And I read it as a cautious, logical, and an example of insightful forethought. By limiting research, we may miss the opportunity to effect some real and reasonable change. Discussion and study, and all use of such terminology as "may be considered" or "could be feasible" means just that. It is not an admission that such a program is active.
We as Americans are usually considered in the lead for both science and impact. To stop studying that impact would be taking giant leaps backward away from making a positive, or at least best, outcome.

As did I. But the wording implicating "emergency measures" always makes my skin crawl.

Do you think the UN is preventing the possibility of false flag enviornmental issues?

Just a thought.

Also, why would the UN carry out such a directive knowing the US/UK are such leaders in the climate change crisis? Would they not join in and say "Why, yes, we will certainly contribute in any way we can?"

This stinks to high heaven.

I was thinking something along these lines last night, pondering over an article about global warming, and how serious it is thought to be by some people.

Then I thought about what some people are saying about the ocean currents that help control our climate, and the Gulf oil geyser. And what if they let it leak on purpose. It did go on way longer than necessary. Not saying they did this on purpose, or to cool down the warming, but this is a conspiracy sight, and if I had this horrible thought.......

And then there's chemtrails and cloudseeding.

From the OP's article:

Climate engineering carries with it a tremendous range of uncertainties and possibilities, ethical and political concerns, and the potential for catastrophic side effects," Gordon said, adding, "If we find ourselves passing an environmental tipping point, we will need to have done research to understand our options."

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration should lead research into ocean fertilization and injecting sulfates into the stratospheric ozone layer, the report states, while the Energy Department should direct high-end computing geoengineering research and "any federal research program into air capture and non-traditional carbon sequestration."