Geoengineering: Ban or Study?

At the recent meeting of the Convention on Biodiversity in Nagoya, member nations came out with the following statement concerning geoengineering:

"No climate-related geo-engineering activities that may affect biodiversity take place, until there is an adequate scientific basis on which to justify such activities and appropriate consideration of the associated risks for the environment and biodiversity and associated social, economic and cultural impacts, with the exception of small-scale scientific research studies [under controlled circumstances]."

It appears their primary goal is to prevent large scale tests of geoengineering.

In the same Times article, Bart Gordon, current chair of the House Committe on Science and Technology, is quoted as saying:

"Climate engineering carries with it a tremendous range of uncertainties and possibilities, ethical and political concerns, and the potential for catastrophic side effects. If we find ourselves passing an environmental tipping point, we will need to have done research to understand our options."

And the article's author, Bryan Walsh, says:

"Geoengineering is potentially dangerous—but so is climate change. Banning research in the field could deprive humanity of a last-ditch weapon should global warming spin out of control. And we'll never know how effective geoengineering could be—or how risky—unless scientists are allowed to do their work."