[eesmith]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuel_oil#Health_impacts

> Because of the low quality of bunker fuel, when burnt it is especially harmful to the health of humans, causing serious illnesses and deaths. Prior to the IMO's 2020 sulfur cap, shipping industry air pollution was estimated to cause around 400,000 premature deaths each year, from lung cancer and cardiovascular disease, as well as 14 million childhood asthma cases each year.[4]

> Even after the introduction of cleaner fuel rules in 2020, shipping air pollution is still estimated to account for around 250,000 deaths each year, and around 6.4 million childhood asthma cases each year.

Nor would sulfur help with ocean acidification.

"Reducing carbon dioxide emissions (i.e., climate change mitigation measures) is the only solution that addresses the root cause of ocean acidification. Mitigation measures which achieve carbon dioxide removal from the atmosphere would help to reverse ocean acidification." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocean_acidification

[mentalpiracy]

Yes, that’s exactly why we banned bunker fuel - but we didn’t realize that it was helping keep ocean surface temperatures from skyrocketing.

The worldwide harm and injury cause by bunker fuel pollution is utterly trivial compared to the catastrophic heating of the oceans. Damage caused by exposure to pollution is measured in years and decades; we are measuring the searing of the oceans in mere weeks and months.

[eesmith]

If it were so easy then stratospheric aerosol injection would get the sulfur up high enough to be more effective, without the harm of bunker fuel pollution.

From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_dimming

> Because the historical levels of global dimming were associated with high mortality from air pollution and issues such as such as acid rain,[123] the concept of relying on cooling directly from pollution has been described as a "Faustian bargain" and is not seriously considered by modern research.[111] Instead, the seminal 2006 paper by Paul Crutzen suggested that the way to avoid increased warming as the sulfate pollution decreased was to revisit the 1974 proposal by the Soviet researcher Mikhail Budyko.[124][125] The proposal involved releasing sulfates from the airplanes flying in the upper layers of the atmosphere, in what is now described as stratospheric aerosol injection, or SAI.[122] In comparison, most air pollution is in the lower atmospheric layer (the troposphere), and only resides there for weeks. Because aerosols deposited in the stratosphere would last for years, far less sulfur would have to be emitted to result in the same amount of cooling.