This is an excellent post, thanks for putting it together and sharing here.

Separating stabilisation from mitigation makes sense: mitigation cuts emissions but takes a long time to have its full effect. Stabilisation works much faster, buying mitigation time while helping avoid crossing irreversible thresholds. I'd been considering stabilisation a subcategory of mitigation, but it's helpful to treat it as a category in its own right. That keeps a neglected area from getting lost against the already well-funded climate mitigation space.

I'm seeing more discussion on stabilisation (from Renaissance Philanthropy, ARIA, and orgs like SRM360), but not enough. Most of it still ends up polarised around geoengineering, which hinders productive outcomes. I hope this post raises awareness within the EA community and helps more rational, analytical perspectives emerge.