This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
Any humane and responsible person must conclude that if the ends, however desirable, are uncertain and the means are horrible and certain, these means must not be employed.” Howard Zinn -
Future historians will surely regard the passage between the twenty and twenty-first century as the first period where human activity was recognized to distinctly alter the biogeochemical makeup of Earth’s atmosphere. The greater dilemma, however, is whether disruption of the Holocene climate will arise from unintentional, unabated greenhouse gas emissions alone, or will governments, perhaps unilaterally, inject aerosols (particles such as sulfates or aluminum nanoparticles to act as cloud-formation precursors) into the troposphere and stratosphere in an attempt to lower the final amount of solar energy which reaches Earth. While solar radiation management (SRM) or stratospheric aerosol geoengineering (SAG) may have the ostensible merit of counterbalancing the warming associated with the presence of increased greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, this would surely mark the end of the “natural world” or wilderness. While this might be considered semantics by some, even David Keith, perhaps the most eminent proponent of geoengineering in the public space, understands that, “humanity would henceforth need to acknowledge that they are living in a zoo, playing the role of both the animals and the zookeepers”1. Placed in striking simile, the prominent moral implications of such drastic anthropogenic actions are crystallized: from this point onward, Earth’s biogeochemical signature will be significantly and artificially altered. In choosing to manage our skies, the natural world, once characterized by John Stewart Mill, as “the cradle of our thoughts and aspirations” and
Goodal, How to Cool the Planet,45
ontologically cherished for existing beyond the sphere of humanity, will indefinitely become a machination of our Promethean convictions. This permanent, intentional alteration of Earth’s environment is the main consideration of this case study; therefore, I will first address the procedural/legal justice issues for sovereign nations and indigenous communities in shaping possible SRM schemes. Without ensuring multilateral justice by means of tort-law, treaties and consent, geoengineering violates basic moral pluralistic principles. Equity problems and conflicts of interest also arise when we consider that a relatively small number of elite researchers from the US and the UK are influencing dialogue on this weighty and difficult topic. Set in the context of moral and political failure to stem global emissions, the geoengineering model is recognized by Gardiner in his summary of The UK Royal Society’s teleological analysis of the topic to be the lesser evil: i.e. when governments are strained by the specter of severe climate change, geoengineering the climate may remain the permissible moral course of action. (2010: p 290).2While intentional manipulation of earth’s climate has been argued to be economically negligible, perhaps as little as $2billion3, and technologically feasible4as patents and necessary infrastructure (military cargo and commercial aircraft) already exist, others5 rebut the claim; due to the relatively long atmospheric life of CO2, geoengineering schemes must invariably be continued over many generations with uncertain effects on weather. Multigenerational equality is thus the second issue considered in this study. In the next module section of this paper, I examine who gets to control the Earth’s thermostat (is it really that simple?). Strong advocates of accelerated research into possible geoengineering scheme, such as The UK Royal Society, clearly recognizes recognize that the
The scientists involved envision SRM as a combined strategy with CO2removal from the atmosphere in addition to mitigating GHG emissions to 50% of 1990 levels. 3 Prepared by Keith at el (from Calgary University for Aurora Flight Science), 2010 http://www.scribd.com/doc/53418122/AuroraGeoReport 4 ibid; Barrett, Scott, The incredible Economics of Geoengineering, Environmental and Resource Economics 5 Goes,M., Keller, K., Tuana, N., The Economics (or lack thereof) of Aerosol Geoengineering Strategies, 7
“greatest challenge to the successful deployment of geoengineering may be the social, legal and political issues associated with governance, rather than scientific and technical issues” (2009, xi).Solar radiation management projects will inevitably create winners and losers6, thereby straining geoengineers’ deontological morality, i.e. duty-based ethics, in equally fulfilling the needs of many parties. Therefore, I will examine the economic impacts of negative radiative forcing (i.e. increased cloud cover and thus reflectivity) in the greater context of distributive justice. In concluding, I will layout the unique possibility of weather weaponization, specifically on focusing upon the interest that the US military and weapons manufacturers have taken in the study of geoengineering.7 A 1996 survey of the topic, “Weather as a Force Multiplier: Owning the Weather in 2025,” presented to the US Air Force, asserted: “Weather-modification will likely become a part of national security policy with both domestic and international applications. Our government will pursue such a policy, depending on its interests, at various levels. These levels could include unilateral actions, participation in a security framework such as NATO.” The risk and health hazards associated with both civilian and military weather modification projects will be considered in the lens of access to a healthy environment. Given the possibility that multiple unilateral actors will take part in geoengineering in a continuation of the adversarial paradigm of geopolitics, it is clear that citizens without a say in the system will become the ultimate losers. Internationally, a growing group of activists, scientist and concerned citizens identify a body of evidence in anomalous cloud formations arising from persistent jet emissions, as well as elevated levels of heavy metal in soil and water samples, as an indicator that geoengineering projects are already being conducted8. Prudence mandates that this evidence, officially refuted by
Goes,M., Keller, K., Tuana, N., The Economics (or lack thereof) of Aerosol Geoengineering Strategies, 1 Military weapons manufacturers and chemical/agribusiness MNCs own some of the most relevant patents in this field EX: US patent #5003186- “Stratospheric Welsbach seeding for reduction of Global Warming”, Hughes Aircraft Company (later bought by Raytheon); Monsanto’s aluminum resistant seed patent #7582809 ETC Group, Geopiracy, 4 8 The most encapsulating report to date, Case Orange, was complied in 2010 by expert panel, the Belfort Group:
the US Air Force and members of Congress as a hoax, be closely examined and widely discussed, for if geoengineering is being carried out covertly, all of the issues of potential injustice raised in this study will be validated. Legal framework and distributive justice: Cloud seeding and weather-modification programs have a sordid, fascinating history that extends beyond the spatial confines of this paper910, therefore in this section I will only examine existing legal protections granted to individuals and communities in the United States and the legal framework internationally. In 1978, The UN Convention on the Prohibition of Military or Any Other Hostile Use of Environmental Modification Techniques ostensibly ended any aggressive practices in this field:
“Article I sets forth the basic commitment: "Each State Party to this Convention undertakes not to engage in military or any other hostile use of environmental modification techniques having widespread, long-lasting or severe effects as the means of destruction, damage or injury to any other State Party." An understanding defines the terms "widespread, long-lasting or severe." "Widespread" is defined as "encompassing an area on the scale of several hundred square kilometers"; "long-lasting" is defined as "lasting for a period of months, or approximately a season"; and "severe" is defined as "involving serious or significant disruption or harm to human life, natural and economic resources or other assets." With regard to peaceful uses of environmental modification techniques, the convention provides that the parties shall have the right to participate in the fullest possible exchange of scientific and technological information.” Article III: 1. The provisions of this Convention shall not hinder the use of environmental modification techniques for peaceful purposes and shall be without prejudice to the generally recognized principles and applicable rules of international law concerning such use. 2. The States Parties to this Convention undertake to facilitate, and have the right to participate in, the fullest possible exchange of scientific and technological information on the use of environmental modification techniques for peaceful purposes. States Parties in a position to do so shall contribute, alone or together with other States or international organizations, to international economic and scientific co-operation in the preservation, improvement, and peaceful utilization of the environment, with due consideration for the needs of the developing areas of the world. 11 http://www.scribd.com/doc/35636874/Case-Orange-Chemtrails-BelfortGroup-pdf 9 Ronald Standler’s summary is quite thorough: http://www.rbs2.com/w2.htm. In 1915 Charles Hatfield and the City of San Diego drew up a contract to bring water to the city. Perhaps overzealous in his confidential work, Hatfield was run out of the city after a nearly-continuous 17 day deluge added over 28 inches to the San Diego reservoir and broke two dams, resulting in floods which killed 20. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Hatfield) 10 Cloud-seeding techniques employed in over 2,600 sorties from 1966-1972 by the US Air Force during the Vietnam war used silver-iodine to produce flooding of the Ho Chi Min Trail in Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia. (Smith, Jerry, Weather Warfare, 46)
5.1.1978 U.S. Department of State, Convention on the Prohibition of Military or Any Other Hostile Use of Environmental Modification Techniques
According to ENMOD, which superficially holds all the 86 signatories accountable, any geoengineering scheme that negatively affects regional climate would therefore violate the treaty and encroach on the rights of sovereign and Indigenous peoples. For example, if NATO nations unduly grant themselves privileged roles in the decision-making process on geoengineering, the “large degree of control of Indigenous peoples’ basic needs and preferred life way…bound up with earlier consent process that accords with Indigenous peoples’ customary law and decision-making process, the UN Declaration of the Rights of Indigenous Ppeoples, and other international human rights treaty bodies” would be violated12. The risks from SRM to landscapes and livelihoods of these many peoples may force them to face great hardship or even leave their homelands. Therefore, only full consent and transparency in negotiations with iIndigenous peoples and, indeed, representatives of all sovereign nations would fulfill the basic parameters of deontological ethics. While this ENMOD agreement limits international use of environmental modification in conflict, citizens of the United States may be exposed to aerosol releases under US Public Law 9579, Title 50 Chapter 32, Sect. 1512 and the corollary Public Law 10-85, Section 1078 dictating the Secretary of Defense cannot use any chemical or biological agents on the civilian population unless experimentation is related to medicine, pharmaceuticals, agriculture, industry, research activity, protection against toxic chemicals or any law enforcement purpose, including any purpose related to riot control pending congressional committee approval13. Overall, this legal framework makes open experimentation permissible on the civilian population under certain circumstances.14 Free, prior and informed consent must be regarded as a basic parameter of deontological ethics; this code, however, as is in available public records and is therefore informed consent, skirts the
Whyte, Kyle, Indigenous Peoples, Solar Radiation Management, and Consent, 15 http://globalskywatch.com/assets/downloads/PublicLaw_105-85.pdf 14 http://uscode.house.gov/download/pls/50C32.txt
real issue in totality. Unethical biological and chemical tests conducted by US military on its own servicemen and citizenry15were exposed in the wake of the 1977 Church Commission. Though these could be explained away merely as vulnerability testing, the precedent of uninformed exposure must be recognized herein. While the question of legality concerning any current or upcoming aerosol geoengineering schemes is valid, surely laws alone are not the ultimate arbiters of morality. Largescale projects involving megatons of sulfur-dioxide or aluminum-oxide aerosol injection would, of course, be classified by governing bodies as “peaceful”, however in their ethical analysis of geoengineering, like Robock and the ETC Group are weary wary that military projects could be piggy-backed in aerosol distributions.16 “We 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,” says Jane Long, director for the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory17and Co-chair of the Task Force on Geoengineering and Climate Change. In reviewing the research on geoengineering, one must be keenly aware of potential conflicts of interest fueled by researchers, government advocates and corporations, all of whom stand to see financial gain from SAG initiatives. One manifestation may come though the 15-yearold market of weather derivatives traded on the Chicago Mercantile Exchange. As temperatures, rainfall and storms all directly affect major commodities; predicting or influencing trends could be very profitable to certain privy individuals18. Additionally, the recent emergence of a catastrophes
Though the record is frighteningly expansive, two salient examples include:joint Army-NavyCIA experiments are conducted in which tens of thousands of people in New York and San Francisco are exposed to the airborne germs Serratiamarcescens and Bacillus glogigii in 1953;in 1969, DTC Test 69-12, an open-air test of VX and sarin nerve agents at the Army's Edgewood Arsenal in Maryland exposes military personnel.http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/biowar.html 16 Roback, A., 20 reasons why geoengineering may be a bad idea, ; ETC Group, Geopiracy 17 http://iseethics.org/2011/11/20/videocasts-ethics-of-geoengineering-solar-radiationmanagement/ 18 Geoffrey Constantine, Introduction to Weather Derivatives, 1 http://www.agriskmanagementforum.org/farmd/sites/agriskmanagementforum.org/files/Documents/weather
option market allows for insurers and other hedging oportunities, and the potential for capital gains. According to Chicago Mercantile Exchange Trader, Michael Agne,
“When investing in these types of derivative options, corporations in the energy and insurance business would stand to make profits from certain catastrophes, however it should be noted that these derivatives would most likely be used as a hedge to their existing business risks and any gains would be used to offset insurance payouts or other types of inherent risk. However, this does not rule out the plausibility capital gains above and beyond the offsetting of potential inherent business risks..19
Although I am not fully qualified to question the advocacy for solar radiation management by researchers such as David Keith, Ken Caldeira and Granger Morgan, department head of Eengineering and Ppublic Ppolicy at CMU, conflicts of interest must be considered as these men have a gratuitous capacity to drive national dialogue. While it may be rationally argued that a contingency plan should be developed if warming trends cannot be stemmed with abatement practices, more modeling and geoengineering testing diminishes the public’s interest in abatement. Clive Hamilton, professor of Public Ethics at the Australian National University, said of this group:
"The eco-clique is 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 AR5) as it grapples for the first time with the scientific and ethical tangle that is climate engineering,”20
However, these men go to great lengths to insist that advocating for more research is wholly separate from advocating for development and deployment of the technologies. This, however, doesn’t mean they won’t stand to gain from geoengineering schemes. Keith, for example, started the carbon-capture focused geoengineering company, Carbon Engineering, which Bill Gates and Canadian tar-sands mogul Murray Edward have invested more than $10 million dollars. Since 2007, Gates has entrusted Caldeira and Keith with more than $4.6 million to invest in relevant aerosol research projects.21
%20derivatives%5B1%5D.pdf 19 Michael Murphy, http://truthmediaproductions.blogspot.com/2011/11/american-association-for-aerosol.html 20 Vidal, John, Bill Gates Back Climate Scientists Lobbying for Large-scale Geoengineering, The Guardian, 2.5.2012 21 Ibid
Multigenerational justice: With no binding agreements made to reduce global carbon emissions at the 2009 United Nations Copenhagen Climate Change Conference or at any subsequent meeting, sociopolitical discourse on climate change has largely shifted from reduction in emissions to mitigating the symptoms of a warming world. Not only has geoengineering become an accepted topic of discussion in the MSM, but it will also play a central role in the 2014 UN International Panel on Climate Change report22.While I do accept that geoengineering may be necessary to avert certain climatic tipping points, such as artic aerosol cooling to slow catastrophic loss of the artic ice shelf, I also see the geoengineering debate inevitably swaying public opinion away from reforming our current economic model where emissions are much less important than growth. If the concept assuages the social perception that something is wrong with the model, we do an injustice to those yet to come by not reforming the root of the issue. Ethicists and scientists in China, India, Brazil and the global South, not just those in the US and the EU, must opine on the associated moral hazards. The choice to geoengineer climate will lock humanity into a role of climate stabilizers even as our overall understanding of dynamic aerosol chemistry and oceanic mixing are relatively nascent. Moreover, the use of aluminum particles to increase atmospheric reflectivity will do nothing (or in the case of sulfates, increase) the rapidly acidifying oceans23 on which humanity depends for food. If this generation does embark on the geoengineering path rather than emission abatement alone, we are ensuring certain environmental modifications must be upheld for generations to come. If interrupted, climatic responses would likely be drastic and destructive (Goes, et al 2011).
Prantl, Jochen, Geoengineering the Climate? The Need for Debate is Urget and Real. 10.3.2011 23 http://thinkprogress.org/romm/2012/03/02/436193/science-ocean-acidifying-so-fast-itthreatens-humanity-ability-to-feed-itself/?mobile=nc
To avoid rapid heating, such as the five degree Celsius increase modeled by Brovkin et al24, these SAG programs must be carried out unceasingly for many generations. While specific extreme weather events will have varied risk from one location to the next, global precipitations will likely decrease on average.25 While there is founded danger in runaway global climate change as identified by the UN IPCC in AR 1-4, SAG programs will definitely create regional winners and losers. This is not just a game: our only laboratory is Earth and on it we wager the future of humanity.
Distributive Justice: The 2010 UN Convention on Biodiversity ostensibly imposed a de facto moratorium on any geoengineering projects having a detrimental impact of global biodiversity as well as social and environmental integrity, however language exempted small-scale scientific research studies.26 At this point, no country or group of actors could be held legally responsible for negative upshots, economic or otherwise, for geoengineering projects as nothing comparable to international tortliability laws27 or global treaties on climate manipulation exist. Therefore, SAG implementation without multilateral, binding treaties, involving all global members would lack the basic utilitarian principles of distributive justice. Stratospheric aerosol geoengineering is forecasted to alter precipitation patterns regionally,
Geoengineering climate by stratospheric sulfur injections: Earth system vulnerability to technological failure ,2009, http://academic.research.microsoft.com/Paper/6539820.aspx 25 Brovkin et al, 2009 26 Pierce, What the Ban on Geoengineering Really Means, New Scientist, 2009 27 For a summary of US court cases regarding tort liability, see Standler’s Weather Modification Law in the USA: www.rbs2.com/weather.pdf
thereby threatening the security of food and drinking water.28 This sort of drastic climatic shift would logically result in geopolitical destabilization29. Additionally, aerosol distribution may result in disruption of the summer monsoons in South East Asia and North Africa.30While this dramatic precipitation effect is one of the most startling risks of SAG projects, the effect of global dimming on both crop growth and decreased amount of gatherable energy for photovoltaic arrays must be considered.31 Technology used to implement SAG could also be self-defeating when considering that persistent jet contrails, formed high in the atmosphere (>25,000 ft) as water vapor from the aircraft exhaust is released in supersaturated air, rapidly deposes (changes phase from gas to solid) then grow into extensive cirrus clouds. As water vapor is a heat trapping gas, these manmade clouds reflect less sunlight than the amount of heat they trap32. While this explanation may suffice in explaining the existence of some very long-lived cirrus clouds formed by jet condensation trails under ideal conditions, the prevalence of these cloud formations in the arid southwestern United States, where condensation trails should be short-lived due to the rapid dissipation of water vapor, is troubling. The empirical evidence33 compels us to examine the persistent jet contrail phenomenon recognized by researchers as beginning in the United States during the summer of 199634 and throughout the EU this past decade. Contrasting with classical jet condensation trails which rapidly disapate, the observations
Matthews, H, Caldeira, K, Proceedings of The National Academy of Sciences Transient Climate-Carbon Simulations of Planetary Engineering, 2007
Goes, M, Keller, K, Svoboda, T, Tuana, N, Sulfate Aerosol Geoengineering: The Question of Justice, 17 Oman, Luke et al., “Climatic Response to High-Latitude Volcanic Eruptions, 1 31 Roback, A., 20 reasons why geoengineering may be a bad idea, 3-4 32 Cook-Anderson, Clouds formed from Aircraft Exhuast May Warm the US Climate, 2004 33 Extremely high levels of Al detected in wide range of areas without prior history of Al contamination: : MT. Shasta, CA:htp://uncensored.co.nz/2011/03/07/chemtrail-lab-reports/ ; Alachua County, FL: http://aircrap.org/lab-tests-confirm-high-levels-aluminum-falling-skiesalachua-county-florida/332034/ 34 During the October of the next year, The FAA’s visibility standards were decreased in October 1997 from a minimum safe distance of 40 miles to a mere 10 miles (Carnicom, C, Visibility Standards Changed)
of anomolous persistnet aerosol trails begs closer examination of the phenominon. In a July 2011 Nation Ocean and Atmospheric Agency report, observers revealed a decadal increase in the quantity of small particles in the high stratosphere and troposphere, offsetting perhaps a third of the current climate warming influence of carbon dioxide. John Daniel, one of the study’s authors, noted “stratospheric aerosol increased surprisingly rapidly in that time, almost doubling during the decade.35” Satellite data recently showed that while the difference between high and low clouds had long been steady at 7-8 percent, in the past five years, for some unknown reason, the difference has jumped to 13 percent. Overall, high, warming clouds have increased while low, cooling clouds have decreased36. While this trend in “warming clouds” may run counterintuitive to the evidence presented regarding the effect of SAG aerosols like aluminum or sulfates, I suggest this as potential evidence of a piggybacked military program. For example, military visual radar mapping is achieved by dispersing a class of elements known as metallic ionizing salts (notably, barium and strontium) that spread out as electrically charged blanket off of which radio frequency will readily reflect and provide 3-D imaging37. While much of this data moves beyond the confines of this paper, I implore readers to explore the work of other researchers in this field.38 The health consequences of consistently ingesting both aluminum nanoparticles and radioactive barium and strontium compounds are dire39. Therefore, we must conclude that exposing
Soloman, S, et al, NOAA study: Increase in particles high in Earth’s atmosphere has offset some recent climate warming, NOAA News, http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2011/20110721_particles.html 36 Britt, Baffled Scientists Say Less Sunligh Reaching Earth, Live Science, 2006 37 For more information on this topic explore the US Navy's, Radio Frequency Mission Planner (RFMP) and Variable Terrain Radio Parabolic Equation (VTRPE). 38 Clifford Carnicom: http://www.carnicominstitute.org/html/articles_by_date.html Francis Mangels: http://foodintegritynow.org/2011/03/07/food-integrity-now-francis-mangels-chemtrails-e36/ Rosalind Peterson: http://www.agriculturedefensecoalition.org/sites/default/files/pdfs/5_1_2009_NWV_Persistent_Contrails_Man_Made_ Clouds_July_12_2009_by_Rosalind_Peterson_Change_the_Weather.pdf 39 Purdey, M, Chronic barium intoxication disrupts sulphated proteoglycan synthesis: a hypothesis for the origins of multiple sclerosis,;McCormack-Brown, Stephanie, IN VITRO TOXICITY OF ALUMINUM NANOPARTICLES IN HUMAN KERATINOCYTEShttp://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc? Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.pdf&AD=ADA482760
populations without prior, informed and direct consent to these toxic elements constitutes highly unethical action. Perhaps for the possibility of piggybacking technologies on top of SAG schemes, the public should look much closer at the current rationale for unleashing such management systems. In this paper I’ve attempted to lay out the ethical and health implications of unilaterally implemented SRM. While this is only a framework on which to center continued exploration, I believe the modules identify the most persistent issues of legal, multilateral, multigenerational, economic and health justice. The conflict between teleological and deontological outlooks dictates the general argument for and against SRM. As I tend to argue from the space of a weak anthropocentric, believing all humans have fundamental rights which must be upheld, I’ve identified many diverse capacities of SRM to violate these. Many types of biogeochemical alterated spaces we inhabit (locally, regionally and globally) may be driven by emergent technologies that will once again redefine our understanding and relationship with nature. The anthropocentric rationale of our Western leaders will be enduringly fortified if these SAG programs are officially undertaking undertaken. This will likely lead toward stranger and more fundamental changes than most in our society can now rationally conceive.
“We cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them.” -Albert Einstein
Barrett, Scott, The incredible Economics of Geoengineering, Environmental and Resource Economics, Vol 39, Issue
Britt, Roy , Baffled Scientists Say Less Sunligh Reaching Earth , 1.24.2006 (http://www.livescience.com/577baffled-scientists-sunlight-reaching-earth.html)
Matthews, H, Caldeira, K, Proceedings of The National Academy of Sciences Transient Climate-Carbon Simulations of Planetary Engineering, 2007 http://dge.stanford.edu/labs/caldeiralab/Caldeira_research/Matthews_Caldeira2.html
Robock, Alan - 20 reasons why geoengineering may be a bad idea http://www.thebulletin.org/files/064002006_0.pdf, Bulletin of Atomic Scientist , 6.2008
Carnicom, Clifford, Visibility Standards Changed, 2001, http://www.carnicom.com/visib1.htm Cook-Anderson, Gillian, NASA News, Clouds formed from Aircraft Exhuast May Warm the US Climate”, http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2004/apr/HQ_04140_clouds_climate.txt
ETC Group, Geopiracy: The Case Against Geoengineering, 2010
Col. House, T., et al, Weather as a Force Multiplier:Owning the Weather in 2025, http://csat.au.af.mil/2025/volume3/vol3ch15.pdf
Gardiner, Stephan, Some Early Ethics of Geoengineering the Climate: A Commentary on the Values of the Royal Society Report, 2011
Goes, M, Keller, K, Svoboda, T, Tuana, N, Sulfate Aerosol Geoengineering: The Question of Justice, Public Affairs Quarterly, 2011
Goes,M., Keller, K., Tuana, N., The Economics (or lack thereof) of Aerosol Geoengineering Strategies, Climate Change, 2009
Goodal, Jeff, How to Cool the Planet, Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, 2010
McCormack-Brown, Stephanie, IN VITRO TOXICITY OF ALUMINUM NANOPARTICLES IN HUMAN KERATINOCYTES, http://www.dtic.mil/cgibin/GetTRDoc?Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.pdf&AD=ADA482760 Oman, Luke et al., “Climatic Response to High-Latitude Volcanic Eruptions,” Journal of Geophysical Research, vol. 110, 2005.
Pierce, Fred What the UN Ban on Geoengineering Really Means, New Scientist, 11.1.2010, http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn19660-what-the-un-ban-on-geoengineering-really-means.html
Prantl, Jochen, Geoengineering the Climate? The Need for Debate is Urget and Real. 10.3.2011, http://politicsinspires.org/2011/10/geoengineering-the-climate-the-need-for-global-debate-is-urgent-and-real/
Purdey, M, Chronic barium intoxication disrupts sulphated proteoglycan synthesis: a hypothesis for the origins of multiple sclerosis., Med Hypothosithes, http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez? cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=15082100&dopt=Citation
Shepard, et al, Geoengineering The Climate: Science, Governance and Uncertainty, UK Royal Society, 2009, http://royalsociety.org/policy/publications/2009/geoengineering-climate/
Smith, Jerry, Weather Warfare, 46 -http://books.google.com/books? id=G7t260XD8AYC&pg=PA47&dq=stormfury&hl=en&ei=9wJOTOfVE4G88gbZ3IGaDA&sa=X&oi=book_result&c t=result&resnum=3&ved=0CDEQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q&f=false)
1977 Convention on the Prohibition of Military or Any Other Hostile Use of Environmental Modification Techniques,http://www.agriculturedefensecoalition.org/sites/default/files/pdfs/5_1_2006_Weather_Modification_Law _in_the_United_States_Standler_October_22_2006.pdf
Vidal, John, Bill Gates Back Climate Scientists Lobbying for Large-scale Geoengineering, The Guardian, 2.5.2012, http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/feb/06/bill-gates-climate-scientists-geoengineering
Worthington, Amy, Chemtrail Crisis: an Overview and Update, Idaho Observer, 2001
Whyte, Kyle, Indigenous Peoples, Solar Radiation Management, and Consent, Lexington Books, http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2003187
Inspiration: Pink Floyd -Goodbye Blue Sky :http://www.youtube.com/watch? feature=player_embedded&v=_0v07InoFiU
INCLUDEPICTURE "http://weatherwars.info/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/DSCN3065.jpg" \* MERGEFORMATINET
This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
We've moved you to where you read on your other device.
Get the full title to continue listening from where you left off, or restart the preview.