I think all geo-engineering is a bad idea. The least worse idea is sucking CO2 out of the atmosphere.
The consequences of any geo-engineering ideas are not well understood.
The consequences of any geo-engineering ideas are not well understood.
Large areas of solar panels, engineered to reflect as much as they can't use, would be a good double benefit. Excess electricity could be opportunistically used for GHG capture or the panels could maybe flip over and become mirrors.
An orbital umbrella that we could modulate such that we can deal with unanticipated consequences could also be ok.
I'm sure there are tons of other approaches that give control in both directions on reasonable time scales. Obviously cutting emissions Right Now is super important, and megaprojects shouldn't distract from that.
from my own understanding and reading one of the few feasible cooling efforts would be high altitude aerosol dispersal, which again, has serious risk of unintended consequences.
There is also room for a bit more pressure on countries which emit excessive amounts of carbon, that show no signs of slowing down.
One risk of not exploring geoengineering is that cheap options for it exist and most countries are technically and economically able to engage in them. If a country feels like the burdens of climate change fall unfairly on them, the option exists to do something drastic.
Let's start pouring money into research so we don't have to go in blind.
Climate change is at the point where there are actual consequences to people. Humans being what we are, we're not going to sit around and just accept a dramatically worse situation. People (very wealthy people with a lot to lose) are going to demand action, and action is going to be taken.
We can go in blind or we can start learning what the plusses and minuses of various approaches are now.