[flagged]
This style of comment is lazy and simply trying to shut down conversation without actually making an argument. If you have an objection to the comment you're responding to, then say why you think they're wrong, what your alternative point of view is, and why your point of view is the correct one.
The carbon emissions of the richest 1% of humanity are more than double than that of the poorest half of humanity. Oil and coal companies profit, while putting out disinformation, as they have been for decades. But why step on the toes of the powerful when you can just use inject sulfur into the atmosphere?
Indeed we have practiced quite a bit. Read on the catastrophe that was geoengineering attempts resulting in what is now happening with the Sea of Azov.
Is that enough? AFAIK all paths forward to avoid the worst outcomes includes becoming net negative ASAP.
That's stopping the addition of 37,000,000,000 tonnes of CO2 anually.
For context, a modern CCS captures some thousands of tonne, which is a comparatively tiny, tiny number.
Unless magic happens in the next decade, it appears that geoengineering is something we can't avoid, sans the suffering and death of billions.
I'd love to be wrong here.
With all its inherent uncertainties geoengineering has many chances to make living conditions even worse.
It appears that the best think we can do is to stop doing thinks. I concede magic will be needed to make boomers accept that.
Convincing every country in the world that they don't need fossil fuels isn't possible.
Blocking some sunlight from reaching the Earth is.
People do change their habits, donate, volunteer, make concessions and work hard for the good of society in its whole.
Throw all of those in a blender and it's easy to see why democracy and global problems are not going lead to an actual solution. Individuals are going to make some minor difference but not enough to offset the larger trends as long as it isn't a solid majority doing this.
We're way past that point, the choice is quickly became to try geoengineering or die and I'm not going to take the dying option, no thanks, no matter how immoral you think the other one is.
The incredibly multi-variate nature of this problem effectively prevents any comparison that is at the scale of an individual.
Don't forget that, it's important!
If climate change was a disease it wouldn't have an ICD number, no method of diagnostic in standard literature, let alone a treatment approved by the competent authority.
The recommended solutions would be to eat more healthy, more physical activity, and something to treat the symptoms.
There won't be a double-blind study for specific treatments of earth, so any kind of idea is equally valid.