It’s clear we’re rapidly getting to the point that geo-engineering is becoming necessary not optional, despite the risks (which can be pretty big). I’m happy to support such an endeavour with a single proviso: that not one cent of money is directed to any company or parent company involved in the decades long campaign to deny science, subvert policy and delay action. Those bastards can fuck off and die if they think they can profit off the problem and then profit off the solution.
The proposal wants to explore the risks and why it should _not_ be done, not the other way around.
So it's about clearly working out why this would be a bad idea not why we should absolutely do it.
They will probably profit from the solution regardless of where you decide to send your support. For example, one of the byproducts of oil refining is sulfur. If you burn sulfur in the presence of oxygen will turn into SO2. Then you can put up in the stratosphere and cool Earth until the last drop of petrochemical is burned or alternative energy is close to free and as accessible as oil and gas.