> And of course, if you know that this scenario is possible, then you probably also start to understand why governments aren't as panicky about the whole situation as you seem to be.

So not ecosystems restoration (habitats restoration, reforestation and afforestation, wetlands restoration, streams and rivers restoration, sustainable land management, conservation and protected areas, plant-based diets, ...), but attempts at geoengineering with aerosols like sulfur dioxide, or mirrors in space, or whitening the clouds. The potential problems are enormous.

Solar radiation management is also an ungovernable technology. Even if we knew how to reflect the sun's rays, that means deciding on what is an international "best temperature". So what if cooling down the US means massive drought in China? What if China deploying this causes rainfall in India to drop? The Earth's climate is interconnected and block the sun's rays in one area affects another.

It seems obvious to me that this technology could cause massive conflict (violent maybe) over what is the best way to use it.

Anything to avoid doing the right thing.

> We had the club of Rome with the same message in the 70s, and they were comically wrong

There you're wrong again.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/332655753_Limits_Re...

"We unravel the arguments that have raged for forty years in its aftermath and explore more recent findings which relate to the original hypothesis. There is unsettling evidence that society is still following the ‘standard run’ of the original study – in which overshoot leads to an eventual collapse of production and living standards. Detailed recent studies suggests that production of some key resources may only be decades away. Certain other limits to growth – less visible in the 1972 report – present equally pressing challenges to modern society. We highlight, in particular, recent work on our proximity to ‘planetary boundaries’ and illustrate this through the challenge of meeting the Paris Agreement on climate change. We also explore the economic challenge of a ‘secular stagnation’. If the Club of Rome is right, the next few decades are decisive."

https://www.resilience.org/stories/2021-08-16/revisiting-the...

https://advisory.kpmg.us/content/dam/advisory/en/pdfs/2021/y...

"I conducted a data update to Limits to Growth (LtG), best known from the 1972 bestseller that
forecasted a scenario of global societal collapse occurring around the present time if humanity
did not alter its priorities. Empirical data comparisons since then indicated that the world was
still heading for collapse. My objectives were to examine whether this was still the case based on
the most recent data, and whether there was opportunity left to change that trajectory. My
research benefited from improved data availability, and included a scenario and two variables
that had not been part of previous comparisons. I collected data from academia, (non-
)government agencies, United Nations entities, and the World Bank. This was plotted along four
LtG scenarios spanning a range of technological, resource, and societal assumptions. From these
graphs and two quantitative accuracy measures, I found that the scenarios aligned closely with
observed global data, which is a testament to the LtG work done decades ago. The two scenarios
aligning most closely indicate a halt in growth over the next decade or so, which puts into
question the usability of continuous growth as humanity’s goal in the 21st century. Both
scenarios also indicate subsequent declines, but only one—the scenario in which declines are
caused by pollution, including greenhouse gas pollution—depicts a collapse pattern. The scenario
with the smallest declines aligned least with empirical data, however, absolute differences were
rarely big and sometimes insignificant. This suggests that it’s almost, but not yet, too late for
society to change course."

> If there is something of actual substance, please make the point yourself here

You're the one who should decide whether to stay ignorant or learn more on your own. You can't reasonably expect that someone will compress such complex and diverse topics into few social media comments. Few hours of attention and learning could possibly completely change your viewpoint ;)

> how building out nuclear power and other non-fossil energy sources

I'm not against that, and I'd tend to agree with you on that. But there are people who are more knowledgeable about energy (i'm more interested in biodiversity and agriculture) and more sceptical of the idea / possibility. One of them is Sid Smith ... you'd find those arguments in a well known talk of his https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5WPB2u8EzL8