Currently, Geoengineering Governance remains disconnected from Public input mechanisms and outside the legal framework of our elected Representatives.
Small groups of politically aligned international globalist financiers and scientists are making all important decisions about the use and development of Geoengineering and global governance in international conferences and forums without Public knowledge or consent.
For this reason, we are urging individuals, states and nations to follow Rhode Island’s lead to push for Geoengineering specific laws and regulations to protect the environment, economy, agriculture, wildlife, Public health and safety from dangerous Geoengineering and weather modification schemes.
Send Your Legislator This Letter:
Dear Legislator, [or MP, or other official]
(Our system will insert legislator name for your zipcode)
I am a constituent in your district and have learned about the dangers of GeoEngineering.
I’m writing to urge you to support efforts to prohibit hazardous weather modification, cloud seeding, and GeoEngineering activities, to protect people and the environment from dangerous climate intervention technology.
Most important, is the prohibition of toxic GeoEngineering aerosol pollution-emissions, as well as the dangerous wireless radiation emissions from NEXRAD and GWEN ionizing towers, which are integral to GeoEngineering technology, but harmful to the Environment, People, and Nature.
Looking forward to your quick response and strong support for Anti-GeoEngineering legislation for The UK.
(Your Postal Code)
(Your additional comments, if any)
ZERO GEOENGINEERING / The UK
Fill in this form, then hit “Send Letter”
The Regulation of Geoengineering
196 nations declared a moratorium on Geoengineering in 2010, and the UK is still not a signatory.
Congress held hearings Nov. 8, 2017 to finance and expand ultra-hazardous GeoEngineering experiments in our atmosphere:
Statement from Chairman Lamar Smith (R-Texas)
Geoengineering: Innovation, Research, and Technology
“Some have questioned the unintended consequences of geoengineering. One concern is that
brightening clouds could alter rain patterns, making it rain more in some places or less in
others. Such technologies could drastically reduce global temperatures in the future by spraying
aerosols into the atmosphere to reflect sunlight.
While we are not sure this is plausible, some scientists believe it could achieve substantial
environmental benefits at a cheaper cost than regulations.”
Current Federal programs provide for national weather manipulation programs:
H.R. 353 ‘‘Weather Research and Forecasting Innovation Act of 2017
Agency Funding FY 2018 / Federal Weather Enterprise
2017 MIT Technology Review – Harvard Scientists Moving Ahead on Plans for Atmospheric GeoEngineering Experiments
END GeoEngineering !
Weather Modification Activism Report 1 – 5 May 2014 – No. 10 Downing Street, London, UK May 5, 2014
Tax payers are funding seven universities in the UK alone that are researching Geoengineering without public consent!
Directive to Ban Stratospheric Aerosol GeoEngineering and Aerial Aerosol Spraying in the United Kingdom
A public demand to ban stratospheric aerosol GeoEngineering, weather modification, cloud seeding and the deliberate aerial spraying of chemical aerosols. Sign the petition at the bottom of the Directive.
The notion of anthropogenic (man-made) global warming (AGW) has been a contentious issue for several years, and is continually subject to vociferous opposition.
The touted solution to the AGW problem is GeoEngineering. It is defined as “the deliberate large scale intervention in the earth’s climate system in order to moderate global warming” and is becoming regulated by the House of Commons. 
One branch of GeoEngineering, called stratospheric aerosol GeoEngineering (SAG), is of particular concern – and may also be unnecessary.
With government agencies admitting GeoEngineering operations are potentially disastrous, a moratorium was placed in 2010, with its 193 signatories agreeing to place a current ban on such GeoEngineering projects with the exemption, however, of “small-scale scientific research studies”, weather modification and carbon capture.
The purpose of this Directive is to advance the moratorium with a permanent ban on stratospheric aerosol GeoEngineering, weather modification, cloud seeding and the deliberate aerial spraying of chemical aerosols – military or otherwise – due to the severity of the issues and reasons as set out in this document.
Climate Change may not be man-made
With GeoEngineering being defined as “the deliberate large scale intervention in the earth’s climate system in order to moderate global warming”, a brief presentation of the arguments of climate change is presented here.
Whilst all eminent scientists agree that climate change is indeed occurring, there is a significant divide between them. Whilst some advocate the idea of carbon-related (man-made) anthropogenic global warming (AGW), others insist that climate change is a natural phenomenon that has been occurring for thousands of years and that the planet is actually cooling rather than warming. This section presents a brief overview of the claims made by both sides of the debate.
Arguments for AGW
The main proponent for AGW is the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC, a political branch of the UN), who makes the following claims:
Global temperatures have been increased over the last 150 years, in accordance with industrialisation and the increased burning of fossil fuels.
Sea levels are rising.
Arctic and Antarctic ice is reducing.
No global warming has been recorded for 18 years, but that is because more of the heat has gone into the oceans.
Arguments against AGW
The IPCC claims have been countered by various bodies, including the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC, a body of 40 independent scientists) as follows:
Despite us putting more CO2 into the atmosphere, there has been no measured global increase in temperatures for 17 years. 
There has been an ongoing sea level rise of approx. 7” per century since the last ice age.
The amount of Arctic and Antarctic ice is increasing not decreasing. 
There is no evidence supporting the oceans-absorbing-heat theory.
Such is the intensity of the opposition, over 30,000 US scientists have also petitioned that climate change is a natural phenomenon and that carbon dioxide emissions are not a significant factor. 
Amongst the many claims made to discredit scientists or groups within the climate change debate, the most pronounced appears to be the IPCC’s own admission that their incorrect prediction of the Himalayan glaciers melting by 2035 was not based on scientific research.  This fuelled concerns about the background of the IPCC, which is a political, non-scientific and opinion-based branch of the United Nations with a restricted brief of investigation. 
The misunderstandings surrounding global warming may well be intentional, with the Council of Foreign Relations admitting they spend literally millions to deliberately confuse us on the subject. 
Stratospheric Aerosol Geoengineering (SAG)
The term geoengineering is used to describe the intervening steps that could be taken by man to combat (man-made) anthropogenic global warming (AGW). As previously presented in this document, there is huge doubt surrounding the idea of AGW which, in itself, leads to concerns that geoengineering measures may be unnecessary and, therefore, be a possible waste of time, money and resources.
Of utmost concern, however, are the risks that are associated with geoengineering. And whilst many geoengineering practices are already patented and underway, attention must be paid to one particular aspect of geoengineering, Stratospheric Aerosol Geoengineering (SAG) which includes a technique known as Stratospheric Aerosol Injection (SAI).
SAI is essentially the spraying of aerosols (typically aluminium oxide, barium, strontium, sulphuric acid and other toxic substances) by aeroplanes into the Earth’s atmosphere, modifying the weather to affect local and global climate. The idea is to create artificial cloud cover that will reflect sun radiation back into space with the purported intention of reducing the Earth’s atmospheric temperature. 
Stratospheric Aerosol Geoengineering is currently being proposed as a Solar Radiation Management (SRM) technique, with submissions for testing being already accepted by the Solar Radiation Management Government Initiative (SRMGI). 
Benefits of SAG
There are no proven benefits of SAG to the general population.
Beneficiaries, however, may include the following:
Financial gains for the organisations and people associated with these programs – e.g., manipulating then betting on the weather  and betting on food prices. 
GMO corporations (e.g., Monsanto) having a control of food supply with their abiotic stress resistant GM seeds. (see following ‘Risks of SAG’ section)
Countries who may gain a military advantage through controlling the weather and manipulating the atmosphere.  
Whether such SAG operations will actually reduce global temperatures (should this even be necessary) is in dispute, as presented later in this document.
Risks of SAG
The proposal of climate geoengineering – presently banned by the UN moratorium3 – is to spray vast amounts of heavy metals and other toxic substances into the atmosphere, with which there are numerous concerns:
The Solar Radiation Management Research Governance Initiative (SRMGI) itself concludes the range of SRM research includes “potentially risky, large-scale experiments in the real world.” 
The United States’ own Government Accountability Office states “not one geoengineering technique is safe and their implementation could cause more damage than the supposed catastrophe they intend to avoid.” 
A Harvard University study also reveals the lethal consequence of tiny particles in the atmosphere.  (Such toxic particulates in the atmosphere are one of the consequences of Aerial Aerosol Spraying.)
The Neurotoxicology (brain poisoning) division of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency says that exposure to airborne Particulate Matter “is an environmental health risk of global proportions.” 
Increases in neurological disorders, like Alzheimer’s disease, that are linked to aluminium which raises concerns about the fallout of aluminium from Aerial Aerosol Spraying.  
Increase of ‘global dimming’  – Over 20% of the sun’s direct rays are no longer reaching the planet – believed to be caused by an increase in air pollution.
Poor crop yields caused by abiotic stress (e.g., drought, heavy metal contamination, too much moisture, fungal overgrowth – all consequences of Aerial Aerosol Spraying) cornering farmers into purchasing aluminium- and abiotic stress-resistant GM seed.  
Increase in diseases based on vitamin D deficiency, like Rickets, due to lack of sunlight on the skin. 
Further damage to the ozone layer.   
Blue skies artificially turning white. 
Severe weather conditions, droughts and flooding. 
Increased chances of climate-related international conflict.  
Spraying toxic substances in our environment is not going to be good for us. Common sense
Whilst some of these issues may represent an obvious opportunity for certain stakeholders to profiteer, each issue is a risk that poses a real, serious problem for the rest of us.
Further, when considering the views of the many imminent scientists and organisations that disagree with the underlying concept of man-made climate change, casting doubt on the very notion of Anthropogenic Global Warming, it can be concluded that these may all be unnecessary risks.
Other Aerial Aerosol Spraying Activities
In addition to Stratospheric Aerosol Engineering, it is pertinent to examine other aerial spraying programmes that have been associated (officially or otherwise) with the UK and are not held in a moratorium.
In 2010, during the House of Commons meeting on the regulation of geoengineering, weather modification was officially removed from the definition and no longer regarded as GeoEngineering. Weather modification is described by the World Meteorological Organisation (WMO) as purposefully augmenting precipitation, reducing hail damage, dispersing fog and other types of cloud and storm modifications – using techniques such as cloud seeding. Such technologies, according to the WMO are still striving to achieve a sound scientific foundation, despite various operational programmes taking place in the atmosphere over many countries around the world. 
It should be noted that the term “chemtrails” was included in the language of Congressman Dennis J. Kucinich’s 2001 USA legislation – The Space Preservation Act of 2001 when proposing a ban on exotic weapons systems. However, the term was omitted from the final draft because it was not court admissible, so the valiant attempt to ban stratospheric aerosol injection and resolve legitimate concerns for Environmental and Public Health and Safety were dismissed and disregarded.
The term was initially introduced by the Department of Defense as the title for a US Air Force’s Chemistry course training manual, and is now so common that it features in the Oxford dictionary (despite citing an incorrect origin).
Cloud seeding and modifying the ionosphere via chemical injection is described in pages 24, 29 and 30 of the US Document, Weather as a force multiplier: Owning the weather by 2025.  It is used in conjunction with associated electromagnetic frequency technologies (such as HAARP  – a new generation of sophisticated weaponry under the US Strategic Defense Initiative, jointly managed by the US Air Force and the US Navy) as revealed by World-renowned scientist, Dr. Rosalie Bertell, who confirms that “US military scientists are working on weather systems as a potential weapon” and that, “The methods include the enhancing of storms and the diverting of vapor rivers in the Earth’s atmosphere to produce targeted droughts or floods.” 
Chemical Weapons Testing
It is commonplace to associate chemical weapons with middle eastern countries. However, it should be noted that the testing of chemical weapons has also been performed on the British public. This only became public knowledge as recently as 2002 with a government report revealing biological trials using aerial spraying were performed on the British public between 1940 and 1979.  
Deliberate Causation of Weather Extremes
As illustrated in the previous Stratospheric Aerosol Geoengineering (SAG) section, jet aircraft trails are being implicated as, somehow, both the cause of and the solution to climate change and weather extremes.
With the IPCC’s own Climate Scientist, Dr Joyce Penner, stating “The contrails that are spreading that you can identify as contrails, those would tend to warm the atmosphere”,  the idea that SAG would reduce the issue of Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) is highly debatable.
An IPCC Special Report also confirms “Contrails tend to warm the Earth’s surface, similar to thin high clouds”  – again, suggesting that SAG would be a cause of climate change rather than a solution.
Such a view is supported by numerous claims that engineering an artificial layer in the Earth’s stratosphere could trap in more heat than it reflects, thereby increasing global temperatures.   
It is becoming common knowledge that the delivery methods of SAG may cause significant problems, notably climate change and possible ozone depletion. 
Given the highly contentious nature of the AGW issue, the concerns about the IPCC and the evidence presented in the following section, the true intention of any aerial spraying activity (along with its consequences) should be carefully considered.
All Aerial Spraying must be Banned
This section presents an abundance of evidence that Aerial Aerosol Spraying activities are already underway, and concludes with what action must be taken.
Evidence that Aerial Spraying activities have already started
Regardless of their underlying reason, there is an abundance of evidence that Aerial Aerosol Spraying activities have already started:
UK rainwater test results contaminated with high levels of heavy metals (e.g., aluminium) and abnormal pH. 
The formidable rise in so-called ‘chemtrails’ phenomenon which includes literally millions of observations and experiences that are not compatible with the official ‘contrails’ explanation. 
The vast majority of persistent trails in the sky do not come from commercial flights as the planes involved usually don’t appear on www.flightradar24.com (whereas over 80% of commercial UK flights do).
Unusual phenomenon of “on-off” aircraft trail output (abrupt and/or intermittent) with no effect on planes’ altitude – witnessed regularly and captured up-close on video. 
Circumstantial evidence of the emergence of multiple, persistent contrails spreading and turning our blue skies white – the desired result of SAG operations. (see previous section)
Anecdotal evidence of two planes flying at similar altitudes, locations and times, where one plane leaves no trail, but the other leaves a trail that persists for hours.
The modern-day sky, routinely filled with persistent trails forming the patterns of tramlines, asterisks and noughts-and-crosses boards. Whilst air traffic has doubled over the last 20 years, seemingly no-one can recall such a phenomenon ever occurring before the early-1990’s. (And this is despite fuels of 20 years ago not being as clean as they are today.)
Extreme weather behaviour (including the breaking of thousands of UK and US weather records and unprecedented amount of UK floods warnings)
coinciding with increased Aerial Aerosol Spraying activities over recent years – consistent with NASA’s claim that “contrails, especially persistent contrails, represent a human-caused increase in the Earth’s cloudiness, and are likely to be affecting climate and ultimately our natural resources.” 
Global dimming.  
Whistleblower evidence from former US government (CIA, US Air Force and NSA) employee with cryptographic clearance, A C Griffths, revealing his involvement with “the chemtrail program”. 
Photographic evidence.  A small number of examples are shown here:
The Geoengineering Moratorium under the UN Convention on Biological Diversity3 was agreed by the 193 signatories to the convention in order to outlaw geoengineering projects “until there is an adequate scientific basis on which to justify such activities and appropriate consideration of the associated risks for the environment and biodiversity and associated social, economic and cultural impacts”.
Unfortunately for the public, the agreement exempted “small-scale scientific research studies”, weather modification and carbon capture.
The main purpose of this Directive, therefore, is to advance the moratorium with a permanent ban on geoengineering, weather modification, cloud seeding and the deliberate aerial spraying of chemical aerosols.
We’ve been sprayed before
The evidence abounds that Aerial Aerosol Spraying of chemicals is being performed over the UK, undisclosed and without our consent. Whilst this may seem like a bizarre notion, it should be noted that the UK population has been sprayed before by aeroplanes in secret tests as admitted by the British government.  
This notion that we’re being already sprayed would also be consistent with the World Meteorological Organisation’s claim that “there are dozens of nations operating hundreds of weather modification projects” and that “In recent years there has been a decline in the support for weather modification research, and a tendency to move directly into operational projects.” 
Unearthed documents also expose RAF artificial rainmaking experiments as the cause of the Lynmouth (Devon) floods of 1952. 
Further information on previous spraying programmes is available in an independent scientific analysis, Case Orange, commissioned by Belgium environmental watchdog, the Belfort Group. 
We’re being sprayed again
Should any doubt remain that a covert operation (such as occurred 50 years ago in the UK, where the public were unwittingly used as guinea pigs) is not being conducted again, one only has to consider the SRMGI’s own declaration that they should keep the general public “informed on what GE (geoengineering) is for, but don’t necessarily ask their permission.” 
UK Parliament itself admits, “We consider that a ban, even a short-term ban, on all SRM geoengineering testing would prevent work on geoengineering as “Plan B”. It may well also be unenforceable and be counter-productive as those carrying out tests do so in secrecy.” 
It must also be acknowledged that if the aerial activities occurring today are military-based, the secrecy is being upheld by the Official Secrets Act. 
Regardless of their nature, being perpetrated on the British public without their knowledge or permission, the current aerial aerosol spraying activities are in violation of:
The 1978 Environmental Modification Treaty (ENMOD) 
The Nuremburg Code 
The Unified Atmospheric Preservation Act 
UN Nagoya Convention on Biological Diversity, 2010 (establishing a ban on some forms of geoengineering) 
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (articles 3,6 & 8) 
The UNECE Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters 
Directive 2001/42/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 June 2001 
Charter of fundamental rights of the European Union (articles 3, 6 and 37) 
And must be removed from
The Official Secrets Act.
We must do something about this, because without our intervention, vast amounts of toxic substances will continue to be sprayed into the atmosphere. Such activities, as well as being possibly unnecessary, are untested and already verging on the catastrophic for man, animals and our environment.
We therefore demand the Government of the United Kingdom take the following actions:
To fully inform the Wider General public of the United Kingdom about all atmospheric aerosol injection and spraying programmes – whether they are weather modification, GeoEngineering activities, experimental, testing or otherwise – and to explain why such activities are being allowed to take place in UK airspace without our fully informed permission or consent.
Granting of independent and government investigations of aerial spraying, including aircraft inspection and regulation of aircraft, aircraft fuel and aircraft emissions.
To advance the UN moratorium with the banning and cessation of climate GeoEngineering, weather modification, cloud seeding and the deliberate aerial spraying of chemical aerosols that occur in UK airspace without the permission and consent of the majority of the wider general public.
To ensure any solar radiation management technique may only be reconsidered after a public debate on anthropogenic global warming and all forms of GeoEngineering (including solar radiation management and stratospheric aerosol GeoEngineering) has been conducted and concluded, with leading, independent figures from each side of the argument involved throughout.
End the military’s ability to exempt itself from all treaties that govern our health and wellbeing, such as:
The 1989 Official Secrets Act, 1978 Environmental Modification Treaty (ENMOD)
The Nuremburg Code
The UN Nagoya Convention on Biological Diversity, 2001
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights The UNECE Aarhus Convention
Directive 2001/42/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 June 2001
Charter of fundamental rights of the European Union
The Unified Atmospheric Preservation Act (UAPA).
To bring the Unified Atmospheric Preservation Act (UAPA) into law.
AGW – Anthropogenic (man-made) Global Warming
ENMOD – 1978 Environmental Modification Treaty
HAARP – High Frequency Active Auroral Research Program
GAO – US Government Accountability Office
GE – Geoengineering
IPCC – International Panel on Climate Change
NIPCC – Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change
SAG – Stratospheric Aerosol Geoengineering
SAI – Stratospheric Aerosol Injection
SRM – Solar Radiation Management
SRMGI – Solar Radiation Management Governance Initiative
UAPA – Unified Atmospheric Preservation Act
USGCRP – US Global Change Research Program
WMO – World Meteorological Organization