The trade offs get really funny.

If we think it's really the case that most wild animals will perish in the climate upheaval, then doesn't that change the math a bit on how much risk we should be willing to accept when it comes to climate engineering? If the wealthiest humans could probably adapt to +5c, but a billion poorer ones would die, how much does that change the math?

Personally I'd be willing to accept quite a lot of risk to avoid these awful outcomes.

AFAIK the plans to put sulfur into the stratosphere are modeled on exactly what a volcano does, i.e. a natural process. Of course it could turn out bad, but it doesn't sound to me like a totally out-of-bounds idea.

Maybe someone with a better background could tell me otherwise? I only know about computers.

It depends on what do you mean by climate engineering. If you mean randomly dumping large amounts of sulfur in stratosphere then it is exactly like shooting another bullet, but if it is done by more controlled devices it is like using a scalpel. In any case waiting the for body to heal naturally is not going to work. And i think it is very unfortunate that any mention of using technology to fix the problem gets ridiculed and downvoted out of view by the the people who care about environment.

Of course once some tipping points have actually tipped, we may have no choice in the matter.

I imagine any massive geoengineering project of this scale could take as long as 20-50 years to complete.

We really do need to get started before things get so bad we are unable to bring the massive resources to bear that we will need for something like this.