I agree. I think we should be discussing geoengineering. Outside of technical feasibility, I believe there are two arguments against doing geoengineering: - It

I agree. I think we should be discussing geoengineering. Outside of technical feasibility, I believe there are two arguments against doing geoengineering: - It'll reduce the motivation to transition. You can imagine the current politicians and lobbies against climate change trotting out an argument along the lines of we don't need to transition because we have geoengineering. - The second argument which holds more weight I think is that it creates a time bomb. You need to continue increasing the amount of geoengineering that's happening. I believe the name for this is "termination shock": all the pent up warming happens in a much smaller time scale which could have massive unintended consequences. "The Risk of Termination Shock From Solar Geoengineering" https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/2017EF000735 https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/201...