Unfortunately it will be done a lot more (it is already on a limited scale :see chemtrails ). But in 4-5 years the arctic sea ice will be gone and that's when the endgame starts...and of course we won't give up burning everything we can put our hands on (for our often useless power and energy addiction) to mitigate this. Opening the door to a world of unintended consequences

One must realize this idea is not practical.

Spraying Aerosol into the atmosphere would certainly be the best way to guarantee the next, inevitable global cooling volcanic eruption.

As the article notes, many (most?) countries do not agree an approach to controlling climate change. So, how likely is it that they will accept giving over control of THEIR SUNLIGHT to some project?! I can hear them now: "This means WAR!". Proponents of this plan need to add the multi-trillion dollar cost of a major war.

This idea is just more climate change madness. Enviro radicals have been predicting dire consequences within a certain time frame since the 1960's. Every dire prediction has been wrong since the 1960's yet we continue to waste trillions of dollars.
Instead of trying to control the climate (as sensible as trying to control the tides) we need to make ourselves ready for whatever nature throws at us. Build higher and stronger sea walls. Modernize and disaster-proof electrical grids. Ensure everyone on Earth has clean drinking water and basic health care. Etc.

@piperTom "This means WAR!" quite possible yes - but that is also a win/win situation.
Why? 1. Reduced population - population growth is the trigger for global warming activity. 2. If it goes nuclear one of the side effects will be a dramatic global winter - same sort of effect as a massive volcanic eruption.
So global warming will not longer be an issue!
Perhaps the line in the 80's film War Games should have been David "Let's play Global Thermonuclear War and solve global warming." Computer "Fine"

"...with the heads of so many governments around the world still firmly stuck in the sand on the realities of climate change..."
Right. Because, unlike ALL other scientific disciplines, climate science "is settled". This is the kind of crap you get when "big government" controls the purse-strings.
But hey, I'm old. So I'll probably be dead in 15 years. Have at it, suckers.

No one says much about controlling dessert water use.

I feel like I'm visiting the Twilight Zone. WTF????? Haven't you guys looked out your windows lately--or for a period of years?? This has been going on for years! I can't believe what I'm reading. Look out your windows on a clear, blue sky morning, then look again in a couple hours. You will see the white 747's spray s__t in the atmosphere that gradually dissipates into whiffs of pretty white "clouds." Do a little viewing of YT videos on the subject. I can't believe I'm reading this! The aluminum they're spraying may be contributing to the wild fires in California. People have been organizing and complaining for years about it. Scientific tests have been performed, meetings have been going on, etc., etc. Aluminum nano-particles make things burn a lot hotter than normal. Ever heard of Tannerite or Thermite?

Contentious?
You bet!
Trying to mitigate the effects of human activity on climate (while almost all experts agree there is some, the amount of climate change caused by man vs natural forcings is completely unknown) is not only a bad idea, it is truly a fool's errand.
Such ideas have been floated before. There was a proposal ten or twenty years ago to "seed" the oceans with powdered iron (one of the main limiting factors in algae growth) in order to cause algae blooms to use up CO2 and release O2 into the seas and atmosphere. Of course the unintended consequences start to stack up rather quickly from there.
The smart thing to do is to follow the advice of Bjorn Lundquist- find the best, most cost effective ways of dealing with climate change, rather than try to control an essentially chaotic system that has so many variables that remain unknown.