There are more drastic ways to cool the planet and they're actually economically feasible too. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tJFtdvrTZs4 https://www.youtube.

There are more drastic ways to cool the planet and they're actually economically feasible too. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tJFtdvrTZs4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tJFtdvrTZs4 By no means are they safe or anything, the environmental impact is vast and with many unknowns. However at some point in the passing decades it will be unethical not to use them. The environmental damage of the continuing warming will be greater that the possible environmental damage of the geo-engineering methods. Therefore we will most likely use them. The 2 most practical methods that can be enacted by a single nation today are ocean fertilization to spur growth of oxygen producing plankton and spraying of reflective sulphur dioxide dust in the stratosphere, even if all the permafrost melts, methane in the atmosphere has a half life of only 7 years. The carbon is the main problem. At 1000 ppm we can still breathe despite the impact it has on our cognitive health. Most likely we'll offset that with massive tree planting at scale. Other carbon capture methods are not that scalable in my opinion. Wood is basically captured carbon, it makes great building material and certain species of it can grow pretty fast over and over again like bamboo which grows 91cm/3ft per day. Genetically modified derivatives of it are quite likely to be developed too.