We Should Cool Earth

I'm having trouble understanding the opposition to cooling Earth. Perhaps you, gentle reader, can explain what I'm getting wrong?

My basic assertions:

1. We should prevent harm.
2. A warmer Earth creates harm.
3. We can cool Earth.
4. We should cool Earth.

These all seem quite straightforward. A devil in the details? Let's dig into each.

We should prevent harm. 
This is maybe the easiest to agree with, especially the mild version we're talking about: if we can prevent harm easily, inexpensively, and without any substantial cost to us, we should. I don't need you on board for more extreme measures, although good on you if you're considering them. Personally, I am a (lazy) act utilitarian, but any ethical tradition of which I'm aware agrees on this. It feels good to take tiny actions that help others in big ways, and it is the right thing to do.

A warmer Earth creates harm.
Someone will die because of your family's carbon emissions. This isn't theoretical political effects or tipping points: 3.4 times average American's carbon emissions = an extra death from heat between now and 2100. And not just humans: if we continue on our current path, we'll kill >10% of all types of things alive today. Assuming no nuclear wars or other upheaval in the face of increased weather extremes and lowered cognition. Current global warming price tag, economically? Around $16 million per hour.

We should prevent harm.
Warmer = harm. But, what can we do to prevent warming? "...solar geoengineering could offset most climate change for most people most of the time." We've got other options, too; experts have even made us a nice table summarizing them. And the harms? Conservatively, we're at 100 to 1 benefits for our type of solar geoengineering.

We should cool Earth.
As in you and me. Because academics can't and countries won't even talk about it. By taking direct actions to cool Earth, we help legitimize this for companies, countries, and the ultra-rich: those primarily responsible for and capable of solving global warming.

I get it: it's really tempting (and probably more rational) to be a climate doomer. And we've deployed a comically small amount of Cooling Credits in comparison to what we need to do. But this is a start. Stratospheric aerosol injection is not all we need to do, but it is one of the things we have to do. Every day we delay deployment of solar geoengineering at scale results in needless suffering. It is morally wrong to delay deployment of solar geoengineering at scale.

Or, am I missing something? Please talk me out of it! I will respond to any comments / questions and highlight interesting issues raised in a later post.

In an upcoming post: how we will cool Earth at scale. Spoiler alert: sulfur dioxide plays a big part;)