to add to your optimism: * geoengineering avoids fixing the root problem by patching some (but not all) of the symptoms, and probably creating new symptoms *

to add to your optimism: * geoengineering avoids fixing the root problem by patching some (but not all) of the symptoms, and probably creating new symptoms * the effects of climate change are not uniform over the globe, so for any application of geoengineering there will be winners and losers * much research hasn't been done to figure out if the various geoengineering proposals are safe, and there is no test environment, there is only production * geoengineering needs to be done at the same time as a serious effort to reduce both CO2 emissions and CO2 levels in the atmosphere * but: some geoengineering options are cheap enough that single nations could unilaterally carry them out anyway, ignoring all of the above! edit: all that said, the kind of stuff as described in the article needs to be scaled up. and a serious real world test needs to be done of doing something with the captured CO2. 50 tonnes / year is nothing. the scale of infrastructure needed to reverse current CO2 pollution is roughly the entire world fossil fuel economy, but running in reverse assuming this proposal can be scaled up and there's something to do with the captured CO2, maybe this kind of thing is part of the solution another open question is what to do with carbon in the ocean, to reverse ocean acidification