A Statement on Geoengineering


Click “cc” on the bottom bar for captions.
(I say because I did not know this, perhaps some of you won’t either).

3 Responses to A Statement on Geoengineering

  1. Judy Cross says:

    I contacted Greenpeace in 2002 to ask why they were not protesting “chemtrails”, and was told that since I hadn’t been a member for 3 years, they didn’t owe me an answer.
    I thought I was a member since I had paid my fees by cash to a door to door collector. I guess the guy just pocketed it. I wonder what their PR person would have said if I’d paid by check and my membership recorded.

  2. Wayne Hall says:

    Angie this video is not a Greenpeace video. It was meant to be used to introduce a discussion at a webTV station in Athens, Greece to which Greenpeace had been invited. Their climate change representative in Athens had read the text of the interview and did not find anything with which he disagreed, but he was later obviously instructed to say that although Greenpeace is opposed to geoengineering they do not agree to participate in public debate on the subject. What this means is that they will not participate in public debate on the basis of this Statement by the Enouranois group. They have discussed, and would discuss, geoengineering within the parameters of the scenario as presented by the corporate (and not only) media, which ignores the way these international agreements are being violated by the programmes in global implementation and ignores the role of climate change sceptics in promoting geoengineering as a “solution” to a problem they say does not exist. No doubt you are right to say that official sources would and will continue to say “they are not spraying”, but surely if activists systematically took the view that people trying to soft-sell solar radiation management have the responsibility to prove that everything they say about it is true, the political dynamics could be altered to the advantage of the anti-spraying movements.

  3. Angie Home says:

    Am I understanding correctly that this is a “Greenpeace” video stating that the persons involved in this chemical spraying are breaking two agreements EMOD and UNECE and the Japan Moratorium. Then I have to ask why are they being allowed to continue to spray world wide. Even if we applied for information regarding the environmental effects on people as suggested the relevant NGO’s would say there is none and they are not spraying.

    If this is “Greenpeace” then I am glad they are involved. I was going to send an email to them asking why they are not involved. So I am in any case very pleased that they have taken up the baton.

    It must be a huge step forward though that at last an organisation this big has become involved.

    Way to go Greenpeace!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *