Laws Needed to Protect Against UN “Governance” of Geoengineering
A recent UN report urges “stakeholders” to establish global governance of a form of geoengineering called Solar Radiation Modification (SRM)
Geoengineering, originally a form of violent warfare, is not “governable” since it is a crime, not a democratic activity.
- No one can avoid breathing intentionally contaminated “geoengineered” air, and
-
Blocking the sun has catastrophic and deadly consequences for Life on Earth.
Geoengineering must be prohibited.
The justification for SRM is based on the “CO2” climate theory, the well-marketed hypothesis that there is a problem with the Earth’s temperature, and the arrogant notion that humans have the ability or the right to manipulate and control Earth’s thermostat.
“Climatic change” theory was proposed in the 1970’s by the Soviet Union as a form of weather & climate modification as well as environmental warfare.
The strategy was to block sunlight from reaching Earth by artificially increasing the concentration of sulfur aerosols – released from aircraft.
The environmental warfare proposal being promoted now by the UN as SRM, is described in a 1975 DARPA report:
“…method of moderating planetary warming trends by temporarily increasing the concentration of sulfate aerosol particles in the lower stratosphere and thereby reducing global radiation.”
Interestingly the same hypothesis has been used over and over for decades:
1975
“…within a few decades world heat production could rise from the present level of 0.2 percent, of the received power of the Sun to a level of two percent, thus causing a 1-1.5 C mean global temperature increase.
Such a potentially harmful warming trend could, in principle, be checked by artificially increasing the planetary cloud cover.” P 82-83
2023:
“…SRM deployment is the only known approach that can (i) cool the planet within a few years10,15, or (ii) limit rates or amounts of temperature increase (i.e. to meet the Paris Agreement target of well below 2°C, preferably 1.5°C…”
A positive development is that geoengineering experimentation was recently banned in Mexico due to negative impacts from the release of aerosols and geoengineering’s potential to cause weather imbalances. LINK
In addition, legislation has been introduced in Connecticut and Rhode Island to prohibit the intentional release of air pollution via aerosol injection and other atmospheric geoengineering hazards.
Pennsylvania, Maryland, and West Virginia provide precedent from the 1960’s – prohibiting cloud seeding and weather modification. These kinds of policies could be reenacted at the state and national level today.
In sum, the UN is founded on eugenics and is comprised of unelected bureaucrats, it is not a legitimate governing body.
[The WHO is another example of a UN agency trying to undermine individual and national sovereignty and impose a one-world dictatorship.]
Geoengineering “researchers” are grant-dependent academics who are not interested in protecting public health or protecting life. They are unaccountable for the consequences of harmful geoengineering experiments.
Sulfur dioxide (SO2) is harmful to health and the environment
Laws are urgently needed at the state and national level to protect health, safety, and sovereignty, by prohibiting the deliberate polluting of our air and environment by SRM and other hazardous atmospheric activities.
With all the recent pollution disasters in the world, intentionally adding more pollution is 100 percent unacceptable.
It’s time to outlaw geoengineering schemes forever and protect Life on Earth.
See more here zerogeoengineering.com
Please Donate Below To Support Our Ongoing Work To Defend The Scientific Method
PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL, legally registered in the UK as a company incorporated for charitable purposes. Head Office: 27 Old Gloucester Street, London WC1N 3AX.
Trackback from your site.
K Kaiser
| #
The entire “geoengineering idea is ridiculous to begin with.
It’s wishful thinking by folks who believe in the CO2 (carbon dioxide)-global warming myth.
Best regards,
KK
.
Reply