Geoengineering involves intentionally modifying the environment on a massive scale and is typically proposed as a last resort to prevent catastrophic harms caused by climate change. Critics argue that there are powerful moral reasons against researching, let alone undertaking, geoengineering. Perhaps most notably, Stephen Gardiner argues that even if we are forced to choose between allowing a climate catastrophe or geoengineering—and geoengineering is the less harmful option—it could still be the case that we ought not to geoengineer. This essay argues for a conditional: if we are indeed forced to choose between catastrophic environmental harm and the less harmful option of geoengineering, then we ought to geoengineer.

地球工程涉及有意大规模地改变环境，通常被提议作为防止气候变化造成的灾难性危害的最后手段。批评者认为，反对研究地球工程有强大的道德理由，更不用说从事地球工程了。也许最值得注意的是，斯蒂芬加德纳认为，即使我们被迫在允许气候灾难或地球工程之间做出选择——地球工程是危害较小的选择——我们仍然可能不应该进行地球工程。这篇文章提出了一个条件：如果我们确实被迫在灾难性的环境危害和危害较小的地球工程选择之间做出选择，那么我们应该进行地球工程。