Answer:
In the second paragraph of the article, Kunzig presents the reasons put forth by supporters of geoengineering, such as the urgency of addressing climate change, the potential effectiveness of geoengineering, and the relatively low cost compared to other climate change mitigation strategies. However, he also presents the counterclaim from critics of geoengineering, who argue that it is risky, unproven, and could have unintended consequences that are difficult to predict. The critics also cite ethical concerns, as well as the potential for geoengineering to distract from efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
Kunzig notes that despite the differences in opinion, both sides seem to agree on one thing - that the climate crisis is real and that we need to take action to address it. However, the disagreement is on how best to do so, with one side advocating for geoengineering and the other side arguing for more traditional climate change mitigation strategies.
Paragraph 2 alerts the reader to Kunzig's purpose in writing the article by providing a brief overview of the debate surrounding geoengineering and highlighting the divergent views of supporters and critics. The paragraph also sets the stage for the rest of the article by presenting the central conflict and framing the debate as a nuanced and complex issue that requires further exploration
Step-by-step explanation: