UK Geoengineering: The Chemtrail Paper Trail – Part 2
The objective of this series of articles is to shed light on what disclosures the UK government has made on sun-dimming geoengineering, why it thinks it can engage in this madness without public permission, and what scope there is for any legal challenges to it.
The UK government paper trail on geoengineering thins out significantly after the 2010 paper I analysed in Part I. In Part II, I will present the key nuggets from the more notable government announcements since that 2010 paper. There aren’t many.
UK government position paper first issued in 2013 and last updated in May 2020
On 27 February 2013, the government published a position paper on geoengineering. This paper, issued by the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero (DESNZ), remains published on the GOV.UK site, with the last update showing as 4 May 2020. So I assume that position is current at the date of publishing this article. The policy paper is titled: The UK government’s view on greenhouse gas removal technologies and solar radiation management.
The paper states that “the government is not deploying SRM [Solar Radiation Management, which would include injection of aerosols into the stratosphere], and has no plans to do so.” However, it also states that “the UK government has commissioned research into the effects of SRM on climate” and that the effects which SRM would have on the climate are being investigated “using computer modelling”. [i] Why would you commission research on SRM if you had no plans to use it?
The Science and Technology Committee’s 2010 paper analysed in Part I stated that “for any research activities on geoengineering techniques to have a noticeable impact on the climate, they will have to be deployed on a massive scale”. So, the view at that time was that there was no way to conduct research other than to simply deploy SRM techniques in the real world, and see what happens. However, the official position as at 2020 seems to have shifted to assessing SRM using computer models. Or so they say.
So there you have it. Despite the plainly visible and unusually long-persisting chemical grey streaks sprayed in the skies daily, the government says it is not happening. It never happened. You are imagining it. So the challenge (in Part III) will be to debunk the BBC’s ‘debunking’ of ‘conspiracists’ who insist that, contrary to Auntie Beeb’s condescending lectures, what we are seeing today are not the normal contrails that have existed since the invention of planes.
I clicked on the DESNZ paper’s “further reading” and “end notes” for more clues on what is influencing government Solar Radiation Management (SRM) policy and for any other revealing statements on SRM by global quangos committed to saving the planet from the terrifying ‘climate crisis’. Below is a summary of what I think is relevant.
This is a paper published in October 2016 by The Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity, a UN quango spawned from the Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro in 1992. Chapter 4 of the report deals with the potential impact of SRM on biodiversity and acknowledges that “despite the abundance of recent literature on SRM, hardly any research has given specific attention to impacts on ecosystems and biodiversity.” This is an acknowledgement that the focus of the single-minded geoengineers is on whether SRM works to reduce the absorption of incoming solar radiation, while ignoring any potential collateral damage to the environment and humans. One of the supposed objectives of this paper is to address that imbalance. In my opinion, it does not.
The paper refers only in very vague terms to the exact composition of the chemicals that are used in stratospheric aerosol injection (SAI). There is a reference to “sulphate aerosols” as the primary intended SAI chemical. There is also speculation about investigating “the suitability of other aerosols that greatly increase the amount of light scatter” such as “alumina, silica oxides and diamond particles”. However, there is no discussion of how these materials disperse in the atmosphere and ecosystem, and the effect of specific chemicals on humans and biological ecosystems.
Discussion of “the potential effects of SAI on the quality and quantity of light reaching the Earth’s surface” is given short shrift:
“Large-scale SAI would reduce the amount of total light; however, the sky might appear brighter (due to the increase in white light), likely to be discernible in rural areas.”[ii]
Et voila! Not only is the effect merely cosmetic, but it’s an improvement. The deep rich blue of a clear summer’s day has not been transformed into chemical-grey shit. No, you should thank the sun-dimming ghouls for delivering “brighter” skies.
As for the effect on plant life:
“the effects of decreased photosynthetically active radiation under SAI would be countered by diffuse light increasing the net efficiency of carbon fixation.”
Oh, and don’t worry about the effect on marine life:
“A modelling study indicates that similar re-balancing, but by different mechanisms, may also occur for marine ecosystems[iii]…The magnitude of the SRM effect on ocean acidification has been estimated as a (beneficial) increase in the mean surface ocean pH of 0.05 units[iv]”. [emphasis added]
Those of us who have managed to remain grounded in the real world since government psychological operations were exponentially ramped up in 2020 understand that modelling studies to determine the impact of potentially hazardous materials on humans and ecosystems are of extremely limited value because they are not examining observable real-world outcomes caused by actual material inputs into the environment. Therefore, the innocuous results generated by these studies can only be seen as a reflection of the modellers’ pro-geoengineering bias. In the same way that the IPCC only publishes studies that support the doctrine of anthropogenic warming, the geoengineering studies are a subset of that industry. The understanding behind the commissioning of geoengineering modelling studies is that they must support the overall industry’s doctrine by justifying actions to mitigate the supposed anthropogenic warming.
Report by the Committee on Climate Change on UK climate action following the Paris Agreement
This report was issued in October 2016 and was intended to galvanise UK action following the adoption of the Paris Agreement[v] at the UN Climate Change Conference (COP21) in December 2015.
The Committee on Climate Change (CCC) is a supposedly independent statutory body established under the Climate Change Act 2008. There is really nothing independent about it because it is a body set up and funded by the government to monitor its own policies and progress on ‘decarbonising’ the economy.
Designating the CCC as ‘independent’, as with so many Orwellianisms in government, is not an indication of independence. Rather, it’s a signal that its function and requisite skillset are sufficiently critical to the importance of the climate operation to warrant hiving it off from government hoi polloi where low-level ineptitude and bungling is guaranteed. Complex deceptions require careful management and, if it’s going to be bungled, it should be bungled professionally by people with lots of letters after their names and, crucially, receiving large salaries paid by you and me. Coating the medicine with an expensive layer of middle- and upper-class toffery is what makes it go down. And while providing a smidgen of background to the CCC seems like a digression from the objective of this article, I hope it will add some context to ‘climate crisis’ administration and bureaucracy.
As I’ve hinted above, one function of the CCC is to give climate alarmism the air of intellectual legitimacy that a gullible professional managerial class and propagandised public crave. And to do that, the committee has twelve high-powered academic members and 30 staff[vi] at its disposal to write reports. The sort of reports that challenge the government and make it feel extremely uncomfortable by saying things like: “We agree with the Government's intention to set a new target in future that reflects the global need to reach net zero emissions.” Since its inception, it has published nearly 400 reports about the intricacies of ‘decarbonising’. Generating the 26 reports it wrote in 2023[vii] has cost you and me £5.9m[viii], which I suppose is small beans compared to the £5.8 billion for 2016-21 that the government has generously pledged, on your behalf, to the International Climate Fund[ix].
Another function of the CCC is to oversee the administration of the carbon accounting scam whose real purpose is to restrict every facet of individual life, from travel, to diet, and energy usage. The production of carbon is at the core of everything we do as individuals and societally. And since carbon has been declared an evil, everything you do must be rationed, monitored and controlled to keep this evil in check. Once you’ve done some elementary dot-joining, you are bound to conclude that you are the evil to be kept in check, which is diabolically ingenious of our totalitarian overlords. The UK ‘carbon budget’ can be (and is) translated into ‘emissions per person’ and, with the aid of smart meters, and soon-to-be rolled out digital and financial surveillance through digital ID and CBDCs, your life can be peremptorily shut down at the precise moment you’ve exceeded your ‘emissions per person’.
The Climate Change Act itself, with whole swathes devoted to carbon accounting and trading schemes, is a central pillar of the energy rationing scam. Both carbon accounting and the Committee on Climate Change were midwifed by the Climate Change Act 2008. Even Orwell’s prescient genius could not have predicted that legislation to implement totalitarian control would be issued under the cover of Britain’s favourite ice-breaking topic of conversation – the weather. And should you ever doubt the contribution that bureaucracy has made to the precipitous decline in consciousness across the West, reflect on the fact that some of the West’s best educated minds are enthusiastically obeying orders to track, control and account for the most abundant element in living matter – carbon. There ought to be a Monty Python sketch on that.
The ‘climate crisis’, with its attendant solution based on carbon rationing, is in fact a non-negotiable lynchpin on the road to a bio-digital technocracy, since technocracy is predicated on central management of the social and economic spheres using energy rationing as the underlying mechanism. The ‘climate crisis’ conveniently kills two birds with one stone: it provides the ‘carbon footprint’ and ‘sustainability’ narratives to justify total technocratic societal and economic controls, and it provides the emotional crisis (saving the planet) as the lever of mass compliance with those controls.
As if that weren’t bad enough, complex financial markets are being developed to commoditise the entire natural world, paving the way for its theft by the global financial oligarchy. The cover story is of course <shriek> ‘saving the planet’! This is an extract from a Whitney Webb and Mark Goodwin investigation to show the link between the banking philanthropaths’ elaborate carbon trading market and their ultimate aim of owning nature itself:
“Another private sector player in the emerging, global tokenized carbon market is Flowcarbon…The company plans to “accelerate decarbonization through the tokenization of carbon credits and maintaining a record of the transactions on the blockchain.” … [T]he efforts to tokenize nature have already gone far beyond carbon. For instance, The Latin America-focused branch of the multilateral development banking system, the Inter-American Development Bank, helped create, along with the Rockefeller Foundation, the Intrinsic Exchange Group (IEG), which is the entity behind Natural Asset Corporations (NACs) [which] pioneer “a new asset class based on natural assets and the mechanism to convert them to financial capital.” These natural assets, the group states, “include biological systems that provide clean air, water, food, medicines, a stable climate, human health and societal potential.”…Some companies have already moved to tokenize these natural assets to facilitate and accelerate their financialization and fractionalization. For example, the Estonia-based venture capital firm Single Earth “tokenizes land, forests, swamps and biodiversity: any area of rich ecological significance.” Companies (and eventually individuals, they promise) can then “purchase those tokens and own fractional amounts of those lands and natural resources, getting carbon offsets in return as well as ongoing ownership rights.”…Some national governments have already made plans to tokenize their land and natural assets, namely the Central African Republic. One of Africa’s most impoverished countries, the CAR has been working to tokenize its land and natural resources, including timber and diamond reserves, since 2022 and passed legislation last year to advance their efforts.” [emphasis added]
Let’s return to the content of the referenced CCC report as it relates specifically to SRM. On that score, it is somewhat lacklustre insofar as providing a smoking gun for a government admission to SRM. Chapter 2 of the report considers pathways to achieving the absurd aim of limiting the global temperature rise to 1.5 degrees Celsius. As part of its assessment of “global emissions paths consistent with the Paris aims”, the CCC coyly suggests that SRM should not be ruled out:
“One further option is to explore more radical forms of geoengineering that could play a role in moderating climate change in addition to reducing greenhouse gas levels (Box 2.2).”
“Box 2.2” is a reference to a summary of solar radiation management, which is described as a way “to limit warming by deliberately altering the amount of sunlight absorbed by the climate system.” Listed under various “solar geoengineering proposals” is:
“Spraying reflective particles into the upper atmosphere (stratospheric aerosols). This process occurs naturally during very large volcanic eruptions, such as Mt. Pinatubo in 1991.”
My experience of reviewing these types of reports is that the reference to volcanic eruptions is virtually obligatory. The obvious intention is to inculcate the notion that if it happens in nature, there can’t possibly be anything wrong with replicating it artificially.
Four short bullet points assess the risks of stratospheric aerosols, and the environmental impacts are dealt with cursorily: ozone depletion; alterations to regional patterns of temperature and rainfall, and; “other currently unknown impacts”.
Again, none of these reports fully disclose the chemical composition of the materials involved, the amount to be/being dispersed, how they disperse into the entire ecosystem, and the impact on humans and ecosystems. A clue to the reason for this stunning omission lies in the bullet point on “public awareness”:
“Public awareness of geoengineering options is low, but surveys suggest it is seen as more ethically fraught than reducing emissions and removing greenhouse gases from the air. Some are favourable towards incremental, accountable research; few towards full-scale deployment.” [emphasis added]
In summary, this report, written in 2016, mentions SRM in passing and, while putting it tentatively on the table, it does not positively recommend it. Nor does the report shed any further light on the subsequent deployment of SRM.
I considered the possibility that the Paris Agreement, to which this CCC report is pursuant, might have included clauses providing cover to engage in SRM geoengineering. I could not find any evidence that the agreement does that, unless one takes the view that SRM falls under the rubric of ‘adaptation’ measures referred to in the agreement. But I think that would require taking considerable latitude in the interpretation of climate adaptation measures.
Concluding thoughts on Part II
By 2020, the full-chemtrails-ahead approach that marked 2010 peters out to ‘it never happened’, ‘it’s not happening’, and ‘more research must be done before it happens’. In Part III, I’ll take a look at Freedom of Information Act requests that have been made, and I’ll wrap up with observations about the gaslighting that is taking place and what it will take to end the spraying.
[i] The body conducting the research is named as The World Climate Research Programme’s (WCRP’s). The project this research falls under is listed as Geoengineering Model Inter-comparison Project (GeoMIP).
[ii] Paragraph 180: https://www.cbd.int/doc/publications/cbd-ts-84-en.pdf
[iii] Paragraph 180: https://www.cbd.int/doc/publications/cbd-ts-84-en.pdf
[iv] Paragraph 181: https://www.cbd.int/doc/publications/cbd-ts-84-en.pdf
[v] The Paris Agreement is a legally binding international treaty on climate change. It was adopted by 196 Parties at the UN Climate Change Conference (COP21) in Paris, France, on 12 December 2015. It entered into force on 4 November 2016. Its overarching goal is to hold “the increase in the global average temperature to well below 2°C above pre-industrial levels” and pursue efforts “to limit the temperature increase to 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels.” [https://unfccc.int/process-and-meetings/the-paris-agreement]
[vi] See page 56 of the CCC 2022-23 annual report. 42 staff in total minus the 12 committee members = 30 staff. https://www.theccc.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/CCC-ARA-2022-23.pdf
[vii] Page 12: https://www.theccc.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/CCC-ARA-2022-23.pdf
[viii] Page 67: https://www.theccc.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/CCC-ARA-2022-23.pdf
[ix] Page 53: https://www.theccc.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/UK-climate-action-following-the-Paris-Agreement-Committee-on-Climate-Change-October-2016.pdf
As always, over the target.
“the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero” — How stunningly Monty Pythonesque and oxymoronic! I had to search-engine it to make sure I wasn't being Babylon-Bee'd.
A quick note on “ocean acidification”, which is mentioned. As one of the globalist fearmongering talking points, it's never brought up that the oceans are in fact a “base”. Its pH is slightly over 8, on scale that runs from 0 (strongly acidic) to 14 (strongly basic); a scale where a pH of 7 is neutral and represents the pH (power of hydrogen) of water (H2O). This of course, is never explained or understood since, as with the CO2 demonization operation, real/actual/uncorrupted science and data are antithetical to the narrative(s) being pushed by the techno-psychopathocracy.
Key points, beautifully put: “The understanding behind the commissioning of geoengineering modelling studies is that they must support the overall industry’s doctrine by justifying actions to mitigate the supposed anthropogenic warming.”
… and this: “Complex deceptions require careful management and, if it’s going to be bungled, it should be bungled professionally by people with lots of letters after their names and, crucially, receiving large salaries paid by you and me. Coating the medicine with an expensive layer of middle- and upper-class toffery is what makes it go down.”
… and this: “The production of carbon is at the core of everything we do as individuals and societally. And since carbon has been declared an evil, everything you do must be rationed, monitored and controlled to keep this evil in check. Once you’ve done some elementary dot-joining, you are bound to conclude that you are the evil to be kept in check, which is diabolically ingenious of our totalitarian overlords.”
I think you may be referring to a recent article by the BBC on solar radiation management. This alone set off alarm bells for me, as it follows a pattern I've observed in the mainstream media since 2020. As a journalist who's written for many of the outlets in question, I've studied the editorial thinking behind what they run and so was able to see the shift clearly. Basically it goes like this:
- pick something many of the public are noticing or talking about, such as Covid vaccines or 15 minute cities
- label those people conspiracy theorists or far-right and discredit their concerns
- THEN re-assert the initial topic in terms which fits the narrative or, in the case of the BBC article on SRM, say 'well, wouldn't it be a good idea if it DID happen'?
This is a way of trying to gain public acceptance for the idea. They know the cat is out of the bag in terms of the numbers of people observing the skies and becoming concerned about the weather. So the only way they'll be able to continue longterm is if people are persuaded to accept SRM as a necessary measure in the face of Climate, like the vaccines was in the face of Covid. It's psychological manipulation on a mass scale - aka Fifth Generation Warfare.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c98qp79gj4no