Conspiracy theories, environmental concerns collide in Arizona bill banning geoengineering

Corrections & Clarifications: A previous version of this article misidentified the position in Arizona government that Terry Goddard was elected to.

Conspiracy theories collide with legitimate environmental concerns about science fiction-like weather modification programs in a bill aiming to ban all forms of geoengineering in Arizona.

Believers in “chemtrails” who see airplane contrails as evidence the government sprays poison on the citizenry are looking forward to a scheduled committee hearing on the bill next week.

They have concerns in common with experts who criticize the concept of a total ban, yet warn of the potential harm of programs that release substances into the atmosphere to try to counter the effects of global warming.

“Haven’t we manipulated the climate enough?” said Sandy Bahr, director of the Sierra Club’s Arizona chapter, while acknowledging she hasn’t yet reviewed the bill. “Trying to manipulate them further without knowing the unintended consequences is irresponsible.”

The Republican sponsor of House Bill 2056, first-term Rep. Lisa Fink of Glendale, told The Arizona Republic her concerns are for clean air and water, government transparency and giving “power back to the people.”

“There’s a lot of questions out there,” said Fink, a dietary consultant who serves as president of Protect Arizona Children Coalition, a group that opposes the teaching of sex education and gender ideology in public schools. “It’s very concerning, the potential side effects.”

She understands geoengineering can be controversial and some people attach it to the “chemtrails” conspiracy theory, saying: “I’ll take the hits as needed.”

But another concern about Fink’s bill is coming from one of her fellow Republican colleagues, Rep. Alexander Kolodin of Scottsdale. He shares the worries about geoengineering but said in a letter to voters on X Wednesday the bill in its current form “could be used by the radical left to prohibit all greenhouse gas emissions” because it would ban “any activity that modifies the weather.”

Kolodin’s preparing to introduce an amendment to “fix” the bill during its scheduled hearing Jan. 28 in the House Regulatory Oversight Committee.

What is geoengineering?

According to a reference guide by Oxford University Press, geoengineering “is the intentional large-scale manipulation of the global environment,” often applied to ideas to combat climate change.

Fink’s bill defines it more negatively, saying it’s the “intentional manipulation of the environment through atmospheric polluting activities to effect change on the earth’s atmosphere or surface,” and includes weather modification, aerosol injection, cloud seeding and solar radiation modification.

The latter term refers to a number of proposed methods to reflect sunlight back into space in an attempt to reverse the greenhouse effect.

“Extensive research efforts are underway” on possible solar radiation modification procedures “to reduce surface temperatures,” the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s website states. NOAA requires anyone preparing a weather modification activity to fill out a couple of forms.

Tennessee is the only state so far to ban geoengineering.

What would Fink’s bill do?

The bill would make geoengineering illegal for individuals and private and public entities, including the military. Engaging in geoengineering would become a Class 4 felony, with each incident incurring a fine of $500,000, per day.

It seeks to compel the state to investigate “credible reports” of cloud seeding or other activities listed in the bill. The public would be encouraged to help by gathering their own claimed evidence.

If the state receives a credible report of geoengineering, it would be required to take action within two hours to stop the activity.

The bill also asserts in its “legislative intent” section that geoengineering practices “endanger human health,” threaten the environment, “disrupt agricultural operations and “potentially interfere with aviation, state security and the economy of this state.”

No credible evidence proves geoengineering so far has been harmful to people.

Conspiracy theories vs. real concerns

Some proponents of the bill frequently mention “chemtrails” on social media, typically illustrating their posts with photographs of contrails.

Former state Republican Party Chair Kelli Ward was ridiculed by critics in 2014 for hosting a hearing in Kingman with Arizona Department of Environmental Quality officials about “chemtrails.” She denied believing in the theory, saying she held the hearing for her constituents.

NOAA published a web page in October to debunk “a large amount of disinformation about nonexistent weather manipulation technology,” including the dubious claims the government can “steer” hurricanes, that geoengineering makes hurricanes worse or that NOAA runs weather-modification programs.

Yet some experts express concern about the future of geoengineering even as they see its potential for helping curb climate change. NOAA Administrator Richard Spinrad told The Guardian last year research in the field was important but “we need to get a better understanding of what the impacts are.”

Daniele Visioni is a Cornell climate researcher and assistant professor who has written about the good and bad aspects of solar reflectivity programs. He told The Republic that proposed bans like Fink’s are “badly written” because they don’t take the scale of the activities into account.

Solar geoengineering experiments release relatively little particles into the air compared to other sources, he said.

An experiment planned two years ago that ultimately did not win approval sought to release 10 kilograms of material, fewer than a single firework, he explained. By comparison, a power plant emits up to 44 tons of sulphates per day.

But Visioni said his concerns about a ban would be lessened if the ban was only for “large-scale activities.” Some climate researchers have proposed a moratorium on potentially harmful outdoor experiments, he pointed out.

Nobody is currently proposing large-scale solar geoengineering, he said, adding he hopes the future of the field is “based on robust scientific information and not fearmongering.”

Ban on cloud seeding disputed

The bill’s inclusion of cloud seeding as a form of geoengineering to be banned brought criticism from both opponents and supporters of other parts of Fink’s bill.

Cloud seeding usually involves the release of silver iodide from airplanes. The substance, which is not considered toxic, acts as a tiny seed for snowflakes to form around, but only if moisture-bearing clouds are present. The snowflakes then fall as rain or snow.

Kolodin wrote it could help the state’s “critical need for water.” But he wants only “natural components” used for the process. Silver iodide can be found naturally in the environment.

Former Democratic Arizona Attorney General Terry Goddard, who now serves as president of the Central Arizona Project board, said it was “outrageous” to include cloud seeding in the proposed ban.

“We have a water crisis last time I checked,” he said.

The agency, which oversees the CAP canal, has spent about $700,000 over the past two years to help fund cloud seeding in the Colorado River’s Upper Basin, which includes Wyoming, Colorado and Utah, but not in Arizona.

However, Goddard and others question the effectiveness of cloud seeding.

A December report by the federal Government Accountability Office shed doubt on whether the process works, saying reliable information on its effectiveness wasn’t available.

The report also said while silver iodide was considered generally safe, “it is not known whether more widespread use of silver iodide would have an effect on public health or the environment.”

Reach the reporter at rstern@arizonarepublic.com or 480-276-3237. Follow him on X @raystern.