The EPA’s recent unveiling of its new contrails and geoengineering websites was supposed to be a moment of transparency, a chance to lay all the cards on the table for the public.
EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin announces their two new geoengineering websites to clear the record, supposedly.
Instead, this move by the EPA became a masterclass in how to make the anti-geoengineering community look unhinged.
By offering a watered-down, almost laughably thin explanation of contrails versus persistent contrails, the EPA has managed to sidestep the real environmental and biological risks, leaving the public with more questions than answers.
Their “everything we know” is, frankly, not much at all. And for those of us who have spent months compiling nearly 80 studies for a petition for rulemaking, it’s clear the EPA missed a golden opportunity to engage with substantive science and public concern.
But we can’t wholly blame the EPA.
In fact, we can’t let the anti-geoengineering movement off the hook either. The movement is suffering from a chronic case of conflation, mixing up two very different atmospheric phenomena as if they’re one and the same.
As long as individuals like the well-intentioned Nicole Shanahan continue to give this false narrative a platform, without clearly distinguishing between the two separate atmospheric activities, our anti-geoengineering efforts will go nowhere, fast:
The legislation being pushed, inspired by the likes of Dane Wigington and others, targets clandestine programs known as stratospheric aerosol injection, cloud seeding, and marine cloud brightening without clarifying to the public that these programs do not leave visible trails in the sky.
That’s right.
These geoengineering programs are invisible to the naked eye.
Let that baby sink in…
Geoengineering programs are invisible to the naked eye.
When Jim Lee of ClimateViewer.com (check out his new website) simply and clearly spelled this out for me many weeks ago, it was another one of those massive “aha” moments, the kind that makes you wonder how you ever missed it in the first place.
As long as anti-geoengineering activists and legislators keep mixing this up expect more of this:
The streaks, the crisscrosses, the so-called “chemtrails” that everyone’s up in arms about? Those are overwhelmingly the result of commercial and military aviation under the right atmospheric conditions, not secret government projects.
By clinging to this muddled narrative, the anti-geoengineering movement has set itself up for failure.
The legislation is hammering away at the wrong nail, and when the skies don’t clear up after the latest anti-geoengineering bills pass across the nation, the public is left scratching their heads. Meanwhile, those who try to correct the record, who point out that persistent contrails and clandestine geoengineering are separate issues, are met with defamation, slander, and a character assassination campaign worthy of the COVID era.
The movement has grown so obsessed with its own dogma that it’s now running the same playbook so many claimed to despise during the COVID years: repeat the narrative, attack the dissenters, and whatever you do, never question the sacred assumptions.
The tragedy here is that by refusing to separate these two atmospheric issues, neither will ever be adequately addressed.
Legislators will keep swinging at shadows, activists will keep feeding the confusion, and the EPA will continue to shrug from the sidelines. Until both sides, regulators and activists, learn to differentiate between what’s visible and what’s not, between commercial aviation emissions and secret atmospheric experiments, we’ll keep running in circles.
The sky will stay streaked, the conversation will stay toxic, and meaningful solutions will remain just out of reach.
More than likely by design.
If you find these interviews and articles informative, please become a paid subscriber for under 17¢ a day. I don’t believe in paywalls, but this is how I make a living, so any support is appreciated. Either way…. it’s available to you….
