Climate change is an issue that is likely to remain unsettled for an indefinite period of time.

The geosystem is too big for us to understand at present with our puny minds and primitive computers.

If we are experiencing a catastrophic climate change, there is little doubt that the last humans left alive on the planet will still be debating and denying it.

But suppose we did discover that global climate change is occurring and there is the likelihood of a catastrophic future. What would we do?

There are several lines of mediation that geoengineers are studying. One is reducing the sunlight that reaches Earth's surface by reflecting it from mirrors in space or on the ground, or by dispersing reflective particles in the atmosphere. Another is removing pollutants such as carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxides or whatever is deemed to be a cause that can be efficaciously mediated. A third is to reduce emissions and pollutants so that natural processes can re-establish a cooler equilibrium.

The first two present technical problems but are doable. The third presents sociopolitical problems that are unlikely to be solved in the near future.

Beyond that are larger ethical and geopolitical concerns, many of which we might be unaware of until they present themselves.

For example, who decides what the global temperature should be, and what if one country decides to take mediation steps on its own?

Consider a scenario where a fictional country called Politzania desires to build the biggest possible arsenal against ecological disaster.

Politzania unilaterally decides to use its technology to increase the rainfall to its breadbasket by cooling it. It fails to take into account that making it cooler and wetter in one place ripples through the global climate system, causing effects elsewhere.

It turns out that the elsewhere is Psycholunia, another fictional country, where the climate becomes warmer and drier. Over the years food production there drops as prices and starvation increase.

Psycholunia might react by using its own cooling technology or developing a bigger, better one. At the least it increases political tension.

The scenario has the makings of a geoengineering arms race reminiscent of the nuclear arms race of the 20th century. There are sure to be unintended consequences no matter what the scenario, especially if the technologies are untested.

They will be untested. We don't have a duplicate Earth to use as a laboratory. Our models are incomplete and the lag time is great because the system is so big and so complex.

The only obvious solution is the one that we resist because it hurts so much. Reducing emissions is practicing good health, but we are not likely to make sacrifices there any more than we are willing to give up the burgers and fries.