3 ms·

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.or

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.

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.