Decreasing the total energy exposure of the complete biosphere to reduce temperature rise sounds risky to me.<p>Yes, it might not become as warm, but especially plants need sunlight for photosynthesis / oxygen production. If we deny the plants that energy the ripple effect throughout the biosphere will be huge.
That's not a solution, that's madness.<p>Alternative solution. Stop worshiping economic growth. Fade out fossil fuels in energy (atomic), industry and transport (trains). Stop animal agriculture (30% of all habitable land), and reforest the grazing lands (double the forest area). Enable rewilding of nature (anthropocene) and repopulation of the oceans (90% of sharks now already gone).<p>But that would require a will to really do something. It's easier to spray some poisons into the atmosphere, I suppose.
I agree with this research proposal but I'd be lying if I didn't say using this as a strategy moving forward to mitigate climate change didn't absolutely terrify me.<p>The best and only way I agree with this is some sort of maneuverable lagrange-point satellite mirror. That way if we find we are totally fucking the environment we can reverse it immediately.