Are the authors against all geo-engineering or just this plan?

They seem very in favor reducing over-fishing, switching to clean energy sources, etc. They're only in favor of geoengineering if politicians can't get their shit together and we end up on the brink of a disaster.

"We do not promote the use of the [geoengineering] method highlighted in this section. We merely present it here as an interesting solution proposed by the field of geoengineering, a popularly growing discipline which seeks to provide technical solutions which manipulate the earth’s climate in order to counteract the effects of global climate change."

"Any solution proposed by the field of geoengineering is akin to addressing the symptoms and not the source of the problem."

-- https://web.duke.edu/nicholas/bio217/spring2010/chang/Soluti...

The symptoms are all we care about, why would anyone give a shit about CO2 levels if it didn't cause global warming?

It's not like it's toxic. If it's cheaper to geoengineer the CO2 away, why not?

Fossil fuels are not a long-term energy solution in any case, so it makes more sense to attack the problem from that angle.

And I suspect the answer is that it's not cheaper. I'm unaware of any cheap, scalable, safe method of reducing CO2 levels. It's difficult to conceive of a practical solution to global warming that doesn't involve drastically reducing the ongoing CO2 output. How are you going to balance out 30+ billion tonnes of carbon dioxide per year?