I can't quote the piece in its entirety (and apologies it is behind the Sun's paywall) but, before anyone worries about the title (and selling the idea of geoengineering), here's what I wrote in summary...
"Using solar radiation management would be very difficult politically.
Which country should control the technology, or decide where the aerosols should be released?
Which country gets to decide how cold it is, and what happens if there are unintended consequences?
If weather patterns are changed, there could be severe fallout for countries which are suddenly getting a lot more rain than usual - or, more likely, a lot less.
None of these techniques are perfect and none should be considered a silver bullet. None have been tested on a large enough scale to be certain they would work. They should be considered no better than an insurance policy.
They might help out if your house catches fire, but it would be better to stop it catching fire in the first place.
Of course, there is a better option. Stop pumping as much carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. Almost all climate scientists believe that we have very little time to make this change before we will have to either adapt to climate change or engineer a solution. "
It was difficult to write and the editor and I went back and forth on the wording a lot but I hope it was worth it. My aim was to open up the debate and be as frank as possible without, in any way, advocating any other choice than conventional mitigation. I guess some (including Jack Stilgoe) would legitimately ask if this was normalisation. I hope not...