Because saying "geosequestration" makes thems sound like they have the problem under control. It's better than Tim Flannerys idea of "atmosulpherication" (think up a sexier sounding term and post here) to effectively shade the planet from nasty sunlight. I think the Chinese are experimenting with that in Beijing at the moment and it would be interesting to see what the ground temperature difference is in polluted Beijing vs clear sky Beijing. If they get it cleared up for the Olympics, we should all take very close note of teh temperatures and compare them to previous and future years.

It's a subsidy for the coal and gas industries. It allows them to be appear to be doing something while not doing anything at all, and allows us the public to feel something is being done which will not inconvenience us in any way whatsoever. Warm fuzzies.

If you're going to say that "they're spending money on it, so it must be a good idea", then you have to agree that CEOs really do deserve salaries in the tens of millions, that highways really do cost a year's wages a metre to build and are worth it, that Saddam had WMD, that a guy lending a mobile phone sim card to his rather amateurish terrorist cousin was worth spending more on than the cost of an MRI machine, that submarines which don't work and are in drydock half the time really are worth a couple of billion each, and so on.

Just because money is being spent on it doesn't mean it's a good idea.