I had never heard the term “geo-engineering” before reading these two pieces. The prospect is frightening, because as I read the article from the Atlantic, I thought geo-engineering seemed like such a great solution. The prospect of cooling the earth and preserving the climate the way it is now was so appealing, I didn’t stop to think about any consequences of geo-engineering methods until reading the excerpts from the book. It would be very easy for a wealthy individual to take the matter if climate change into their own hands without fully considering the repercussions of such drastic measures.
I think it was a smart move to keep the idea of geo-engineering out of the public eye for so long. As the book mentions, humans in developed countries are so comfortable, of course they would choose any alternate method of controlling carbon emissions and global temperatures over reducing their luxuries. I know personally it’s difficult to make sustainable, earth-friendly choices, and our society does not make it any easier. I lean with the Soterian view, to use the words of Hamilton. That being said, it is apparent that we are quickly reaching a point of no return, and large scale manipulation of the climate may be our only chance to preserve human culture. I hesitate to support geo-engineering however, because usually when people start to manipulate and become involved in natural processes other living beings suffer.
Whatever the final decision about geo-engineering is, it should be made collectively, with the support of as many nations as possible. Not everyone will agree, and for good reason some nations will oppose, but the more people on board the more effective the transition. I would only hope that in addition to geo-engineering, methods to cut down on carbon emissions continue to be funded and pursued. The politics behind climate change are so complicated, it makes me glad I am not in a position of power, having to make big decisions on the behalf of others.