Or we could just stop burning fossil fuels and ground the jets.

composting all billionaires is the one and only solution

This was always the plan

That sounds like a really bad idea for a variety of reasons. The primary of which is that you're introducing a lot of particulates into the atmosphere, and there's no telling what would do to the environment/people.

Plus, I assume jet fuel manufacturers wouldn't want to add adulterants, since that would presumably decrease fuel efficiency and possibility require more engine maintenance. So the same reason why we can't effectively fight climate change (greed) will be why this idea won't be put into use.

Also, have you heard of the Jevons paradox? There's a chance that this would actually increase overall CO2 emissions. You'd be masking the effect while not solving the underlying problem. My belief is that an administrative problem (which climate change is) can never be adequately solved through technology

The problem is that the average person does have restraint, but mega corporations and coal burners and cattle farmers don't.

This is a tech that sound reasonably promising, that won't acidify our oceans (in fact it will counter the current trend of acidification), and cool the atmosphere enough that we don't all kill ourselves in a global heatwave pandemic. Gives us enough time to find restraint, and build technology that will work within the means of that restraint.

We are a pathogen. That is our function on Earth. It's my belief that intelligence is a pathogen wherever it develops in the cosmos. The great filter, y'all...

No. And, no.

I 101% guarantee that J. Rando Scientist circulating their thesis on Youtube for the court of public opinion, rather than among other real scientists, isn't worth my time or yours. If it made any sense whatsoever you'd hear about it in SciAm or other sober journals, not in a platform that's gone over to snake oil ads and fraudulent "influencer" grifts.

If we don't and can't have restraint, then maybe exterminating ourselves, even if it happens at the cost of all other life on this planet, is actually the right choice. Give some of the other life elsewhere in the universe a chance, in the hopes it might be less awful than we are. Otherwise, we'll inevitably destroy it too, if we continue on this path with our inability to practice restraint even in the face of self-preservation nevermind the preservation of things other than ourselves.

We will destroy everything we encounter, as soon as we achieve the technology levels required to do so, intentionally or unintentionally. A species that is incapable of restraint is not a species that deserves to survive. It is a hideous plague, and its only future is either one of complete annihilation (either by us, or of us) or constant, endless war against the forces trying to prevent it from destroying all it touches. If you are saying we are incapable of restraint, that seems to be an irredeemable flaw to me. Finding new ways for us to survive doesn't solve anything, it only prolongs and expands the suffering we will inflict beyond what we already have done.

I agree with you but you have to take a look at what is realistically possible.

• will we stop the accumulation of greenhouse gasses by legislating industrial manufacturing
• we will collectively rise up and drag the offenders into the streets and disembowel them thus setting a historical precedent
• we find an alternative that doesn't include the first two options

And, more generally: We messed up by science without understanding long term consequences. Doing more global scale science without ability to understand impact on complexity seems like a bad idea.

This kind of "give me your opinion and I'll tell you why you're wrong" post really sucks.

Which is the main reason why I believe we have the answer to the fermi paradox.

So the reflection is essentially what the sulfur in diesel used to do. Diesel is now ultralow sulfur because it was learned that low sulfur diesel greatly reduced the particulate and ozone precursor (not good to breathe in) emission from diesel engines.

Baking soda seems safe but doing it globally where it would 1)affect clouds and rain, 2) when it falls alter water and soil chemistry and be breathed in would cause yet unknown harms. Making that much baking soda would also increase greenhouse and probably have effects on aircraft longevity-again causing more greenhouse.

Similarly corn ethanol that is added to gas in the US reduces fuel efficiency and increases greenhouse because the corn is made for purpose and subsidized rather than just excess.

The alternatives are reduced greenhouse via reduction of fossil fuel subsidies combined with renewables and infrastructure to mitigate and survive the changes.

Thinking "restraint" could be a practical solution is delusional ...

Humans will continue to follow their nature. Shouting "You should have restraint" doesn't solve anything.

It would be nice if we have restraint, but we don't.

Your mistake is to think the solution is technology and not restraint.

I'm all for stopping fossil fuels, and Degrowth, but realistically that isn't happening in the next 50+ years.

This buys us time while we further our technology and solve the actual issue.

What do we know "Will work for sure" ?

To my knowledge that does not exist, as in my post, even if we became Net-Zero tomorrow, we're still Fucked. Carbon capture isn't viable.

Eventually we will all burn when the sun swallows the earth.

It's not just us brining though, all the creatures are effected by global warming far worse than we are, if we need to implement desperate measures like this to save ourselves, and by extension others, so be it.

1. It's just another excuse to continue BAU.
2. CO2 levels would continue to rise, and for all intents and purposes, is effectively permanent.
3. SRM like this is a temporary mittigation that neither addresses the root cause nor provides any lasting benefit.

Research, fine. Knowledge is good. There are two well understood processes we need to actually solve the polycrisis.

1. Stop burning fossil fuels.
2. Degrowth.

So this is what it's come to? Just ignore everything we know for sure will work because $$$ and hope some new invention will save us all?

Humans don't deserve this planet.

I don't think it's a bad idea as much as it's a depressing idea. It means admitting we have failed. It means we, as a species and a society aren't capable of doing the right thing for the right reasons. It means our grasp on logic and sanity have failed. It makes me think we are nothing more than an intergalactic plague of locusts who will ultimately consume and destroy all we touch when the day comes that sufficient technology is no longer available to bail us out of the mistakes we've made.

So, sure, go ahead and save the planet with that idea if you want. If that's what we have to do to fix our mistakes and save ourselves from what we have created, don't let me stop you. The problem I have with it is, if that's what we have to do to save ourselves from what we have created, I'm no longer convinced we deserve to be saved. Maybe we should let ourselves burn. We kind of suck.

If you think this is a bad idea, please say why you think so, and what the alternatives are.

I think this idea has issues, but compared to "Just keep doing what we're doing" it seems like a viable option.
At the very least, doing research into this seems like a no brainier.