> It is absolutely demonstrably true that the article linked here sidesteps how sulfur emmissions are a band aid solution requiring constant topping up that fai

> It is absolutely demonstrably true that the article linked here sidesteps how sulfur emmissions are a band aid solution requiring constant topping up that fail to address underlying issues. No one denies that. That never was the point. The issue is that the reality is that unless somehow a miracle happens we are not going to reach net zero in time to avoid major issues, key point being "in time". We need more time. > It is absolutely demonstrably true that the largest CO2 sequestration project on the planet hasn't yet met it's own goals and when and if it does the amounts stashed below will be tiny in comparison to the amount released. Patently untrue. And even if it was true (which it isn’t to be clear), we need advance in sequestration. That’s a prerequisite to net zero working. We might get away with what the ocean will absorb if we reach net zero quickly but: one, that’s not going to happen, two, there is good reason to think the ocean sinking ability will slow down. Also well done on cleverly sidestepping the part on accounting tricks which you know to be fully true.