This time I’m not on the same side with the EU, I think that an experiment won’t hurt anything. If it doesn’t work, we’ll know that this is not the right way, but if does, we might have new tool for managing climate change.
Literally wrong and the limitation is that you need a allowance to test stuff for safety reasons, it can be very dangerous, especially since the chemicals used for it are usually not exactly chemicals you want in your body, also there is no proof that these things don’t make it worse.
Examples from the past/present:
- lead in gasoline and paint
- fluorocarbons in refrigerants / ozone depletion
- microplastic/fluorocarbons that decay too slow (ongoing debate)
Oh I forgot radioactive paint
Fine dust released by - among other things - car tires is another one.
The experiment would require very few amount of chemicals (~1Kg) that aren’t dangerous to humans. It would have nearly zero impact overall.
Just a bit of lead wich isn’t harmful to humans -scientist in the 40s making “better” fuel and paint…
