The plan to dim the sun was tucked neatly away within the thousands of pages of the Consolidated Appropriations Act.
Earlier this month, the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) quietly revealed its plan to cool the Earth by reflecting sunlight back into space, The plan was tucked neatly away within the thousands of pages of the Consolidated Appropriations Act and the OSTP was directed by Congress to complete it.
The White House is now requesting comments on its plan for geoengineering which includes multiple intervention protocols, namely spraying aerosols into the stratosphere to reflect sunlight back into space.
What was once the subject of dystopian fiction is now being kicked around as official policy and most Americans are entirely unaware. Nearly three years ago, TFTP reported on the plan by Congress, which began under Donald Trump, to procure funding for this type of research.
The top climate change scientist for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration received $4 million in funding from Congress along with permission to study two highly controversial geoengineering methods in an attempt to cool the Earth. According to Science Magazine, David Fahey, director of the Chemical Sciences Division of NOAA’s Earth System Research Laboratory, said that the federal government is ready to examine the science behind “geoengineering”—or what he dubbed a “Plan B” for climate change.
Now, they’ve set a deadline for the research and the mad scientists are likely chomping at the bit to get started. As CNBC reported:
Harvard professor David Keith, who first worked on the topic in 1989, said it’s being taken much more seriously now. He points to formal statements of support for researching sunlight reflection from the Environmental Defense Fund, the Union of Concerned Scientists, and the Natural Resources Defense Council, and the creation of a new group he advises called the Climate Overshoot Commission, an international group of scientists and lawmakers that’s evaluating climate interventions in preparation for a world that warms beyond what the Paris Climate Accord recommended.
Though the White House is now laying out its plans for geoengineering, the idea of dimming the sun is nothing new and dates back to a 1965 report to President Lyndon B. Johnson entitled “Restoring the Quality of Our Environment.”
Since then, global think tanks and special interests have been pushing for some sort of geoengineering plan all across the planet.
During the COVID-19 pandemic, the WEF put out their mission, entitled The Great Reset, to use the pandemic to push what they say is a need for “global stakeholders to cooperate in simultaneously managing the direct consequences of the COVID-19 crisis ” to “help inform all those determining the future state of global relations, the direction of national economies, the priorities of societies, the nature of business models and the management of a global commons.”
The Great Reset was written off by fact-checkers as a conspiracy theory despite the WEF advocating for it publicly and the head of the WEF, Klaus Schwab, literally writing a book with that title — advocating for these very initiatives.
After amassing massive government influence for years, the group, which openly refers to themselves as “elites” has come to the same conclusion that Bill Gates has come to years ago — we need to block out the sun to slow climate change.
“Space-based solutions would be safer – for instance, if we deflect 1.8 per cent of incident solar radiation before it hits our planet, we could fully reverse today’s global warming.”
Another advantage of this particular solar shield is that it is reversible, as the bubbles could be deflated and removed from their position.
The spheres would be made from a material such as silicon, transported to space in molten form, or graphene-reinforced ionic liquids.
For now, the plan is a working hypothesis and the scientists behind it are only conducting experiments in the lab. Citing the highly controversial nature of such geoengineering plans, the WEF fell back on its relationship with the UN to justify it.
Geoengineering has proven controversial, but the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has said it is a necessary Plan B if temperature rises can’t be capped at a manageable level.
Indeed, regardless of the assurances of the elite, many scientists and government bodies are making moves to prevent such actions. Some countries have even banned the practice.
Last year, the nation of Sweden recanted on their plan to test Bill Gates’ plan to spray particles in the sky to test blocking out the sun — citing disagreements among scientists.
Others simply want to compensate anyone who is harmed by these projects.
David Keith, a professor of applied physics and public policy at Harvard University, recognizes the “very many real concerns” of geoengineering, according to a report in Forbes. To offset these risks he has proposed the creation of a “risk pool” to collect funds for the risks associated with playing mother nature — up to and including cooling an area so much that inhabitants are unable to grow food.
As Forbes reports:
Again, these temperature decreases bring with them serious risks. Freezing temperatures in 1815 led to failed crops in near-famine conditions. British scientists have cited stratospheric aerosols from volcanic eruptions in Alaska and Mexico as the potential cause of drought in Africa’s Sahel region. Major disruption of the global climate could bring unintended consequences, negatively impacting highly populated regions and engineering another refugee crisis.
David Keith has proposed the creation of a “risk pool” to compensate smaller nations for collateral damage caused by such tests, but such a payout might be little comfort to those displaced by unlivable conditions.
Indeed. No amount of money would compensate for a family losing their lands to freezing temperatures and being forced to relocate to another country. But these are some of the risks involved in weather modification — which is why a small group of global elites who are not scientists — should not be making these decisions for 8 billion people.