Unfortunately, yes? Nobody made the decision to contribute to global climate change; it just kind of happened as an emergent consequence of the discovery of oil. Whereas a single country deciding to permanently tint the sky is not going to go over well with the global community, probably to the point of tanks on borders and missiles at ready.

So altering the climate is fine, if it's a side effect of making money. It's just doing it at a financial loss that's a problem.

Maybe we should focus on ocean fertilization with iron as a way of increasing fish yields. Who can begrudge some poor fishermen trying to bring home more fish? It's not their fault if it also sequesters CO2.

Solar radiation management also offers possibilities though. We already spew lots of soot and other pollutants into the air without anyone rolling out missiles. We just need to figure out industries with the right kind of pollution and we're good.

It wouldn't require global consent, just consent of the few global powers strong enough to do anything about it.

Sure, but I think it'll be very difficult to get the US, China, and Russia to agree on something as drastic as this before catastrophic climate-related events start taking place. (And let's not forget all the other nations with nuclear missiles. The playing field is a lot more level these days, for better or worse.)

Luckily(?) catastrophic climate-related events are already happening.

Only one.

If the USA, Russia or any other nuclear power does it there won't be a war. Nuclear is the key word here, Those wars are much more costly than any amount climate change.

This is basically the root of most coordination problems.

http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/07/30/meditations-on-moloch/