>>10763297Nice strawman.
>If I take one approach to geoengineering and push it past the point of absurdity, it is really bad. Therefore geoengineering is stupid.I'm more into the use of stratospheric sulfur, which happens naturally from time to time so we know the effects, which (other than cooling the globe) are pretty much non-existent, and which can be shut off quickly if it turns out that we don't like any hypothetical side effects.
But there may be problems with that particular approach. Which is why I'd favor researching as many approaches as possible.
If, as is widely believed, the climate change issue is about to become catastrophic, the good thing about geoengineering approaches is that they allow for a rapid response in a way that cutting carbon emissions does not (even if you cut emissions, you still have the same levels of CO2 in the atmosphere unless you then do something to lower them.)
Even if CO2 emissions cuts would be the best thing to do at this point, it is pretty obvious that they are unlikely to happen as per-capita emissions in some very populous countries are now very low, and are likely to increase unless you can convince them to stop trying to get richer and live more prosperous lives. I think it is unlikely that, in the real world, you can do that.
But maybe I'm wrong, maybe that will all work out. Or maybe a revolutionary new energy technology that we do not see coming right now will suddenly provide a chap and easy replacement for burning shit for energy.
But if we're really facing the kind of threat that climate change seems to represent, do you really want to bet everything on that? Researching and exploring other options, such as geoengineering,seems a reasonable insurance policy -- even if only to have it on hand as a stop gap, or an emergency response if we hit the hypothetical "tipping point" and warming suddenly increases much faster.
