Check out the following article "Time to Geoengineer the Climate?  Scientists
Say We Should Get Prepared" from News.  It provides
details from 18-member panel convened by the Bipartisan Policy Center.
Following that link is a letter Rosalind Peterson of Agriculture Defense
Coalition has written in response.

October 7, 2011

Please note that the Bipartisan Policy Center has stated in both their
webcast on October 4, 2011, and the new report that several countries
and possibly private corporations or individuals are already engaged in

It should be noted that NCAR reported over 50 countries worldwide are
currently engaged in weather modification programs, along with over 66
ongoing programs in the United States (UCAR & NASA documents). These
experimental programs are so huge as to now be labeled as geoengineering
or climate remediation projects.

The IPCC and recently released Stanford University studies, along with
NASA studies (under NASA's Patrick Minnis), have admitted that aviation
impacts are increasing global warming over the Arctic and Alaska through
the aviation produced man-made clouds (water vapor is a byproduct of jet
engine combustion and is a greenhouse gas).  This aviation impact, which
is worldwide, and which NASA studies show is changing our climate on an
enormous scale should also be listed under geoeingineering projects as
the jets produce ever-increasing man-made cloud cover.

When we discuss solar radiation management it means reducing the amount
of direct sunlight reaching the Earth.  What happens when solar power
panel production is reduced along with the photosynthesis needed for all
plants to grow and produce crops?  We all need Vitamin D from the sun to
avoid the health effects, like rickets in children which is making a
comeback (CDC, Universitity of California Berkeley, and Kaiser
Permanente reports).

The lack of direct sunlight reaching the Earth through increasing solar
radiation management along with the toxic chemicals, particles
(nano-particles), and gases proposed for use have the potential to
pollute our air, water, soil, while causing acid rains which will
destroy our trees and other aquatic life.

Why aren't we adddressing what these "risky" issues are and why they are
"risky", instead of just stating that geoengineering or climate
remediation (their new term)is "risky"?

The Bipartisan Policy Center Webcast also noted that climate remediation
or geoengineering involves Solar Radiation Management (SRM), and this
invovles using particles, chemicals, or gases released into the
atmosphere.  The Center uses the words "risky" over and over again when
referring to geoengineering schemes but fails to identify what risks are
involved in proposed geoengineering schemes.  We wondered why the above
article in Sustainable Business did not make a full report with emphasis
on how risky and what types of experimentation are proposed by the Center?

Isn't it time that we have a full public debate on the consequences and
risks of these programs before we initiate more of them.  The Uk
Parliament and the U.S. House Science & Technology Committee both held
hearings in 2009-2010, and agree to work together on Global Geoengineer
Governance as well as on geoengineering itself.  Why didn't these
hearings include scientists from all fields instead of just hearing
testimony from those that are promoting Geoengineering Schemes?

We need more answers and more public debate on this issue.


Rosalind Peterson
Agriculture Defense Coalition
(707) 485-7520


  1. substrate calculation site said:

    Feb 15, 12 at 1:54 am

    Dear admin, thnx for sharing this blog post. I observed it wonderful. Greatest regards, Victoria…

Leave a Reply