9 December 2024 | ZeroGeoengineering.com | SB 4907 | *The general public does not consent to SRM.
The “Solar Radiation Modification (SRM) community” will be gathering at a conference taking place 12-16 May in Cape Town, South Africa.
The Degrees Global Forum 2025 website states: “SRM research is now conducted in dozens of countries around the globe, and there is a wide range of views on its scientific and human dimensions.”
Related: The Community-Based Road to CMIP7 in the Geoengineering Model Intercomparison Project (GeoMIP)
SRM is being framed by experts, governments, and professional marketing teams as “research” (aka “experimentation”) even though deployments involve the release of harmful pollutants.
The rebranding of “weather modification” to “weather research,” or “Solar Radiation Modification” (SRM) to “Sunlight Reflection Methods” (SRM), is a tactic to avoid liability for harm and damage as a result of weather interventions.
Per Trump Weather Research Forecasting and Innovation Act of 2017 (15 U.S.C. 8519(a)), the U.S. Congress continues to fund weather and air chemistry — SB 4907:
$263,032,000 for each of fiscal years 2025 and 2026–
$51,516,000 is authorized for weather and air chemistry research programs;
Geoengineering / SRM — pre-meditated murder?
In 2013 panelist David Keith stated that Geoengineering “might end up killing many tens of thousands of people a year.”
“This is a really important moral point. So if I made a decision or if there was a collective decision to do a geoengineering program, and you put say, the kind of program I think that makes more sense is what about a million tons a year[of sulfur dioxide], let’s say, you might end up killing many tens of thousands of people a year as a direct result of that decision. I think that has moral consequences, I don’t sweep that under the rug. This is a case where I take this much differently from Alan and think it’s a much more serious issue. Now, it’s true that part of doing that, you would hope that the overall benefits of human mortality would be so that you would save many many more people than that. But the fact that you uh, would save more people than you kill, doesn’t mean there’s no moral impact of making a decision that directly kills people. And I think that we who talk about this have a duty to be clear-eyed about the direct risks involved in doing it.”
-August 7, 2013 David Keith Geoengineering Debate
Would governments, media, funders, academics, and participants be liable for their role in promoting SRM / geoengineering interventions?
Related
Why Are Governments Gaslighting the Public on Geoengineering?
U.S. Global Change Research Program 2022-2031 Strategic Plan
Beyond Borders: NATO’s Unexpected Role in Shaping Air Quality Policies Worldwide
#WeDoNotConsent
Send a message to your elected legislators to BAN SRM HERE
Research State Legislation HERE