You can joke about Trump, but he may get elected again. Which means this position won't change, at least for 9 months + let's say 1 year, potentially for 5 year

You can joke about Trump, but he may get elected again. Which means this position won't change, at least for 9 months + let's say 1 year, potentially for 5 years, and we don't know where we'll be then. > The majority of members advising the UN want it regulated, sure, and that's a sensible position due to unforeseen risks and the fossil fuel industry using a small amount of geoengineering that counters a portion of the problem as an excuse to double down on activity that continues to cause most of the problem. Yeah, but read between the lines: they don't want it regulated, they want it outlawed, and, at least to a significant extent. They want it outlawed, firstly because if it isn't outlawed their power will disappear. And secondly, because no matter how you change the climate, it'll have the same problem any large infrastructure seems to have. Geoengineering WILL be incredibly good for some regions (who therefore may choose the lone wolf approach), AND will have devastating consequences for other regions. Someone will benefit greatly, someone will suffer. And, frankly, if we're being honest ... "the West" (Europe/America/Russia/China/Northern Africa... even India) will benefit greatly, if we're honest. Africa and South America, and Indonesia will suffer. But of course there's the identified problem. A decent-sized city could undo global warming (amplifying it is actually harder) BY ITSELF. Something like London or Paris or New York definitely could do it with the city's budget and land, and maybe even something like Milan would be big enough. Which brings the question: countries like Congo will greatly benefit from stopping global warming. They can, if they want to. What do we do then? Because, ironically, if they stop global warming through geoengineering, it will be a huge problem for "the West".