4 ms·

I'm asking this honestly and in good faith: When do we start demanding SO2 injection? How much more of this are we going to try to brush off before we decide

• 0_____0 3y ago
  What makes you think geoengineering is going to solve more problems than it introduces?
  • alexose 3y ago
    1) It's been known since at least 2018 that the sudden reduction in SO2 pollutants has been contributing to a spike in surface warming https://esd.copernicus.org/preprints/esd-2018-83/esd-2018-83.pdf https://esd.copernicus.org/preprints/esd-2018-83/esd-2018-83... 2) While imperfect, there is some historical record of how this process plays out via volcanic eruptions 3) SAI is never going to perfectly solve all problems associated with carbon pollution. But it doesn't need to be perfect-- just better than the alternative.
    • 0_____0 3y ago
      I don't really doubt the technical side, but what do you think will happen when a country proposes SO2 injection? It's a global solution to a set of localized issues that not all countries face, there will certainly be objection from countries who think their atmosphere, climate, agriculture will be negatively affected. You can point to North American forests and say "look! we must solve this!" and other nations would rightly point out that poor forestry practices contributed to the issue, and that historically much of that forest land would have burned with regularity without humanity's help. I don't see how you could form consensus behind this approach. The alternative is world war.
      • alexose 3y ago
        I'm not sure I subscribe to this argument given that countries are already polluting massive amounts of CO2 (and SO2, until about five years ago), and nobody seems to be going to war over it. There are massive issues of equity wrapped up in maintaining the status quo as well as trying something different. I would also point out that megafires are not the only symptom. Drought, floods, heat waves, hurricanes, and sea level rise are all driven by a warming planet. Surely there is a break even point where it's worth taking on additional risk in order to mitigate some of these problems. Getting back to my original question: Where is that break-even? Maybe there simply isn't one, and we'd rather collectively go down with the ship.
• theandrewbailey 3y ago
  Never. SO2 is an environmental pollutant, is a major cause of acid rain, and is toxic for human, animal, and plant health. You don't mention the problems that this might solve (less incoming solar radiation, maybe?), but purposeful exposure to sulfur dioxide is much worse.
  • ceejayoz 3y ago
    That's why the proposals are to put it in the stratosphere, and one of the big benefits of SO2 versus other chemicals is the planet naturally does the same thing during big eruptions; we thus have some significant experimental evidence on how it degrades and affects ecosystems. https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/ab94eb https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/ab94eb posits that moving off coal as an energy source drops SO4 in the atmosphere so precipitously that geoengineering would largely just keep it at the current baseline (Figure 1).
    • selimthegrim 3y ago
      Do you like having an ozone layer?
      • ceejayoz 3y ago
        Again, Figure 1 claims levels would remain at current levels, due to the reduction in coal use. We'd have the same ozone layer we have today.
        • selimthegrim 3y ago
          Then how would we get any temperature reduction?
          • selimthegrim 3y ago
            Ok I got it the comparison is to ozone stability at current sulfur inputs from shipping emissions etc.