37 per cent of its cumulated fossil carbon emissions during the 1980s and 1990s.

In this paper, the history of paleontology in China from 1920 to 2020 is divided into three major stages, i.e., 1920–1949, 1949–1978, and 1979–2020. As one of the first scientific disciplines to have earned international fame in China, the development of Chinese paleontology benefitted from international collaborations and China’s rich resources. Since 1978, China’s socio-economic development and its open-door policy to the outside world have also played a key role in the growth of Chinese paleontology. In the 21st century, thanks to constant funding from the government and the rise of the younger generation of paleontologists, Chinese paleontology is expected to make even more contributions to the integration of paleontology with both biological and geological research projects by taking advantage of new technologies and China’s rich paleontological resources.

This paper uses the decade-long collaboration between the Indian paleobotanist Birbal Sahni (1891–1949) and his Chinese doctoral student Hsü Jen (Xu Ren 徐仁, 1910–1992) to offer a connected history of mid-twentieth century scientific activity in China and India. Possibly the first Chinese scientist to earn a PhD from an Indian university (Lucknow, 1946), Hsü was certainly the first to be appointed to a faculty position in India. Sahni and Hsü's attempts to build Asian networks of scientific activity, characterized by the circulation of experts, scientific knowledge, and specimens, provide the grounds for considering a practice of Pan-Asianism. Such a formulation adds to existing work on the Pan-Asianist articulations of intellectual and political figures and urges for an expansion of how we understand scientific activity across China and India from the 1930s to the 1960s. In so doing, the paper makes two historiographical interventions. In the first instance, the collaboration presents an opportunity to move beyond the two dominant frames through which histories of science in China and India are studied: the nation state and Non-West/West binaries. Second, a focus on science widens the scope of China–India history, a field dominated by research on cultural, intellectual, and diplomatic topics.