We present a study of the Galactic supernova remnant (SNR) G292.0+1.8, a classic example of a core-collapse SNR that contains oxygen-rich ejecta, circumstellar material, a rapidly moving pulsar, and a pulsar wind nebula (PWN). We use hydrodynamic simulations of the remnant’s evolution to show that the SNR reverse shock is interacting with the PWN and has most likely shocked the majority of the supernova ejecta. In our models, such a scenario requires a total ejecta mass of ≲3 M ⊙ and implies that there is no significant quantity of cold ejecta in the interior of the reverse shock. In light of these results, we compare the estimated elemental masses and abundance ratios in the reverse-shocked ejecta to nucleosynthesis models, and further conclude that they are consistent with a progenitor star with an initial mass of 12–16 M ⊙. We conclude that the progenitor of G292.0+1.8 was likely a relatively low-mass star that experienced significant mass loss through a binary interaction and would have produced a stripped-envelope supernova explosion. We also argue that the region known as the “spur” in G292.0+1.8 arises as a result of the pulsar’s motion through the supernova ejecta, and that its dynamical properties may suggest a line-of-sight component to the pulsar’s velocity, leading to a total space velocity of ∼600 km s−1 and implying a significant natal kick. Finally, we discuss binary mass-loss scenarios relevant to G292.0+1.8 and their implications for the binary companion properties and future searches.

Global temperatures have risen by about 1.1°C from pre-industrial levels, largely due to carbon dioxide (CO 2) emissions from human activities (Ritchie & Roser, 2017). With already-implemented climate policies remaining as they are, this increase could reach as high as 3.7°C by 2100 (Ritchie & Roser, 2017), well above the goal of keeping post-industrial warming within 1.5°C (IPCC, 2018). To comply with this goal, global emissions need to be net-zero by approximately 2050 (IPCC, 2018), adding to the sense of urgency. This leads to the question of what more can be done to combat climate change. One field of innovation that has gained a lot of attention is geoengineering, the use of technology in conjunction with Earth's natural processes to produce a desired result, such as mitigating climate change (Caldeira et al., 2013). Geoengineering proposals can be divided into two main categories: solar geoengineering to lower the Earth's temperature by partially blocking sunlight, and CO 2 removal to lower greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere (Caldeira et al., 2013). While geoengineering proposals in general have not been developed into useable technologies yet (Corner & Pidgeon, 2010; Suarez & van Aalst, 2017), there is significant debate over which geoengineering proposals (if any) would be the best to implement, considering factors such as relative effectiveness, cost, risk, and time requirement (Caldeira et al., 2013; Corner & Pidgeon, 2010). Additionally, one conclusion of research into the effectiveness of geoengineering proposals compared to directly reducing greenhouse gas emissions is that solar geoengineering is not a long-term, practical solution; instead,