Just because a family wants to investigate fire insurance for their house does not mean that they are set on burning down their house or that they love to play with fire. There should be a robust debate as to the scientific validity of projections that either we can mitigate our way out of the current crisis of GHG buildup or not. If there is even a small chance that the latter is the case, then should not the community of science and policy be thinking about what the options are? Obviously, most all thoughtful people hold that lifestyle changes that strongly favor sustainable patterns, an economy based on saner use of energy, and population numbers in balance with resources would be far preferable to the risks of geo-engineering. The question is whether one should have available fallback approaches if these steps prove seriously inadequate.
Print
