There is an alternative : use technology to take control of the planet's climate. There are a number of papers investigating various means of controlling globa

There is an alternative : use technology to take control of the planet's climate. There are a number of papers investigating various means of controlling global temperature, from ships that blast water into the athmosphere, to using bombs to put reflective particles high in the athmosphere, and others. The advantage of this would be that such a system cannot be defeated by a single sizeable dissenter. Additionally, the big problem I would say most conservatives have with global warming policy is that it requires a global government with real authority, which they oppose (and I agree with that, freedom, democracy, transparency in government, human rights and the like are not exactly global values, rather the opposite. Any real move to a global government will worsen personal freedom, human rights, corruption and the like). The big disadvantage is legal and moral responsibility. What if we can make the Sahara a paradise, but only if we turn France (just a random example) into a desert, or say, Norway, Sweden and Finland into frozen wastelands ? What if we analyze things and conclude that locking global temperatures at the current, very high, levels is actually desirable ? Who gets to benefit at whose cost ? Does one person's significant disadvantage justify not improving a lot of people's lives ?