With consecutive devastating hurricanes hitting Florida early this fall season, and a new normal of storm damage in the U.S. projected to exceed $100 billion annually, it is time to recognize that our collective efforts to mitigate climate change by shifting to greener energy may not suffice.

Despite making some progress in slowing the growth of emissions, the world continues to emit more carbon dioxide than ever, notwithstanding impressive progress in wind, solar and hydroelectric energy. The planet’s 8 billion people are becoming more prosperous all the time — a good thing overall, but with the predictable result of more energy consumption.

Our transition to clean industry and energy must continue, to be sure. But even if global efforts to cut emissions were redoubled, the world is still in for a lot of costly effects from climate change — rising oceans, changing rainfall patterns, stronger storms, more drought.

Is it time to consider geoengineering or climate engineering — artificially cooling the planet — more seriously? The idea has been floated for at least a half century now, and taken seriously by some forward-looking thinkers for a couple decades. But with global temperatures now more than 1 degree Celsius above pre-industrial levels (about 2 degrees Fahrenheit), and likely headed for 2 degrees Celsius in coming decades — a level widely recognized as dangerous — the answer may be yes.

The cost of severe climate impacts might be lowered, possibly a lot, with active planetary cooling efforts. Even if every country doesn’t come to that conclusion, climate........

© The Hill