There has been such a sudden interest in geoengineering as a solution because “human inertia” is a huge problem that needs to be solved in order to actually reverse climate change on a wide scale. So, why try to change humans when it’s much easier to change a less-stubborn problem? I would definitely say geoengineering is a techno-fix because climate change is a social problem. It wouldn’t be such a social problem if the majority of people saw value in researching cleaner solutions to what we have. Hamilton says in the article that we have failed to reduce greenhouse gases despite full acknowledgement of the consequences (Hamilton, 2). While I do think geoengineering is a viable solution to climate change, I believe it should be a last resort, because not only do sulfate particles dissipate somewhat quickly, but they result in poor air quality. So, if the world does decide to go this route, climate change might reverse just a little bit, but at the detriment of clean air and quality of life.
I would much rather our entire world not have the same air quality forever that California has been experiencing due to the fires. I’m very much happy to wear a mask to protect mine and others’ health during a pandemic, but I really don’t want to have to wear a mask for the rest of my life. I’m hoping we start electing politicians to government that truly care about reversing climate change so we don’t see this future come to fruition, either in our lifetime or future lifetimes.