[bmmayer1]

It's amazing that this solution has not been considered more openly and widely until now. It's cheaper, more effective, and doesn't require draconian regulations or near-impossible expectations on human behavior.

It's also something that could be tested for a year. It's not irreversible. It would allow the undeveloped world a chance to achieve a piece of the global wealth pie.

Why are so many people (especially environmentalists and climate scientists) so opposed to this solution?

[alanbernstein]

Because warming is just one symptom of the core problem, which is pollution.

[sgu999]

The core problem is even worse, it's our inability to live in a closed system.

[barbazoo]

> Why are so many people (especially environmentalists and climate scientists) so opposed to this solution?

Because it's just kicking the can down the road. This will cost Trillions which you might as well invest in a transition to clean energy now because you have to do it eventually anyway.

If the impact of climate chains looks like it's posing a risk to us as a species then perhaps blocking the sun temporarily is something that should be considered. Right now it sounds like there's still a chance that we could avoid the worst if we continue acting faster and faster. Pointing to a hypothetical sun shield decades in the future, now, is similar to pointing to practically unlimited CCS capacity sometime in the future just so we don't have to do anything drastic now.

[daeros]

pure fantasy that the world will ultimately do the "might as well" there though. The world is moving on but we're running out of time to prevent things that are a lot worse than having to deal with acid rain and simply keep pushing sulhpur into the atmosphere and then slowly taper off the sulphur.

[gwill]

where are you getting trillions from? this paper estimates it at 10b.

[notpachet]

From the article:

> Crucially, the biggest problems with SRM are probably not yet known. The side effects of putting sulfur into the stratosphere could be some of the most consequential unknowns in human history.

[pokstad]

The sky belongs to everyone. Hard to get sign off from everyone on making a change to it.

[landhar]

You’re right.. and yet I don’t believe everyone got to vote on whether we should burn all those fossil fuels in the first place.

[imiric]

Since when has that stopped companies and countries acting in their own best interests?

SpaceX has launched thousands of satellites, and plans to launch many thousands more, polluting sky and space observation for everyone on Earth. This happened relatively quickly, and doesn't require approval from every country, unless they intend to offer service there.

Similarly, it's not far-fetched to imagine a scenario where a "benevolent" billionaire, as the article puts it, or a single country, could decide that SRM is a good idea, and just go with it. Countries still pump excessive amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere, and historically can't align on a single policy. Why would something like SRM be handled differently?