Chemtrail Secrets: Strategies
Against Climate Change?
By Wayne Hall
Spectre Magazine
January 2004
2-9-4
This article, an efficient overview of the subject of world wide
climate modification was written by Wayne Hall and first published
January 2004 in Spectre http://www.spectrezine.org/, the
European-Parliament-based webmagazine involved in the project to
establish a new pan-European political party initiated by the German
PDS, the Synaspismos, and others.
Further information is in the footnote.
Strategies Against Climate Change
The deadlock between on the one hand environmental NGOs warning of the
dangers of global warming and on the other hand spokespersons for the
United States government has on the face of it many similarities with
the inertial deadlock of the later Cold War period (as analysed by the
theorists of the non-aligned peace movements in the 1980s).
Just as the SALT treaties for the reduction of strategic nuclear
armaments were continually obstructed by Republicans in the U.S.
Senate in the 70s, so the 1997 Treaty of Kyoto - a very inadequate
first step towards curbing carbon dioxide emissions in the atmosphere
- is being blocked by the intransigence of their present-day
counterparts (including, once again, a Russian element, for the
Russian government's support for Kyoto has been looking decidedly
shaky since early December 2003).
The anti-nuclear weapons movement that arose in Europe in the 80s
represented an attempt to break through the deadlock of the Cold War
system. The approach was epitomised in the writings of E.P. Thompson,
whose answer to the question: "What is the Cold War about?" was: "It
is about itself. The Cold War is a show which was put, by two rival
entrepreneurs, upon the road in 1946 or 1947."
The nuclear arms race, which should have been brought to an end in
1991, was an objective product of the Cold War deadlock. The global
warming deadlock has generated a corresponding "objective product",
whose outlines can be seen emerging in the global warming debate that
was taking place in the mid-nineties. It is called "geoengineering".
At the time of the Kyoto conference (and for a time afterwards) a
number of articles were appearing in the popular scientific press that
appeared to be trying to rally public support for geoengineering.
One of their favourite themes was that global warming is a technical,
not a moral problem and so should not be allowed to be the monopoly of
ecological non-governmental organizations pursuing an anti-development
agenda. Such organizations were later said to be responsible for the
decision at Kyoto to impose a fifteen percent cut on global emissions
of greenhouse gases over the next decade. Economically this was seen
as an indefensible decision, one likely to cost in the order of $250
billion a year, without taking into account the cost of losing the
goods, services and innovations whose production would be halted or
forgone.
The geoengineering proposal of consciously altering atmospheric
chemistry and conditions, of mitigating the effects of greenhouse
gases, was put forward as an alternative to calling for reduction of
carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide emissions.
Geoengineering included land, sea and air-based components. Some of
the remedies it was proposing, like large-scale planting of trees,
appeared uncontroversial and in fact worthy of support. Others, such
as the "Geritol" cure of sowing iron filings into the oceans to
stimulate the growth of carbon-consuming phytoplankton, seemed more
problematic. Others again, such as the "sunscreen" proposal of
scattering millions of tons of metallic particles in the atmosphere to
reflect sunlight back into space before it could be emitted in heat
radiation and then absorbed by carbon dioxide, were probably judged by
most geoengineering theorists to be virtually impossible to sell to
the public.
Nevertheless, in the mid-nineties, valiant attempts were made to give
geoengineering a good name. Gregory Benford, professor of physics at
the University of California, estimated that the Arctic and Antarctic
Oceans could be seeded with iron dust for between $10 million and $1
billion a year. 15 ships steaming across the polar oceans all year
long, dumping iron dust in lanes, would bring the total to around $10
billion. "This would soak up about a third of our global fossil-fuel
generated carbon dioxide emissions each year."
"Even better than dust would be microscopic droplets of sulphuric
acid. Sulphate aerosols can also raise the number of droplets that
make clouds condense, further increasing overall reflectivity.
Coal-burning freighter ships releasing sulphates into the atmosphere
could also spread iron dust into the sea, combining both approaches,
with some economies."
Probably the best-known of the aerial geoengineering proposals was
that put forward in 1997 by Edward Teller and entitled "Global Warming
and the Ice Ages: Prospects for Physics-Based Modulation of Global
Change" subsequently popularised in the Wall Street Journal in an
article entitled "The Planet Needs a Sunscreen".
Teller proposed deliberate, large-scale introduction of reflective
particles into the upper atmosphere, a task he claimed could be
achieved for less than $1 billion a year, between 0.1 and 1.0 percent
of the $100 billion he estimated it would cost to bring fossil fuel
usage in the United States back down to 1990 levels, as required by
the Treaty of Kyoto.
Characteristic of the politics of Teller is the fact that he both
ridiculed the idea of global warming and at the same time put forward
what he represented as a solution to global warming. "For some
reason," Teller observed sarcastically, "This option isn't as
fashionable as all-out war on fossil fuels and the people who use
them."
Teller, who is of course known to history as the father of the
hydrogen bomb and of the Star Wars missile defence programme, has not
always succeeded in getting his pet schemes adopted. His ambitious
plan, for example, for using hydrogen bombs to construct harbours in
the United States, never made the move from the drawing board into
reality. His sarcasm reflected a genuine problem: that of persuading
the public that permanent mobilisation of thousands of aircraft to fly
day and night, 365 days a year, over land and sea spraying toxic
metals over the human, animal and plant populations underneath is a
desirable, or even in any way defensible, proposal.
Gregory Benford was sensitive to the public relations difficulties. He
said: 'If geoengineers are painted early and often as Dr. Strangeloves
of the air, they will fail. Properly portrayed as allies of
science--and true environmentalism--they could become heroes. Not
letting the radical greens set the terms of discussion will matter
crucially.'
One theoretician who helped keep radical greens out of the debate, and
may even have succeeded in co-opting some radical greens into the
debate, was the Stanford University environmental law student Jay
Michaelson, whose "Geo-engineering: A Climate Change Manhattan
Project", was published in 1998 in his university's environmental law
journal. Like the name of Edward Teller, the title of Michaelson's
paper is a standing reminder of the continuity between geoengineering
and the nuclear arms race. The paper is a masterful attempt to defend
the indefensible. Asserting that geoengineering offers hope for
solving climate change "beyond the too-little, too-lates of Kyoto",
Michaelson's basic thesis is that "in a world where it is very
expensive to reduce greenhouse emissions, those who care about the
problem should support a policy that will work with those who don"t."
Michaelson outlines three possible responses to climate change: 1)
addressing its root causes, 2) doing nothing and adapting to climate
change as it occurs and 3) trying to solve the climate change problem
directly via geoengineering.
The impediments to addressing the root causes are the economic cost of
cutting back on fossil fuel use, the social costs in a context of
generalised dependence on automobiles, the question of equity, given
the objection of the nations of the South to having to bear the cost
of problems created by the North, and the harsh fact that enforcement
of a regulatory regime forces most countries to go against their
immediate interests.
The advantages of the second alternative, doing nothing, is that if
predictions are correct, climate change is soon going to cease to be
what Michaelson calls "an absent problem". Increasingly disastrous
evidence of the reality of climatic change will probably make it
easier to gain consensus on preventive regulation. But the problem by
then will have become one of choice of priorities: what and who should
be saved and what and who abandoned?
These disadvantages led Michaelson, as he says, to the third solution
of geoengineering. Geoengineering would shift priorities away from
researching into whether the globe is warming into practical solutions
that can be started immediately. It would not necessitate making
greater demands on the developing world than on developed countries.
It would indeed allow the developing world to be "a free rider" on a
project financed mostly by the industrialized nations. "Because it
would restrict growth in the developing world less than regulation
would, it would allow developing nations to progress more quickly away
from the serious environmental threats of unsafe water, unhealthy air,
and topsoil loss, through proven means such as sewage treatment, newer
(cleaner) automobiles and factories, and modern agriculture." By
relying on technological innovation and development, geoengineering
would increase the role of private actors relative to that of
government. Instead of requiring widespread enforcement of complex and
growth-threatening rules, geoengineering would give private firms a
financial incentive to help solve the climate change problem."
For all his ostensible commitment to geoengineering, Michaelson
conceded that in the final analysis "geoengineering runs afoul of
almost every major trend in contemporary environmentalism." "Geritol
cures" and "earth sunscreens" treat shallow symptoms, not deep causes,
and fail to "kill two birds with one stone" as would a serious
programme of combating deforestation or cutting greenhouse gas
emissions"". There is much circumstantial evidence that he would
really have liked the controversial character of his own proposals to
contribute to developing a political climate that would make possible
the implementation of real solutions to global warming. "If serious
debate were to emerge," he says, "shock at geoengineering might wane
in the context of rational reflection of the costs of climate change."
But for the emergence of such a serious debate to be triggered by
public shock at realisation of what is being proposed, and not only
proposed but done, by the geoengineers, geoengineering must be
publicly acknowledged, must be the subject of public debate, like
genetically modified foods, cloning or nuclear power, all of which
have interest groups publicly lobbying for and against them.
The wholehearted public embrace of geoengineering advocated by
Benford, Michaelson and others in the nineties has not happened. The
media has not tried to make geoengineers into heroes and portray them
as allies of science and true environmentalism. Many global warming
sceptics are even on record as saying that reports of geoengineering
activities - aircraft engaged in large-scale spraying of aerosols in
the upper atmosphere, could not be genuine - that such activities
could not be occurring because they are not needed and would be
criminal.
The big environmental NGOs such as Greenpeace, Friends of the Earth or
WWF do not try to glamorise or otherwise promote geoengineering. They
simply act as if it is not occurring. Their silence, to look at its
positive aspect, possibly reflects a refusal to be associated with the
task of making geoengineering look respectable.
The "invisibility" of geoengineering is perpetuated through official
denial. The US Air Force, whose KC-135R and KC-10 tanker planes have
become a familiar sight in many different parts of the world as they
engage in the daily particulate scattering operations of the
"sunscreen" programme, on its official site describes eyewitness
accounts of these operations as "a hoax that has been around since
1996." "The Air Force", it says "is not conducting any weather
modification experiments or programs and has no plans to do so in the
future." The "hoax" accusation is energetically echoed by the
seemingly large numbers of "debunkers" frequenting
chemtrail/geoengineering discussion forums, generating considerable
confusion, as well as resentment at their characterisation as
"chemmies" (a variant on "commies") those who wish to draw attention
to the mysterious lines in the sky. Moreover, all elected politicians
in the world above the municipal level, if they have heard at all of
geoengineering, believe, or profess to believe, the official story
that the sunscreen climate mitigation programme is "a hoax".
One reason for the successful conspiracy of silence may well be the
still unresolved status of geoengineering under international law.
This is an issue that was being investigated, again in the
mid-nineties, by the environmental lawyer Bodansky. Among the
questions he raised were: who should make geoengineering decisions?
Should all countries be able to participate in decision-making? (since
all will be affected and there will be both positive and negative
impacts). How should liability and compensation for damages be
handled? From the legal viewpoint, schemes to inject particles into
the atmosphere are purportedly among the most problematic of all
geoengineering proposals because the atmosphere above any country is
part of its airspace. Nations lay claim to their airspace and may act
on the claims, for example, by shooting down aircraft. Geoengineering
activity in the atmosphere could be viewed as infringements of
national sovereignty. Obviously, the simplest way of dealing with
legal problems of this kind, pending negotiation of the necessary
adjustments to international law, is to deny that any such activity is
occurring.
The publication on the internet in 2003 of an interview with an
alleged "insider" of the sunscreen programme (this is not its official
name) working at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory cast
further light on the difficulties involved in trying to promote a
favourable image of geoengineering. Starting from the question of why
polymer threads embedded with "biological material" have been found in
residues from aerosol spraying, the insider (given the pseudonym Deep
Shield) explained that "since the suspended particles eventually do
settle into the lowest part of the atmosphere and are inhaled by all
life forms on the surface, there is an attempt to counter the growth
of mould by adding to the mixture mould growth suppressants, some of
which may be of biological material."
Deep Shield acknowledged the potential of the aerosol spaying to cause
sickness: "Some people are more sensitive to the metals, while others
are sensitive to the polymer chemicals. It is true that people will
get sick, and some will die. The World Health Organization has carried
out most of the relevant studies. Some have said the ill effects will
be minimal, along the lines of a million or so, while others have
found the numbers to be far higher - 3 or 4 billion. The Accepted
Estimated Casualties (from the World Health Organization) is 2 billion
over the course of six decades. The majority will be either the
elderly or those who are prone to respiratory problems."
Emphasising the "globalist" aspects of the operations and the need to
"ensure the chemicals are not tampered with" Deep Shield claims that
"they are mixed and sprayed over random nations. This means that
chemicals produced in the USA have a good chance of being sprayed over
Russia. Russian planes may be seen in US skies, but so too will US
planes be seen in Russian skies. The canisters are sealed in a third
nation that has no idea where its canister is going. All of this is to
ensure that the shield is not used as a weapon. Non-participant
nations are sprayed by participant nations, who must spray in order to
get enough material to maintain their nation's shield. It is
understood that not spraying is as much a military offence as shooting
at the planes."
One implication of this spraying of non-participant nations by
"participant nations" is that, following the defeat of Saddam
Hussein's Ba"ath regime in Iraq, all of the Middle East - possibly
including Israel, where spraying has started in recent months - is now
being sprayed from bases in Iraq.
According to Deep Shield ordinary commercial aircraft are involved in
the particulate scattering operations and are not diverted from their
regular flight paths. "But the combined resources of the nations of
earth are not enough to allow constant spraying. Though we have
achieved a high level of technology, there is a great surface area
that needs to be covered nearly daily. Large sections of ocean are all
but ignored. The remaining land masses are more than what can be
covered efficiently."
Far from seeing his work as something to be proudly publicised, Deep
Shield sees the existing secrecy as necessary to maintain public calm
for as long as possible: "The Earth is dying. Humanity is on the road
to extinction. Without the shield, mankind will die off within twenty
to fifty years. Most people alive today could live to see this
extinction take place. This means that an announcement of the
situation we face boils down to telling every man, woman and child on
earth that they have no future, they are going to be killed. People
would panic. There would be economic collapse, the production and
movement of goods would collapse. Millions would die in all cities on
earth. Riots and violence would reduce civilian centres to rubble
within days."
The secrecy of the sunscreen project was justified to him, Deep Shield
says, on grounds of national security. "All those who know are
expected to remain silent. All those who suspect are either faced with
trying to prove the virtually unprovable or are faced with good enough
reasons to remain silent. I would assume that this situation is
worldwide and this could be considered as one of the dangers of the
project. I can see why there is a desire to repress the information,
not that spraying is taking place but the face that we are facing a
period of human history which might be the end of civilization."
The stance of Deep Shield is deeply irrational, permeated by the same
psychosis as the US government's "War on Terrorism". People whose
conscience is clear do not think in this way. What Deep Shield says is
nothing more or less than what many, particularly in the ecological
milieu say to themselves, and to others, every day: that humanity is
on the path to self-destruction. National security classification of
the sunscreen project is absolutely unjustifiable and in total
contradiction to the logic, however unconvincing, within which
geoengineering was proposed as one of a number of possible answers to
climatic change. Geoengineering was meant to be not simply a
substitution for real action on the environment, but also possibly a
facilitator of, and adjunct to, real action on the environment.
Something it cannot be if it remains secret.
David Stewart, who took the "Deep Shield" interviews, has quoted Deep
Shield more recently as saying that the project is failing to do what
it should do. He reports arguments (screaming matches) among the top
brass and civilian-dressed military who come and go at the Lawrence
Livermore laboratory. The arguments appear to Deep Shield to be about
the expense of the project, the effectiveness and, more generally, the
long-term outlook for humanity. Although there is no visible stack of
bodies, as Stewart puts it, of people killed by the aerosol spraying,
there is growing evidence of people dying from diseases plausibly
traceable to the project. One black spot for casualties is in East
Texas, where the initial tests for the spraying materials were carried
out in the mid-90s. Projections of 1000% increases in Alzheimer's
disease, one of the side-effects of excessive exposure to aluminium,
over the next decades, have emerged in the media in the last year or
so.
The sunscreen project is not the only reason for which aerosol
spraying is taking place in the atmosphere. Spraying is also being
carried out to increase electrical conductivity in the atmosphere,
facilitating the operations of HAARP, the High Frequency Active Aural
Research Program, in Alaska. Also, some reports of the presence of
disease bacteria in aerosol spaying do not fit in with Deep Shield's
explanation of biological materials being spayed to combat the growth
of mould. This suggests that black operations are also in progress,
parasitic on the pseudo-public-interest applications of geoengineering
technology and on personnel who believe that the purpose of their work
is the mitigation of climate change. If the sunscreen project is being
used as a cover for other even more illegal and apparently criminal
purposes, this is another argument for opposing its secrecy.
Many other issues require investigation. Is the current bonanza of
cut-price airline tickets being supported by state subsidies to
airlines for their services in spreading particulate matter? If so,
and if Deep Shield's statements on the financing of the sunscreen
project are correct, then this is being done at taxpayers" expense.
Quite apart from any economic aspects, how sane is it, to have ever
larger numbers of aircraft clogging the skies and burning ever larger
amounts of fuel, in order to facilitate management of global warming
caused by excessive burning of fossil fuel? Can a policy of moving to
non-fossil-fuel based economy really be developed side by side with
climate mitigation policies of this kind, if that is what they are?
Since the appearance of the first comprehensive study of global
warming by the American National Academy of Sciences in 1992, the
geoengineering debate has passed through a number of stages. The
mid-nineties (the period before and after Kyoto) was the period of
hype, of extravagant claims. The post-Kyoto period, apparently the
period when policy began to be implemented, was the period when the
respectable proposals of the day before suddenly became 'conspiracy
theory'. The present period is one of controlled re-introduction of
the subject, in such a way as not to expose the lies and omissions of
the preceding phase.
A recent article in the British "Guardian", under the title: "Earth is
20% darker, say experts", reveals that "Human activity is making the
planet darker as well as warmer." Scientists believe that "levels of
sunlight reaching Earth's surface have declined by up to 20% in recent
years because air pollution is reflecting it back into space and
helping to make bigger, longer-lasting clouds." A certain Jim Hansen,
climate scientist with Nasa, is quoted as saying: "Over the past
couple of years it's become clear that the solar irradiance at the
Earth's surface has decreased." The article claims that global dimming
is probably caused by "tiny particles such as soot, and chemical
compounds such as sulphates accumulating in the atmosphere."
Returning to the subject of the deadlock over the Treaty of Kyoto
engendered by the argument between defenders and opponents of global
warming (or by the unilateralism of the United States government, as
European and other international politicians like to tell us), the
international environmental organizations such as Greenpeace, Friends
of the Earth and WWF have shown through their silence on
geoengineering that they are unwilling to help make it respectable by
lending support to it. They should be given credit for that. But there
remains the task of breaching the secrecy that surrounds the subject.
Given that the ecological organizations are clearly not going to do
this, we must initiate discussions with them to decide who should be
assigned the task. Who is going to bell the cat?
Wayne Hall is a Greek citizen born in Australia, graduate of the
University of Sydney, teacher and freelance translator in Athens. In
the nineteen eighties he was a member of European Political
Disarmament, the non-aligned British-based anti-nuclear-weapons
movement. In the late nineteen eighties he joined the editorial board
of the Greek ecological magazine Nea Ecologia. He was a founding
member of ATTAC-Hellas, Greek section of the international citizen's
movement ATTAC and has a personal website kindly hosted by the Greek
student newspaper Diplomatic Times:
http://www.diplomatictimes.com/hddf/hddf. He is married and has one
son.
'strategies Against Climate Change" is © Wayne Hall
(<mailto:halva@hellasnet.gr>halva@hellasnet.gr), 2004 and is used here
with permission.
"Opinions are like assholes, everybody has one,some bigger than others"
.
|
