HN user
Apologies in advance for a low-effort hot take:
Its growing abundantly clear that the tipping point is well in the past.
Decarbonization must proceed, of course, but if we can't feasibly remove carbon from the system at scale, we're well and truly fucked.
And given that a reality in which we all ride bicycles and own nothing is unlikely, why is this not a real solution?
It seems increasingly clear, especially given this unexpected termination shock caused by the switch to low-sulfur fuel oil, that aerial dispersants should be taken seriously are a viable solution.
What if we're past the point where shaming those who over-consume will effect any meaningful change in a timescale that will save us?
I don't understand why it would be necessary to rob us of a 'beautiful blue sky', wouldn't a tiny fractional reduction in solar radiation would move the needle appreciably? Its not as if we'd have to create a supervolcano.