This was not a definitive study on anything. It talked about possible problems with a couple of methods.
My community just had a solar array shoved up it’s collective keyster by state mandate to the tune of $35K per houses served. Since the array only works during the day, that’s really a $60K price tag for power per house. Due to the short cycle life of solar cells it’s just really expensive landfill. Maybe some of it can be recycled but it’s still an incredible waste of money. We’re already transitioning to more efficient cars and the nuclear technology to replace coal burning plants is sitting on the shelf. If we truly want to take advantage of future electric cars then the only real alternative is to build REAL power plants and not a bunch of monuments to stupidity that only work part of the day or depend on variations in wind.
Beyond the normal course of technology that should be taking place the solution to reducing temperatures shouldn’t rest on the insistence that co2 is the cause. We could easily overspend on a bunch of feel-good technocrap and still have a problem with increased solar activity.
The solution is to use the technology we have know and pursue the most cost effective technology in the future to lower temperatures. It may be cheaper to scrub co2 from the air than re-engineering society not to produce it in the first place. What we’re doing now is the equivalent of removing anything that burns to prevent forest fires instead of adding fire more fighting equipment.