So what we have, in sum, is the fortunate situation of now having a solution that we could not have had in eras previous--geoengineering. If we could never have applied an effective solution until we happened onto the technology--which arguably could be now--we should be glad for our opportunity to finally fix the climate, and not indulge in senseless regret for all that excess CO2. I think your advice is for us to approach our task as a matter of 'industrial ecology.'

This is certainly a weird place to be. We had to pollute the planet's atmosphere for all those years, waiting for technology that could undo the pollution. Maybe we will after all be able to employ some solar geoengineering as one mode of attack, but only one. Carbon removal seems to have a much better chance of political and public acceptance, though I gather it will be more expensive to apply. Then there is emissions reduction, which although not a way by itself to avoid short-term suffering, has to (I think the imperative applies) be seriously pursued because the whole point will be someday not to rely on extraordinary means of climate control. Solar geoengineering isn't a one-time thing, but has to be continuously applied in most cases that are being thought up.

I can't agree with trying to return the planet to Holocene conditions, and I think that most scientists and others working on this most pressing of problems realize that our resourcefulness will be needed not just to slow warming but to adapt to degrees of warming--how many degrees, we don't know for sure, but we can be either well or poorly prepared. It's like knowing we can't prevent the storm from hitting, but we can better weather its effects through defense. Climate justice is the concept most relevant here. Will wealthier people and more developed countries receive the lion's share of the benefits of protective measures?