In Saturday’s New York Times, Thomas Homer-Dixon and David Keith had an op-ed on geoengineering. which had this interesting passage:

Navigating the worst could involve what scientists call geo-engineering — the intentional modification of the earth’s climate. Unfortunately, although specialist circles and blogs are alive with heated conversations about geo-engineering, the idea is so taboo that governments have provided virtually no research money. Most of these conversations focus on the idea of injecting sulfate particles into the stratosphere to screen out the sun’s radiation, as happens when volcanoes erupt. Also, most of the limited scientific research on geo-engineering has aimed to show why sulfate injections won’t work — like why they might damage the ozone layer or produce too much cooling and drying in places where we don’t want these changes.

Yes, it’s vital to have this “red team” of skeptics questioning geo-engineering. But we need more emphasis on a “blue team” to figure out what geo-engineering approaches might work, because we might need to move fast.

Why, we might ask, is it necessary to have such “red” and “blue” teams? Why can’t we just call people names — “Strangelovian Earth Destroyers” or “Neo-Con Earth Controllers” — and put them into nice neat political camps, so we don’t have to listen to their arguments? It worked against the adaptation advocates, and also those folks suggesting we need new technological innovation. Why not here? After all such debates can only get in the way of the obvious, desirable outcome, can’t they?

Red team and blue team. How silly.