If we had good leaders, instead of millions and billions on bombs, we'd be spending more on panels like this that suck water out of the air. Is it a panacea? Of course not, but it's a few times better than "bomb the places further back into the Stone Age" foreign policy we have going right now. Again, droughts etc, need to be mitigated, not ignored until the people flee or become desperate. The panels alone won't work, there would have to be a whole host of other projects, but it can be done. 

Not to say that we should give up on stopping the cause for climate change, but some change is baked in at this point. And to that end, climate activists, are the only ones connected to reality, so they're getting all the hate. Oh and are actually getting the brunt of surveillance tyranny (which the right is apparently screaming about when it comes to masks or getting vaxxed) when it matters to those with power [1]. 

So even though the Nobel goes to men who worked to improve our understanding of climate change, the ones with real money want to simply make more money while crushing any chance of resistance (see how trillions/billions were spent on saving the stock market, repo market, corporate debt, or more military spending receives absolutely no kickback from anyone anywhere, while the mention of a fraction of that over a decade for people suffering or for fighting CC is met with howls [2])

[1] Christ, I can't believe it, but having conversations with people in the Chomsky sub where they think Assange actually changed the outcome of the election in 2016 and the he is pro-trump. Never once stopping to think about how those with power see it (and that matters, unfortunately) and are having him tortured because of other leaks, not 2016. 

[2] Some of this is the media, but christ, on social media and the internets the conversation seems to go that way and I can only think of signal boosting as a major factor therein.