[bathyspheric]

I would say that there is a lot of interest in some quarters for this sort of solution, as it might mean that we could save the GBR without curtailing the energy industry. I think resistance to these ideas might be related to dealing with the symptoms; high ocean temperatures, rather than the causes; human-induced climate change. I support science-based evaluation of all these ideas, but without ignoring or addressing potential causes.

[dr_dshiv]

This makes sense. But surely they understand that, even if Australia went carbon neutral tomorrow, it would not be enough to cool the reef waters?

[bathyspheric]

Yeah sure, there is too much momentum in current climate changes for Australian policy to turn it around. But the argument that Australian emissions are tiny in comparison to US, India or China so we don't need to be a part of the global solution falls flat for me. If we can punch above our weight in trade or diplomatic spheres, surely we can do the same in climate-mitigation areas.

Where do you see resistance to these mitigation attempts like cloud brightening?