Thus the moral hazard. If geo-engineering were a major point in climate change discussions, some would feel a false sense of security. Ultimately, this could in

Thus the moral hazard. If geo-engineering were a major point in climate change discussions, some would feel a false sense of security. Ultimately, this could increase the odds of such drastic measures would be needed. The other thing is that we just can't know how much acidity it would take to cause an ecosystem collapse until it's too late. That said, sulfate aerosols are one of the oldest proposed plans and our technology has advanced considerably since then. Perhaps some people working on or funding work on a better solution are on reading this thread. I sure hope someone is quietly tackling it because the political efforts around CO2 emmissions agreements of the past 50 years are not working very well despite a great deal of activism.