This is a completely insane take on this.
Akin to saying "You pulled the knife out of my torso, and now I'm bleeding more! Put it back!"
Putting it back will certainly cause more harm than just leaving it out.
Akin to saying "You pulled the knife out of my torso, and now I'm bleeding more! Put it back!"
Putting it back will certainly cause more harm than just leaving it out.
A better analogy would be having some infection that's somehow preventing a cancer from metastasis - you treat the infection and now you see the cancer spike. Worth risking reinfection to slow down cancer ? Depends on how bad the infection/cancer is I guess.
Global warming and sulphur pollution are two separate (but realated) problems - it's possible that by making one worse you make the other better - and then it's a cost/benefit calculation.
Eg. chemotherapy is destroying a lot of your body - but it also kills cancer.
Sure. But I'd argue the case is being made for active cloud seeding. Versus random seeding with commercial vessels with sulphur.
Restoring sulphur in ship fuel would sap the mainline argument of a lot of strength. If the ships can have their sulphur back, why not every industry their [insert ask]. It won't be scientifically valid. But it would win a decade of inaction.
Leaving the knife in hurts like hell, but maybe it’ll kill you slow enough that you’ll be able to find help before you die.
Pulling out the knife seems right but just means you bleed out quickly.
I don’t know why you assume I’m failing to understand that. I’m saying it’s already happened, so here we are.