 There was recently a proposal by the United Nations to basically slow down the development of geoengineering, which was blocked by the United States and Saudi Arabia. Because actually, petrochemical companies, they support geoengineering. They're fine with climate change being accepted. And they're very happy with, really, surprisingly, they're okay with the narrative that the biggest environmental challenge is rising levels of greenhouse gases. Because if you isolate and contain the problem in that way, then theoretically, if you find some way to remove greenhouse gases from the air through carbon capture technologies, for example, I mean, people are inventing all kinds of machines to do that. Or if you can counteract global warming by spraying the sky to make it lighter, to make it reflect more sunlight, then you can keep on doing business as usual. You can continue burning fossil fuels, no problem. So basically, geoengineering is a kind of, it fits right into the mindset of sustainability, in the sense of sustaining things as they are right now. It prevents us from having to face any kind of deeper change, making any fundamental change in the way that we're living on earth and the way that we're relating to earth. It's just adding another technology onto the pile of technology, increasing our control over the rest of nature, mitigate or addressing the consequences of our technologies of control by adding even more control. So it's not actually a change. It's just more of the same intensified. Personally, I think that the climate crisis is asking us to make a change, that it is an initiation for our civilization, and that these geoengineering schemes are going to bring the same results as previous technologies of control have brought, which is a need for even more of it, just as chemical agriculture creates the need for even more chemicals as weeds and insects develop resistance, as the soil gets so depleted that it needs even more and more inputs in order to grow crops. So each failure or limit that technology creates invites even more technology to compensate for the damage that it's been done. So geoengineering is of that same mindset, not a departure from the way we've been doing things. And that's why it is fairly agreeable to those whose job it is to guard the status quo, to administer the status quo. It is not, they kind of like it. It's part of that engineering mentality that we are going to impose our will upon the earth. We're going to make the entire planet into our engineering project. The result will be unintended consequences, as always, and these unintended consequences will be horrific. What could possibly go wrong? I mean, I could say a couple things that could go wrong if we reduce, if we increase the reflectivity of the sky to sunlight, then we are locked into that forever, because as soon as we stop, then there is going to be a really rapid rise in temperature. So once we start, we have to keep going forever. It's like a nuclear reactor. Once you get it going, you have to keep that cooling system running. And if there's a tsunami or a power outage and the backup system fails and the cooling system stops, then kaboo kablooey. So you're kind of locked into this technological maintenance of the world forever. And another thing that could happen is like, well, let me just say that we have no idea what in a complex system, with emergent properties and a high degree of nonlinearity, we have no idea what the effects of this would be. We don't understand even cloud formation that well. It's only in the last few years that we've understood the role of bacteria in cloud formation. We don't understand. So by making these massive interventions, these are basically massive experiments. And we have no way of knowing what the consequences are. This is not to say that we never do anything in nature, that we never intervene. But as I was saying before, in the context of agriculture or permaculture, this requires intimate knowledge and longstanding observation so that we can begin to know. And it comes from the question, what does the totality want? What does the soil want that includes all of its beings? What does the forest want that can include ourselves too and the people who live there? Then that's a very different kind of intervention than to make industrial scale massive disruptions in the atmosphere or another proposals to dump iron oxide into the oceans. There's various proposals that are being actively researched and they sit comfortably in the way things are because if they work, we don't really have to make any changes.