When I think climate engineering I'm thinking reactive measures vice preemptive measures, so stuff like switching to renewables (though hugely important) wouldn't fall under that definition, while something like carbon capture would. And while I know there are several companies, research institutes, think tanks, universities, whatever, engaged in coming up with ways to either mitigate solar radiation or remove carbon from the atmosphere, you are correct in pointing out that they aren't at scale because they aren't profitable.
The mantra I used to hear from climatologists is that money and intellectual effort is better spent not on figuring out ways to pull carbon from the atmosphere, but on how we ensure it's left underground in the first place.
A crude example might be as follows: A company develops some sort of carbon capture infrastructure that requires power. Given that this is a green energy project, the company ensures that their device is run off locally installed solar panels. Under that aforementioned mantra, it would be better just to take the power from those solar panels and plug it into the grid - bypass the silly hardware. By doing so you've prevented more carbon from leaving the Earth's crust than you could've ever captured from the air. Crude example but that's the gist of it.
To Tip's point, and like you've highlighted, we're already there. If we had a magic button that switched all of our energy needs away from fossil fuels we would still have more carbon in the atmosphere than desired. And so now we have to look at those climate engineering projects and begin to envision them at grand scales.
And that's when the clown show starts because some of the options on the table are pretty drastic, zany, and downright absurd.
Anyway let's bomb Krakatoa!