I suspect that your bias is showing here. From my perspective, "geoengineering" is a far less politically radioactive framing than "climate repair". "Engineering" is a very generic word these days. "Software Engineers" are ubiquitous, certainly, but even your friendly neighborhood garbage man or school janitor may proudly list "sanitation engineer" or "custodial engineer" on a business card. We all know it's a polite euphemism for a dirty job, but someone has to do it so why not grant them a little added dignity?
OTOH, "Climate Repair" immediately implies blame. You're having to repair something that someone broke. You may regard anthropogenic climate change as settled science, but it certainly isn't settled politics. Accepting that framing would IMMEDIATELY open the flood gates to "climate reparations" lawsuits and political attack ads of one party saying "The other party broke it, we're going to repair their mess". No rational political party will readily accept blame for "breaking the world".
It's also a less optimistic framing. "Climate Repair" only promises to take us back to some state of affairs no one living has ever experienced. "Geoengineering" might be a little megalomaniacal, but asserting human sovereignity over the natural world is the kind of concept that's forward looking, generally popular with broad swathes of the public, and naturally opens the door to a healthy debate about "What IS the 'optimal' climate we should aim for?"
You're not likely to get the Climate Cult onboard anyway, so perhaps give more consideration to what language is likely to get you bipartisan support from the Right side of the aisle.
Their science editor Oliver Morton is probably the single most influential Climate Repair advocate out there. It was his book that got me obsessed with this stuff in the first place:
I suspect that your bias is showing here. From my perspective, "geoengineering" is a far less politically radioactive framing than "climate repair". "Engineering" is a very generic word these days. "Software Engineers" are ubiquitous, certainly, but even your friendly neighborhood garbage man or school janitor may proudly list "sanitation engineer" or "custodial engineer" on a business card. We all know it's a polite euphemism for a dirty job, but someone has to do it so why not grant them a little added dignity?
OTOH, "Climate Repair" immediately implies blame. You're having to repair something that someone broke. You may regard anthropogenic climate change as settled science, but it certainly isn't settled politics. Accepting that framing would IMMEDIATELY open the flood gates to "climate reparations" lawsuits and political attack ads of one party saying "The other party broke it, we're going to repair their mess". No rational political party will readily accept blame for "breaking the world".
It's also a less optimistic framing. "Climate Repair" only promises to take us back to some state of affairs no one living has ever experienced. "Geoengineering" might be a little megalomaniacal, but asserting human sovereignity over the natural world is the kind of concept that's forward looking, generally popular with broad swathes of the public, and naturally opens the door to a healthy debate about "What IS the 'optimal' climate we should aim for?"
You're not likely to get the Climate Cult onboard anyway, so perhaps give more consideration to what language is likely to get you bipartisan support from the Right side of the aisle.
Quico, I found it interesting that the Economist is upping its talk of climate repair, though still using old terminology. Still, that’s hopeful?
A place to talk about cooling the Earth
https://www.economist.com/the-world-ahead/2024/11/20/a-place-to-talk-about-cooling-the-earth
from The Economist
Their science editor Oliver Morton is probably the single most influential Climate Repair advocate out there. It was his book that got me obsessed with this stuff in the first place:
https://press.princeton.edu/books/hardcover/9780691148250/the-planet-remade?srsltid=AfmBOorUFGldMSpv2PiTEwMgrjubKouRgpV1Zdlw2T0ytZDy_j3ssG7j
It’s a little dated now, and too narrowly focused on the stratospheric aerosol stuff, but still well worth a read.
Ah, yes, I have read that Oliver Norton book, but I hadn't connected the name.
Thanks for all you are doing, Quico.