We have many proven solutions to the climate disaster, including, carbon tax, renewable energy, cleaner and more efficient infrastructure, telecommuting, international agreements, etc.

Going after a single unproven solution (yes this includes non-existing types of nuclear energy too) is just magic at this point and it doesn’t work.

I wouldn't say those approaches have turned out to be sufficient by themselves, so far. Why not keep improving them, and try additional measures with some hope of success and little risk?

All of these solutions have been deployed on small scales and are proven to work. However they always stop short of implementing on the scale required for the problem. International agreements in particular worked really well to stop the destruction of the ozone layer. However they have never agreed on enough carbon emission reduction for any significant reduction in climate harm.

All of those reduce emissions but they don't stop them and they don't do anything about the existing already-too-high levels.

We have methods of removing carbon out of the atmosphere. They all have the same thing in common, they require a whole lot of electricity. We have something in our back pockets that can generate a whole lot of electricity without any additional carbon...

It seems to me to make more sense combating the problem at the source. This just seems to add more complexity to the problem. Did anyone else think of Snowpiercer when they saw this?

Not from seeing Snowpiercer, but from everytime I hear some other crazy science scheme. It's like the pharma industry creating ways of dealing with symptoms rather than the cause of the symptoms. It's the ultimate Old Lady Swallowed a Fly.

I think we can look to austrailia for many many many examples where we thought something would work out when we fucked with nature on a large scale without really studying it.

IE. Canetoads.