It doesn't just "Make matters worse", it would be the end of all life on Earth. I can't say that strongly enough. Anyone who understands this also sees that all discussion and all industry on the matter is useless, a very dangerous waste of energy, more dangerous even than nuclear war.
Profit driven science doesn't understand this, far less investors, who just see a golden dangling carrot that they might jump onto, in an effort to consolidate the value of their capital.
Investor interest is the only thing required to validate an idea as a good one, in their eyes.
But if we see beyond that, it looks absolutely crazy, no matter how it is turned and spun.
Do the few people who have the power to make this happen even know or care that it affects everyone else, and all of life in the world, not just them? I would say no, the money & capital they might use to put towards this exercise isolates them from the vast majority, who don't have that money, but can see very clearly that the answer to the effects of pollution is not to add yet more pollution.
That would be like adding more petrol to an already burning fire, or more weapons to an already occurring war, or human massacre.
Of course its crazy but we already saw the last one in action, so can't rule anything out.
It looks like no matter how crazy an action by investors might be, it goes ahead anyway, "Suck it and see".
Any modification to the natural reflectivity of Earth has two effects worth thinking about.
1. All plants in all of nature supply energy to Earth, the energy that created everything, and all life we know, from the energy of the sun. What they supply to Earth is the result of a delicate equilibrium. Upest that, and all life ends, abruptly, within a few short years or less.
2. The orbital trajectory of Earth around the sun is again a result of a delicate equilibrium. Increasing the reflectivity of Earth will result in an increase of solar pressure on Earth from ths sun, with no change to centrifugal / gravitational forces to compensate, therefore our planet will be pushed away from the sun, off of our usual trajectory in an unrecoverable way, on a tangent from the sun.
We might think that effect would be negligible, but it is irreversible, there is no force we could use to compensate even a tiny change of one of these delicately balanced forces. Our planet would be on a course away from the sun from that point onwards. We might think the timescales of this would be away in the future, but all it takes is a few orbits around the sun with the new outward forces applied, and we would be on our way into darkness, like the stone out of a slingshot, so a few years at most.
Again all life ends abruptly.
So there is no valid argument for Geo-Engineering or climatic intervention, to try to save the planet.
If the object is to destroy the planet, then yes, its a great idea.
The only variable we have to play with, to try to save the planet, is how much energy from the sun we put to use, and so far, it isn't much, relative to the means in use to convert the materials and stored energies of Earth to energy for our consumption.
Because by substantially increasing solar energy put to use, we would need to monetise the product we added by the sun, such as clean fuel (Hydrogen), and food (Currently "Solein").
The only way to do that would be to issue free money to all people, who would surely invest in yet more solar production for their own use, with the ultimate result that pretty much all value in capital would be gone.
So the investors would lose their privelige relative to the rest of the population, but we would all have unlimited capability to create wealth.
They don't want that, of course.
This has been known since as far back as Nikola Tesla was defunded by JP Morgan, 120+ years ago, when it became clear Tesla was all for supplying free solar powered energy to all people.
Since then all of the wars and even nuclear weapons development could have been avoided, and Tesla, Einstein, and a stack of unknown geniuses who died of starvation in exploited countries in infancy might have been still with us, creating value, and we might even have been interplanetary by now.
The question is, now those in power with all of the capital are being forced to make a choice by the exponentially increasing effects of their own artificially created scarcity enforcement, including war, and impending climate disaster, are they willing to finally trash the planet to try to maintain their priveliged status?
https://eric-bott.medium.com/the-reason-why-degrowth-is-not-what-is-needed-4416025899a2
