Every time humans try and fix nature, we tend to make it worse due to not understanding the problem or consequences.
Climate-driven austerity isn't going to happen, because it's an intractable global-scale collective action problem.
If you believe that anthropogenic climate change is going to be a global disaster, you should probably reasonably assume that some country in the world is going to allocate serious resources to mitigating it.
There are 50 countries in the world with resources exceeding that of Portugal or New Zealand. Any of those countries could fund and implement a large-scale geoengineering project. No mechanism exists to ensure that any of those countries get permission to do so.
So it doesn't much matter whether we think it's a good idea. Either:
(1) Anthropogenic climate change isn't going to impose unacceptable costs on the industrialized world, and we'll just blow it off, or
(2) Some country is going to intervene directly in the climate.
But in the thought exercise here, consider that military retaliation just pushes the moment that a climate-threatened country will respond with geoengineering into the future --- to the point where the cost of military intervention is lower than that of climate change.
I don't know, though, I'm just noodling.
Not when mitigating it requires ending and reversing economic growth. You're assuming there's a single nation on Earth run by good-faith actors. Furthermore, if climate-drive austerity doesn't occur, the Earth will kill billions of people until it reaches a new equilibrium.
So the only real question is, when the moment comes that the first sufficiently industrialized country is pushed to the edge by climate catastrophe, what options will they have available to them? If the only options are bad things that are likely to cause more harm than good, that won't matter --- it'll still happen, because what else could happen?
I wouldn't say we make things worse, I think we make things our own. Is that worse? I'd tend to disagree. I prefer human environments over the deep wilderness. Most of us love nature, but we love the human version of that.. groomed trails, modest temperatures, light breezes, and having all the human comforts within reach. Humanity does certainly do things wrong, but we also do things right.
But this is fluids, we don't have science to know how it will actually perform.
Gosh, I'm so afraid of problems with fluids.
My worst case dooms:
>The change in energy causes extreme weather
>The energy change causes some electrons to leave their orbitals temporarily, causing compounds in the atmosphere that typically never occur(creating cancer air).
>Long term effects are not known, causing cancer air.