GeoEngineering methods release hazardous emissions into our atmosphere including unnatural electromagnetic radiation pollution and other toxic agents like aluminum and sulfur dioxide, contributing to severe health problems that threaten people, especially children, birds, bees, wildlife and all of nature.
Small groups of 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.
Send Your MP 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 lead and support efforts for prohibition of weather modification, cloud seeding, and GeoEngineering activities.
Most important for public health and safety, is the protection of the Earth’s environment by the absolute prohibition of atmospheric testing, inclusive of GeoEngineering aerosol releases (hazardous emissions), and harmful wireless radiation emissions deployment from ground and space-based wireless networks and “smart grid” infrastructure, that are integral to GeoEngineering programs, but devastating to the Environment, People, and Nature.
Looking forward to your quick response and strong leadership for the prohibition of GeoEngineering’s hazardous emissions (in addition to CO2 and GHG emissions from Geoengineering) in the UK as soon as possible.
(Your Postal Code)
(Your additional comments, if any)
ZERO GEOENGINEERING / The UK
Fill in this form, then hit “Send Letter”
Geoengineering Pollution Footprints — UK:
The Regulation of Geoengineering https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200910/cmselect/cmsctech/221/221.pdf 196 nations declared a moratorium on Geoengineering in 2010, and the UK is still not a signatory. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/10/29/AR2010102906361.html 2017 MIT Technology Review - Harvard Scientists Moving Ahead on Plans for Atmospheric GeoEngineering Experiments https://www.technologyreview.com/s/603974/harvard-scientists-moving-ahead-on-plans-for-atmospheric-geoengineering-experiments/
END GeoEngineering !
Weather Modification Action Report 1 - 5 May 2014 - No. 10 Downing Street, London, UK May 5, 2014
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.
Introduction 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.  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 the 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 Geoengineering-induced climate change is presented here. 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)
SAI is 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). 
There are no proven benefits of SAG to the general population and there is not one single study to prove SAG is safe.
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 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.  
Geoengineering methods pose a serious problem for All of us.
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.
Weather Modification 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.  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.  All Aerial Spraying must be Banned
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.