Greek Activist Addresses Geoengineering And The Climate Change Movement


Wayne Hall is a veteran in the fight to expose the ongoing climate engineering atrocities. Below is a correspondence between Mr. Hall and Pablo Solon, the former Bolivian ambassador to the United Nations.



By Wayne Hall

Introductory note:  Pablo Solon is a former Bolivian ambassador to the United Nations and head of a social activist think tank based in Bangkok. He is part of a tendency in the mainstream climate change movement that recognizes how the political initiative in that movement, particularly since the 2012 Copenhagen Summit, has been taken over by forces  favouring  the diametrical opposite of the “climate justice” his own tendency advocates. At the United Nations Climate Change conference in Durban in 2011 (Conference of the Parties (COP) 17, he said: ”The current relation with nature is through the market. You have to buy it. The problem with green economy is that they are saying capitalism has failed because we have not put a price on nature. The logic is that you do not take care of what does not have a price. We must change the paradigm of how we relate with Mother Earth. It is not a problem of compensation it is of restoration. The green economy will include insurance so that if your environmental property is damaged you will be compensated. We need a citizens tribunal for the environment”.

He has not responded to these comments below. Nor do I expect a response.


Dear Pablo Solon,

Thank you for this contribution.

Is there going to be any room in the discussion for inputs like the following?

When is the “mainstream” climate change movement, centred on the IPCC, but also the activist component, going to acknowledge that there are two kinds of “climate change sceptic”, those that say that anthropogenic climate change is fraud and those that say that anthropogenic climate change is largely a product of global spraying of aerosols? (Dane Wigington does not belong in either of these categories because he is one of the minority of anti-geoengineering activists who is not a climate change sceptic of any kind.) But in any case these two types of climate change sceptic have absolutely no contact with each other: both focus on the sins of the IPCC, ecologists, the climate change movement and direct all their fire in that direction, each for their own separate reasons. Naomi Klein is calling for a climate change movement that can “kick ass” but how can this ever be when the two types of climate change sceptic are not confronted, told to start talking with each other and decide what they want, and not only what they are against? The climate change movement has been on the defensive since Copenhagen and this is set to continue. It is the sceptics are who are self-confident and aggressively “kicking ass”.

At the moment two parallel processes appear to be under way: a campaign to strengthen the climate change movement, and a campaign to legitimate geoengineering, including solar radiation management. The mainstream climate change movement is not capable of preventing the legitimation of global aerosol spraying because they do not have an adeqate understanding of the other side. The most single minded advocates of solar radiation management as a means of “mitigating” anthropogenic climate change have always been people and institutions who deny the reality of anthropogenic climate change. And both sides of the mainstream climate debate also deny the reality of ongoing planetary spraying, and have done so for decades.

Climate change activists and the IPCC are losing the debate at the level of public opinion. There are activists who can be mobilized but they are increasingly regarded as clueless and deluded by wide strata of the population. The public has lost trust in the authenticity of the climate debate. The climate change movement has developed on the basis of a recipe for failure pioneered by the anti-nuclear-weapons movement.

Can you address these issues, or will the growing movement against the global spraying continue to see you as part of the problem rather than part of the solution?

Wayne Hall
Aegina, Greece

From: Pablo Solon
Sent: Thursday, March 12, 2015 4:55 AM
To: mailto:—-@—–.net ; —@— ; ——–@——.org
Subject: [International] Behind the climate negotiating text for COP21

Behind the climate negotiating text for COP21
Pablo Solón

The future lies in the past. What has happened will determine what will come. The idea that we can change everything and save the world at the last minute is exciting in movies but it does not work in real life. It particularly applies when we speak about issues like climate change where the consequences of what we did in the past century are just beginning to manifest.

This principle applies also to climate negotiations. What is now on the table after the climate negotiations held in Geneva from 8-13 February 2015 is setting the scope and the range of possibilities for the climate agreement at the upcoming COP 21 in Paris this December.

The good news

The good news is that in Geneva the climate negotiations have finally really started. Smoothly and quickly, delegations from different countries avoided long speeches and went directly to work to compile their different proposals for a future climate agreement in Paris. At the moment, the negotiating text has 86 pages and 1,273 brackets. The task for the next 10 months is to streamline this bracketed draft and come out with a text of around 20 pages without annexes and zero brackets.

In the current text there are good and bad proposals that yet need to be negotiated and agreed. The final result will be something in between the most ambitious and the weakest proposals. So how good are the more positive proposals on the table? Are they going to put us on a path that limits the increase of the temperature to 1.5 ºC or 2 ºC?

Disturbing omissions

By now, it is well known that to achieve the goal to limit the temperature increase to below 2ºC, we need to leave 80% of the current known fossil fuel reserves under the ground. This has been stated in many studies, reports and interventions, but not one single country has submitted this proposal in the current text of negotiations. The word “fossil fuels” only appears twice throughout the text and only in reference to the reduction of fossil fuel subsidies. How are we going to cut back greenhouse gas emissions if we don’t have an agreement to leave under the soil, the 80% of the “black gold” that has been discovered?

The other disturbing omission is the short-term target for 2025 and 2030. In the text there are 13 references to zero emissions by the mid and end of the century. But when it comes to this decade and the next, there are no concrete targets and just general references about “enhancing the mitigation ambition” that appears 61 times in the text. The targets that are needed are very clear in different studies. The UNEP Emissions Gap report and other studies show that to be consistent with a trajectory that limits the increase of the temperature to 2ºC, global greenhouse gas emissions have to be reduced to 44 Gigatons (Gt) of CO2e by 2020, 40 Gt by 2025 and 35 Gt by 2030. This is the cap the world needs to avoid a future too dire to imagine. Now, in the text there are no references to these figures. There are only proposals in terms of percentages for the next half of the century. The most ambitious for the near term says, “Developed country Parties shall take mitigation commitments for the post-2020 period that are more ambitious than emission reductions of at least 25–40 per cent below 1990 levels by 2020”. In other words, the next decade you have to be more ambitious than this decade. That is not really a clear target.

These omissions in the text are not an accident, they reflect an agreement that for the coming years until 2030, every country will do what they can/want and the UNFCCC will just summarize the “intended nationally determined contributions (INDCs)”. No single country has challenged this suicidal path by putting in the negotiating text that we need a global target to reduce global emissions to only 40 Gt of CO2e by 2025 to avoid an increase in the temperature of 4ºC to 8 ºC.

The center of the debate?

Looking at the negotiating text, it is clear that what seems to be the center of the controversy is not about how much to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, but around the supposed conflict between developed and developing countries. The word “development” appears 247 times in the negotiating text, “developing” countries 410 and “developed” countries 342 times. The debate in the text is more about who should do what in the reduction of green house gas emissions (developed and developing), what flexibility mechanisms (carbon markets) are going to be in place, how each one is going to report, what kind of verification process will be established for the different type of countries and what kind of financial and technological support there will be to implement the mitigation actions.

The position of developed countries in general tends to water down the difference between developed and developing countries, promoting more the use of “all parties” (134 mentions in the text). On the other hand, developing countries want to keep the firewall between developed and developing countries.

The group of Like-Minded Developing Countries (LMDC) that includes Algeria, Argentina, Bolivia, Cuba, China, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Dominica, Ecuador, Egypt, India, Iran, Iraq, Kuwait, Libya, Malaysia, Nicaragua, Pakistan, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Syria and Venezuela has included the following paragraphs in the negotiating text that show their approach to developed and developing countries:

“Developed country Parties shall commit to undertake Absolute Emission Reduction Targets during the period of 2021-2030, in accordance with a global emission budget including their historical responsibility, through quantifiable, economy-wide mitigation targets, covering all sectors and all greenhouse gases, implemented mainly domestically, which can be aggregated and which are comparable, measurable, reportable and verifiable, with the type, scope, scale and coverage more ambitious than those undertaken under the Convention and its Kyoto Protocol during the pre-2020 period, and communicated and implemented without any conditions”.

On the other hand, “Developing country Parties should commit to undertake Diversified Enhanced Mitigation Actions (DEMAs) during the period 2021–2030. They may include, inter alia, relative emission reductions; intensity targets; REDD-plus activities and other plans, programmes and policies; joint mitigation and adaptation approaches; net avoided emissions, or also manifested as adaptation co-benefits, in accordance with their special circumstances and specific needs.”

While it is true that this is a real source of debate – the maintenance of the delineation between developed and developing countries so that developed countries do not escape their historic responsibility, and that countries make commitments according to common but differentiated responsibility, it is also one that serves as a smokescreen for the deals that have been made between polluters – one developed and one developing. China, which has caught up to developed countries on levels of emissions, maintains the developing country title but does the rest of the developing countries a disservice by striking a very bad deal with one of the largest polluters in the world, the United States. The highly publicized US-China deal last year is a reflection of how the US and China, two of the largest polluters, have decided not to do what is needed for 2025/2030. The two big polluters account for more than 40% of global greenhouse gas emissions. This is a “laissez faire” deal in which China will only peak (reduce in absolute terms) emissions in 2030 and the US will reduce 15% of their green house gas emissions in 2025 based on their level of emissions in 1990. As a reference, the EU has committed to reduce 40% of their emissions by 2030 based on their 1990 levels.

This is the heart of the deal in Paris and with these emission cuts from the US and China, the rest of the countries will not do much more because as they have expressed, that would go against their competitiveness in the global economy. The negotiation around the text is about how to package and sell a bad deal to public opinion and how to dilute the responsibility of polluting countries of the developed and the emerging developing world. Probably the issue about “common but differentiated responsibility” will be solved through the addition of some “innovative language” like “in light of different national circumstances” as it happened in COP20 in Peru.

Opening the door for new carbon markets

Even with the failure of carbon markets, the debate is not if this mechanism should continue or not, but how to enhance the current ones and develop new ones. No country has submitted text to avoid carbon market mechanisms or REDD+. Carbon market mechanisms are mentioned 27 times and REDD+ 13 times. In the text there are mentions of an “enhanced Clean Development Mechanism (CDM+)”, the “Emissions Trading System (ETS)”, “REDD Plus”, “market mechanism in the land use sector”, “sub-national and regional emissions schemes” and “carbon pricing”. A reading of the text shows that COP 21 will open the door for new carbon market mechanisms but that the real development of them will be agreed at future COPs.

Finance: the forgotten promise

Finance, which was supposed to be one of the most crucial commitments by the developed countries to the developing countries, has now become an issue relegated to the sidelines. The climate debt owed to those suffering the impacts of climate change, yet who are the least responsible, is on the way to being forgotten. Looking at the text, the word finance itself is mentioned 203 times but when it comes to concrete figures, there are only a measly 14 mentions with only four proposals:

[Developed countries][All countries in a position to do so] commit to provide at least USD 50 billion per year during the period from 2020 to 2025, at least USD 100 billion per year by [2020][2030] for adaptation activities of [developing countries].

The provision of finance committed by developed country Parties to be based on a floor of USD 100 billion per year since 2020.

A short-term collective quantified goal of USD 200 billion per year by 2030 should be committed by developed country Parties,

[Developed country Parties][Parties in a position to do so, considering evolving capabilities] to provide 1 per cent of gross domestic product per year from 2020 and additional funds during the pre-2020 period to the Green Climate Fund (GCF).

If current promises are to be a basis, there is little confidence in these promised numbers. At the COP20 in Lima, there was triumph around the achievement of reaching 10 billion USD – out of the 100 billion USD that was originally promised several COPs ago.

Furthermore, in the text, developed countries prefer to use the term “mobilize” instead of “provide” and they do not limit the obligation of funding to developed countries but to all countries in a position to do so, further diluting the responsibilities of the developed countries as they spread it to developing countries. The term “mobilize” is not associated with any figure in particular and in general includes “from a variety of sources, public and private, bilateral and multilateral, including alternative sources” which means that even loans and carbon markets will be accounted in the process of mobilization of financial resources.

Rights and compliance

Human rights are mentioned seven times and mainly in the preamble and objectives section. There are no concrete proposals to guarantee human rights in mitigation, finance, market or technology measures. There is only one mention in adaptation and only in general terms. In some cases, the mention of human rights is at the same level as the right to development. Indigenous peoples’ rights appears only two times in the preamble. Migrant rights are not included, and in the loss and damage chapter, there are only two mentions of “organized migration and planned relocation”. The proposal of Rights of Mother Earth or Rights of Nature is not included at all as an option to be discussed. The only mention to Mother Earth is in relation to “protecting the integrity of Mother Earth” without further development.

When it comes to mechanisms of compliance, there are those that say, “no specific provisions required” and those that suggest a “Compliance Committee” with “an enforcement branch and a facilitative branch”. The possibility of sanctions is mentioned and also suggested is the “use of economic instruments such as market mechanisms as a way to promote compliance”. Bolivia has included the proposal for an “International Climate Justice Tribunal”.

These token mentions of rights and recognition of those at the frontlines of climate change are empty promises with no concrete commitments attached to them. The negotiations around solutions to climate change need to have the rights of peoples and Nature at its heart.

Fighting for our Future now, not in Paris

The nature of climate change with its feedback mechanism is such that what we did in the past is what we reap now. Following this logic, what we do now is what we will reap in the next 10 years, and if the current text is to be the basis of that future, we will have none of which to speak.

There is no cheating, buying or creating loopholes to delay action until 2030 – the time to act decisively is now. And these are very concrete and clear actions that need to be taken:

§ leave 80 percent of the known fossil fuels reserves under the ground

§ deep emissions cuts to achieve global targets – 44 Gigatons (Gt) of CO2e by 2020, 40 Gt by 2025 and 35 Gt by 2030

§ reduce military and defense expenditures, which account for more than 1.5 trillion dollars globally, and instead channel these funds to provide public finance for developing countries for adaptation, mitigation and for loss and damage

§ the recognition, respect and promotion of the rights of people and nature

A bad deal in Paris will lock in catastrophic consequences for the future of the planet and humanity. The urgency of the task at hand cannot be emphasized enough – we need to act now.

*Pablo Solón is Executive Director of Focus on the Global South.

One Response to Greek Activist Addresses Geoengineering And The Climate Change Movement

  1. Antoinette Jackson says:

    This is my 2nd attempt to get this letter to you after it just disappeared into the cosmos while almost finished you know how that is on computers. So I have taken the hours to re write this entire letter in hopes that those who are informed and want to know are truly informed.  If I can help in any way.


    My husband and I just watched your film What Are They Spraying on the documentary web site and it referred me via your email to this site and another.  There are a few things I would like to say and tell you just in case they may enlighten someone.

    I have lived on the big Island of Hawai’I for the past 40 yrs.  Also spent some time during that time living on Grand Cayman as their hospitals medical social worker, lived in Jamaica W.I (Westmoreland) St. Croix there in  89 during Hurricane Hugo, Maui (Hana side) 86 The Big Island and most recently the country of Panama last year until going to the US mainland.  Now in Palm Bay, Florida.  Some of the most poignant things to me being gone so long were the VAST number of hospitals that have sprung up over time, places such as cities and areas that had 2 now have 20 or more! EVERY single one has the majority CANCER patients on EVERY FLOOR.  Other patients are intermixed amoung the cancer ones, as they are SO prolific.

    It was shocking to me. Of course the amount of crime and violence is also shocking and appalling as we never had to lock our doors.  And people are civilized, kind and caring to one another, with manners, dignity and respect. The gun “issue” is another STARK reality here.  I never KNEW WHAT a chem trail was.  I was aware that the airplanes on the Big Island were putting out an awful lot of white stuff in the air but it was always AWAY from the island, we owned our home (and still do by the ocean).  The VOG (volcano fog) is however SO BAD on all the islands that it often hard to tell the difference, thus people do not really pay that much attention to it being anything other than the VOG.   However before leaving the Big Island in 2014 we were aware of GMO foods, and people were under the misguided assumption that we could still grow our own “organic” food.  After all we have our own trees, vegetables and fruits growing EVERYWHERE.  After living on Big Island all over the island for many years and seeing first had the immense amount of pesticides and chemicals and that Round up is still used to this day prolifically, in the papaya fields by the Philippinos in their yellow hazmat suits; not to mention that NO papaya leaves the Big Island without having first been irradiated! Yes it is the LAW! So Whole Foods is NOT selling organic papayas from Hawai’i even though they are telling you they do.  Then to see that even out “farmers markets” were selling fruits and vegetables that come in from boats from the US mainland was disturbing, I know because I had a food co-op license which let me get anything  I wanted wholesale from the distributing companies, and the many sellers from the farmers market in Hilo and elsewhere would buy the food and go sell it there.  Easily recognizable.  Now for the many many decades that these pesticides have been used on the island for everything from the old Pineapple and Sugar plantations to this day; the soil is so polluted and depleted that to think of anything being healthy or organic is just plain folly.  As in all island the vermin are out of control and eat up all the food one tries to grow.  So people went to hydroponics to supply the expensive restaurants saying everything is “organic”.  Hydroponics use fertilizers and chemicals too, as do all the fish farms that have sprung up on Hawai’i and in Panama.  So this leads me to the stark difference in coming to the mainland US.  Seeing ALL GMO foods.  HUGE HUGE potatoes, the likes I have never seen before, tomatoes that you slice into and they exude pesticides. In Hawai’i all “local” families are related and have relatives on all different islands. So to hear that people (Hawai’ians) were all getting cancer that lived on Kau’ai and had even died from those who stole and ate the corn on the Monsanto experimental fields was just one more form of genocide that the US govt has been perpetuating against the Hawai’ian people since they overthrew our monarchy.  Yes Hawai’I was overthrown by the US not annexed as their history books will tell you.  We had our own money before the US dollar! We had our own King and Queen.  King Kamehameha the Great and Queen Liliuokalani. 

    I would like for you to go to this URL at the Huffington Post and read the well written article by

    Writer, Conservationist, Co-Founder of Island Watch and Concerned Citizen of the Planet. 

    GMO & Pesticide Experiments in Hawaii: The Poisoning of  Paradise  7/2/2013 she also has two follow up articles. I to notice that one of the pictures has been removed.  That was a Monsanto SIGN that said Keep Out.

    So upon coming to the US mainland I was told by people of these chem trails, thinking they were clouds.  One old man just sadly shook his head and said no it is the military the govt. poisoning us with Radon gas and all kinds of things. 

    By the time we are 60 you have “SEEN” so much that when you speak to most peple they either do not believe you and think you are lying or a conspiracies theory (they have a word for it).  We called it telling the truth!

    If you see a space ship you are a “kook”.  Yet it was also reported days after my son and I was a HUGE HUGE one Kailua-Kona side over the whole Palisades subdivision one night!

    So my one addition to this is:  The US Govt. puts the fear of God in these young military soldiers.  Yet I have talked to many on the submarines in Kailua-Kona and elsewhere, who will tell you many things if you listen and want to know!  It has been YEARS that the US military has been stocking the military with criminals from court rooms.  You have a choice one door and line to prison, one to the military.  Yet I tell people this in the mainland and they do not believe it!  Again they are so brainwashed by the govt. what to believe per their version of the “news”.  The 2nd most alarming thing is that these soldiers have been for YEARS MAKING and have them stockpiled at ALL the Army bases, in the THOUSANDS!!  Guillotines.  Now why do they need them? Unless they have a plan for them!  

    The more people pass on this information and wake up from their silly cell phones and TV and war games they will once again realize that which is going on around them.  They are so brainwashed. 

    I’ve known for years that the vaccinations that are forced upon American children have more in them than the parents are told. Autism, Allzheimers, Cancer, Leukemias etc. to name just a few.  They make measles look like a cold!  And the Really GREAT drugs that WORK and can get you through the flu in literally 20 minutes called Reticulose was taken off the market in America.  Why BECAUSE IT WORKS!

    As my adoptive mother told me once. “I will be so glad to not have to see what this world will come to” in her death. She was so right in so many ways. Which is another thing, this American Govt CAN and DOES KEEP from you your very personal information, you birth parents, medical history, nationality, correct birth date. Even “following” every legal channel one is still denied this information if a judge relinquished a son, the son “found” him – he did NOT want to be FOUND and that judge stated “As long as I am on the bench NO adoption records will be unsealed”.

    I could go on about so many things in the many life times I have lived being 60.  Dying from Spinal Meningitis at the age of 23 yet the medical profession still denies people this!  Living through 2 comas, one for 3 weeks from Malaria in Jamaica with only my 8 yr old to tend to me. Yet I lived with no “modern” medicine.  Or the month long coma in Hawai’i from seizures.

    Yet America insists on preventing abortion, or allowing suicide to be legal; HOWEVER  it is OK IF THEY KILL their own countrymen in the so many ways they do!

    I was just told this past few months while being in Florida speaking to New Yorkers who were THERE when the Twin Towers were exploded, that NOT ONE~ NOT ONE Alarm went off anywhere in All those hours.  Now how can that be?  With all the alarms on everything in NY??  They thought that was very strange. No they were purposely shut off, it was planned!

    People away from America SEE what America does.  It is not only frightening but deadly.  They call themselves the strongest country in the world, but they are the biggest hypocrite and bully in the world also.  My Irish friend said “Who made America the police of the world!”   She left Hawai’i and returned to Ireland.

    I am glad that some white people are TRYING to not only get to the bottom of this and other things but also maybe DO something about it! Blacks and Minorities can do little as they appear to be just trying to not get shot and killed by the police on a daily basis!  To see Bill Gates and Buffet and Monsanto go to other countries FORCE the farmers to give up their seeds and ONLY plant theirs is a crime!  Many farmers are hording seeds and sharing amoung each other for a future of hope.

    I pray daily for those many who ARE coming forth and speaking out, may they be safe and not come up missing as Marcus Garvey, Bob Marley, Peter Tosh and Pres. Kennedy did.  My people like Leonard Peltier be uplifted for taking “rap” for the non-truth of the murders of two FBI agents.

    If all the army men would lay down their guns and refuse to fight!  No wonder people all over the world hate America and distain her for murders of their people via bombs, drones, laser weapons, microwaves, etc. To America it is just collateral damage (those deaths).  How would America like it if others did this in their country?

    All the treaties that were broken by American with the Indians. Nothing but lies. Yet they claim this country was formed when their constitution was ratified in 1787.   Yet this country was well inhabited by hundreds of tribes of Indians before that! They sole the land, just as they have all over the world in so many countries.  Micronesia is the latest Pilau has been taken over by America the people be forced out and put on welfare and food stamps.  I know as I know the wife of the Tribal King! The people are very angry! Yet no one can seem to FIGHT this beast called America.

    Have you read Agenda 21?? Written by The United Nations telling of the plan to eradicate whole populations of people all over the earth, for lack of resources.  Here is the link below. You should definitely READ IT!   If you cannot get it here anymore I have it and can send it to you as an attachment or upload it somewhere.  Seems like too many people may have found out about it! 


    Love Light and Aloha

    Antoinette Jackson

Leave a Reply

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


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox

Join other followers