Thank you Tom. Your suggestion here to write a paper replying to this sociology piece is excellent. I would be happy to help.
As your point implies, if it is established that sunlight reflection is required to avoid tipping points, arguments against geoengineering become arguments in favour of allowing the catastrophic destruction involved in tipping points. That is a matter of high moral seriousness in terms of planning action to minimise future suffering and biodiversity loss. The motives and reasons for such destructive opinions really need to be analysed more vigorously. Given the role of albedo loss in enabling tipping points, rejecting action to rebrighten the Earth by restoring albedo constitutes support for a new Dark Age. I am interested in how this Dark Age perspective has evolved as a form of neo-Marxism, in the context of apocalyptic tribal psychology and the hypocritical rejection of rationality from people whose religious mantra is ‘follow the science’. Regards Robert Tulip From: [email protected] <[email protected]> On Behalf Of Tom Jackson Sent: Friday, 13 March 2026 2:52 AM To: [email protected] Cc: H simmens <[email protected]>; healthy-planet-action-coalition <[email protected]>; Planetary Restoration <[email protected]>; geoengineering <[email protected]> Subject: [prag] Re: [geo] RE: [HPAC] Why do actors oppose the development and use of solar Geoengineering technologies Hi All, I am considering creating a paper or article which systematically responds to points made by Bruggnik et.al <http://et.al> . Her paper is a sociological analysis of opposition to SRM, not an evaluation of technology, or why it may be required to avoid tipping points. Anybody interested in co-authoring? Thanks! Tom Jackson a sociological analysis of opposition to SRM, not a comprehensive evaluation of the technology On Wed, Mar 11, 2026 at 7:04 PM <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > wrote: Hi Herb Thanks for sharing this. I was listening today to Nate Hagen’s latest podcast <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ArHrLzkJm_k&t=3832s> , on Human Exceptionalism, where these arguments against geoengineering came up. I have attached a comment I made at the YouTube link. The problem with this paper by Biermann et al is that these ideological opponents of geoengineering have seriously confused ideas about ethics and science. Many just fail to recognise that if we do not restore albedo we face inevitable collapse. And as Eliot Jacobson explained <https://groups.google.com/g/healthy-planet-action-coalition/c/WlITGE4bHL8/m/P4onueAtAAAJ> in my illuminating conversation with him, many think collapse would be a good thing, so don’t want to delay it by reflecting sunlight. None of their arguments stack up as a case to ban testing. They are literally condemning the world to a new dark age. What this all means is that these opponents are outside the frame of effective constituencies for climate action. As such, it may be best to ignore them, and focus instead on allying with people who want to achieve a realistic path to stabilising the planetary climate. The strong influence of these anti-cooling ideas means what is needed is to construct a well-funded advocacy program that can combat the disinformation they spread in the public domain. Regards Robert Tulip From: [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > On Behalf Of H simmens Sent: Thursday, 12 March 2026 2:57 AM To: healthy-planet-action-coalition <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> >; Planetary Restoration <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> >; geoengineering <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > Subject: [HPAC] Why do actors oppose the development and use of solar Geoengineering technologies A recently published paper describes eight reasons why the authors claim that opposition to solar geoengineering is growing. Unless those supportive of direct cooling can mount convincing arguments against these concerns supporters of cooling will remain on the defensive. I am not aware of any paper or article that attempts to systematically respond to each of these concerns. “Why do actors oppose the development and potential future use of solar geoengineering technologies? This article maps and analyzes growing opposition to the development of planetary-scale solar geoengineering technologies among three actor groups—govern- ments, civil society and academics. While much social science research on such technolo- gies has addressed questions of feasibility, acceptance, legality, the desirability of more research or hypothetical governance designs, hardly any empirical analyses exist of the opposition to these technologies. Drawing on numerous policy documents, civil society declarations and academic statements, this article identifies eight diverse rationales that underpin current opposition from governments, intergovernmental bodies, civil society and academic communities to solar geoengineering. These rationales include: concerns about: risks and uncertainties of potential solar geoengineering schemes, their failure to address the root causes of climate change, risks of delaying mitigation, likely violations of international law, entrenchment of unjust power relations, presumed ungovernability, technological hubris, and the violation of the Earth’s integrity. Our analysis also finds evi- dence of cross-fertilization among these rationales and a gradual normalization of a global‘non-use’ discourse. Overall, these critical perspectives increasingly shape the normative and political terrain within which solar geoengineering is being deliberated.” https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s10584-026-04131-6.pdf -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Healthy Planet Action Coalition (HPAC)" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> . To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/healthy-planet-action-coalition/35734EAD-B6FF-4761-B42B-54282A33D6DC%40gmail.com <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/healthy-planet-action-coalition/35734EAD-B6FF-4761-B42B-54282A33D6DC%40gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer> . -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "geoengineering" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> . To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/00ec01dcb1c4%248b080fe0%24a1182fa0%24%40rtulip.net <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/00ec01dcb1c4%248b080fe0%24a1182fa0%24%40rtulip.net?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer> . -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Planetary Restoration" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> . To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/planetary-restoration/CADCoCqg0VyK9EZ2T%3DoBNzOBPCT88BDy%3D8SpUEGnEfe%3D1BxyPWw%40mail.gmail.com <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/planetary-restoration/CADCoCqg0VyK9EZ2T%3DoBNzOBPCT88BDy%3D8SpUEGnEfe%3D1BxyPWw%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer> . -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "geoengineering" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/017201dcb46e%2433e35150%249ba9f3f0%24%40rtulip.net.
