>>block the sun
Well, that's a whole can of worms and still so controversial in climate action circles. For the longest time, people refused to consider it because it creates moral hazard. If the tech exists to cool the planet, why not just burn as much fossil fuel as you want?
So on the "anti" side they say:
1. It creates moral hazard.
2. It could have catastrophic side effects or turn out to be much harder to "tune" than believed.
3. Once developed, it poses all manner of justice issues. Some regions are already benefiting from global warming - farming keeps moving north in Canada. So who gets to decide that it's okay to put those farmers out of business?
On the flip side, the people in favor of intentional geoengineering argue a few things:
1. Exxon and BP and you and me have been allowed to geo-engineer for decades with impunity. Everyone is allowed to engage in almost any action that *causes* global warming, but suddenly it's forbidden when people want to engage in an action to stop it.
2. The hour is getting late and we're not doing well. If we're going to avert the worst, we need bridge technologies to stave off collapse while we get our sh## together.
3. Even if we don't use it, we should research it so if we *do* need to use it, we know how.
