@PaulWermer Biofuels don't even make sense on a purely carbon basis, unless they're very small scale. The biodiversity and climate crises have separate aspects but they feed into each other; drawdown is impossible if we use most of our farm land for biofuels and feeding cattle. See e.g. Monbiot on grass fed beef, while for biofuels themselves, solar panels use hundreds of times less land for the same number of bus miles.

Personally I believe we need to research SRM, and also pass a treaty that bans its practical deployment at scale without a UN Security Council resolution (and the scientific governance needed etc, but first and foremost, it should be treated as seriously as invading a country). And also bans commercial SRM, and especially using it for carbon credits.

Plenty of research on the topic is pretty negative. Having said that, termination shock **is already happening**, because we've accidentally geoengineered on both sides (carbon and aerosols) for centuries.

However the big issue is moral hazard. The reality is that politicians will use *ANYTHING*, even good things, as an excuse for yet more carbon emissions. And they will use things that don't exist at any scale as an excuse for more carbon emissions.

Because the fossil fuel industry pays, and it's the politicians' job to find excuses in order to 1) posture to a small part of the electorate that they're not the hippies who care about the future (even though the majority support action) and/or that economic growth is more important, 2) pretend that lifestyle changes (and even infrastructure changes!) won't be needed, 3) save a handful of jobs in dinosaur industries without having to do state intervention outside of the dirty industries where anti-state-intervention ideology somehow doesn't apply and 4) preserve campaign contributions from fossil fuel interests.

Whether it's SRM (should be last resort), biofuels (net carbon emissions at scale), carbon markets (generally problematic, numerous reports), e-fuels / true synthetic fuels (niche case, won't allow us to continue mass flying any time soon), hydrogen in implausible use cases (e.g. home heating) ... there's always another excuse to continue drilling more oil, flying, eating beef, delaying the transition to heat pumps etc.

It's not business as a whole; some businesses are much better at lobbying than others. In general those businesses are the bad guys, because their whole business model depends on destroying their customers and/or the planet, and therefore depends on lying a lot, usually with the complicity of politicians. So fossil fuels, tobacco etc.