Climate Engineering – Geoengineering – Chemtrailing. It’s All The Same!

CLIMATE ENGINEERING CONFERENCE 2014

WHAT IS CLIMATE ENGINEERING?

BACKGROUND

Climate engineering, also known as geoengineering, describes a diverse and largely hypothetical array of technologies and techniques for intentionally manipulating the global climate, in order to moderate or forestall the (most severe) effects of climate change. In recent years discussions of climate engineering have grown considerably amongst scientists, policy-makers, and civic environmental groups engaged in addressing climate change. A frequent concern is how the development of climate engineering options might complement or weaken efforts at mitigation (reducing GHG emissions through changes in energy source or usage) and adaptation (buttressing societal capacities to endure climatic changes).

These technologies may target different areas of the climate system; possess varying mechanics, costs, and feasibilities; have diverse environmental and societal impacts on varying scales; and create their own sets of risks, challenges, and unknowns. They are commonly divided into two non-exhaustive suites:

Carbon Dioxide Removal (CDR) methods attempt to absorb and store carbon from the atmosphere; either by technological means, or by enhancing the ability of natural systems (e.g. oceans) to do so.
Solar Radiation Management or Sunlight Reflection Methods (SRM) aims to reduce the amount of heat trapped by greenhouse gases by reflecting sunlight back into space, either by increasing the reflectivity of the earth’s surfaces, or by deploying a layer of reflective particles in the atmosphere.

 

 

HOW DID CLIMATE ENGINEERING EMERGE?

Propositions for climate engineering have existed quietly on the fringes of academic debate for decades. In assessing the debate’s recent growth, a number of commentators have linked climate engineering to previous initiatives to control regional weather and various other natural systems during the Cold War era. Others see climate engineering as akin to human attempts to modify their physical surroundings that have existed throughout time.

As a direct response to the issue of climate change, climate engineering research has until recently been absent from serious discussion, due to fears among scientists involved that the introduction of an “alternative” would reduce incentives and momentum to endure the transition to a low-carbon economy, or that the climate system is too complex to alter in a predictable way. However, the slow progress of recent UNFCCC negotiations and emissions reductions worldwide has led to increasing concerns that an exclusive focus on mitigation will not generate efforts timely enough to prevent a damaging degree of climate change from occurring within the next few decades. Indeed, some scientists believe that a certain amount of warming (in excess of 2 degrees Celsius) is already locked into the climatic system. This has prompted much greater attention to the possibilities of adapting societies and ecosystems to changing climatic conditions around the world. There has also been increasing interest in the capacity of CDR technologies to accelerate the removal of GHGs from the atmosphere or, more controversially, to cool the planet through SRM methods.

Two overlapping streams of activity have also contributed to the current wave of interest. A series of scientific ocean iron fertilization experiments from 1990 to 2009 have helped generate interest in (and criticism of) CDR techniques. SRM methods remained largely unexplored until 2006, when Nobel laureate Paul Crutzen penned an influential editorial arguing that using sulphate aerosols to reduce incoming sunlight might serve as an imperfect and temporary measure against climate change, should significant mitigation efforts continue to stall.

The last half-decade has seen a proliferation of scientific study and creation of dedicated research programs to gauge the physical and social effects for both suites of climate engineering technologies. Scientific work has been accompanied by increased attention from the media, public intellectuals, and environmental and technology watchdog groups. Government-commissioned assessment reports have been released by the UK, the US, and Germany, and scientific researchers have begun to increase literacy on the issue amongst policy-makers in both the global North and South. International governance frameworks for field research are being created at the Convention on Biological Diversity and the London Convention and Protocol. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has substantially expanded its discussion of climate engineering in its fifth assessment report compared to earlier reports.

RISKS, UNKNOWNS AND CHALLENGES

For now, the field of climate engineering consists of desk and laboratory studies and small-scale field research on some CDR and SRM methods. No technologies have been deployed at a scale that impacts the global climate. Yet, the intent behind climate engineering, its geographically large or even global impact, and the complexity and uncertainty of its potential effects upon climate governance – and human society – raise profound questions.

On a basic level, there are technical questions about the costs and feasibility of development and deployment of various technologies, as well as the geophysical processes that they aim to manipulate. Given our imperfect knowledge of both the technologies and the climatic system, there are worries about unintended environmental and ecosystem side effects. Even if the technologies function as intended, they will not “turn back the clock” from a climate influenced by rising GHG emissions to a previous climate – an engineered climate will be a new and different one.

Climate engineering arises in an equally complex social and political context. Its physical impacts – both intended and unintentional – may alter natural surroundings and weather patterns as well as the lives and livelihoods dependent upon them, with unknown effects upon a slew of existing governance issues: from human and state security, to water availability and food production, biodiversity, and energy. Potential for unilateral deployment of swift-acting methods, such as the injection of reflective particles in the atmosphere to screen the sun, exacerbates these concerns. One of the strongest fears is that developing climate engineering technologies may siphon resources and momentum away from already flagging efforts to reduce carbon emissions, and that this would further disrupt tenuous negotiations at the UNFCCC. Others criticize what they see as the postponing of transitioning off fossil fuels to later generations, the unequal capacity between states to research and deploy the technologies, or shifting the effects of what would have been GHG-driven climate change to countries and demographics that will suffer from the changed environmental conditions that result from engineering the climate. At an overarching level, others question how climate engineering alters (or confirms) humanity’s relationship to the environment in the Anthropocene, as well as the hubris (or ingenuity) of applying technological solutions to complex issues. The wisdom of climate engineering at a moral and ethical level is likely to be highly contentious as discussions of the topic increasingly reach beyond the scientific realm.

It is still an open question as to whether the risks of climate engineering outweigh the risks of climate change, or how climate engineering might be integrated with existing climate policies. Much discussion dwells on how to frame, explore, research, and perhaps even deploy these technologies under conditions of uncertainty- in essence, that decisions on climate engineering have to be made despite the fact that we cannot know the exact unfolding of an engineered climate beforehand, and that it may or may not be more disruptive than the effects of a warming world with rising emissions. Indeed, it is likely that we will never retrospectively know which climate version is preferable, given the uncertainty in climate models, the difficulties in detecting and attributing climatic changes, and the resulting difficulty of constructing a convincing counterfactual.

CRITICAL GLOBAL DISCUSSIONS

The complexity of the issues associated with engineering the climate presents a challenge for shaping even the most basic research and engagements with the public and policy-makers today. It is difficult to predict how the debate on climate engineering will influence – or be influenced by – future developments in technology, the climate system, or the international order.

Hence, efforts to probe the boundaries of the discourse- and their effects upon the public imagination- are still evolving. Although research, engagement efforts, and media coverage are growing, they are still largely limited to a handful of countries and actors in the global North. Visions and risks of a climate-engineered future are imagined scenarios extrapolated from early developments or from previous, analogous debates on novel technologies (e.g. nanotechnology or genetic recombination) by small networks of academics, practitioners, and journalists. Early governance frameworks that are being generated in international negotiations and by the academic community remain untested. Even the terms of reference of the debate undergo periodic questioning, with researchers proposing alternative labels and categories for the solar and carbon-targeting suites of climate engineering technologies.

How can we explore a social and technological imaginary, whose discussion might be deemed necessary by some, but will have far-reaching impacts across the global community? We must acknowledge climate engineering as an issue that intersects with other fields and larger trends; in all geographic regions and at all levels of governance. The global community must develop an understanding of the social, environmental, cultural, political and ethical issues involved in a wide and heterogeneous array of climate engineering technologies, in order to efficiently determine whether any of them are appropriate and available in our efforts to address climate change. If we are ever to intervene in the climate in a manner that is broadly equitable across societies, we must first enter into critical global discussions.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email
Facebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedinmail

14 Responses to “Climate Engineering – Geoengineering – Chemtrailing. It’s All The Same!”

  1. Harriet says:

    Thanks to Gordon for presenting this account with excellent details!

  2. Chris Jones says:

    A slightly frustrating and meandering article in my view and if I can say so – can we have a simple bullet point article outlining the following:

    a) What, if any, is being sprayed right now and why

    b) What are chemtrails

    c) How is it illegal and how can it be stopped

    • WASP says:

      Go To The Links I Sent In, & Your Questions Will Be Answered.

      The object of the exercise is simple, its part of the DEGENERATE ARS’OLES, PLAN, TO POWER YOU INTO A CATHOLIC,FASCIST DICTATORSHIP.

      It should also be remembered, that Modern, Soviet Communism, was conceived by The Vatican, as a Sister ism to Catholicism q.v. Ledochowski, with MK’ed upfront Jesuit Coadjutors, such as Lenin & Marx Jews, seemingly in charge of everything, The fact is “The Truth Is Far Too Fragile, So Is Hidden In A Tissue Of Lies.

      So Fascism & Communism are but different sides of the same coin. The Jesuits during the uprising were never banned, but the Orthodox Church was banned.

      SO MOTE IT BE:

      REGARDS ……….. WASP

      • Gordon says:

        Agreed! Added to the fact that Climate engineering, or whatever you wish to call it, is man’s attempt to do away with the existence of a Creating God by making himself god and controller of nature. It isn’t going to happen! Nature is more powerful than man and will destroy man before he he destroys her.

  3. Clare payne says:

    Well said Chris

  4. Harriet says:

    Gordon, Tap, Jennifer and others,

    Chris Fogarty likes to hear from patriotic people and he left his phone number on Rick Adam’s radio program which is:

    (312) 664 – 7651

    His email: fogartyc@att.net

  5. Harriet says:

    Chris Fogarty went on Redice radio as well as on Rick Adam’s

    Chris Fogarty – The Irish Holocaust
    Febuary 16, 2015

    Chris Fogarty was raised on farm in Ireland where he worked the land with his father, and later went on to reside in the US. Mr. Fogarty has been a regular Columnist for the past nineteen years in Irish American News and is a citizen-investigator of Chicago aldermanic crime. He is the author of Ireland 1845-1850: the Perfect Holocaust, and Who Kept it ‘Perfect’ and he is behind irishholocaust.org. Chris joins us to speak about the Irish Holocaust and the cover-up that is accomplished by the same British terrorism and bribery that perpetrated the genocide. He explains the dark time during 1845-1850 when Ireland starved because its food, from 40 to 70 shiploads per day, was removed at gunpoint by 12,000 British constables reinforced by the British militia. Chris describes how the British completely took over 95% of Ireland’s territory, extracting all goods and wiping out at least half of the indigenous population. We’ll discuss the lie of Ireland’s “potato famine,” the official story used to explain the deaths of over 5.2 million people, which is propagated to this day – even by the Irish government, academia, and the Catholic Church. Chris gives details of his extensive research into the locations of British food removal regiments and over 170 mass graves across Ireland. He’ll explain the fear of persecution and intimidation that continues to infect Irish society in modern times. We end by considering Ireland’s long history of ethnic cleansing, the role of the government and Catholic hierarchy, and the notion that the IRA are terrorists.

    Listen here:

    http://www.redicecreations.com/radio/2015/02/RIR-150216.php

    Here is one of his websites:

    ttp://www.irishholocaust.org/britain’scoverup

  6. Interesting program

    Ireland’s hidden history by Chris Fogarty of Friends of Irish Freedom

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fWs1VrbVROk

  7. NPP says:

    a) What, if any, is being sprayed right now and why

    Stuff that is not rain or ‘organic’ weather. ‘Artificially’ manufactured particulates added to our skies.
    The reasons have been outlined above: to manipulate and control our weather and climate; block out our glorious sunshine; perhaps even to cull humans; to establish an electro- magnetic net via which humans can be controlled and manipulated… plus reasons we do not know because it is not being publicly discussed.
    We are not sure because e.g. our ‘intelligensia’, ‘academics’, stupid BBC radio 4, the alleged flagship of public information, do not address the question. Hence it is left to the likes of TAP and Gordon to do the BBC’s job.

    b) What are chemtrails

    Trails of particulates dispersed into the sky apparently by aeroplanes and perhaps unwitting pilots.

    c) How is it illegal and how can it be stopped

    It is ‘illegal’ or not correct behaviour in the same way if I sprayed aerosol into your face it would be incorrect behaviour; theft upon your sovereign being.
    To stop it light must be shone onto the issue; it must at least be widely discussed, acknowledged and addressed as with any programme executed in ‘secret’. At the moment few are aware enough to question the billowing lines of puffy stuff cris-crossing our skies. I’m currently in Istanbul and the ‘chemtrails’ are often blatant; at least enough to ask is that just old fashioned condensation trails or something else abi?

    P.S. abi = mate, buddy in Turkish…

  8. Chris Jones says:

    Thanks NPP, one other question I forgot to mention is ‘Who’s doing it?’ I believe it might come under Agenda 21/sustainable development but who is actually doing the spraying. When this is properly established they can go to a nice cold prison and be sprayed everyday from nozzles in their cell ceilings

    • NPP says:

      We don’t know. It’s the same for 9/11…. we know the official story is floored, and can guess who did it, but bottom line is I don’t know.

      If my appallingly awful taxpayer funded broadcasting and information service the BBbloodyC did its job, we might start to explore possibilities… Gordon is trying as we all are. I’ve written to my MP about chemtrails and he uses the plausible denial response mode, as he does for most things write to him about…. I might suggest you write to your MP and Cc the letter to all and sundry. Yep, it is akin to peeing in the wind, but just keep peeing! All things change.

      Agenda 21 is so obvious to TAPsters, but mention in a West Suffolk pub and I bet they have not got a clue.

  9. pauline says:

    I was under the view that it is the tankers from RAF/USAF Mildenhall ,Suffolk who daily spray us with Chemtrails chemicals,but if it is the silly US airforce spraying us here in the UK ,dont the fools stop and think they are also spraying their own countrymen and families also living here in Suffolk,Northamptonshire????or are they immune?????

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.