Let me clarify something first: I think the evidence holds that the negative effects of mankind’s carbon-producing activities, OUTSIDE of that carbon production, are severe enough that there is cause enough to end these activities anyway. Cars, one could argue, are infrastructure hogs, destroy communities and social bonds, promote a economic structure based around large, impersonal retailers, are contributing factors in the dual epidemics of asthma and diabetes, create massive acreage due to parking spaces, 5/6 of which would still be empty if every car was parked at once. Then there’s our buildings, which have to have A/C or they overheat, and need heat because they leak so much, not to mention that they’re placed and oriented for reasons not at all related to the factors that have influenced building placement since the dawn of construction: Where the sun, the wind, and the water are. These buildings, and these automobiles, need much more continuous natural resource input than is necessary and more than should be desired.

Thus, we have a situation where we can easily name many negatives from the same activities that are causing our current global warming situation. The author’s response to this is to attempt to modify the climate of the entire globe to prevent potentially disastrous effects from occurring. If I may be so bold as to point out the error with this: The reason we are in this situation is because we thought that we could control nature with A/Cs and central heat and, for the first time in history, disregarding where the sun was at what time of day. Attempting to further control the climate by whatever scheme seems most feasible to a group of insular, arrogant scientists (A complaint I’ve NEVER leveled against the scientific community until this point) and an equally confused group of public policy makers will not end well.

Especially since it seems to me that modifying our behavior so that we do not emit all this carbon will have many beneficial effects. Now, I would never argue for a second that we should suddenly decide to “live without,” but I do think that selling the idea of efficiency as equivalent to strength would be more cost-effective, certainly less dangerous, and it would have positive effects even if global warming truly was a freight train with no brakes. None of these things could be said about geo-engineering.

Last, I would like to make a claim that has little to no scientific background behind it: I think the Earth will heal itself faster than we think if we would only stop poisoning it daily. There was a fantastic study done about the air quality in the days following 9/11 when the flights were grounded and significantly fewer people were driving. The air was surprisingly clear and clean after only one day. Obviously, this is a cleanliness issue, and not CO2, and it’s also a piece of evidence with many different potential causes, but it’s still a significant question: How fast can the Earth make itself better?

I suggested it might be that: 1) We’ve waited so long to deal appropriately with global warming that the only sane response might be insanely drastic geoengineering measures; and 2) Given the enormous challenges of getting everyone to agree about what to do, maybe nothing will be done at all, and the consequences could be horrifically tragic.

Is that anywhere close to your thinking?