The Unhistoric Passage of Tennessee's Geoengineering Senate Bill No. 2691
The Unhistoric Passage of Tennessee's Geoengineering Senate Bill No. 2691
The unintended consequences of flying high and how current geoengineering bills are a good beginning, but completely missing the mark.
I don’t mean to burst everyone’s bubble, and I know this won’t be popular, but the recent surge in geoengineering legislation, while signaling a growing awareness among lawmakers of its potential health and environmental implications, remains largely ineffective in its current form.
Fortunately, legislators are finally beginning to recognize the dangers of geoengineering, acknowledging its decades-long history of weather modification. However, the positive momentum is undermined by the need for more scientific expertise guiding the drafting of these bills. Without the input of individuals deeply versed in both the science and the” unintended vs. intended” consequences of geoengineering, these legislative efforts fall short of addressing the root of the issue.
The Tennessee, New Hampshire, and other state legislation fail to confront the inadvertent contribution of the commercial airline and shipping industries. These industries, through the emission of heavy metals and other pollutants from jet fuel and its additives, are unintentionally generating cirrus clouds, thereby altering weather patterns and dimming the sun.
These are the bills that have been introduced as of late;
Connecticut introduced SB302
Illinois introduced SB134
Kentucky introduced HB506 and SB217
New Hampshire introduced HB1700
Rhode Island introduced SB2540
South Dakota introduced SB215
Current legislative attempts are narrowly focused on "intentional" geoengineering activities — primarily military and covert, which legislators lack any authority over — therefore overlooking the commercial airline industry's significant, albeit unintended(?) environmental impacts. This oversight results in legislation that lacks enforcement mechanisms, environmental impact assessments, real-time monitoring, and public transparency about ongoing weather modification programs and the dispersal of pollutants.
Experts like Jim Lee of ClimateViewer.com highlight the distinction between "intentional" and "unintentional" geoengineering is a huge oversight in current legislative efforts as I have reported here and here. The vast quantities of pollutants emitted by the commercial aviation sector, including nano-sized particles of heavy metals, accumulate over time, posing a significant, yet largely unaddressed, growing environmental threat.
Please don't take my word for this; check out Jim Lee's recent seminal interview on Del Bigtree's The Highwire.
Link HERE.
I know this perspective challenges many in the geoengineering world and the predominant narrative around stratospheric aerosol injections (SAI), suggesting that the focus on "intentional" modification programs may overlook the broader and more complex reality of commercial airlines and shipping. This realization requires a profound shift in understanding and approach, highlighting the need for legislation that encompasses the full spectrum of geoengineering activities, both intentional and unintentional.
A massive, intentional geoengineering program is not necessary for weather modification when the commercial airline industry plays a significant role through its daily consumption of over 15 million barrels of jet fuel. The emissions contain nano-sized particles of heavy metals such as aluminum and barium. The cumulative effect of these emissions over time must be considered, as they significantly contribute to atmospheric changes.
Understanding this dynamic has been a year-long journey for me, challenging my multi-years of held perceptions. The narrative promoted by Dane Wigington of GeoengineeringWatch.com, widely regarded as the leading authority on geoengineering, is finally being critically reevaluated. My conclusions reveal a substantial misinterpretation of the underlying issues, suggesting a complex reality far beyond the straightforward narrative of intentional geoengineering.
GEOENGINEERING LEGISLATION CHALLENGES
Despite setbacks, such as the failure of New Hampshire's Clean Atmosphere Preservation Act, there is momentum toward more comprehensive legislation. Unlike the Tennessee legislation, the proposed New Hampshire bill, for example, included mechanisms for enforcement and penalties, emphasized state authority in environmental regulation, and required accountability from state appointees.
The debate between intentional and unintentional geoengineering underscores the complexity of regulating atmospheric modification. The challenge lies in proving intent and understanding the broader legal landscape that governs state and federal authority over environmental issues.
As Jim Lee recently stated,
They (legislators) don't understand the international laws, let alone the federal laws that supersede their state laws. They don't understand proof and proving "intent." You don't understand that when you have planes flying overhead, spewing out chemicals and making clouds [one cannot prove] they "intentionally" are making clouds for the express purpose of blocking sunlight.
In other words, all these different geoengineering bills would not apply to the commercial airline industry, which is driving people bonkers on a daily basis.
Fortunately, Lee is drafting his own geoengineering legislation that includes pollution from aircraft creating cirrus clouds and its impacts on human health, the environment, etc. This legislation will include the much needed addendums with index of all scientific references proving every claim in the draft legislation.
Jim Lee is the only individual that I trust who would have the capacity to author such a bill that would truly reflect what is happening over our heads, including the most critical language, "knowingly" and "unintentional," to have an actual measurable benefit.
As the conversation around geoengineering legislation evolves, there is hope that more nuanced and scientifically grounded bills will emerge. Jim Lee's efforts to draft legislation that accurately reflects aviation's impacts on cirrus cloud formation and human health represent a critical step towards more effective environmental regulation.
Once that bill has been drafted by Lee, I intend to take it to the California capitol and find a bill sponsor…..
Stay tuned.
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….
I am a licensed pilot, I grew up flying, soloed at 16 yrs old. My father was an Air Force trained pilot who then went on to a career as captain for TWA then Atlas Air cargo as a captain flying 747s on international routes. I speak with a knowledgeable perspective on the topic. Attempting to allege that commercial airline traffic is "also" responsible for the carnage is the government's same old tactic, working to confuse the public and legislators, to distract from their insidious shenanigans. The important major accomplishment of this initial legislation is helping to awaken public perception to the criminal activities of the governments and military contractors etc who are colluding in this outrageous attack on all humanity. You do no service to this effort by effectively siding with the enemy and muddying the waters.
Focus on shutting down the attacks and deliberate poisoning of our air, water and soil. Don't help them enact more oppressive legislation that will be used against us (limiting commercial air travel, further regulating taxing fuel etc etc) and do NOTHING to stop them.
What really p's me is that Here in TN. they ban the spraying but it don't take effect until July! And they are working over time now spraying the heeeeellll out of the skies1 I just came in from taking my puppy out , I refused to wear a mask over the PLANDEMIC but i have to wear one now when i go out esp. at night for all the Shhhhhhstuff falling , it looks like a really fine snow!!!