A. Is saying we should emit sulfur for it's reflective properties an argument for climate engineering?

B. Why stick with sulfur, if there are alternative aerosols that come with less adverse side effects and don't include adding more carbon to the atmosphere then shouldn't we look at those instead?

This paper - https://www.nature.com/articles/s43247-023-01050-7 - suggests the use of sulphur dioxide is not trivial, it is linked to about 800,000 deaths per year and that ocean going shipping is responsible for "403,300 premature deaths a year and 14 million cases of childhood asthma".

Seems far from clear to me that we can just limit the use close to shore as the author argues, especially in a landlocked sea like the Mediterranean.

A recent study is making a convincing connection between, ships emisions,aaaaand !, lightning ! with a very clear overlay of lightning with the major shipping lanes, and that the reduction of sulfur, caused a reduction in lighning. The nightmare failure mode to adding areosols is that a 1 in 10000 year volcanic eruption, on top, would doom most of the earths populations. Taking care of carbon and methane, and other extream anthropgenic greenhouse gasses is first up,then passive cooling technologys for urban areas, a general ecocentric attitude towards our one and only biosphere. No reason we cant all thrive, alongside a healthy environment for all of the critters. But to guarantee that we not only have to watch for space rocks wiping out civilisation, we also have to check our own, well proven, ability to destroy and lay waste, and then on top, have the resources to deal with the potential of earth based geological catastrophy in volcanic/seismic events, and dont leave out another real threat in that our sun, could throw a hissy fit, and blow every, single, last, circuit, on and off, the planet.

And there is absolutly no way, that the worlds majority is going to go along with an oil company plan, right.