[rafaelmn]

Your analogy is flawed because knife wound was the original problem that would be exacerbatedby reinsertion.

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.

[JumpCrisscross]

Once the knife is out, however, you don’t win points for putting it back in.

[rafaelmn]

But that's why the analogy is flawed - it's dealing with a single problem that gets clearly worse by the action.

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.

[JumpCrisscross]

> 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

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.