Why is it always a plan straight out of sci-fi rather than "yeah we'll use a mix of renewable and nuclear energies, heavily reduce our dependence on fossil fue

Why is it always a plan straight out of sci-fi rather than "yeah we'll use a mix of renewable and nuclear energies, heavily reduce our dependence on fossil fuels, and create combustible fuels from renewable resources". Obviously this plan is hard but is it harder than dimming the sun? the fucking SUN? - is dimming the sun reliable? - can the sun get too dim? What happens when a volcano erupts, dimming the sun's effect even more? - Will we ever need to reduce the amount of sulfur in that atmosphere? how do we do that? - How do we globally coordinate throwing sulfur into the atmosphere when we can't globally coordinate management of climate change? - Does this help with air pollution in any way? I want investment into the reasonable solutions to climate change that already exist. Telling the Koch family "Oh no, we can fill the atmosphere with sulfur and you can continue to dump garbage into the sky for 30 years" is laughable and it basically means that nothing but increased air pollution is going to happen for 30 years. I'm not trying to be such a downer on this plan, and if it can safely and effectively help curb/reverse some of the effects of climate change that's incredible. That said, we already have decades of research and billions of dollars invested into much more feasible methods to help curb climate change, and I can't really see why the top polluting countries of the world would start geoengineering when they haven't started implementing policies for the things that we know for sure work.