I'm blogging from a relative's computer in New York right now. I saw an article from the Associated Press regarding global warming that I at first could not believe. The article is entitled, "'Dirty sky' proposed as a solution to global warming." The idea, proposed by well-regarded scientists, is that a slew of pollutants may need to be intentionally emitted into the atmosphere at some point to combat global warming and help cool the planet. According to this theory, "balloons bearing heavy guns [should] be used to carry sulfates high aloft and fire them into the atmosphere." Apparently, the prevalent coal-fired power plant emission of sulfur dioxide reflects solar radiation and may be able to help cool the planet. This theory is based on studies of enormous sulfur dioxide emissions from volcanoes that may have previously cooled the planet for about one year. Accordingly, to keep the momentum going, "[a] massive dissemination of pollutants" would need to be released every year or two to help maintain this cooling effect. Per this article, this strategy would allow "more time to reduce human dependence on fossil fuels." I found this very puzzling, given that we already emit tons of sulfur dioxide every day from coal-fired power plants. Are these scientists saying that we need to emit more sulfur dioxide than we are already releasing to combat the carbon dioxide that also emanates from sources such as coal-fired power plants? How are we going to wean ourselves off of fossil fuels if one of the biggest sources of the sulfur dioxide we apparently need comes from fossil fuels? Is this theory going to give pro-coal people ammunition to say that power plant pollution is actually good for keeping the balance in the climate--e.g. they emit carbon dioxide but the sulfur dioxide somehow neutralizes this harmful warming effect? Further, are we now resorting to further polluting the air we breathe just so life as we know it does not go extinct or suffer devastating climate-changing consequences? It doesn't sound like such a great option. Yet, in the grand scheme of things, perhaps this proposal is exactly the rude awakening we need to realize that desperate measures like this one may be our only hope if we don't take big carbon dioxide cutting measures right now.