Last year, a private company proposed “fertilizing” parts of the ocean with iron, in hopes of encouraging carbon-absorbing blooms of plankton. Meanwhile, researchers elsewhere are talking about injecting chemicals into the atmosphere, launching sun-reflecting mirrors into stationary orbit above the earth or taking other steps to reset the thermostat of a warming planet. This technology might be useful, even life-saving. But it would inevitably produce environmental effects impossible to predict and impossible to undo.
Is that so, glib technologically-challenged scare-mongering New York Times writer? But wait: if the effects are impossible to predict, how can you say with certainty that they’re impossible to undo? If the byproduct of solar mirrors is that a cooler full of banana daquiris magically appears on the doorstep of every American household (for example), I think we’d have a way to remediate that (as they say in the environmental impact business).