I'm not sure that this author hasn't got the cart before the horse. It is more than likely that, like scientists and other rent-seekers, the innovators drummed up the human-cause theory of climate change to get money for their innnovations.

I would agree with Leigh that this is more about technologists earning money for stuff that would not normally be considered. As far as reducing CO2 emissions in concerned, the only item mentioned that matters is nuclear energy.. the rest is nice but will have no affect inside several decades..

Paint costs money -- less in bulk, to be sure, but still a considerable sum. It also requires regular re-application, which is labour-intensive and uses resources which could be put to work elsewhere. I wonder if the author of this blithe proposal has actually bothered to work out how much it would cost annually?

Any long-term reader of New Scientist or Scientific American knows how many wonderful-sounding research proposals there are around at grant time, and how few of them have made a real difference ten years later. Let's have experimentation and innovation by all means, as long as the people who stand to make the profits are also the ones who bear the costs.