From Wikipedia:
"Stratospheric aerosol injection is a proposed method of solar geoengineering (or solar radiation modification) to reduce global warming. This would introduce aerosols into the stratosphere to create a cooling effect via global dimming and increased albedo, which occurs naturally from volcanic winter."
Will resolve yes so long as someone in the world does this on purpose for the purpose of mitigating climate change. Does not need to be a state actor - for instance, if a rogue organization did this on their own, it would still count.
EDIT: In order to resolve YES, there would need to be a large enough effort that it is generally projected to have a measurable impact on climate. Small-scale trial runs do not count.
Related questions
Betting “No” solely on the 2030 deadline. I think the odds are excellent that there will be an attempt in the 2030s or early 2040s, but I think a state actor won’t do so until there’s at least a few smaller-scale attempts, which will each individually face scrutiny and protest. As for a rogue organization doing it, I don’t see the risk:return making much sense. You’re definitely going to be a target of lawsuits and without the blessing of a state partner, you’re very likely going to face criminal charges. Since, I think, there’s almost certainly going to be states sympathetic to the idea, were I a rogue oligarch, I’d just shop around for a state partner.
There is a company-Make Sunsets- that is already injecting sulfur dioxide with balloons in the stratosphere. Up to now only grams but they plan to scale that massively
@GN19 Yeah, so if they do in fact end up scaling to a level that would be projected to have a noticeable climate impact, this will resolve YES.
Back of the envelope, the right order of magnitude is that 1 cent per year spent on this “offsets” 1 ton of co2. But the side effects are kind of sucky.
@jacksonpolack I would count it if it was an amount projected to actually make a difference in the short term. I would not count it if the amount released is too small to have any meaningful impact.
So for instance, if the proposal is to make 200 flights in order to have a noticeable climate impact, a single test flight probably wouldn't count. But if they do 20 test flights and pause to collect weather data and assess impact, I would count that (even if the impact turned out to be lower than expected, the pause to collect data would indicate they expected to see something).
@TomGoldthwait I'll further clarify that the amount would need to be expected to affect the climate, as in projected to have a measurable impact on average temperatures for that year. A purely local weather impact would not be counted.
What if I sprayed a bit of ash into the air off the top of a very tall apartment?
Related questions
