I believe your question is insinuating that pollution is branded as such and is really an experiment? I don't follow.. can you expand on that or clarify?
But first please answer their question before shifting the conversation.
People care, but we do it in such a backwards way that the rule is apparently "you can hurt (for amoral profit), but don't you dare try to help!"
Clearly, if anything, the move is to re-brand geoengineering as "normal pollution". It wouldn't even be hard: every 737 emits 500 grams of SO2 in less than 100 miles, and not a peep!
And I dispute, "but don't you dare try to help", since you it's not known it helps.
These experiments / solar geo-engineering / terraforming may hurt.
There's justifications for Mexico to stop these experiments, do you agree or disagree?
> And I dispute, "but don't you dare try to help", since you it's not known it helps.
The critical word is "try."
Apparently, the rule is that your intent is all that matters. If you're trying to profit, it's pollution and it's fine. If you intend to help, all hell breaks loose.
Exxon can burn down the world, but utter the words "geoengineering" and you can't so much as swat a fly.
I'm not saying this is logical or correct. I'm just saying that these appear to be the rules as constrained by (not always rational) public opinion.
> There's justifications for Mexico to stop these experiments, do you agree or disagree?
There are justifications both "for" and "against" (like any complex real-world issue), but the public debate has been extremely skewed.