Geoengineering: Political Games and Toxic Encounters
by Sean Alexander Carney for Safe Tech International
Geoengineering, the artificial modification of earth’s climate, is an issue that concerns us all. In this article we’ll discover what it has to do with expanding wireless technologies and the international drive to transform our society, our atmosphere – and our world.
A technology for modifying our planet
Geoengineering has a propensity to cause confusion and division, as well as misunderstanding. Yet, in the era of Net Zero (a political drive for net zero CO2 by 2050) ever more extreme climate modification methods are being considered.
If you are familiar with the UN’s Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) which demand “climate action”, you might already know that geoengineering programs are hastily being rolled out by governments of member states in “climate action” policies and mandates related to the SDG agenda.
More than ever before, geoengineering and weather modification programs are receiving coverage in the news. However, for all the reporting, is there enough transparency about geoengineering – which concerns artificial and speculative measures (of more political than scientific value), for “fixing the climate”?
Governments around the world are taking baby steps towards officially justifying using aerosolised particulates (like sulphur dioxide, silica, and silver iodide) to support “climate change action” Such stratospheric geoengineering can generate synthetic cloud formations in our skies, which proponents believe will bring benefits. New cloud formations (noticed over the last 30 years) have now been officially documented by the UN, are covered by various publications, and are being classified with new features, behaviours and properties – all while the controversial subject of geoengineering is carefully managed by the media.
Some “climate” solutions may involve “nano-materials” to modify the atmosphere and environment. Nanomaterials present environmental and health risks, and are a problematic issue for law. Yet, they are sold as part of “a sustainable future”.
These types of “climate” projects undoubtedly present opportunities for wireless and nano-scale technological transformations of our environment through Industry 4.0 so that the Internet of Things (IoT) can make deeper roots to transform society. Climate action is often being sold alongside a concept known as “Society 5.0, where all people and things are connected with the Internet of Things (IoT).”
The message couldn’t be clearer that climate ideology and smart technology developments go hand in hand to transform our society, and in the end, us. We shouldn’t be surprised, because the UN’s Roadmap for Digital Cooperation spells it all out and aims for “Universal Connectivity by 2030.“
As governments digitally and chemically transform our lives in the name of tackling “climate change” and at the same time hasten the Internet of Things (IoT) into being, the remarkable pace of geoengineering research and technological developments gravitates into controversial territories, gambling with the future, diversity and sanctity of life on earth.
Every breath we take
There is without question an international political-industrial desire to enhance the atmosphere (and environment) with highly conductive, aerosolised particulate matter that evidently promotes electromagnetic transmission. At the same time, carbon is “vilified” as our biggest “climate problem” and is being removed from the atmosphere and environment.
A highly conspicuous fact, in the context of all of this, is that Carbon is not considered a good electromagnetic conductor. We find it is being removed (often buried) in rapid “climate change action”. This is part of a geoengineering process which helps to produce an anthropogenically modified atmosphere favouring an emerging wireless, sensing environment. Such changes to the quality of our atmosphere will also inevitably alter our bodies, and impact our health (especially our respiratory health).
All of this hastened “modification” is integral to fully achieving the IoT – a goal of the UN and various corporate stakeholders who are rapidly rolling out smart technologies, and nano-technologies, supported by Industry 4.0 (a.k.a. The Fourth Industrial Revolution, as coined by Klaus Schwab, Founder and Executive Chairman of the World Economic Forum (WEF)).
In the context of ensuing IoT developments, Geoengineering fulfils more than the generally understood, mainstreamed purpose of tackling “climate change” so it is important to consider the implications for our world.
A change of atmosphere
Some say “Life on planet Earth is under siege” because of “climate emergency.” Weather events such as the “unusual storm” of the Atlantic, the “category five” Hurricane Beryl, come to dominate the media and these unusual weather events are portrayed as the inevitabilities of climate change as defined in climate agendas and politics of the UN. The BBC reports that, “only two other Atlantic hurricanes in history have intensified more rapidly – Felix in 2007, and Wilma in 2005 – and only 4.5% of named storms in the Atlantic have grown to a category five in the past decade.” There is a history of ongoing weather modification in hurricane hotspots (and UN member states in general) that is being ignored while we hear more about “cases of rapid intensification as the climate continues to warm.”
The Guardian, for example, has reported with “Cloud spraying and hurricane slaying: how ocean geoengineering became the frontier of the climate crisis” that “around the world, dozens of ingenious projects are trying to ‘trick’ the ocean into absorbing more CO2…[and] Nobody knows if these concepts will work, or what consequences there could be.”
Meanwhile, the very golden sun that heats our world, gives life, is now so often vilified as an existential threat within the narrative of “climate change.” In thrall of technology and witnesses to the intergovernmental wars against nature, the too-often pixelated face of the human family turns away from the radiance of our natural world to the radiation of screens in Wi-Fi saturated “smart technology” environments.
Not just the sun, but the human race itself is vilified as an equal threat within the politics of “human-caused climate change” guided by UN officials, stately figures, celebrities, politicians and industry magnates today, often in the same breath that human-caused AI and smart technology is praised by them.
Owing to the sun’s political reputation as a radiation force to be technologically tamed, the sky above us becomes the target of copiously funded research to alter the climate and reduce earth’s atmospheric sunlight by chemical and other means – a process which may irrevocably alter our climate and life on earth as we know it, “forever”.
On this controversial issue a report from the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) in the US called Climate Intervention: Reflecting Sunlight to Cool Earth, was published in 2015. This review of “peer-reviewed literature” was compiled for “leaders to be far more knowledgeable about the consequences of albedo modification approaches before they face a decision whether to use them.”
The publication covers technologies for reflecting sunlight away from earth and it can be read here. It focuses on utilising aerosols of known toxic pollutants (associated with respiratory health problems and carcinogenesis) and releasing the payloads from high altitude aircraft into the stratosphere (where the ozone layer is formed from incoming solar radiation). This is a highly controversial approach to altering the course of so-called “anthropogenic climate change” and in terms of it being considered a “climate solution”, beggars belief.
Chemical weather/climate modification (a.k.a. atmospheric modification) is nothing new, yet is something the public knows very little about. Most of us are very familiar with so-called “chemtrails”, however. We might, after perusing the aforementioned publication, find no distinction between the concept of “albedo modification” in the stratosphere and the concept of “chemtrails” (which the media regularly describes in terms of a “conspiracy theory”).
As aerosolised chemical “spraying” to alter our atmosphere is a real issue, and no longer is tethered in the realm of fantasy or so-called “conspiracy theories.” We all deserve to be more informed about it. The potential for irreversible damage from such “radical” geoengineering methods cannot be underestimated.
On the trail of climate impacts
The Met Office in the UK introduces the public to the concept of “atmospheric modification”, but stresses that it does not “promote any atmospheric interventions” such as aircraft “…injecting aerosols into the stratosphere to reflect sunlight back into space.”
Many of us will be familiar with the idea that illegitimately, certain controversial aerial geoengineering programs may have been happening for years. What does the Met Office think? “There is misinformation on social media suggesting the condensation trails (contrails) from high-altitude aircraft are…attempts to alter the atmosphere…” It is an expected refutation of the possibility of weather modification and serves to inhibit the ongoing conversation about the issue.
The World Meteorological Organization (WMO), an agency of the United Nations (UN), classifies contrails as new clouds called Cirrus homogenitus in its Cloud Atlas. According to an article published in the journal Reviews on Environmental Health, “Persistent aircraft trails seem to be a “natural” and unavoidable consequence of aviation. However, other documents referring to a weather modification technology must be taken into account in order to better understand the problem as a whole.”
The Met Office, a trusted source, has disputed the possibility weather modification as a consequence of aviation. However, it cannot always be trusted. Weather modification has a history, and the Met Office has played a part in denying it – and possibly still does.
As the UK’s DevonLive news resource reports, “Operation Cumulus was the name of the experiment being carried out by the RAF and an international team of scientists in August 1952. On…August 15 1952, the cloud seeding [weather modification] experiments came to a sudden end, official documents have confirmed. It was also the same day that Devon experienced the biggest, most tragic, flooding event the region has seen in more than 300 years….[in which] thirty four people died…Witnesses described the ‘purple black’ clouds that accumulated over Exmoor – some even said the threatening skies had a weird greenish tinge….The meteorological office [Met Office] had previously denied there were any rainmaking experiments conducted before 1955, but a BBC Radio 4 history investigation, broadcast in August 2001, unearthed documents at the public record office showing that they were going on from 1949 to 1955. RAF logbooks and personnel corroborate the evidence.”
Today, Google’s “Project Contrails” states that aircraft contrails are produced “…when water vapor in the air condenses around tiny particles of soot” and “…contrails can persist as cirrus clouds for minutes or hours, depending on the conditions…At night natural clouds and airline contrails trap heat. During the day, they also reflect back incoming sunlight and warmth.” We are clearly given the impression that aircraft emissions are altering the climate.
Google – a start up funded by the US Department of Defense (long involved in experimental weather modification programs) – shares with us the idea that the contrails we’re seeing in the sky are generated “only…when planes fly through humid regions” and believes Artificial Intelligence (AI) can help pilots avoid flying through them and creating more contrails (which Google states contribute to global warming). Working with American Airlines, Google wants to strategically influence commercial flight paths, by integrating AI insights into pilot workflow, with plans to “extend our models to geostationary satellites over Europe, Africa, the Indian Ocean (Meteosat Third Generation), East Asia and Western Australia (Himawari).” Interesting that Google wants to prevent global warming but relies on satellites that contribute massively to GHG pollution!
Fuelling climate modification
Google’s line of thinking is based on “A recent IPCC report [which] noted that clouds created by contrails account for roughly 35% of aviation’s global warming impact.” It is interesting to note that Google’s long time sponsor, “The US military has been at the forefront of aviation fuels development“, and also weather manipulation research.
We could say that the military has been responsible for the climate impacts caused by aircraft contrails all along, tailoring the chemical composition of jet fuel. What can Google get from all of this contrail concern? Public image enhancement (after Project Maven controversy, etc), climate action kudos, more applied and profitable data-generating AI surveillance (via satellite imagery, weather and flight path data) and the greenwashing of Google’s “carbon footprint.” (According to Statista, “Google’s total greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions increased by 13 percent in 2023, to 14.31 million metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent (MtCO₂e).”)
The following studies suggest that, despite the exciting cover story of Google’s “green” efforts, the continuing pollution from jet fuel and communications satellite launches will most likely sustain the very global warming that they claim AI technology in Project Contrails can help to reduce.
Led by scientists at Imperial College London, a study published in August 2024 found that “Modern commercial aircraft [such as Airbus A350 and Boeing 787 Airliners] flying at high altitudes create longer-lived planet-warming contrails than older aircraft…[and]…private jets produce more contrails than previously thought, potentially leading to outsized impacts on climate warming.” The study is published here.
That newer aircraft create longer-lived planet-warming contrails than older aircraft is an interesting finding for it means they are influencing the weather and climate against public expectations. Newer passenger aircraft are using the latest sustainable aviation fuels (SAFs), which we’d assume are mean’t to assuage further damage to the climate – though it would appear not – even though the public is told they are modified to reduce CO2 and are supposed to be more effective against global warming.
As Robyn Schofield, Associate Professor and Associate Dean (Environment and Sustainability), The University of Melbourne writing for sciencealert.com points out, it isn’t just aircraft contrails that can “geoengineer” and impact climate. A 2024 study has confirmed that contrails from satellites “could facilitate ozone-destroying chemical reactions.” Satellites such as those from communications companies like Starlink, reaching the end of their useful and short lives will fall to the earth and “along the way, they will leave a trail of tiny metallic particles. According to [ the 2024 study ] by a team of American researchers, this satellite rain may dump 360 tonnes of tiny aluminium oxide particles in the atmosphere each year. The aluminium will mostly be injected at altitudes between 50 and 85 kilometres, but it will then drift down to the stratosphere – home to Earth’s protective ozone layer.”
Researchers have also found that as a result of satellite launches and their inevitable falling to earth, around 10% the stratosphere’s aerosol composition “…already contain[s] aluminium [oxides], and [have] predicted this will increase to 50 percent over the next 10–30 years.” There is concern about what these metals will do when they reach polar regions, especially as “…By some estimates, more than 50,000 satellites may be launched between now and 2030.”
Weather/climate manipulation happens due to a variety of anthropogenic influences. It has most certainly been achieved deliberately, and this continues that way with geoengineering, for example. Deliberate manipulations of the weather/climate were once highly experimental, secret, and confined to military operations, illustrated by the Vietnam War, for example, when Operation Popeye, was launched to make the weather a tactical weapon to disrupt Vietcong operations over areas of the Ho Chi Minh Trail.
Strategic “operations” to change the climate are gathering pace today, this time not just by the military, but by corporations, start ups, universities, and governments in the name of “climate research”.
As we can see, the compulsive launching of satellites for wireless communications are also playing a role in altering the atmosphere, and the ozone layer, through aluminium oxide and other emissions. The abuse of the ozone layer, on an industrial scale, is as relentless as ever.
To drive home the point, aluminium oxide, the pollutant being added to the atmosphere by satellites, has also been proposed as a geoengineering aerosol to be injected into the lower stratosphere “to mitigate the global warming aspect of climate change.” This has been highlighted as a serious health threat as the British Medical Journal reports in a letter to the editor in 2022 (by Giovanni Ghirga, Pediatrician, International Society of Doctors for the Environment ISDE, Italy). Ghirga’s letter also states that “Worldwide land precipitation of aluminium following aerosol spraying into the lower stratosphere would increase human body exposure and seriously threaten Global Mental Health.”
Directed microwave energy
The electromagnetic realms of the sky are the target of other research which may also affect the climate. Today scientific research has extended well beyond chemically influencing the weather – the capability exists (in research facilities such as the High Frequency Active Auroral Research Program (HAARP), located in Alaska) to modify the ionosphere by directing immense energy from an array of antennae to artificially heat it (using high intensity radio-waves). As your-physicist.com reports, “The process is similar to how a microwave oven heats up food by exciting its molecules.”
This heating process affects “the complex dynamics of the ionospheric plasma, a gas of electrons and ions enveloping our planet.” The ionosphere consists of charged and neutral gases and absorbs harmful radiation from the sun, a buffer protecting us from “space weather” and solar radiation. It reflects and modifies radiowaves used for communication and navigation allowing the propagation of radiowaves and GPS signals across the globe, and is where many communications satellites orbit. The influence of weather, including space weather (as well as the directed microwave energy from ionospheric heaters) changes how the ionosphere behaves, and can interfere with radio communications.
There are many ionospheric heaters on earth and you can view them here. These antennae arrays “can create temporary radio mirrors that can reflect radio waves back to the ground over long distances.”
Whether HAARP’s influence on the ionosphere (creating artificial plasma waves) has implications for upper-atmospheric influences on climate is not explored in this article, however the existence of HAARP shows us that anthropogenic modification of the earth’s atmospheric layers extends far beyond the skyscape we are familiar with, to the threshold of space.
“While ionospheric heaters are not currently used for weather modification on a large scale, some scientists have proposed using them to modify the ionosphere to mitigate the effects of solar storms or to reduce the risk of climate-related disasters.” Source.
However, we are reminded this is a military intallation, and the reality is that the military does not study anything that it does not intend to weaponise, and it has certainly weaponised microwaves, has an interest in weaponising weather, and continues to develop electromagnetic warfare.
HAARP, the most well-known ionospheric heater of the Department of Defense (DOD) has gained mixed reports and certainly raises concerns about the use of directed energy (microwaves) and the potential of ionospheric heaters to modify weather. Is blasting through the ozone layer with powerful electromagnetic radiation really a good idea (even if it is presented in the name of scientific and military research)? Ionising Solar blasts, for example are reported to “devastate the ozone layer.”
As we can appreciate, compared with Operation Popeye’s context and goals during the Vietnam War, the reasoning behind deploying climate/weather modification and research strategies today is related to the public in the socially acceptable dialogue of climate change, which helps politicians manufacture consent as they justify the roll out of the geoengineering technologies.
Governments want to change the climate
Chemical-based weather modification in our time arises from a commercial and political desire, rooted in questionable military research, and is marketed into the mainstream through the UN-sponsored narratives of “Climate Change” and “sustainability”.
Spurring fears about global warming is a catalyst to normalising the adoption of weather/climate modification technology and public expectations about global warming interventions. Vilifying the sun’s influence on our planet while the military industrial complex pours chemicals (and microwaves) into the deepest realms of the sky illustrates a certain absurdity and hypocrisy in motion – but the public’s focus sees not folly, and is kept locked on political personalities and celebrities applauding the power of science and technology working against the clock to “fight the climate enemy”.
Governments across the world, whether we see their hypocrisy or not, are currently involved in various weather manipulation research programs, some known to the public, with others so controversial and played down that they are yet become officially promoted, or enshrined in policies.
At this moment, research and lobbying continues internationally to gain permissions to release huge quantities of acrid sulphur dioxide (SO2) – a chemical that has a long history in chemical warfare – into the earth’s upper atmosphere, which proponents believe will over time artificially alter earth’s temperature as part of a strategy for adjusting the climate.
The recurrent idea – which has scientists divided, and inspires zealous adherents invested in the gamble – requires that payloads of SO2 are released in sustained and massive quantities from aircraft. The SO2 released forms an aerosol barrier in the stratosphere (when the atmosphere converts the SO2 to sulphate particles – a salt of sulphuric acid). The aim of doing this is to lower earth’s temperature by reflecting the sun’s radiation back into space. The aerial “spraying” of SO2 must be done relentlessly. New research suggests such geoengineering “climate action” could “cause worse climate anomalies than burning greenhouse gases as usual.”
Experimentation, and “research” into such controversial “climate management” concepts requires lots of money from those interested, which includes the Natural Environment Research Council (NERC) (which will feedback data to the UK government), and private interests, like Bill Gates who supports The Stratospheric Controlled Perturbation Experiment (SCoPEx), launched by Harvard University (cancelled in 2024). Much of the “conversation” involves data from modelling, as outlined by an NGO called the Degrees Initiative.
Geoengineering and Solar Radiation Management (SRM)
The concept of altering the earth’s climate through artificial means is called Geoengineering, and today its becoming a huge investment, believed to “offset” climate change. As Geoengineeringmonitor.org has reported, “In March 2022, the European Commission announced that it is spending € 1.1 billion co-funding seven large-scale climate projects. Among them are five geoengineering projects, which will cost € 880 million.”
While much of the media focus is on Carbon Capture, the EC believes that “…in most of the scenarios and modelled pathways considered in the IPCC, it is now more likely than not that global warming will exceed 1.5°C, at least temporarily by the end of this century. Therefore, additional climate responses such as SRM [Solar Radiation Management] are gaining more attention.”
SRM is the specific Geoengineering process of blocking the sun and dimming the earth, a type of “albedo modification”. As the EC states, “SRM technology options include stratospheric aerosol interventions (SAI – the most studied option), marine cloud brightening (MCB), ground-based albedo modifications (GBAM), ocean albedo change (OAC) and cirrus cloud thinning (CCT). Modelling studies have shown SRM could potentially offset some climate change risks, including the increase in frequency and intensity of extremes of temperature and precipitation. However, it could also introduce a range of new risks related to the change of global weather patterns.”
We can understand how SRM is a highly controversial research area – essentially a troublesome topic concerning a toxic “fix.” SRM causes many scientists alarm, and also, no end of skepticism in their ranks. But it is not without its supporters.
According to carbonbrief.org, “The idea of engineering the climate in order to limit sunlight has been debated by scientists and politicians for more than 50 years, but – apart from studies based on computer simulations – very little field research has been carried out.”
Owing to a lack of transparency and public discussion, the matter of SRM is something of a taboo subject, mostly off limits, despite the promotion of other geoengineering techniques such as Carbon Capture. Yet, SRM is not off the table concerning the international climate agenda and seems destined to emerge from the shadows as governments and start-up industries (that make weather modification their business), are irresistibly drawn to SRM techniques, and aspire to be on the cutting edge of climate action.
Concerns about geoengineering projects like SRM have been highlighted by Former climate advisor to the UN Secretary-General and the President of the General Assembly Tracy Raczek writing for Chatham House in 2022: “The Arctic Ice Project, an NGO, intends to deploy small hollow glass beads, composed of silicon dioxide [used in the microelectronics of wireless/digital devices], across parts of the Arctic Sea’s ice and in the Arctic Ocean to increase reflectivity and slow global warming. Australian universities are piloting a salt spray over the Great Barrier Reef to reflect more of the sun’s heat in an attempt to conserve the reef.” In the science journal Nature, we discover “artificial clouds” are also being used by Australian scientists to block sunlight.
What impacts will artificial clouds bring to the Great Barrier Reef? And, can the synthetic process involving experimental “microspheres” promoted by The Arctic Ice Project (AIP) (partnered with NASA Earth Exchange) really restore the Arctic, or is it more suitable for the Internet of Oceans? Silica Microspheres lend themselves to “biotechnology applications such as biosensing” and could be ingested by sea life.
The AIP project describes the microspheres of silicon as safe, yet if they are microspheres they must resemble silica dust which is known to impact the immune system. “Breathing in very small (“respirable”) crystalline silica particles, causes multiple diseases, including silicosis, an incurable lung disease that leads to disability and death” according to the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA). One hopes the project isn’t just more toxic pollution damaging health and wildlife, discarded for future generations to inherit, however as we can see, scrolling down this supplier description, the signal word for silica microspheres is “danger”.
Synthetic clouds: what is the real cost?
Reflecting the sun’s radiation back off the earth seems to involve toxic substances. Aircraft-based SRM techniques utilise the stratospheric spraying of corrosive SO2 into the atmosphere, a process that presents serious risks to the climate, environment, and life on earth. SO2 will inevitably fall to earth and become part of our breathable atmosphere. It seems incomprehensible that SRM is being considered when it can contribute to air pollution which is recognised by The World Health Organisation (WHO) “as a risk factor for noncommunicable diseases such as ischaemic heart disease, stroke, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, asthma and cancer, and the economic toll they take.”
Many of us maybe unaware that SO2 is a corrosive irritant. It is more at home in the plumes of a volcanic eruption. Yet it is regarded as the chemical of choice in a 24/7 “climate” operation that is touted to cool the planet.
We might be surprised that the UK and other governments are spending millions on researching controversial SRM as a “climate” manipulation strategy. A prolonged and profitable global spraying spree is what the proponents of SRM have in mind, and they compare it with a “natural phenomenon” – though blanketing the earth for countless years with SO2 is far from natural.
The “logic” behind SRM is based on the assertion that massive volcanic eruptions that blanket the skies in SO2 and other aerosols may have cooled the planet. The outpouring of SO2 and other pollution from Mt Pinatubo in the Philippines in 1991 which is believed cooled the earth by 0.5 degrees celsius is hailed as just one example by those in pursuit of dimming our skies indefinitely through SRM geoengineering.
SRM requires a relentless, targeted injection of SO2 into the atmosphere. According to CNN, because “the aerosol particles do not tend to remain in the atmosphere for more than about a year, solar geoengineering would have to be continuously maintained.” And what of the consequences should it stop? Raymond Pierrehumbert, professor of physics at Oxford University, told CNN that “termination shock” would unleash “all the pent-up warming “ready to slap the Earth in the face”.
“Termination Shock” has been described in an open access article by Andy Parker and Peter J. Irvine. who state that, “If solar geoengineering were to be deployed so as to mask a high level of global warming, and then stopped suddenly, there would be a rapid and damaging rise in temperatures. This effect is often referred to as termination shock, and it is an influential concept.”
In addition we learn that “Termination shock could be very damaging for natural and human systems as the rate of warming would probably be much higher than that otherwise expected under anthropogenic climate change (Irvine et al., 2012; Llanillo et al., 2010; Matthews & Caldeira, 2007; McCusker et al., 2014), meaning that both ecosystems and human societies would have less time to adapt to the rapidly changing new conditions (McCormack et al., 2016; Trisos et al., 2018).”
The article also informs us that, “SRM only masks the warming effects of GHGs and is not designed to reduce their concentrations in the atmosphere.”
Is there sufficient transparency?
Many of us maybe unaware of our own government’s sustained interest in the SRM Geoengineering process. It shows how little transparency there is about it, and this hasn’t changed in over 75 years or so. Now that such taboo technologies have been recently rebranded as “last chance” climate solutions (without any proof that they ever can be, but plenty of predictive computer modelling), more mainstream reporting of Geoengineering has ensued.
However, that is not an indicator of sufficient transparency. Showing us that the climate can be modified with “contrails” and “aerosols” from planes after all, has been approached in the media like a public relations exercise to reassure the population that geoengineering is about “climate solutions” rather than whatever the derogatory sounding (yet somewhat accurate) “chemtrails” might suggest, as governments exhibit a “flurry of interest globally” in SRM.
It is quite alarming, but not necessarily alarmist, to contemplate the implications of blanketing our skies with SO2 to create a climatic shift in temperature for the sake of theoretically tackling global warming. We must ask – as I hope the governments permitting SRM research are doing – whether putting the health of the global population at stake is worth the weight of the climate theories in hand. It shouldn’t be.
More than meets the eye?
As our planet’s health burden of air pollution shows no signs of slowing, surely the answer isn’t to fill the air with particulates that further challenge our health, and our boundaries?
The miniaturisation of wireless telecommunications (to nano-scale technologies) gains momentum with the development of smart dust and nano-scale wireless antennae while the Internet of Things (IoT) and the Internet of Underwater Things (IoUT) accelerates in earnest intending to “a world-wide network of smart interconnected underwater objects with a digital identity”.
It is known that nanobot sensors (required for the IoT in all its facets) can be aerosolised, just like geoengineering payloads. Would they ever be combined, is the question.
In the journal Health Security in 2019, Jennifer Snow and James Giordano alert us to how “the development of aerosolizable nanomaterials and devices also poses defined risks to public health and biosecurity that warrant consideration, address, and constraint. Aerosolized nanobots could be used to sidestep extant proscriptions of the current Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention (BWC) or Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC).”
Payloads of micro/nano-materials and nano-mites to advance wireless telecommunications will need to cover the earth. Nanotechnology capable of self-assembling into intelligent networks also requires energy, and is increasingly developed to draw energy (sustainably) from the environment, whether that be the sea, or a blood vessel.
This is also out in the open, has been for a while and is most certainly on the cards. We should keep in mind that inorganic SO2 used in SRM is also electrically conductive and has thermal properties (when mixed with water/precipitation) and would proliferate in skies and fall/rain down into the environment, making it a carrier like a semiconductor that could help drive nano-technologies relevant to the IoT and wireless innovations.
Diamond doped-silica (another conductor) has been proposed for SRM, as well, and microspheres of silica (more at home in technology and cutting edge medical applications) is the material being used by the Arctic Ice Project (AIP). Is there more scope to geoengineering developments, and materials, than first meets the eye?
Why our health hangs in the balance
What do we know about the long term health implications of living beneath a sky seeded with SO2 from relentless daily aircraft runs? Scientists theorise but do not conclusively know the health outcome of a sustained SRM program on the global population.
Scientists and governments do know, however, that exposure to SO2 can cause inflammation, and serious damage to the respiratory airways and lungs. Sulphur dioxide rapidly enters the bloodstream through the lungs and even short-term exposures can be life-threatening. According to the UK government’s Statement on the differential toxicity of particulate matter according to source or constituents: 2022, sulphates in the atmosphere “…show associations with adverse effects in epidemiological studies.” To be clear, sulphates can cause organ toxicity, reproductive toxicity and cancer.
The California Air Resources Board (ARB) asserts that “sulfates contribute to acidification of surface water and soil, and contribute to acid rain and fog that damage ecosystems, forests and plants” – further, blocking the sun with SRM reduces carbon dioxide uptake in plants, and therefore reduces the production of oxygen.
Sulphates have ” health effects similar to those from exposure to PM2.5. These include reduced lung function, aggravated asthmatic symptoms, and increased risk of emergency department visits, hospitalizations, and death in people who have chronic heart or lung diseases.”
The ARB adds, “Because sulfates are light colored, they reflect energy from sunlight back into space. This means that sulfates have a cooling influence on climate change…Sulfates are particularly effective in degrading visibility by scattering light before it reaches an observer. This light scattering reduces visual clarity, mutes colors, and reduces the distance one can see.”
Who is most vulnerable? Children are much more vulnerable to SO2 exposures than adults as they breathe more voluminously for their size and weight than adults. However, as the American Lung Association reports, adults share certain vulnerabilities that increase their risk manifold. “Short exposures to peak levels of SO2 in the air can make it difficult for people with asthma to breathe when they are active outdoors.” Other vulnerable groups include older adults with chronic heart or lung diseases, and people with Multiple Chemical Sensitivity (MCS) are very sensitive to low level exposures of chemicals in the environment putting them at higher risk, too. MCS is often discussed in tandem with electromagnetic hypersensitivity (EHS), a debilitating heightened sensitivity to industrialised electromagnetic fields (EMFs) in the environment which has overlaps with MCS.
It is known that “…in the last few decades MCS [like EHS] has received considerable scientific and governmental attention in light of the many persons reporting this illness…A number of countries and health care communities have recognized MCS or similar entities as a debilitating illness.” The unavoidable reality is that we are all vulnerable to SO2 exposures, and from such pollution may develop asthma, MCS and chronic diseases as a result.
Industrially, Sulphur dioxide has various uses and careful handling and safety protocols are necessary, as it can increase asthma in those regularly exposed (like a population subjected to SRM?) You can learn more about the health impacts of SO2 here. It can exacerbate existing health problems well beyond asthma.
We can think of SO2 as potently corrosive bleach. Owing to such properties SO2 is used as a fungicide, a disinfectant, and is a problematic air pollutant. This should make it clear to us the potential catastrophic results that could arise from our governments applying SRM in our skies. Spraying SO2 in our skies is asking for trouble. Encountering precipitation, the aerosol application of SO2 will result in acid rain.
SO2 also inhibits photosynthesis and causes plants to lose water. Imagine the impact on gardens, crops and food supply. According to an article published in Critical Reviews in Environmental Science and Technology, “The cumulative effect of sulferous pollution is to reduce the quantity and quality of plant yield. Generally, its impact is more severe when in combination with other pollutants such as oxides of nitrogen, fluorides, and ozone. At the ecosystem level, sulfur dioxide affects species composition by eliminating more sensitive species.“
Imagining SRM to be a potential “healer” of the earth’s climate seems incomprehensible when the governments interested in SRM also claim to be concerned about global warming, ocean acidification and the preservation of ecosystems. Scientists know that sulphur dioxide presents very real and well-known health and environmental risks. Despite all of this, the money, research and planning in the direction of SRM deployment continues.
Confronting reality
SRM is a very taboo subject for the public. However, to transcend the taboo, we must confront the reality that our climate can be altered in a calculated way through methods known to our governments, in ways that could bring catastrophe.
To think our governments might be or possibly intend to release chemical toxins (often described as “chemtrails”) into our atmosphere from aircraft deliberately has long drawn public skepticism. Yet the UK government has not dismissed the toxic approach to climate intervention promised by SRM. Anyone can read the UK government’s position on geoengineering which states:
“The Government is not deploying SRM, and has no plans to do so. The UK Government has commissioned research into the effects of SRM on climate, and monitors research in this area. The World Climate Research Programme’s (WCRP’s) Geoengineering Model Intercomparison Project (GeoMIP), is investigating, using computer modelling, the effects which SRM would have on the climate.”
Why spend millions on researching something with no plans to use it? Having no plans, is not the same as stating it will never be used. The door has been kept open for SRM.
Global interest in SRM
In 2018 it was reported by carbonbrief.org that “…interest in SRM appears to be growing. In October of last year, scientists met in Berlin to discuss the future of geoengineering. Last November, the US House of Representatives held a subcommittee meeting on geoengineering, with SRM dominating the conversation.”
In 2023, MIT Technology Review reported that “researchers launched a solar geoengineering test flight in the UK.” Not only does this “test flight” set a terrible precedent, it seems incomprehensible that the UK (or any other) government should ever consider permitting the deliberate spraying of toxic particulates (which erode the immune system and is rapidly absorbed into the bloodstream through inhalation). The world was recently locked down by governments in the name of protecting the respiratory health of the population. Do we really want to walk down that road again? Further SRM research that could result in more global respiratory health crises is attracting the attention of governments fixated on Net Zero and other climate strategies. Darkening our world with particulate matter (PM) to reach “climate targets” rather than focusing on the health repercussions for the global population should not be the priority.
The MIT in the US continues to push a Solar Geoengineering agenda and the pressure on governments across the globe to adopt SRM seems to grow. However, not all geoengineering projects survive. In 2024 Nature reported that “Harvard University researchers announced the cancellation of a high-profile solar geoengineering experiment, frustrating the project’s supporters. But advocates say that all is not lost, and that momentum for evaluating ways to artificially cool the planet is building internationally.”
Contradictions
The UK government is not alone in financing solar Geoengineering research. According to CNN, in 2022 the Biden Administration committed $4 million towards exploring solar geoengineering. A Harvard study of 2018 estimated that a sustained solar engineering project will probably cost $2.25 billion a year over a 15-year period, with 4000 flights necessary in year one alone. The process is estimated to possible take “several generations“. Only specially adapted planes are able to deliver the payloads, from altitudes “as high as 20 km” into the lower stratosphere.
We can instantly appreciate how such a project would contradict the global measure to tackle aviation emissions, a measure that the UK government for example fully supports. It is no theory that the UK government is collaborating with, and is being influenced by, scientists, institutions and industries working out how to best move forward with SRM (also called SAI – stratospheric aerosol injection), even though it presents a long term risk to public health and will likely bring more respiratory problems for us all.
There is little transparency about SRM, and no consensus that it should ever be done. We are told that the real-world effects of a large scale SRM intervention are unknown. It is understood that deep geopolitical conflicts could arise as a result of altering climates with SRM.
Cloud seeding: Rain-making and rain-stealing
Another form of geoengineering known as “cloud seeding” has already brought this consequence to the fore. As Tracy Raczek writing for Chatham House states, such climate “interventions can cross borders and what may be good for one country may not be good for its neighbours… This is not a hypothetical problem. Iran has already accused Israel of stealing its water by using cloud-seeding that reduces rainfall over its territory. China, which already artificially alters its weather over major cities, plans to be able to modify weather over half its territory by 2025, to the alarm of neighbours including India. And two Middle East rivals – the United Arab Emirates and Saudi Arabia – are scaling up rain-making operations.”
The Diplomat, in the article “How China uses Geoengineering to Pursue a Hybrid Warfare Strategy” reports that, “the country is committed to bringing about 5.5 million square kilometers of its land area under its weather modification program by 2025.” The consequences of implementing weather modification (“rain-making”) as Raczek highlighted “can cross borders.” The Diplomat states that in the context of China’s program, “….the impact of cloud seeding can be seen beyond China’s borders, [and] may disrupt the normal monsoon in neighboring countries such as India, Myanmar, Vietnam, etc. This would have an adverse impact on the agriculture in these countries, rising potentially to a form of “rain stealing.””
The Diplomat singles out China for using “geoengineering techniques to manipulate and jeopardize the rules relevant to maintaining the international order”, though neglects the reality that many countries are engaged in cloud seeding programs (as well as other types of geonegineering). Sadly, The Diplomat doesn’t acknowledge this and believes China could “sabotage global climate change efforts” by operating outside of the United Nations (UN) Framework Convention on Climate Change and Convention on Biological Diversity, which is evidently not moving fast enough for China.
In truth, there are no formally agreed “rules” being broken by China, for there is “no formal agreement or convention regarding geoengineering” at this time. Creating artificial rain, as theadvocatepost.org states that “legal frameworks face considerable challenges, concerning their scope, coordination, and enforcement. This is because cloud seeding can cross international borders and it can involve multiple stakeholders with varying interests.” advocatepost also highlights how, although Article 5 of the UN Conventions on the Law of the Non-Navigational Uses of International Watercourses and Article 7 of the Convention on Biological Diversity (and the Nagoya Protocol) attempt to “regulate” aspects of cloud seeding, “the biggest challenge at hand is the lack of any universal definition of cloud seeding or artificial rain.”
Kunal Sharma who created The Diplomat article lives in India where the monsoon may be influenced by China’s geoengineering activities. Sharma, however, doesn’t want to stop the cloud seeding experiments. Instead, Sharma highlights how it is “rogue” to do such things while the UN still seeks standards to shape the development of geoengineering projects – so believes the geoengineering projects should still be happening, just not on India’s doorstep. We can’t really blame Sharma for condemning China’s “rogue” weather modification experiments, though, even if they had the UN’s blessing, it wouldn’t alter the fact that such experiments involve aerosolised toxic carcinogens and bring a number of potentially devastating environmental costs.
Organisations like the Weather Modification Association (WMA) believes cloud seeding is a risk worth taking believing there is no toxic impact of concern after examining literature that embodies “tens of thousands of samples collected from cloud seeding program areas over a thirty-year period.”
Cloud seeding certainly has been going on a long time, and without the UN being particularly bothered about its practice, or the potential harms. I include the screenshot of the the Weather Modification Association which can be shared with anyone who doubts that weather modification is possible or happening.
The “Our Corporate Members” list at the bottom of the WMA’s “About us” page shows an array of corporate interests in weather modification including the North Dakota Atmospheric Resource Board which works to improve cloud seeding because in its opinion “CLOUD SEEDING HAS SIGNIFICANT POSITIVE EFFECTS ON CROP YIELDS AND IMPROVED LOSS RATIOS”.
This all illustrates an epidemic of hypocrisy. China’s geoengineering activity is condemned as “rogue” and a possible threat to climate/weather, while the rest of the “international order” escapes criticism for executing cloud seeding programs of their own.
SRM without laws or borders
The risks are many, and are being neglected. An ambitious start-up company called Making Sunsets infamously epitomises the hubris of zealous SRM “climate action.” In 2022, through private funding, the company launched a series of weather balloons full of SO2 inside of Mexico in what was broadly perceived as a provocative rogue act of climate intervention. The US based company, which regards itself as a “cult” with a mission to blanket the earth through SRM Geoengineering as a matter of pride, vowed to release huge payloads of SO2 above Mexico continuously into 2023 – without any governmental approval, scientific oversight or transparency with the public.
Such behaviour has raised environmental and humanitarian concerns. In January 2023 it was reported that Mexico had banned solar geo-engineering experiments. (It should be noted that the Mexican government prohibited the further deployment of Geoengineering acting on the precautionary principle laid out in a 2010 moratorium on SRM technology developed at a UN conference on biodiversity).
Various fact checkers jumped on the “Mexico/Making Sunsets” issue to quickly assert that Mexico didn’t ban “chemtrails” because they don’t exist. However, whether we call them “contrails” or “chemtrails” or clouds of sulphur dioxide being poured from weather balloons over Mexico, it adds up to the same controversy: the anthropogenic release of chemicals into the stratosphere to reduce solar influence on the earth.
Over seventy five years of artificial clouds
In 2023, Mexico suffered extreme droughts and turned to another climate altering technology called “cloud seeding” which uses aircraft to deposit aerosols of silver iodide into the stratosphere to artificially stimulate rainfall.
This is a weather modification project which according to CNN has been approved by the Mexican government since 2020. The operation is run by a company called Startup Renaissance. The technology of cloud seeding dates back to the 1940s and as CNN reports “Since then, it has been used in around 50 countries, including in the United States and China. Mexico has been experimenting with weather modification for more than seven decades.”
What about the UK? The UK funded cloud seeding experiments in the 1950s as the Department for Energy and Climate Change (DECC) has confirmed following a freedom of information request. The DECC confirmed that although the experiments were carried out, the “DECC does not hold information on these experiments” and the DECC “does not undertake any cloud seeding activities”, and “does not hold information about the amount of chemicals used annually for cloud seeding purposes.”
Already we can see that anthropogenic climate interventions, through chemical emissions such as silver iodide and sulphur dioxide, have a long history, and with that history, questions arise regarding transparency and public health, air quality, and biodiversity.
It is already acknowledged that contrails typically released from aircraft are responsible for creating sustained blanketing of the skies with vapour that traps heat. Whatever way we look at it, aerosol pollution from aviation is a means of influencing the climate. It is inevitable that they also influence health. As noted by scientists, “Aviation emissions [which contain sulphur dioxide (SO2)] are responsible for an estimated 24,000 premature mortalities annually and 3.5% of anthropogenic radiative forcing (RF).”
Radiative forcing (RF) refers to changes in the earth’s atmosphere owing to natural and human-caused concentrations of greenhouse gases (GHCs), aerosols and changes in solar radiation. According to climateworks.org, “Non-CO2 effects make up two-thirds of aviation’s climate impact.”
SO2: A polluting emission
SO2 for SRM, a chemical deployed to change solar radiation on earth is a polluting anthropogenic emission, and ironically, is also a component in aviation fuel today which relates to the aforementioned mortalities.
Like the global cloud-seeding deployments of silver iodide, (another toxin, and one which can cause reproductive disorders, developmental defects and cancer) prepared for international geoengineering requirements, SO2 in aviation fuel is a form of particulate matter (PM) that increases the global health burden.
SO2 is responsible for aviation-induced PM2.5 illnesses. So why should any government, or company, propose adding more of this to the atmosphere – especially when the government is at the same time, as in Europe and elsewhere, grappling with the reduction of sulphur in aviation fuel because of its alleged “climate impact”?
It should come as no surprise to us that SRM is regarded as an “extreme intervention” for mitigating solar radiation. Yet as mentioned, it is not off the table as governments reach for climate technologies to do battle with “climate change”.
SRM: projects and research that we know about
In February 2024 a new 10.5m five-year programme to independently risk assess and model impacts of SRM for policymakers was announced by the Natural Environment Research Council (NERC), interestingly to assess “existing data” on SRM and “engage with international activity in SRM.” NERC states that SRM “can reduce negative effects of climate change” – but at what price?
The detrimental side effects of SRM deserve to be known. I have touched upon the health implications of changing our atmosphere with SO2. But what else is there to be concerned about? SRM changes climate, which is what computer modelling is concerned with. Asking a computer to model our future is a risk in itself, but let’s be clear about what we could be facing from SRM. Rainfall patterns could become dramatically altered increasing drought and risk of floods. The ozone layer will become more severely impacted by SRM. We may see threats to biodiversity, possibly driving extinction events, eroding ecosystems and human health.
The methods of SRM being proposed internationally include Stratospheric Aerosol Injections (SAI), Marine cloud brightening (MCB) and cirrus cloud thinning (CCT) all of which alter cloud cover and usher in the catastrophic effects already discussed. Perhaps the governments toying with SRM should consider the words of Dietmar Dommenget, an associate professor at the School of Earth Atmosphere and Environment at Monash University, who asserts “climate is quite chaotic – we should be assuming the worst – we don’t know if it will happen, but we should assume the worst.“
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) of the United Nations (UN) with its huge influence on climate attitudes regards SRM as an unnecessary type of treatment that doesn’t address “the root cause of climate change”, which in its opinion is CO2. Yet, governments who are members of the UN are involved in SRM and expansive cloud-seeding projects. For example, according to geoengineeringmonitor.org, “In December 2020, the Chinese government revealed plans to enlarge its weather modification activities, covering an area of more than 6 million km2…” and by 2023 “…hopes to deploy an effective program, e.g., to battle droughts, control rainfall in agricultural lands or minimize losses from natural disasters. The program will be achieved by seeding clouds with particles of AgI [silver iodide] or other chemicals to induce precipitation.”
Why is the spraying of SO2 above our heads even being considered when there is no evidence it will change climate for the better, and presents a health and environmental risk that could cause irreversible damage to human beings and the natural world?
Beyond the exploits of “Making Sunsets” in Mexico recently, other known companies who have deployed SRM across the globe from 2020 onwards include: SCoPEx (Stratospheric Controlled Perturbation Experiment) organised by Harvard University [and supported by Bill Gates, but cancelled in 2024], Great Barrier Reef Marine Cloud Brightening trial(s)by a research team led by Southern Cross University, MCBP (Marine Cloud Brightening Project) led by Washington University & research partners, MCB (Marine Cloud Brightening) with sea water led by Stephen Salter (Edinburgh University) & Centre of Climate Repair (CCRC), Iron Salt Aerosol Method led by gM-Engineering. Details on the projects in 2022 were not available to the public. www.geoengineeringmonitor.org has more on this.
At the time of writing, according to a very useful, detailed interactive online map (prepared by ETC Group (a technology watchdog group) and the Heinrich Boell Foundation), 10 Solar Radiation Management projects which include stratospheric aerosol injection (SAI) and other chemical interventions in the earth’s stratosphere, are underway with 5 completed and 2 cancelled. 2 of the SRM projects are happening in the UK. According to ETC Group and the Heinrich Boell Foundation, to date “…more than 1,700 [geoengineering] projects have been identified.”
As we might now appreciate, a deeply concerning picture of the expansive nature of global climate modification is revealed. The tampering of our atmosphere in the UK, and elsewhere, is not limited to SRM, but many Carbon Capture and Storage projects are also ongoing. All are believed to mitigate what the IPCC defines as anthropogenic climate change, yet necessitate anthropogenic climate changing solutions.
Regardless of the risks to our planet, largely covert and risky interventions are happening in our skies and around us. As Jack Doughty has confirmed in Past forays into SRM field research and implications for future governance (2018) “Outdoor field research studies self-identifying as or closely related to solar radiation management (SRM) technology have already been carried out by scientists.”
What will be the ultimate effect on our health (particularly our respiratory health) as the greatest experiment on our atmosphere continues? As Dietmar Dommenget suggested, we should “assume the worst”.
SRM: Resistance from scientists, campaigners and documentary filmmakers
There are countless articles on the internet, both supporting and debunking chemtrails. The BBC tries to assure us that spraying the country with chemicals, though done “once upon a time, long, long ago, isn’t something we should expect any time soon. As the BBC reminds us, “In the 1950s and 1960s, decades before the conspiracy theories were born, much of Britain was sprayed with airborne chemicals in a series of secret germ warfare tests. And in 1950, San Francisco was sprayed with a chemical agent from a ship to gauge the effects of a bioweapon attack on a populated area.” It’s as if we all live in a changed world now. Can we really say that we are, knowing what plans are afoot in the name of Geoengineering?
The privately planned and funded spraying of sulphur dioxide (SO2) from aircraft (to theoretically avert temperature increases for years to come) that has been described in this article, isn’t that different in principle from what the BBC has described concerning experimental aerial chemical payloads in the 1950s and 1960s.
The public has a right to be concerned about it, regardless of whether they see a contrail or a chemtrail in the sky – SRM isn’t a fiction, it’s a “transboundary technology” threat any way we look at it.
There is credible resistance against SRM worthy of note. As Geoengineering Monitor observes, “In January 2022, a group of more than 60 concerned senior climate scientists from around the world called for an international solar-geoengineering non-use agreement, as SRM poses unacceptable risks if ever implemented. This global call has since been endorsed by more than 320 scientists from the Global South and the Global North. The non-use agreement calls for banning SRM funding, prohibiting SRM outdoor experiments and restricting research on SRM technologies, including supporting technologies.” By comparison it was reported by the Carnegie Climate Governance Initiative’s report on the “Global status of activities relating to Solar Radiation Modification and its governance” in 2023 that “90+ scientists published a letter supporting more research into atmospheric aerosol-based SRM.”
Campaigners have issues with geoengineering, as this document from etc GROUP makes plain. It makes some excellent points, and states: “If deployed, SRM has the potential to cause significant environmental damage. It is not possible to know with any certainty how altering the amount of incoming heat to the planet could affect ecosystems, since it will create an entirely new ecological balance (or disturbance) that could diminish biodiversity and disrupt ecosystems. The energy from incoming sunlight is an essential resource for life on the planet.”
Clouds, whether we think of them as modified or natural, are being referred to as a species of their own. According to sciencealert.com new species of cloud are appearing causing “the International Cloud Atlas – the official reference work on all things cloud, as published by the World Meteorological Organisation (WMO) [the UN’s official weather body]” to be updated for the first time in 30 years. “The WMO has also recognised five new supplementary features – distinctive cloud structures that attach to other kinds of clouds…The updated Cloud Atlas recognises a new accessory cloud – the name for features that merge with another cloud – called a flumen, which is associated with severe convective storms.
The updates to the WMO’s cloud atlas (which was first published in 1896) seem to have been prompted after “the founder and president of the US-based Cloud Appreciation Society, Gavin Pretor-Pinney in 2006…noticed members of the organisation posting images of clouds that didn’t quite look like anything he’d seen before.” There are now “special clouds“, which describe localised conditions where clouds are generated due to either natural causes or human activity [ie, contrails, geoengineering].”
Four eye-opening documentary films, Frankenskies, The Dimming, UNconventional Grey and the acclaimed Forecast make interesting points regarding the artificial transformation of our skies and highlight a range of environmental and ethical concerns about geoengineering and weather modification technologies.
Are we protected from geoengineering practices?
SRM is among many climate technologies influenced by military research programs, that is, from research into weather modification for tactical purposes. HAARP, as mentioned earlier, can be considered a climate technology. Because it is an ionospheric heater, it can artificially modify a region of the earth’s ionosphere, and therefore its behaviour, using beamed microwave radiation. Manipulating the ionosphere presents risks, and may result in destructive events on earth. Scientists know that changes in the ionosphere are observable ahead of seismic activity, and as NASA has highlighted, there are deep connections between the ionosphere and weather on earth.
Because it has immense destructive capacities, HAARP has all the characteristics of a Directed Energy Weapon (DEW). Yet although this invention (of Bernard J. Eastlund), is patented and classified as a DEW, it is presented in the media as the research tool of scientists experimenting on the ionosphere “as it pertains to surveillance, military and civilian communications, as well as radar and navigation systems.” [Source]
HAARP can mimic the effects of space weather and affect the physical and electromagnetic behaviours of earth’s atmosphere by “heating up the heavens.” HAARP has 3.6 megawatts of power at its command. It uses high frequency phased arrays of 180 antennas (that direct and shape beams of focused electromagnetic radiation – like 5G phased array infrastructure does). Both of these technologies are branded as “progress” not as weapons of mass destruction (WMDs) or DEWs capable of biological and environmental devastation. (You can download the related patent PDF here.)
Solar Radiation Modification (SRM) a.k.a. Stratospheric Aerosol Injection (SAI), for many reasons, is raising concerns. Its potential to be weaponised is well recognised by governments – yet, today, the aerial spraying of SO2 and other toxic chemicals is often positively approached as a “valuable” research opportunity and mitigation tool within the narrative of “climate change”.
According to the Arms Control Association, “A chemical weapon is any toxic chemical that can cause death, injury, incapacitation, and sensory irritation, deployed via a delivery system…” and stresses that, “The use and possession of chemical weapons is prohibited under international law.” There are calls for SRM to be banned. It employs harmful toxic chemical agents that, like a chemical weapon, “can cause death, injury, incapacitation, and sensory irritation.” But we notice how all of that seems perfectly acceptable when it is being sold as a solution in the context of “climate action,” research, and “mitigation”. As we have seen, there is sustained opposition, but also rising interest from international governments and sectors of industry in SRM, and they are guided by the UN’s ideological discourse on climate change and sustainable development which is rolling out geoengineering “mitigations” as solutions. However, it has been observed that, “SRM techniques do not fall within the usual definitions of mitigation” as laid out by the IPCC.
In a review article titled Solar geoengineering to reduce climate change: a review of governance proposals, published in 2019 by The Royal Society, the author Jesse L. Reynolds (of the Emmett Institute on Climate Change and the Environment, University of California, Los Angeles School of Law,) states that “[as] solar geoengineering would presumably affect all countries, widespread if not universal consent is needed for its deployment to be legitimate.”
Featured image: designed by Sean Alexander Carney
Sign-up to receive current EMF NEWS and most recent BLOGS