This is the authors' abstract. We don't add key points for this paper.
The current literature on assessing climate change response options does not sufficiently distinguish between assessing options in terms of their feasibility and in terms of their desirability. One example of this is the IPCC feasibility assessment framework. We argue that assessments of climate response options should indeed cover questions of desirability, but they should do so explicitly. Transparency about underlying normative standards is the key to a productive desirability assessment.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Tank et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: