Unrelated to the article, but related to the title: I'm a firm believer that there's real geoengineering which I think is a valiant effort and could be benefici

Unrelated to the article, but related to the title: I'm a firm believer that there's real geoengineering which I think is a valiant effort and could be beneficial, and then there's the capitalist geoengineering which I think will have huge negative effects. What's the difference? What I'm referring to as the capitalist is you take a model that scientists have created, you apply as the contractor for a geoengineering solution using these studies to back a real approach, then after getting the deal there's revision after revision made where corners are cut, things are done half-assed, and plans aren't fully followed, which can include anything from (for example with artificial clouds) changing the particulate substance to one that wasn't recommended/studied, patenting a particulate/procedure so nobody else can implement this, reducing or increasing particulate amounts deviating away from the recommendation, incorrect particulate dispersion timing, incorrect particulate dispersion weather, etc, etc. Not to mention overcharging and bureaucratic nonsense that will delay implementations and potentially throw off results/effectiveness.