There is a big difference between attempting geoengineering and trying to reduce carbon emissions. Don't conflate the two.
I'm pretty suspicious of geoengineering with its promises of "we don't have to change our habits, we can just funnel a lot of money into government contractors to dump stuff into the atmosphere".
Now assuming climate change is indeed man-made:
The great thing about reducing our emissions is that we know we won't screw up the planet worse by doing so.
The problem with reducing or "greening" our economic activities is that there are people who stand to lose a great deal from it, even if the majority would profit. Geoengineering is being sold as an alternative that would mean more economic activity (and hence more profit).
As for our limited resources, we currently spend far more of them on cheap trinkets from China, bailouts, bonuses and pork than we do on anything like malaria.
I'm pretty suspicious of the sudden flare of "global warming is a lie / is not man-made" stuff that's come up conveniently at the same time as the Copenhagen conference. Lots of people with lots of money stand a lot to lose, and those kind of people tend to employ PR firms that aren't above a bit of astroturfing.
Even so, it is of course possible that climate change is misunderstood and that reducing carbon emissions won't help. But I don't think I want to do a wager on the whole planet.
I'm pretty suspicious of geoengineering with its promises of "we don't have to change our habits, we can just funnel a lot of money into government contractors to dump stuff into the atmosphere".
Now assuming climate change is indeed man-made:
The great thing about reducing our emissions is that we know we won't screw up the planet worse by doing so.
The problem with reducing or "greening" our economic activities is that there are people who stand to lose a great deal from it, even if the majority would profit. Geoengineering is being sold as an alternative that would mean more economic activity (and hence more profit).
As for our limited resources, we currently spend far more of them on cheap trinkets from China, bailouts, bonuses and pork than we do on anything like malaria.
I'm pretty suspicious of the sudden flare of "global warming is a lie / is not man-made" stuff that's come up conveniently at the same time as the Copenhagen conference. Lots of people with lots of money stand a lot to lose, and those kind of people tend to employ PR firms that aren't above a bit of astroturfing.
Even so, it is of course possible that climate change is misunderstood and that reducing carbon emissions won't help. But I don't think I want to do a wager on the whole planet.