Okay, that's not crazy. I have a few responses: 1. I think that you're probably underselling "stall all economic growth for centuries." It's not that differ

Okay, that's not crazy. I have a few responses: 1. I think that you're probably underselling "stall all economic growth for centuries." It's not that different from "kill all humans" (for example: it would be hugely globally destabilizing. The odds of nuclear war would go way, way, way up. For another example: it might well either restart exponential population growth like we had in the late 19th/early 20th centuries, or else cause a demographic death spiral). 2. It's pretty hard to believe that climate change is very likely to go right up to the edge of "stall economic growth" and not have a very significant chance of tipping over to worse scenarios. You already implicitly believe in some positive feedback cycles here. 3. It is actually pretty hard to imagine that specifically aerosolizing sulfur dioxide is going to cause really catastrophic consequences that global warming won't already. As other commenters have pointed out, volcanic eruptions cause massive sulfur releases already. If you believe that the environment is so, so, so sensitive to any changes that any change you might make is likely to cause spiraling destruction of the ecosystem, well, then doesn't it seem likely that our many existing changes have already sent us past the point of no return? Like, if we're making 100 changes on the scale of sulfur release (which we are), and one change much, much, much larger than sulfur release (carbon release), it seems a little unlikely that sulfur release is the straw that breaks the camel's back. There are some possibilities for nuance here! You can reasonably believe that, for example, ocean acidification is the bigger problem than temperature change per se, and sulfur release doesn't solve ocean acidification, and indeed may slightly (very, very, very slightly) contribute to it and more importantly may encourage people to regard carbon release as unproblematic and thus encourage more carbon use and thus more ocean acidification. But I don't usually see people making targeted critiques like the one above, the kind of critique that only applies to one specific proposal. It's usually just sort of a general reaction to anything other than reduction targets. And, honestly, reduction targets aren't going to work, guys. Not alone.