1. Geoengineering is one of
the most unpredictable, polluting and thus dangerous ways of trying to
solve the Global Warming on a shoestring !
Bill Gates backs climate scientists lobbying for large-scale geoengineering
Other wealthy individuals have also funded a series of reports into
the future use of technologies to geoengineer
• What is geo-engineering?
• Scientists criticise handling
of geoengineering pilot project
John Vidal, environment editor, The Guardian, Monday 6 February 2012
A small group of leading climate scientists, financially supported by
billionaires including Bill Gates, are lobbying governments and international
bodies to back experiments into manipulating the climate on a global
scale to avoid catastrophic climate change.
scientists, who advocate geoengineering methods such as spraying millions of tonnes
of reflective particles of sulphur dioxide 30
miles above earth, argue that a "plan B" for climate change
will be needed if the UN and politicians cannot agree to making the necessary
cuts in greenhouse gases, and say the US government and others should pay
for a major programme of international
Solar geoengineering techniques are highly controversial:
while some climate scientists believe they may prove a quick and relatively
cheap way to slow global warming, others fear that when conducted in the
upper atmosphere, they could irrevocably alter rainfall patterns and
interfere with the earth's climate.
Geoengineering is opposed
by many environmentalists, who say the technology could undermine efforts
to reduce emissions, and by developing countries who
fear it could be used as a weapon or by rich countries to their
advantage. In 2010, the UN Convention on Biological
Diversity declared a moratorium on experiments in the sea and space, except for
small-scale scientific studies.
now growing that the small but influential group of scientists, and their
backers, may have a disproportionate effect on major decisions about geoengineering research and policy.
will need to protect ourselves from vested interests [and] be sure that
choices are not influenced by parties who might make significant amounts
of money through a choice to modify climate, especially using proprietary
intellectual property," said Jane Long, director at large for the
Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in the US, in a paper delivered to
a recent geoengineering conference on ethics.
stakes are very high and scientists are not the best people to deal with
the social, ethical or political issues that geoengineering
raises," said Doug Parr, chief scientist at Greenpeace. "The
idea that a self-selected group should have so much influence is
find a quick technological fix to climate change is growing as
politicians fail to reach an agreement to significantly reduce emissions.
In 2009-2010, the US government received requests for over
$2bn(£1.2bn) of grants for geoengineering
research, but spent around $100m.
As well as
Gates, other wealthy individuals including Sir Richard Branson, tar sands magnate Murray Edwards and the co-founder of Skype, Niklas Zennström, have funded a series of official reports
into future use of the technology. Branson, who has frequently called for
geoengineering to combat climate change, helped
fund the Royal Society's inquiry into solar radiation management last
year through his Carbon War Room charity. It is not known how much he contributed.
Professors David Keith, of Harvard University, and Ken Caldeira of Stanford, are the world's two leading advocates of major research
into geoengineering the upper atmosphere to
provide earth with a reflective shield. They have so far received over
$4.6m from Gates to run the Fund for Innovative Climate
and Energy Research (Ficer). Nearly half Ficer's
money, which comes directly from Gates's
personal funds, has so far been used for their own research, but the rest
is disbursed by them to fund the work of other advocates of large-scale
statements of financial interests, Keith receives an undisclosed sum from
Bill Gates each year, and is the president and majority owner of the geoengineering company Carbon Engineering, in which both Gates and Edwards have major stakes – believed to be
together worth over $10m.
Another Edwards company, Canadian Natural Resources, has plans
to spend $25bn to turn the bitumen-bearing sand found in northern Alberta
into barrels of crude oil. Caldeira says he
receives $375,000 a year from Gates, holds a carbon capture patent and
works for Intellectual Ventures, a private geoegineering research company
part-owned by Gates and run by Nathan Myhrvold,
former head of technology at Microsoft.
the latest Ficer accounts, the two scientists
have so far given $300,000 of Gates money to part-fund three prominent
reviews and assessments of geoengineering – the
UK Royal Society report on Solar
Radiation Management, the US
Taskforce on Geoengineering and a 2009 report by Novin a science thinktank based in Santa Barbara,
California. Keith and Caldeira either sat on
the panels that produced the reports or contributed evidence. All three
reports strongly recommended more research into solar radiation
also gave $600,000 to Phil Rasch, chief climate
scientist for the Pacific
Northwest national laboratory, one of 10 research institutions funded by the US energy department.
Rasch gave evidence at the first Royal Society report on geoengineering 2009 and was a panel member on the 2011 report. He has testified to the
US Congress about the need for government funding of large-scale geoengineering and, according to a financial
statement he gave the Royal Society, also works for Intellectual
Ventures. In addition, Caldeira and Keith gave
a further $240,000 to geoengineering advocates
to travel and attend workshops and meetings and $100,000 to Jay Apt, a
prominent advocate of geoengineering as a last
resort, and professor of engineering at Carnegie Mellon University. Apt
worked with Keith and Aurora Flight
Sciences, a US company that develops drone
aircraft technology for the US military, to study the costs of sending 1m tonnes of sulphate
particles into the
upper atmosphere a year.
the eight major national and international inquiries into geoengineering over the past three years shows that
Keith and Caldeira, Rasch
and Prof Granger Morgan the head of department of engineering and public policy at Carnegie
Mellon University where Keith works, have sat on seven panels, including
one set up by the UN. Three other strong advocates of solar radiation geoengineering, including Rasch,
have sat on national inquiries part-funded by Ficer.
clear conflicts of interest between many of the people involved in the
debate," said Diana Bronson, a researcher with Montreal-based geoengineering watchdog ETC.
is really worrying is that the same small group working on high-risk
technologies that will geoengineer the planet
is also trying to engineer the discussion around international rules and
regulations. We cannot put the fox in charge of the chicken coop."
eco-clique are lobbying for a huge injection of
public funds into geoengineering research. They
dominate virtually every inquiry into geoengineering.
They are present in almost all of the expert deliberations. They have
been the leading advisers to parliamentary and congressional inquiries
and their views will, in all likelihood, dominate the deliberations of
the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) as it grapples
for the first time with the scientific and ethical tangle that is climate
engineering," said Clive Hamilton, professor of Public Ethics at the
Australian National University, in a Guardian blog.
scientists involved reject this notion. "Even the perception that [a
small group of people has] illegitimate influence [is] very unhealthy for
a technology which has extreme power over the world. The concerns that a
small group [is] dominating the debate are legitimate, but things are not
as they were," said Keith. "It's changing as countries like
India and China become involved. The era when my voice or that of a few
was dominant is over. We need a very broad debate."
scientist has some conflict of interest, because we would all like to see
more resources going to study things that we find interesting," said
Caldeira. "Do I have too much influence? I
feel like I have too little. I have been calling for making CO2 emissions
illegal for many years, but no one is listening to me. People who
disagree with me might feel I have too much influence. The best way to
reduce my influence is to have more public research funds available, so
that our funds are in the noise. If the federal government played the
role it should in this area, there would be no need for money from Gates.
my own patents, I have repeatedly stated that if any patent that I am on
is ever used for the purposes of altering climate, then
any proceeds that accrue to me for this use will be donated to nonprofit
NGOs and charities. I have no expectation or interest in developing a
personal revenue stream based upon the use of these patents for climate
Rasch added: "I don't feel there is any
conflict of interest. I don't lobby, work with patents or intellectual
property, do classified research or work with for-profit companies. The
research I do on geoengineering involves
computer simulations and thinking about possible consequences. The Ficer foundation that has funded my research tries to
be transparent in their activities, as do I."
Open Letter to
“Hands off Mother Earth”
from the Greek
Movement against Chemical Aerial Spraying
Dear Hands off Mother Earth,
organization wishes to express its support for your rejection of atmospheric
geoengineering and your campaign against it,
including the moratorium recommendation to be submitted in October to the
United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity.
We note that
the Capodistrias-Spinelli-Europe initiative and the Belfort group, with
whom we have a relationship of collaboration, have been included in the
list of supporting organizations and we would like similar recognition to
be given to the support we offer.
to atmospheric geoengineering broadly coincides
with the opposition expressed at the May 2010 Belfort
group symposium in Ghent, Belgium on “the illegal spraying of harmful
substances in the atmosphere by airplanes”, as registered in the “Case
Orange” report commissioned by the organizers of that symposium and
reviewed at the symposium by the scientist Coen
(For Dr. Vermeeren’s review of the report see http://www.ustream.tv/recorded/7299427 , starting
at minute 35.)
of the Case Orange report are significantly different from those of Hands
off Mother Earth, particularly in relation to recognition of atmospheric geoengineering not as a proposal or a practice at
most in a preliminary experimental stage but rather as a well-entrenched,
and systematically denied, planetary reality.
We would like
to invite you to explain the factors, political and/or legal, that
prevent you from reaching the same conclusions as the Case Orange report
in this respect. It is quite possible to do this without modifying or
altering your public stance.
We would like
to emphasize that we do NOT wish to conduct a “scientific” debate with
you. Our fear is that such a debate could resemble the street
debate conducted in San Diego in February 2010 between scientist Alan
Robock, known as a “critic” of geoengineering, and activists.
This debate was
degrading for both parties, exposing the activists as naïve and Dr. Robock as an insincere politician, not a scientist
researching and describing reality.
appreciate a written reply to this message. We propose at some future
date, when we are in a position to conduct a symposium ourselves, to
invite you to it so that a similar discussion may be conducted there
also, hopefully with more public involvement and participation.
meantime, please continue, with our support, your campaign in the
international organizations and keep us informed of your progress.
Members of the
Wayne Hall (translator)
Aliki Stefanou (journalist)
Freideriki Zougrou (economist)
Georgios Karayannis (attorney)
Response to Open Letter from Diana Bronson (click)
Rosalie Bertell response to
Diana Bronson (click)
Correspondence with Rosalie Bertell
and other activists
For those of you that want to point that
this article is old, I am aware of that fact.
More (recent) articles on geoengeneering and
the discussion about it can be found in the Guardian on-line at:
Geoengineering techniques need more
study, says science coalition
The Solar Radiation Management Governance Initiative says geoengineering could be 'plan B' for climate change
Hanna Gersmann, guardian.co.uk, Thursday 1
More research on the risks and
governance of geoengineering the planet's climate by reflecting
sunlight into space is needed, a grouping of science bodies and a green
NGO have said, as the end of the first week of UN climate talks nears.
Concern about such techniques is
significant and so more dialogue and research is needed on the risks
and benefits, said the Solar
Radiation Management Governance Initiative, a coalition formed in March 2010 of
the Royal Society, Italian-based academy of science for
the developing world Twas, and US
non-profit, the Environmental
Various techniques for combating global
warming by reducing the amount of the sun's energy reaching the earth
have been proposed, from huge space reflectors in orbit to
stratospheric aerosols released in the upper atmosphere. A UK-backed
plan to test the mechanics of inserting such aerosols, using a hosepipe
attached to a giant balloon, was postponed
in September and the
so-called Spice project was criticised by scientists writing in Nature earlier
Steven Hamburg, the chief scientist for
the Environmental Defence Fund and co-chair
of the SRMGI, said: "Solar radiation management might sound, at
first, like something from science fiction – but it's not. There are
already serious discussions beginning about it, and that's why we felt
it was urgent to create this governance initiative. Solar radiation
management could be a Plan B to address climate change, but first we must figure out how to
research it safely. Only then should we even consider any other
The SRMGI's co-chair, John Shepherd,
said: "Unless the apparent lack of political will to significantly
reduce greenhouse gas emissions changes soon, geoengineering
may be needed and SRM methods could be used in unregulated and possibly
reckless ways by individuals, corporations or individual countries. "
He added: "We must also work
outside our national borders, bringing together interested parties from
around the globe to debate the issues of geo-engineering, agree
appropriate governance structures and ensure that any research is
undertaken in a safe, transparent and socially acceptable manner. The
question of whether solar geo-engineering will prove to be helpful or
harmful will largely depend on how humanity can govern the issue and
its political implications, and avoid unilateral action."
But Silvia Ribeiro,
the Latin American director of the ETC Group, which campaigns against geoengineering, said: "This report is
dominated by scientists engaged in geoengineering
research in the UK, US and Canada. They are advocates for more research, several of them have claimed patents and
have significant financial, institutional and professional interests in
the field of geoengineering research. There
are the same familiar names that we have seen in a whole series of
recent reports: John Shepherd or David Keith."
In September, Shepherd wrote in the
research would be "sadly necessary". In October, David Keith
of Harvard University, a member of the SRMGI working group, and founder
and president of Carbon Engineering, a geo-engineering company with 10
employees funded with around $6m (£3.8m) by Bill Gates, wrote a study that
said the public strongly reported research into solar geoengineering. Some 72% of the 3,105 participants in
the UK, US and Canada said they somewhat or strongly supported general
research when asked: "Do you think scientists should study solar
Ribeiro went on: "Solar radiation
management technologies are high-risk and extremely dangerous and they
should be treated under international law like nuclear weapons –
except, unlike nuclear weapons, we have an opportunity to ban their testing
and their proliferation them before the technology is fully developed,
rather than trying to prevent their proliferation after the fact. This
is where we should be looking to for guidance on governance. We need to
ban these technologies, not facilitate their development."
The SRMGI said a ban on geoengineering would not work: "A moratorium
on all SRM-related research would be difficult if not impossible to
enforce. The range of SRM research runs from computer simulations and
laboratory studies right up to potentially risky, large-scale
experiments in the real world. While most SRMGI participants were
comfortable with low risk research, there was much debate over how to
govern any research outside the lab," said the coalition's
report, published on Thursday.
From Long Island Skywatch
Message flagged Wednesday, February 8,
2012 2:07 PM
Our first official meeting is scheduled for Saturday, February 25th at
6:00pm. If you plan on attending, please send an email to LongIslandSkywatch@yahoo.com. You will then be given the address of the meeting.
A small donation will be required to "hold" the room. If you
have taken tests, please attach the rain, water, tree or blood tests with
your response. It is imperative that we show the toxic results of geoengineering. Without a substantial amount of
tests, we will not be able to convince our legislators that geoengineering is altering our bodies and planet. We
tested air this week and will have results soon. Labs and doctors are
listed below where your samples can be taken. Blood tests and trees are
preferred as the trees around Long Island are exhibiting signs of dieoff. Please test for aluminum, barium and
strontium if possible. Quest in Seldon tests
for blood barium and LabCorp performs these
Michael Murphy is organizing a coalition to have localities meet with
their legislators. This strategy is starting to show fruition all over
the country: Maui, Suffolk, Wisconsin and Fairfax, Ca, just to name a
few. All the steps that we took can be accessed on longislandskywatch.com
front page and humanitytranscending.com. We are asking everyone to please
utilize this information and make appointments with their legislators as
they are not aware of geoengineering/chemtrails. Ours were not and thanked us for
informing them. We are now researching the EPA and NYDEC to plan our
future strategies. NYC and LongIsland are in
"nonattainment" which means that our air cannot pass
requirements for particle pollution. Also, the EPA and NYDEC do not
specifically monitor for aluminum, barium, and strontium. Nor, do they
have the capability to monitor for nanoscale
which is what David Keith (head geoengineer) is
proposing. Those steps and documentation will be included soon...We thank
everyone for everything they do and we look forward to seeing a big
turnout at the meeting to go forward...
AAEM certified physician to test blood:
Dr. Jesse Stoff at 976 Roanoke Avenue,
Riverhead, NY, 631-806-9164
To test air:
Long Island Analytical: http://www.lialinc.com/index.html
To test water and soil:
EcoTest Laboratories, Inc. 377 Sheffield
Avenue, North Babylon, NY, 631-422-5777 or H2M Labs at 575 Broad Hollow,
Melville, NY, 631-694-3040
I send this
article on the Acid Rain Facts because it could be one of the undesirable
effects of geoeneering, if the cooling effect
is gained by bringing particles in the upper atmosphere.
We have been fighting Acid rain before and now there is a risk of
reintroducing Acid Rain with the use of geoeneering.
What is a bad thing !
Effects Felt Through the Food Chain
This article about Acid Rain can be found at the site of National
describes any form of precipitation with high levels of nitric and
sulfuric acids. It can also occur in the form of snow, fog, and tiny bits
of dry material that settle to Earth.
vegetation and erupting volcanoes release some chemicals that can cause
acid rain, but most acid rain falls because of human activities. The
biggest culprit is the burning of fossil fuels by coal-burning power plants,
factories, and automobiles.
burn fossil fuels, sulfur dioxide (SO2) and nitrogen oxides (NOx) are released into the atmosphere. These chemical
gases react with water, oxygen, and other substances to form mild
solutions of sulfuric and nitric acid. Winds may spread these acidic
solutions across the atmosphere and over hundreds of miles. When acid
rain reaches Earth, it flows across the surface in runoff water, enters
water systems, and sinks into the soil.
has many ecological effects, but none is greater than its impact on
lakes, streams, wetlands, and other aquatic environments. Acid rain makes
waters acidic and causes them to absorb the aluminum that makes its way
from soil into lakes and streams. This combination makes waters toxic to
crayfish, clams, fish, and other aquatic animals.
can tolerate acidic waters better than others. However, in an
interconnected ecosystem, what impacts some species eventually impacts
many more throughout the food chain—including non-aquatic species such as
also damages forests, especially those at higher elevations. It robs the
soil of essential nutrients and releases aluminum in the soil, which
makes it hard for trees to take up water. Trees' leaves and needles are
also harmed by acids.
of acid rain, combined with other environmental stressors, leave trees
and plants less able to withstand cold temperatures, insects, and
disease. The pollutants may also inhibit trees' ability to reproduce.
Some soils are better able to neutralize acids than others. In areas
where the soil's "buffering capacity" is low, the harmful
effects of acid rain are much greater.
The only way
to fight acid rain is by curbing the release of the pollutants that cause
it. This means burning fewer fossil fuels. Many governments have tried to
curb emissions by cleaning up industry smokestacks and promoting
alternative fuel sources. These efforts have met with mixed results. But
even if acid rain could be stopped today, it would still take many years
for its harmful effects to disappear.
can also help prevent acid rain by conserving energy. The less
electricity people use in their homes, the fewer chemicals power plants
will emit. Vehicles are also major fossil fuel users, so drivers can
reduce emissions by using public transportation, carpooling, biking, or
simply walking wherever possible.
Few in the civil sector fully understand
that geoengineering is primarily a military science and has nothing to do with either
cooling the planet or lowering carbon emissions (Report, 6 February). While seemingly fantastical,
weather has been weaponised. At least four
countries – the US, Russia, China and Israel – possess the technology and
organisation to regularly alter weather and
geologic events for various military and black operations, which are tied
to secondary objectives, including demographic, energy and agricultural
Indeed, warfare now includes the
technological ability to induce, enhance or direct cyclonic events,
earthquakes, draught and flooding, including the use of polymerised aerosol viral agents and radioactive
particulates carried through global weather systems. Various themes in
public debate, including global warming, have unfortunately been subsumed
into much larger military and commercial objectives that have nothing to
do with broad public environmental concerns. These include the gradual
warming of polar regions to facilitate naval navigation and resource
Former executive adviser, aerospace & defence,
Booz Allen Hamilton, Chicago
More on this
(in English, it is from Serbia, which
explains the subtitles)
All scientists know that
sooner or later what they have
found to be of use for mankind to know, understand or for the
general benefit of us all will get some military angle or program
or misuse by the military or a fascistoide
This is part of the history of mankind since he learned to make
tools to hunt, to kill.
But fortunately not all scientists are working for the military
complex of the US so there is still hope for mankind as a whole.
But Global Warming does exist and so do civil programs of
geoengeneering who want to put an end to it, so
the poles keep
Even people like the ETC Group, who
pretend that "solar radiation management" (and whatever black programmes are hiding behind it) are not already a
well-entrenched global reality (it seems conformity to this fiction is a
prerequisite for acceptance to debate in the international organizations)
do NOT support geoengineering, and are in fact
adamantly opposed to it. Just take a look at Pat Mooney
Some "conspiracy theorist"
activists against chemtrails/geoengineering/HAARP are climate change sceptics but this does not mean that there is a
"respectable" route into the geoengineering
debate via opposition to climate change scepticism.
Even if it is the most familiar element of the debate for anti-nuclear
There is no point in anti-nuclear
activists getting into the geoengineering
debate if the only effect is to make it more like the anti-nuclear
debate, i.e. ineffectual.
It is a misunderstanding of the position
of people like Mooney and his ETC Group to imagine that they are in any
way tolerant of the ideology of the "geoengineers",
including the professed concern for climate change.
I am against geoengeneering, but one day it might be our only
left, if we do not kick our bad habits.
The best way to avoid the necessity of geoengeneering
is of course to
stop polluting our atmosphere.
But since our World citizens as a whole, apart from a few exceptions
are neither interested to leave there car at home nor to become
vegetarian eating only locally produced food, it might well come out
that plan B will be in the moment of last resort, our only option.
If so the scientist better _then_ have learned do it right - that is with
a minimum effect in the form of pollution or toxicity, undesirable
weather alterations and the maximum effect to cool the planet.
A person who is against geoengineering at minimum does not make more
concessions to the logic of the power elite than does a Pat Mooney.
A.M.'s "opposition" to geoengineering is identical to that of the geoengineering "internal oppositionist
" Alan Robock.
Here is Robock
in interaction with "conspiracy theorist" chemtrails
activists in San Diego, in a degrading dialogue exposing Robock's dishonesty on the one side, the activists'
naivety on the other.
Here is another similar confrontation,
between a similarly "dissident" geoengineer
Ken Caldeira (a whole "internal
opposition" of geoengineers profess the
views that A.M.has just restated)
and Democratic Congressional Candidate John
Fitzgerald. Fitzgerald is rather more effectual than the San Diego
activists. His is, more or less, the model to follow.
Note this discussion at the Hellenic
American Democratic Association forum in Athens, Greece:
as I am concerned, Caldeira should be shunned and
boycotted, not argued with, by any citizen in his/her right mind. Anyone
wanting to argue with "the other side" about geoengineering should argue not with the Caldeiras and Keiths and Robocks but with the ETC group, who possess the
requisite expertise and are at least plausibly genuine in their
opposition to current forms of geoengineering,
(whether or not they acknowledge its non-hypothetical character - they do
not). There should be no role for people like Caldeira
in science or in public life. He has neither the integrity that should
characterize science nor the accountability that should characterize
Of course it is different if Caldeira, and the
"people" who employ him, are confronted by someone in a
position of power, or shall we say "influence". If John
Fitzgerald succeeds in getting into Congress, more power to him to
continue his confrontations with Caldeira and