I believe your question is insinuating that pollution is branded as such and is really an experiment? I don't follow.. can you expand on that or clarify?
But first please answer their question before shifting the conversation.
People care, but they care in such a backwards way that the rule is apparently "you can hurt, but don't you dare try to help!"
Clearly, if anything, the move is to re-brand geoengineering as "normal pollution". It wouldn't even be hard: every 737 emits 500 grams of SO2 in less than 100 miles, and not a peep!
And I dispute, "but don't you dare try to help", since you it's not known it helps.
These experiments / solar geo-engineering / terraforming may hurt.
There's justifications for Mexico to stop these experiments, do you agree or disagree?
> And I dispute, "but don't you dare try to help", since you it's not known it helps.
The critical word is "try."
Apparently, the rule is that your intent is all that matters. If you're trying to profit, it's pollution and it's fine. If you intend to help, all hell breaks loose.
Exxon can burn down the world, but utter the words "geoengineering" and you can't so much as swat a fly.
I'm not saying this is logical or correct. I'm just saying that these appear to be the rules as constrained by (not always rational) public opinion.
> There's justifications for Mexico to stop these experiments, do you agree or disagree?
There are justifications both "for" and "against" (like any complex real-world issue), but the public debate has been extremely skewed.
An experiment is limited in time, serves no purpose but knowledge acquisition, and can fail. When you burn coal to heat your people, you're not gonna fail, and people are gonna last one more day, they can accept the compromise.
A foreign startup trying something before saying "sorry lol didnt work, good luck" is not gonna convince many to try.
> A foreign startup trying something before saying "sorry lol didnt work, good luck" is not gonna convince many to try.
It won't seriously deter them either. The public outcry over even the attempt is a more concerning deterrent.
> When you burn coal to heat your people, you're not gonna fail
Tell that to Texas.
> people are gonna last one more day, they can accept the compromise.
This is the meat and potatoes right here.
Yes, people tend to overvalue immediate visible benefits and undervalue long-term costs (like the climate 100 years hence) or invisible benefits (like gaining scientific knowledge by performing insignificant-scale geoengineering tests).
People are irrational. This is known. We should strive to be less irrational.
So it's okay do do experiments with the atmosphere, as long as you re-brand them as "pollution" instead of as "experiments"?
(and of course, organizationally separate the scientists performing the data collection/analysis steps)