There are good reasons to be concerned about geoengineering schemes. Potential issues include costs, unintended consequences, the fact that cooling schemes will not exactly offset the climate impact of increasing greenhouse gases (e.g., they can have non-canceling distributional effects on temperature and non-canceling effects on precipitation), and the fact that such schemes seem to require much tighter constraints on exactly what the magnitude of the effects of greenhouse gases are than is required to determine just that the problem is severe enough that we need to take actions to limit and eventually reduce our emissions.
This doesn’t mean that research should not be done into geoengineering schemes…It should. But, it shouldn’t be used as an excuse to actually reduce our emissions of greenhouse gases.
That theory seems rather overly simplistic. In fact, a few years ago (at least one time, mayble more) there was a move afoot (perhaps by some of the people now running that SUSPS organization) to run candidates for the Board of the Sierra Club who supported a more anti-immigration stand. And, the membership of the club has chosen not to elect those candidates. So, no, it isn’t just some wealthy donor forcing the directors of the club to not take an anti-immigration stand; it seems to be a large number of us members who don’t want them to take such a stand either.
And preventing immigration into our developed nation (like working to prevent the developing nations from developing and advancing) does not seem to many of us to be a very humane or even productive way to deal with issues of overuse of resources, greenhouse gas emissions, and the like. Hence, it is not surprising that environmental groups have not for the most part endorsed these strategies (although some anti-environmentalists have tried to paint environmental groups as doing so).