The bill forbids “intentional injection, release, or dispersion” of chemicals into the air.
Instead it broadly prohibits “affecting temperature, weather, or the intensity of the sunlight”.
This bill is obviously based in ignorance, but from an envirinmental/pollution standpoint this seems like a good thing. It’s not their intention, but it sounds like it would protect the atmosphere from potential real polluters.
Edit: based in ignorance in the sense that some people supported the bill to ban “chem trails” (an ignorant position). Not in the sense that weather manipulation isn’t real.
Um, no it’s not. There are legit weather manipulating programs. Not the conspiracy chem trails bs, but legit “weather manipulation isn’t illegal, so private companies have started getting into it for creating snow on mountains or clearing the sky before a concert” things. It made the news awhile back when a, I believe, California company, started doing it.
Beijing did it before the Olympics. It wasn’t a secret by any means.
As it stands now, there is very little regulation in that area if the things you are spraying aren’t already considered toxic substances. But should just anyone be able to manipulate the weather? Won’t that cause more widespread issues? Maybe, maybe not. But should we leave that decision in the hands of corporations?
ETA: If you want to know more, start by looking up “cloud seeding”. You’ll see we’ve been openly testing it for decades. Source: Google
Just because people/corporations can use those legitimate weather manipulation tools, should they be allowed to?
I don’t think they should. That’s why I’m saying this bill seems like an unintentionally good thing.
I’m confused by your comment. I think we agree there should be regulation on the manipulation you described?
You say it’s based in ignorance. It’s not. Weather manipulation is real. This isn’t just “let’s not spray pollutants”. It’s very specifically targeting weather manipulation. You’re seeming to say “well they’re doing it because of a conspiracy, but at least it helps the environment anyways”. No, we’re doing it because of real tech that has been used since the 60’s and is completely unregulated. This is intentionally a good thing, specifically targeting an issue.
Gotcha, that comment makes more sense now.
I suppose I was being a bit cynical. However, I think many people supported the bill to ban “Chem trails,” and were ignorant to actual weather manipulation techniques it was prohibiting.
Bottom line is that this bill is a good thing. It doesn’t really matter what reasons people had for supporting it.
I get your point, but we also need to change this behaviour of treating all conspiracy theories as being full of crazy people. Is every plane spreading chem trails? Absolutely not. But some absolutely are and the people who try to bring attention to it get lumped in with the Flat Earthers. It’s very hard to talk about the legit programs going on without being dismissed as crazy or “ignorant”. It’s long been a tactic to paint the other side as dumb or crazy and thus stifle actual discussion. We as a society need to rise above this.
I hear ya, there’s definitely nuance. There are certainly crazy people that supported this for crazy reasons, and there are rational people who supported this for rational reasons. I’m not trying to dismiss the whole thing as a crazy conspiracy theory.
Bruh, you’re still doing it in your edit to your OP. Chem trails are real. They release the chemicals via rockets or planes.
Are all trails chem trails, NO. Are chem trails how they get the chemicals up there? Well yeah.
Seriously, go look up the history of cloud seeding.
You keep trying to say “well the people who support this are ignorant because it’s not 100% the crazy conspiracy theory, only 95%”.
If you read the article, it’s not really about cloud seeding, it’s about solar geo-engineering, which us also a real thing
Um, cloud seeding is solar geo-enginerring. What do you think clouds are doing? You realize they change the abeido, right? You’re trying to be pedantic, but it’s just wrong.
