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.
> 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.
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.