Good post, especially on how this could play in the public. I don't know if the public might not be convinced that the risks of geoengineering are too high, though. Playing the Dr. Strangelove card might work. Especially as some of the proponents fit the profile. And the audience isn't merely your average elderly Ohio couple, but also the countries that are committed to reducing CO2.

We have to keep this in its original context. Geoengineering is a last resort, and can only be used transitionally, in the case of catastrophic, runaway climate change (warming at and above the 5 degrees celcius range). Like lobbing a nuke at an incoming meteorite. It can't replace reducing CO2 emissions.

We also need to prioritise. Planting trees and mechanical air capture of carbon are better than injecting SO2 into the stratosphere, which again is better than seeding the oceans with iron dust. In my opinion...

The problem we will see lies partly with the political discourse on climate change. It is now all about combatting CO2, whereas it needs to be about shifting to a sustainable economy.