> Removing CO2 might be necessary to stop global warming. > But what chance does this sort of ambitious effort have when more and more states don't even want t

> Removing CO2 might be necessary to stop global warming. > But what chance does this sort of ambitious effort have when more and more states don't even want to deal with the ordinary problem of reducing CO2 output? There are cheaper geo-engineering methods that don't attempt to directly reverse the problem, just (locally) mitigate some of the consequences, that could be done unilaterally by a state. E.g. stratospheric aerosol injection (less glamorous but a much cheaper than parking sunlight-filtering-satellites between the earth and the sun). > Unlike the control of greenhouse gas emissions, which must be undertaken by all major emitting nations to be effective and is likely to be costly, geoengineering could be undertaken quickly and unilaterally by a single party, at relatively low cost. Unilateral geoengineering, however, is highly likely to impose costs on other countries and run risks with the entire planet’s climate system. https://www.cfr.org/content/thinktank/GeoEng_Jan2709.pdf https://www.cfr.org/content/thinktank/GeoEng_Jan2709.pdf