Comment & Debate
Samuel Thernstrom. “What Role for Geoengineering?” The American. March 2, 2010: “intuitively, it seems more likely that most people, when told about geoengineering, would be more inclined to support greater mitigation, not less, thinking: If such extreme measures are really being contemplated, surely we ought to more aggressively pursue other solutions. Imagine, for instance, you were unable to control a potentially serious medical condition through diet and exercise—you want to, but lack the will power or the workout equipment you need—so after a while, your physician prescribes a medication that carries the risk of serious side effects while only treating some of your underlying condition. Wouldn’t you redouble your commitment to diet and exercise? In fact, focus groups held in England as part of a study conducted by the Royal Society seem to confirm that hypothesis, with participants—particularly self-identified climate skeptics—reporting that consideration of geoengineering would be a galvanizing factor, not a cause for complacency, on their part.”