> do it basically "out to sea", far enough away from humans that whatever negative effects are able to diffuse throughout the entire oceans this is not how it

> do it basically "out to sea", far enough away from humans that whatever negative effects are able to diffuse throughout the entire oceans this is not how it works, like at all pretty much all oceans are already at risk of ecologically collapsing even without climate change, and will be majorly affected by it (both directly and indirectly) just because they are big doesn't mean thy can just compensate whatever you throw at them. A huge problem being damage being not very visible to the average human until catastrophic (so humans are prone to not take actions). Like we already have gigantic dead zones all over the oceans. Many effects of climate change fall into the "live will get very shitty but still survivable category". But an ocean dying can lead to a chain reaction leading to a mass extinction event. Like not just a lot of animal dying, but a something like noticeable more then 50% of species going extinct. That includes most to all of humanities food supply. Theoretically humans might be able to survive this, practically we are still speaking about a non negligible 2 digit chance for human extinction (not necessary directly by that, but other catastrophes like volcanoes, plagues or meteors still happen) this are the kind of solutions with a high potential of having worse outcomes then not doing them