> It is absolutely possible for the side effects to be hard to detect, widespread, hard to mitigate once detected, and for us nevertheless to be otherwise depen

> It is absolutely possible for the side effects to be hard to detect, widespread, hard to mitigate once detected, and for us nevertheless to be otherwise dependent upon continuing to produce those effects. Oh I completely agree that it's possible, but there are some very material differences between those examples. The purpose of fossil fuels is increasing access to energy and The downside is climate change. The purpose of the aerosol injection would be climate management and the downside would be unintended climate change. If it's not working as intended we are far more likely to stop doing it because of the direct relationship between the purpose and the issues. Also, we got hooked on fossil fuels before we had the science to understand the long term consequences to the climate. So to summarize there are at least two very material differences: - fossil fuels were essential to reducing energy costs whereas I don't see a direct economic benefit to aerosol injection, just the purpose of managing climate damage. Am I missing something? - our scientific understanding at the beginning of adoption will be materially different and we are a lot more likely to detect issues earlier on. Not certainly, but materially more likely. To me the combination of these two things makes it a fundamentally different dynamic. I am sure it sounds like I'm advocating for aerosol injection, but I'm actually just playing devil's advocate and trying to strengthen my understanding by pointing out the holes I'm seeing in your explanations. If there's ever a specific source that you think would help fill a gap in my understanding I am receptive to checking it out.