"Solar geoengineering doesn’t help reduce carbon emissions, and is founded on reckoning with the distressing possibility that reduction strategies won’t be enough."

LINK

"On paper, carbon capture is a simple proposition: Take carbon that we’ve pulled out of the Earth in the form of coal and oil and put into the atmosphere, and pull it out of the atmosphere and put it back in the Earth. It’s like hitting undo on the Industrial Revolution. And scientists can indeed yank CO2 out of thin air, except that the process is expensive, not very efficient, and morally complicated."

LINK

"Had to reference Paul Heyne’s famous essay, “Are Economists Basically Immoral?” Your tl;dr to both questions is no, they are not, but like any group some members can get a bit silly. Once you forgive me for abusively clickbaiting you, I hope you’ll feel fairly compensated if I lay out how the moral hazard argument works in climate change discussions in light of three main intellectual currents: mitigation, adaptation, and geoengineering."

LINK

Lawford-Smith, H.; Currie, A. (2017): Accelerating the carbon cycle: the ethics of enhanced weathering. In Biology letters 13 (4). DOI: 10.1098/rsbl.2016.0859

"We argue that ethical concerns have a place alongside empirical, political and social factors as we consider how to best respond to the critical challenge that anthropogenic climate change poses. We review these concerns, considering the ethical issues that arise (or would arise) in the large-scale deployment of enhanced weathering. We discuss post-implementation scenarios, failures of collective action, the distribution of risk and externalities and redress for damage."

LINK