Weather Modification in California: Part 2

Dan Titus, April 26, 2025

This article is part two in a series about weather modification. Part one dealt with an overview and history of weather modification programs in California denoting the genesis and costs of these programs. Agencies involved with weather modification cloud seeding programs and laws requiring public notification for programs are discussed. Also listed are the top contractors currently licensed to do this activity in the State. Included is a schedule of costs for weather modification programs. Also discussed is success rate contrasted with detrimental effects and legal challenges of these programs. Environmental and safety is discussed in relation to current technologies and patents.

Part two discusses large-scale geoengineering programs and their current status, including the specific topics: Weather Modification and Geoengineering, Industry Market Size, Types of Geoengineering Technologies, National Security, Stratospheric Aerosol Injection (SAI), Key Patents and Research, Military Geoengineering, Substances Used for Geoengineering, Substances in Air Quality Pollution Reports, Geoengineering Experimentation & Informed Consent, Ethical and Environmental Concerns and Political Climate.

Weather Modification and Geoengineering

Geoengineering, refers to the deliberate intervention in the Earth’s atmospheric processes to influence weather patterns or mitigate climate change. Geoengineering encompasses a broad range of technologies aimed at large-scale manipulation of the environment, often to counteract the effects of global warming. While some geoengineering techniques are already in use, others remain in experimental or developmental stages.

Weather interventions have been going on for decades as referenced in a 1961 speech, emphasizing the potential of weather modification for agriculture and defense, President John F. Kennedy said, “Weather control could be more important than space control.” Also, Spoken in 1962, reflecting the Cold War-era interest in weather modification as a strategic tool, President Lyndon B. Johnson stated, “He who controls the weather will control the world.”

Weather modification and geoengineering represent a double-edged sword in the fight against claims related to climate change. While technologies like Stratospheric Aerosol Injection (SAI) and cloud seeding offer speculative solutions, they also pose significant risks and ethical dilemmas.

Geoengineering’s potential benefits are far outweighed by its risks — The United Nations

The CIA’s endorsement of SAI underscores the urgency of addressing climate change but also highlights the need for robust international oversight. As geoengineering technologies continue to evolve, it is crucial to balance innovation with caution, ensuring that these powerful tools are used responsibly and equitably.

The United Nations cautions that adaptations of speculative geoengineering could have unequal global impacts through disrupted rainfall, thereby exacerbating risks of geopolitical tensions worldwide. The overarching message: Geoengineering’s potential benefits are far outweighed by its risks to the United Nations sustainability agenda.

The New York Times reported  in October 2024 that  lawmakers have introduced legislation to ban geoengineering in New Hampshire, Tennessee, Kentucky, South Dakota, Minnesota, Ohio, South Carolina and Pennsylvania, noting that most of the bills mirror legislation introduced in Rhode Island.

Industry Market Size

Cloud Seeding

According to a report by Market Research Future titled. Cloud Seeding Market Size Growth &Trends, the global cloud seeding market size was estimated at $2.12 Billion in 2024 to $3.5 Billion by 2032. 

 Geoengineering

In the context of climate intervention, geoengineering is not yet established as a formal industry in the traditional sense of a defined market size. It remains in the research and experimental stage; it is a evolving field with increasing research, development, and investment activity.  It is more accurately described as an emerging field with components in research, technology development, and pilot projects.

Here’s a breakdown of why it’s not a formal sector yet, and where it stands currently:

• Research and Development: There is a growing amount of research and development activity in geoengineering, primarily focused on carbon dioxide removal (CDR) technologies. Universities, research institutions, and startups are exploring various approaches, such as direct air capture, bioenergy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS), and enhanced weathering.
• Startups and Venture Capital: A number of startups are emerging in the CDR space, attracting venture capital investment. These companies are developing and commercializing technologies for capturing CO2 from the atmosphere and storing it permanently.
• Government Funding: Governments in some countries are providing funding for geoengineering research and development. For example, the U.S. Department of Energy has launched programs to support direct air capture and other CDR technologies.
• Pilot Projects: Some small-scale pilot projects are being conducted to test the feasibility and effectiveness of geoengineering techniques. However, these projects are often controversial and face regulatory hurdles.

Here are some key points:

1. Market Size: There is no definitive global or U.S. market size for geoengineering because it is not a commercialized sector. However, related fields like carbon capture and storage (CCS) and renewable energy technologies are growing, with the global CCS market projected to reach $7 billion by 2030, according to Grand View Research. Trade Associations and Organizations:
2. Carbon Capture and Storage Association (CCSA): Focuses on carbon capture technologies, which overlap with some geoengineering efforts.
3. International Association for Geoengineering (IAG): A research-focused organization promoting collaboration on geoengineering studies.
4. American Geophysical Union (AGU): Hosts discussions and research on geoengineering within the broader context of climate science. Trade Shows and Conferences:
5. American Meteorological Society (AMS) Annual Meeting: Features sessions on geoengineering and climate intervention.
6. International Conference on Negative CO2 Emissions: Focuses on carbon removal technologies, a subset of geoengineering.
7. European Geosciences Union (EGU) General Assembly: Includes discussions on geoengineering research.

• Potential Growth: If large-scale geoengineering projects gain traction, the industry could grow significantly, but this would require international consensus and regulatory frameworks.

Types of Geoengineering Technologies

The following chart outlines key geoengineering technologies, their purposes, developers, costs, and deployment contractors. Details, particularly costs and contracts, are often proprietary or classified, making precise figures difficult to obtain. Specific patents are often held by universities, private companies, or research institutions, therefore costs are usually estimates, as exact figures are rarely disclosed.

Technology Name	Reason for Deployment	Developer	Development Costs	Deployment Contractor	Annual Contract Cost
Cloud Seeding	Enhance precipitation, reduce drought	Weather Modification Inc.	$1-5 million/year	National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR)	$10-20 million
Stratospheric Aerosol Injection (SAI)	Reflect sunlight to cool the Earth	Harvard Solar Geoengineering Research Program	$20-50 million (research)	Undisclosed (military/government)	Classified
Marine Cloud Brightening	Increase cloud reflectivity to cool oceans	University of Washington	$10-15 million	SilverLining (nonprofit)	$5-10 million
Ocean Iron Fertilization	Stimulate phytoplankton growth to absorb CO2	Climos, Ocean Nourishment Corp	$2-5 million	Private marine research firms	$1-3 million
Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS)	Remove CO2 from the atmosphere	Global CCS Institute	$100-200 million	Schlumberger, Chevron	$50-100 million
Space-Based Reflectors	Block sunlight before it reaches Earth	NASA, private aerospace firms	$1-2 billion (est.)	SpaceX, Blue Origin	$200-500 million

Geoengineering: Operational Costs and Health Effects

Type of SRM	Reason/Purpose	Estimated Operational Costs	Substances Used	Health Effects (Based on MSDS Data)
Stratospheric Aerosol Injection (SAI)	Reflect sunlight by injecting aerosols into the stratosphere to cool the Earth.	$2–10 billion annually for deployment.	Sulfur dioxide (SO₂), calcium carbonate, or engineered nanoparticles.	SO₂: Respiratory irritation, asthma exacerbation. Calcium carbonate: Generally low toxicity.
Marine Cloud Brightening (MCB)	Increase reflectivity of marine clouds to cool the Earth.	$5–10 billion annually for large-scale use.	Sea salt particles (sodium chloride).	Sodium chloride: Generally safe, but high concentrations can irritate skin, eyes, and respiratory systems.
Cirrus Cloud Thinning	Thin cirrus clouds to allow more heat to escape into space.	$1–5 billion annually for research and use.	Ice nuclei (e.g., silver iodide).	Silver iodide: Low toxicity, but prolonged exposure may cause argyria (skin discoloration).
Space-Based Reflectors	Block sunlight by deploying reflective structures in space.	$1–10 trillion for initial deployment.	Reflective materials (e.g., mirrors, Mylar).	Mylar: Generally inert and non-toxic, but dust or particles may cause respiratory irritation.
Surface Albedo Modification	Increase Earth’s surface reflectivity to reduce heat absorption.	$1–100 billion annually, depending on scale.	Reflective paints, white roofs, or light-colored crops.	Reflective paints: May contain volatile organic compounds (VOCs) that can cause respiratory issues.
High-Albedo Crops and Vegetation	Genetically modify crops or vegetation to reflect more sunlight.	$1–10 billion annually for research.	Genetically modified plants with higher reflectivity.	Minimal direct health effects, but potential ecological and food security impacts.

Notes:

1. Substances Used:
   • The substances used in SRM methods vary, and their health effects are based on MSDS data for those specific chemicals.
   • For example, sulfur dioxide (SO₂) is a common aerosol in SAI and can cause respiratory issues, while sodium chloride (used in MCB) is generally safe but can cause irritation in high concentrations.
2. Health Effects:
   • Direct health effects are most relevant for methods involving chemical aerosols (e.g., SAI and MCB).
   • Indirect effects, such as changes in weather patterns or ecosystems, could also impact human health but are not covered by MSDS data.
3. Costs:
   • Costs are highly variable and depend on the scale of deployment, technological readiness, and research efforts.
4. Uncertainties:
   • SRM is still largely experimental, and its long-term effects on health, climate, and ecosystems are not fully understood.
   • Ethical and governance concerns also play a significant role in SRM deployment.

 National Security

Since geoengineering programs are designed to combat climate change and therefore experimental or fall under national security exemptions, they may not require public disclosure

Climate change has been classified as a national security threat by various U.S. government entities, including the Department of Defense, the National Intelligence Council, the Executive Office of the President, and the U.S. Congress. This recognition reflects an understanding of the significant risks posed by climate change to national security.

Specific details such as development costs, deployment contractors, and annual contract costs are often not publicly disclosed due to proprietary or national security concerns. Additionally, many programs are experimental and may not require public disclosure under certain legal frameworks.

1. Experimental Programs: Many geoengineering technologies are experimental, meaning they are still in the research and testing phase. This implies that their efficacy, risks, and long-term impacts are not fully understood. They may not require public disclosure under laws like the U.S. Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) if they are conducted by private businesses or fall under national security exemptions.
2. Proprietary Programs: Proprietary programs are protected to safeguard intellectual property, maintain competitive advantage, and secure potential commercialization opportunities. This means details about the technology, costs, and contractors are often kept confidential. Many programs are proprietary due to the potential for commercial exploitation (e.g., carbon credits, climate control services) and geopolitical advantages. Proprietary status means that details about the technology, costs, and deployment are kept confidential.
3. Public Disclosure: Many programs are not disclosed to the public due to their experimental nature, proprietary status, or national security implications. For example, military or defense-related geoengineering projects may be classified. Some technologies are patented, but patent holders are not always the primary developers or deployers. Patents can limit access to the technology and drive up costs.

 Stratospheric Aerosol Injection (SAI)

The CIA has shown interest in SAI, primarily due to its potential to address climate change as a national security threat

Stratospheric Aerosol Injection (SAI) is one of the most controversial and widely discussed geoengineering technologies. It involves injecting reflective particles, such as sulfur dioxide, into the stratosphere to scatter sunlight and reduce global temperatures. The technique mimics the cooling effects of volcanic eruptions, such as the 1991 eruption of Mount Pinatubo, which temporarily lowered global temperatures by 0.5°C.

The CIA has shown interest in SAI, primarily due to its potential to address climate change as a national security threat. In 2009, the CIA co-sponsored a National Academy of Sciences study on geoengineering, including SAI. The agency’s involvement stems from concerns that climate change could exacerbate global instability, leading to conflicts over resources, mass migrations, and geopolitical tensions. By endorsing SAI, the CIA acknowledges its potential to rapidly cool the planet, buying time for more sustainable climate solutions.

On, June 29, 2016: CIA Director John Brennan, cited SAI as a technology that could be used to combat “global threats”, noting that on the geopolitical side, the technology’s potential to alter weather patterns and benefit certain regions of the world at the expense of other regions could trigger sharp opposition by some nations.

 Key Patents and Research

1. Bernard J. Eastlund Patents:
   • US Patent 4,686,605: “Method and apparatus for altering a region in the Earth’s atmosphere, ionosphere, and/or magnetosphere.” This patent describes using high-frequency radio waves to modify the ionosphere for communication and surveillance purposes.
   • US Patent 5,038,664: Similar to the above, focusing on creating artificial ionospheric mirrors for bouncing radio signals.
2. HAARP Research:
   • HAARP was a joint program between the U.S. Air Force, Navy, and DARPA to study the ionosphere. While it was officially for scientific research, its potential military applications (e.g., over-the-horizon radar, communication enhancement) have been widely speculated.
3. Ionospheric Heaters:
   • Facilities like HAARP, EISCAT (European Incoherent Scatter Scientific Association), and Sura Ionospheric Heating Facility (Russia) use high-power radio waves to study and potentially manipulate the ionosphere. These are primarily scientific but could have dual-use military applications.

Military Geoengineering

The weather modification program used during the Vietnam War to extend the monsoon season and flood roads, particularly targeting the Ho Chi Minh Trail, was Operation Popeye (also known as Project Popeye). Conducted by the U.S. military from 1967 to 1972, it involved cloud-seeding techniques using silver iodide to increase rainfall, disrupt enemy logistics, and soften road surfaces. The operation was declassified in the early 1970s and later contributed to international treaties restricting environmental warfare.

“He who controls the weather will control the world.” — President Lyndon B. Johnson

As of October 2023, there is no publicly verified evidence of military geoengineering projects specifically aimed at ionizing the atmosphere for advanced communications and surveillance. While atmospheric ionization and related technologies have been explored for various purposes, including weather modification and communication enhancement, these projects are typically framed as experimental or scientific research rather than military applications.

• Classified Nature: Military geoengineering projects involving atmospheric ionization exist are likely classified. Publicly available information is limited to scientific research and historical projects like HAARP.
• Experimental Status: Technologies like ionospheric heaters are considered experimental and are not confirmed to be deployed for military purposes.

Substances Used for Geoengineering

Below is a table summarizing the main substances used for geoengineering, including their names, approximate dates of development or proposal, and potential health warnings based on Material Safety Data Sheet (MSDS) information. Note that some of these substances are still in experimental or theoretical stages, and health warnings are generalized based on their known properties.

Substance	Date Developed/Proposed	Potential Health Warnings (Based on MSDS)
Sulfur Dioxide (SO₂)	1970s (proposed for SRM)	Respiratory irritant, can cause lung damage, aggravates asthma, and contributes to acid rain.
Aluminum Oxide (Al₂O₃)	2000s (proposed for SRM)	Inhalation of fine particles may cause respiratory irritation; long-term exposure may affect lung function.
Sea Salt (NaCl)	1990s (proposed for cloud brightening)	Generally low toxicity, but high concentrations in the air may irritate respiratory systems.
Iron (Fe)	1990s (ocean fertilization)	Inhalation of iron dust can cause lung irritation; excessive iron in water can harm marine ecosystems.
Biochar	2000s (proposed for CDR)	Generally considered safe, but fine particles may cause respiratory irritation if inhaled.
Olivine (Mg₂SiO₄)	2000s (enhanced weathering)	Low toxicity, but dust inhalation may cause respiratory irritation; prolonged exposure may affect lungs.
Amines (e.g., MEA)	2010s (Direct Air Capture)	Can cause skin and eye irritation, respiratory issues, and allergic reactions in high concentrations.
Calcium Hydroxide (Ca(OH)₂)	2010s (ocean alkalinity enhancement)	Corrosive, can cause skin and eye burns, respiratory irritation if inhaled.
Phosphorus (P)	1990s (ocean fertilization)	Toxic in high concentrations; can cause eutrophication in water bodies, harming ecosystems.
Reflective Materials (e.g., mirrors)	2000s (space reflectors)	Generally inert, but manufacturing processes may involve hazardous materials.

Notes:

1. Dates Developed/Proposed: Many of these substances were proposed for geoengineering purposes in the late 20th or early 21st century, though some (like sulfur dioxide) have been studied for decades.
2. Health Warnings: These are based on general MSDS data for the substances in their raw forms. Actual health risks depend on concentration, exposure duration, and method of deployment.
3. Environmental Risks: Many of these substances also pose ecological risks, such as ocean acidification, ecosystem disruption, or unintended climate effects.
4. Regulation and Safety: Geoengineering techniques are largely experimental, and their large-scale deployment would require rigorous safety and environmental impact assessments.

Substances in Air Quality Pollution Reports

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is the primary agency responsible for developing and issuing Air Quality Pollution Reports in the United States. The EPA monitors air quality through the Air Quality Index (AQI), which measures pollutants.

Local weather reports from news outlets provide air quality reports using a color-coded system denoting the “health” of air. The scale ranges from good to hazardous and offers precautions to take. Air Quality Pollutant particles are typically smaller and more varied in composition, often resulting from human activities or natural processes; they can have significant health and environmental impacts. Cloud Seeding particles used are specifically chosen for their ability to interact with water vapor and promote precipitation; they are generally larger than fine pollutants but smaller than coarse dust. Geoengineering particles are engineered to be highly reflective and stable in the atmosphere, often mimicking natural aerosols like volcanic ash. Their size is optimized for scattering sunlight effectively.

This table highlights the differences in particle sizes and applications between air quality pollutants and particles used in weather modification and geoengineering.

Category	Substance	Particle Size Range	Purpose/Application
Air Quality Pollutants	Particulate Matter (PM2.5)	≤ 2.5 micrometers (µm)	Fine particles from combustion, industrial processes, and vehicle emissions.
	Particulate Matter (PM10)	≤ 10 micrometers (µm)	Coarse particles from dust, construction, and natural sources like pollen.
	Black Carbon (Soot)	0.01–1 µm	Emitted from diesel engines, biomass burning, and industrial processes.
	Sulfate Aerosols	0.1–1 µm	Formed from sulfur dioxide (SO₂) emissions, often from fossil fuel combustion.
	Nitrate Aerosols	0.1–1 µm	Formed from nitrogen oxides (NOₓ) emissions, primarily from vehicles and power plants.
	Sea Salt Aerosols	0.1–10 µm	Natural particles from ocean spray.
	Dust Particles	1–100 µm	From soil erosion, desert storms, and agricultural activities.
Cloud Seeding	Silver Iodide (AgI)	0.1–1 µm	Used to induce ice crystal formation in clouds for precipitation enhancement.
	Sodium Chloride (NaCl)	1–10 µm	Used as hygroscopic particles to promote droplet growth in warm clouds.
	Dry Ice (Solid CO₂)	N/A (sublimates directly)	Used to cool air and induce ice crystal formation in super-cooled clouds.
Geoengineering	**Sulfate Aerosols (Stratospheric)	0.1–1 µm	Proposed for solar radiation management to reflect sunlight and cool the Earth.
	Calcium Carbonate (CaCO₃)	0.1–1 µm	Proposed as an alternative to sulfate aerosols for solar radiation management.
	Alumina Particles	0.1–1 µm	Proposed for stratospheric aerosol injection to reflect sunlight.
	Diamond Dust	0.1–1 µm	Hypothetical material for solar radiation management due to its reflective properties.

Air quality reports focus on pollutants with proven health and environmental impacts. These are classified as “criteria pollutants” by the EPA under the Clean Air Act, based on their prevalence and health risks. The World Health Organization (WHO) also prioritizes these in global guidelines.

Chemicals used in cloud seeding (e.g., silver iodide, potassium iodide) or geoengineering (e.g., sulfur aerosols) are not included in standard air quality reports because air quality reports prioritize pollutants with widespread, well-documented risks. Niche substances and weather modification chemicals fall outside these criteria due to specialized use, localized impact, and regulatory separation, even though the particle size of these substances are generally larger than those measured for air quality reports and have negative health consequences and identified by OSHA using MSDS information.

Exclusion standards are set by major environmental agencies (EPA, WHO) to balance public health protection with practical monitoring capacity.

Pollutant Exclusion Criteria

• U.S. EPA: Defines criteria pollutants under the Clean Air Act; excludes substances lacking broad public health relevance.
• WHO: Prioritizes pollutants through Global Air Quality Guidelines, emphasizing global applicability.
• National/Regional Agencies:
• E.g., European Environment Agency (EEA) or China’s Ministry of Ecology and Environment—follow similar exclusion principles.

Annual Usage in California

Cloud Seeding	Geoengineering	Annual Usage (Estimated)
Silver Iodide (AgI)	Sulfur Dioxide (SO₂)	AgI: ~50–100 kg/year SO₂: Not currently deployed in CA (research only; N/A)
Sodium Chloride (NaCl)	Aluminum Oxide (Al₂O₃)	NaCl: ~10–20 tons/year Al₂O₃: Experimental; no reported large-scale usage
Calcium Chloride (CaCl₂)	Sea Salt (NaCl)	CaCl₂: ~5–10 tons/year Sea Salt: Trials for marine cloud brightening (~100–200 tons/year)
	Iron (Fe)	Fe: Small-scale ocean fertilization trials (~1–5 tons/year)
	Biochar Olivine (Mg₂SiO₄)	Mg₂SiO₄: Experimental enhanced weathering; minimal usage (~<1 ton/year)
	Amines (e.g., MEA)	Amines: Pilot CO₂ capture projects (~100–500 kg/year)
	Calcium Hydroxide (Ca(OH)₂)	Ca(OH)₂: Ocean alkalinity research (~1–2 tons/year)
	Phosphorus (P)	P: Experimental ocean fertilization; negligible usage

Geoengineering applications are largely experimental, and usage data is limited or not publicly disclosed. Cloud seeding programs are more established but still vary by project and year.

Geoengineering Experimentation & Informed Consent

There are no international rules or institutions that specifically address geoengineering. In the United States, several laws and ethical guidelines protect individuals from being subjected to experimentation without their knowledge or informed consent. These laws are particularly relevant in the context of geoengineering, which involves large-scale interventions in the Earth’s natural systems.

Governments are not universally required to report on experimental geoengineering programs. Reporting obligations depend on the program’s scale, legal jurisdiction, classification status, and potential environmental impacts. Classified or security-related projects are typically exempt from public disclosure, while non-classified experiments may require reporting under environmental or research laws. International reporting remains limited, relying largely on voluntary adherence to non-binding agreements.

Any geoengineering experimentation in the U.S. that could impact the public or the environment would need to comply with a comprehensive set of federal and state laws designed to protect human subjects, the environment, and public health. These laws ensure that the public is informed and that their consent is obtained before any such experiments are conducted.

Here are the key legal and regulatory frameworks:

1. The Common Rule (45 CFR 46):
   1. The Common Rule is a set of regulations that govern federally funded research involving human subjects. It requires that researchers obtain informed consent from participants, ensuring they are fully aware of the nature, risks, and benefits of the research. This rule applies to most federal agencies and institutions that receive federal funding.
2. The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA):
   1. NEPA requires federal agencies to assess the environmental effects of their proposed actions prior to making decisions. This includes public involvement and consideration of environmental impacts, which would be relevant for geoengineering experiments that could affect the environment and, by extension, the public.
3. The Clean Air Act (CAA):
   1. The CAA regulates air emissions from stationary and mobile sources. Any geoengineering activity that involves releasing substances into the atmosphere would need to comply with the CAA, which includes provisions for public notice and comment.
4. The Endangered Species Act (ESA):
   1. The ESA protects endangered and threatened species and their habitats. Geoengineering experiments that could impact these species would require consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service or the National Marine Fisheries Service.
5. The Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA):
   1. The FFDCA, enforced by the FDA, regulates the safety of food, drugs, and cosmetics. If a geoengineering experiment involves substances that could enter the food supply or affect public health, it would need to comply with this act.
6. The Nuremberg Code:
   1. Although not a U.S. law, the Nuremberg Code is a set of research ethics principles that emerged after World War II. It emphasizes voluntary informed consent and the necessity of avoiding unnecessary physical and mental harm, influencing U.S. research ethics policies.
7. The Belmont Report:
   1. This report outlines ethical principles and guidelines for research involving human subjects, including respect for persons, beneficence, and justice. It underpins the ethical standards required by U.S. research institutions.
8. State and Local Laws:
   1. Various state and local laws may also impose additional requirements for public notification, environmental impact assessments, and public consent for experiments that could affect local communities and ecosystems.

The Weather Modification Reporting Act of 1972, 15 U.S.C. § 330 et seq. requires that all persons who conduct weather modification activities within the United States or its territories report such activities to the U.S. Secretary of Commerce at least 10 days prior to and after undertaking the activities. Any activities intending to modify weather or Earth’s solar radiation (i.e., SRM) are required to be reported to NOAA under the Weather Modification Reporting Act. NOAA keeps track of the reports submitted, and maintains them for public access in the NOAA Library.

Ethical and Environmental Concerns

Geoengineering raises significant ethical and environmental questions. Technologies like SAI and marine cloud brightening could have unintended consequences, such as altering rainfall patterns or harming ecosystems. Moreover, the lack of international governance frameworks for geoengineering increases the risk of unilateral actions by nations or private entities, potentially leading to global disputes.

Several nations and international bodies have taken steps to restrict or condemn solar geoengineering activities, including SAI, due to ethical, environmental, and governance concerns. SAI remains largely theoretical, with limited real-world testing. Most opposition focuses on preventing unregulated experiments rather than outright banning the technology. Mexico’s action highlights how startups pushing boundaries may spur regulatory responses. Here are key examples:

Mexico – In January 2023, Mexico became the first country to explicitly ban solar geoengineering experiments, including SAI, following unauthorized balloon launches by the U.S. startup Make Sunsets. The Mexican government cited risks to environmental and community safety and emphasized the lack of international governance for such technologies.

European Union – While not a country, the European Union has taken a precautionary stance. In 2023, the European Parliament passed a non-binding resolution calling for:

• A moratorium on solar geoengineering deployment (including SAI) until risks are better understood and international governance frameworks are established.
• A global effort to restrict large-scale geoengineering activities.

United States (State-Level Actions) – No federal ban exists, but some states have proposed restrictions:

• Tennessee (2023): Passed a bill prohibiting intentional atmospheric injections for geoengineering, though it excludes common activities like cloud seeding.
• Rhode Island (2023): Introduced a similar resolution opposing geoengineering experiments without public oversight.

International Agreements

• Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD): Since 2010, 196 member states (excluding the U.S.) have adhered to a non-binding moratorium on geoengineering activities that may harm biodiversity. While not a ban, it discourages large-scale interventions like SAI without robust governance.
• New Zealand and Spain have seen civil society groups push for bans, but no formal legislation exists.
• The United Nations Environment Program (UNEP) advocates for caution, urging global governance before any deployment.

Political Climate

The Paris Climate Agreement was originally signed during the Obama administration in December 2015, with the United States formally joining in September 2016. President Obama chose to enter the agreement as an executive agreement rather than a formal treaty, which would have required a two-thirds majority vote in the Senate for ratification. This decision was strategic, as securing Senate approval would have been difficult given the political climate at the time.

In June 2017, President Trump announced the United States would withdraw from the Paris Agreement, though due to the agreement’s terms, the formal exit didn’t take effect until November 2020. Shortly after taking office in January 2021, President Biden signed an executive order to rejoin the Paris Agreement, and the U.S. officially reentered the agreement in February 2021. President Trump again signed an Executive Order in January 2025, to exit the agreement. The primary goal of the Paris Agreement is to strengthen the global response to climate change by limiting global temperature increase to well below 2 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels, while pursuing efforts to limit the increase to 1.5 degrees Celsius.

The classification of the Paris Agreement as an executive agreement rather than a treaty was controversial. The Obama administration argued that it had the authority to join the agreement under existing treaty obligations (the 1992 UN Framework Convention on Climate Change), and because the agreement’s commitments were voluntary and thus didn’t require new legislation. Critics maintained that an agreement of such significance should have been submitted to the Senate as a treaty under Article II of the Constitution.

Federal Department of Health and Human Services

On February 13, 2025, Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. was sworn in as the 26th Secretary of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) in the Oval Office by Associate Justice of the Supreme Court Neil Gorsuch.

Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has expressed strong opposition to geoengineering, viewing it as a harmful and risky practice. He has described it as a “crime” and a “disastrous endpoint” for both the environment and public health. Kennedy has specifically criticized geoengineering methods like carbon capture and atmospheric manipulation—such as proposals to fill the air with aluminum particulates to block sunlight—arguing that they are untested, potentially dangerous, and could have unforeseen consequences, such as worsening floods and heatwaves. He has also linked these practices to corporate profiteering, suggesting they serve as subsidies for the fossil fuel industry rather than genuine solutions to climate issues.

During his 2024 presidential campaign, Kennedy vowed to end geoengineering, a promise he reiterated in public statements, including posts on X where he responded to concerns about geoengineering activities. He has called for intense scrutiny of such large-scale, experimental policies, emphasizing a preference for natural solutions like regenerative farming and habitat preservation over technological interventions. His stance aligns with his broader skepticism of top-down, corporate-influenced approaches to environmental problems, as seen in his criticism of the Biden administration’s focus on carbon capture within the Inflation Reduction Act. Kennedy’s position has evolved from his earlier environmental advocacy, where he focused on litigation against polluters, to a more conspiracy-tinged critique of geoengineering as a tool for control and profit by elites. 

Who We Are

iAgenda 21, a site dedicated to providing an overview and furthering the debate regarding Sustainability/Sustainable Development (SD), which are a set United Nations reduced standards of living goals, argued through artificial scarcity schemes and reinforced through behavior modification techniques, all because of the theory of man-made climate change. We offer public policy review and resources to educate people and elected public officials about this important topic.

We are an affiliate of The American Coalition for Sustainable Communities (ACSC). Our mission is sustaining representative government, and protecting our elected representative’s authority, which is being usurped by unelected, agencies, non-profit corporations, boards, bodies and commissions. ACSC is a national network that opposes The United Nations 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development and international influence in local government and public policy.