Weather
Modification has various implications, many of which seem to be
overlooked. Does European and International Law deal adequately with
this problem?
Janset Sayar
(2011)
Introduction
The aim of this
paper will be to explore, not only the implications of weather
modification and the countries which have employed access to such
services, but also the different approaches that these selected
countries have used, in terms of International law, when
governing the impact of such activities.
Modifying the weather can have many substantial effects on the
environment and these concerns will be highlighted alongside the
positive approaches that can be taken with technology holding the
ability to change the environment for a positive cause.
According to the
academic lecturer, Mr Chunglin Kwa1,
many well known historians that dealt with weather modification and
closely observed the developments flourish, all held a particular
view. This was, ‘not that modification would fail, but that would,
in fact, work.’ The centralised concern therefore could be seen to
be based on promises for many excellent possibilities with this mind
blowing technology as oppose to the many after effects it could have
on our environment.
The
History of Weather Modification
Weather
Modification is the process whereby the weather is manipulated, or to
put in clearer terms, “modified” to achieve specific outcomes. A
very precise definition can be found in Article 1(a) of the agreement
between Canada and America stating it to be “activities performed
with the intention of producing artificial changes in the
composition, behaviour or dynamics of the atmosphere.”2
A very wide margin of appreciation is seen to be given here to what
this modification can entail. These outcomes, or what is also now
seen to be a needed service within society, are acquired by many
different countries for very different and diverse reasons.
It
was after the Second World War that the concept of weather
modification became tangible in terms of comprehension. In 1945, a
mathematician by the name of John Von Neumann held a meeting in
Princeton alongside a wide array of talented scientists and agreed
that weather modification could in fact be deemed possible. This
group of scientists expected that their extraordinary findings could
make a ‘great difference in the next war’.3
The treaties that will be looked at all have a core purpose and this
is to prevent the new found technology, even at the time of
discovery, of being used in a way that could harm other nations or
the planet as a whole.
There
has always been a shadow of secrecy amongst those who participate in
weather modification experiments and it causes one to question its
legitimacy. This point is illustrated by Joe Gelt. In one of his
weather modification studies4
he states that ,‘the names given to early experiments conveyed
fanciful, futuristic and high-tech images naming research projects
titles like “Forest Service” in the 1950’s where they
were aiming to reduce forest fires by decreasing lightening and
“Project Stormfury” in the 1960’s where the U.S. weather
Bureau attempted to modify hurricane clouds to mitigate winds.’
Commenting that ‘it does not help” the image of the experiments.
Was this technology built with warfare in mind? In the past, most treaties had been based upon the notion that such weapons “should not be” used as mass weapons of destruction, because like nuclear bombs, they had the same potential to cause and inflict great harm. The treaty that was signed in Geneva, May 18, 1977 states that military planning does not include the use of this technology for warfare purposes now; however, “such techniques MIGHT be developed in the future, and could pose a threat of serious damage unless action was taken to prohibit their use.”
The purpose of
the treaties was to prevent the use of this technology for harmful
purposes. One can interpret the language used in article 1 of the
convention on the prohibition of military or any other hostile use of
environmental modification techniques5,
stating, “each
state party to this convention undertakes not to engage in military
or any other hostile use of environmental modification techniques
having widespread,
long-lasting or severe effects
as the means of destruction, damage or injury to any other state
party.” It then goes on to explain
that long-lasting could mean “for a
period of months, or approximately a season”; therefore,
anything that is done in the winter for example, should have no
lasting effects by the time autumn is over. However in reality, in
every scope of their experimental efforts to manipulate the weather,
controlling such a complex system is very dangerous.
One of the most
recent treaties is the Weather Modification Research and Development
Policy Authorization Act developed in 20056.
This act requires the need for representatives like the NOAA, NSF
(National Science Foundation), NASA (National Aeronautics and Space
Administration) to be involved in the subcommittee, which will allow
safety measures to be assessed and placed appropriately. In 2005 an
important Act was also developed in the U.S. called the Weather
Modification Research & Technology Act. 7
Section 8(b) focuses on the funding8
stating that ‘for the purposes of carrying out the provisions of
this act $10,000,000 for
each of fiscal years 2005 through 2014.’ This means, at the end of
the 10 year period, they would’ve spent well over $90m on modifying
the weather, in the U.S. alone. However, according to Fox News9,
during the committee ‘mark-up’ in November the language in the
act was changed and they removed the specific amount to “funding as
necessary” instead. According to the spokesman10
of the board, "This plan
deserves further consideration, but at a time of serious deficits, we
must delay committing additional funds to this project until we have
more time to consider its merits.”
This
is where the economical aspect of environmental law is highlighted,
as the scale could be tilted to one of two sides. Either, the state
will spend such alarming figures on this technology and not succeed
with their experiments or refrain from spending this budget and thus
not having the funds to further develop the existing technology.
There is still an evident doubt of the efficiency when modifying the
weather, which should surely be eliminated, by now with thorough
research to the point of no uncertainty.
How
can the weather be modified?
Weather
modification consists of many different processes; the most popularly
used amongst most of the nations is cloud seeding, which was also
created by Mr Neumann.
The process is clearly illustrated
below: (Source of Diagram11)
Cloud
Seeding:
Cloud seeding is a procedure that
generates “man-made” rain. The process consists of the insertion
of chemicals like silver iodide crystals in to the clouds which then
in result creates raindrops. This concept was explored by Irwin
Langmuir and he confirmed that such activities were very much
possible, however evidence of concern on his behalf for such advanced
procedures are were not as evident. It is quoted that “Langmuir
quickly won support from military agencies and claimed success in
field experiments.”12
In the legal response to Environmental
Concerns about Weather Modification, Mr Davis truly brakes down the
detrimental effects of such chemicals like silver iodide. This
substance is actually a yellowish powder used in medicine,
photographic emulsions and also has antiseptic medicinal use, however
when used to seed clouds this poisonous substance is within the
raindrops that “fall everywhere on trees, vegetation, roofs... and
people.”13
According to the weather modification
company, there are two types of cloud seeding, include Aerial Cloud
Seeding (as shown in the diagram) which delivers the seeding agent by
aircraft and Ground-Based Cloud seeding which is recommended to users
for the ‘treatment of low-level clouds over complex terrain’ and
can be controlled by remote control.14
These processes are unfathomably easy
to use, get access to and provides many short term effects but what
about the side effects? The negative impact may not be instantaneous,
or even in a time frame of possible comprehension within our
lifetimes, but like with all other areas of environmental issues that
are supposedly considered, are actually overlooked for the benefit it
provides at the time of ‘need’. CO2 in the form of
‘dry ice’ which is also used to seed clouds was stated by the
House of Representatives in Pennsylvania15
to be “equally dangerous” and has the potential to “disrupt the
entire ecology of the planet.”
Vital safeguards must be applied when
States are dealing with such procedures, like in Illinois (USA) the
weather modification control centre are very aware of the
implications, requiring applicants (with permits) to set up
‘emergency shutdown’ procedures to be’ put into effect should
ecological or other disasters threaten.’16
Luckily evidence of such safeguards has been put in place and applied
in the USA, (which is the country that adopts these procedures the
most frequently) which came into effect in February 1974 enforced by
the NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration) officials.
If a state wants to take on a specific project to manipulate the
weather, the NOAA requires certain provisions, forecasts, advisories
and warnings to be specified clearly. Environmental guidelines and
safety procedures are also considered very important, seen to be high
on the checklist of things states need to consider and put forward to
the NOAA. If they in return, see a flaw in the matter, and a report
indicates for example that a project may deter from its initial
practices, the NOAA will inform the operator and state officials and
will provide recommendations or alternative routes to achieve the
outcome where possible.17
Without such extensive safety measures
this mind blowing technology that our society has so greatly
discovered and confirmed to be possible, could just create a
dangerous experiment of destruction for human kind and the
environment itself. As stated by the two year study that was
undertaken in 1953, the advisory committee on weather control, this
preliminary report clearly stated that without proper safeguards and
accurate data the modification could cause ‘catastrophic
droughts, storms, floods and other phenomena with consequent loss of
life and property, injury to navigable streams and other channels of
interstate...and may otherwise adversely affect the general welfare
and common defence.’ 18
However, needless to say, the benefits that could be gained from such
projects could really make a difference to the environment, to cast
them “good” or “bad” would be an assumption difficult to
make, but if successfully carried out, could definitely achieve
remarkable results.
The disadvantages
and various concerns have been highlighted thus far, however the view
is held that some good could come out of these procedures. Following
the prohibition of these activities to be used as weapon for warfare
it was held that the development of such technology was for the good
of man and the fact that “every person has the inalienable right to
a decent environment”19
This was perhaps the concept that was kept in mind when the following
research centre was being developed.
Who
is HAARP?
This is the
centre, located in Alaska that allows the earth to engage in such
experiments of weather modification. HAARP stands for “The High
Frequency Active Auroral Research Program” and is a ‘scientific
endeavour aimed at studying the properties and behaviour of the
ionosphere...’ however is also viewed as a “military experiment”
based in Alaska. The ionosphere that is spoken of is actually the
layer above the upper atmosphere of the earth, which is electrically
active therefore by heating it with powerful pulsed radio frequency
beams, desired outcomes can be achieved and when aimed at a specific
part of the earth, the beams bounce back to the surface and thus
makes the weather modifiable. Rosalie
Bertell20,
who was the founder of the International Institute of Concern for
Public Health (USA) voiced her concerns on this military experiment
stating that, "The earth is delicately balanced, and
seeks to restore balance when disturbed. No one really knows how
ionospheric experiments will affect that balance, or what the earth
will do in response to try to restore balance."
“Disaster or ‘Pure’ Research”
was a paper written by Dr. Nick Begich (Anchorage, Alaska)
and Jeane Manning of (Vancouver, British Columbia) and the following
comments by Richard Williams, who was an industrial scientist who for
the last thirty years studied state electronics, structure of clouds,
water evaporation and other environmental problems. He suggested that
the initial experiments at HAARP were done using modest power levels
and are not a cause for concern, however, after Dr Williams having
access to the projects internal documents indicate that plans include
the eventual use of power levels up to ten billion watts, explaining
that this is an enormous amount of watts, more than 200 times the
total electrical power level used by the city of Janeau.
In the Global Research by Michel
Chossudovsky21
the European Parliament’s Committee on Foreign Affairs, Security
Defence Policy held public hearings on the weather warfare facility
developed under the HAARP programme. The committee created what is
known as the “Motion for Resolution” an was submitted to the
European Parliament stating that ‘HAARP virtue of its far-reaching
impact on the environment to be a global concern and calls for its
legal, ecological and ethical implications to be examined by an
international independent body..’ The committee expresses its
regrets of the repeated refusal of the United States administration
to present detailed evidence to the public hearing about the
environmental and public risks of the HAARP program.22
Once again, this is an illustration of the underlying problems of the
What
good could come of such technology?
The potential
advantages that modification could bring
cannot and should not be overlooked. In the treaty text of Convention
on the Prohibition of Military or Any Other Hostile Use of
Environmental Modification, the charter of the United Nations
recalled that the Declaration of the United Nations Conference on the
Human Environment adopted at Stockholm23,
where it was realised that the ‘use of environmental modification
techniques for peaceful purposes could improve the interrelationship
of man and nature and contribute to the preservation and improvement
of the environment for the benefit of present and future
generations...’
This technology
can directly enable countries to achieve outcomes to better their
situations, for example, countries with
general warm climates could seek to modify their weather to eliminate
droughts; the modification, which in this case would be the process
of cloud seeding to create raindrops that will benefit the state of
the country’s dry soil, damaged crops. However, the problem lies
within the possibility of the results being less beneficial. The
problems that could potentially occur in attempt to improve matters,
could be highly detrimental to the Environment itself. Is there a way
around this? To find a way to use this technology without making a
permanent impact to the earth’s wellbeing?
These advantages will be considered
using the Weather Modification Incorporation (business) as a tool to
illustrate and view the various procedures, moving away from Cloud
seeding and exploring other possible projects that are being
implemented in various countries. Three of these projects will be
focused on, whilst the state law that governs that state will also be
touched on as well to grasp the realness of the situation. Focusing
on this company will help us to understand the client basis and the
details of projects which are taking place at this very moment or
have done in the past.
- The first thing to become aware of would be the countries which are involved in these projects. The list consists of 17 countries, of which the majority is quite developed and economically stable as the state would need to be in order to fund such activities. This table also illustrates how different countries will have different motives and aims to consider when putting the projects in place. Please refer to figure 1 in the appendix.
Starting with Greece for example, the
only institute which is involved with weather modification activity
in that country is ELGA (Hellenic Agriculture Insurance
Organization). ELGA is the main public carrier of insurance coverage
in agricultural exploitation in Greece which is supervised by the
Greek Ministry of Rural Development and Food.24According
to the Global Weather Modification Organisation the specific
insurance that ELGA provides is compulsory and protects the
agriculture production and livestock of the country. Therefore
weather modification is used to maintain this insurance given to its
citizens.
Whereas in Mali (West Africa) they have
put in place a “Rainfall Enhancement & Atmospheric Assessment
and Evaluation” programme. The objective of the project is to
enhance the rainfall so that the agriculture can increase its growth
and in result will improve the economical situation of Mali.
Whether or not it will be successful is
another issue altogether, and probably one of the main problems when
partaking in such activities. The process of seeding clouds seems to
be understood quite well by scientists and evidence of successful
‘sky clearing’ was proved in the 1940s and early 1950’s by
Langmuir, Schaefer and Vonnegut.25
The world Meteorological Organisation (WMO) illustrated the
uncertainty in areas like hail suppression were evident, as ‘some
experiments could not prove the sufficiency with an acceptable
significance.’26
The largest artificial weather
modification programme, both in terms of size and budget is found in
China. According to Wang Guanghe27,
director of the weather modification department under the Chinese
Academy of Meteorological sciences, for a country like China, to
maintain power and leadership, it cannot afford to let the weather
destroy their agriculture in any way or form. Environmental law
actually deals with political or economical issues in relation to the
environment. It is a concept that is quite difficult to grasp but
without the political aspects of such concerns nothing would be done
regarding the problems that arise in respect to climate change and so
forth. According to a well known news agency in China, “between
1999 and 2006, 250 billion tonnes of rain were artificially
created.”28
This is a very alarming figure, and according to the aforementioned
cloud seeding processes, one must question whether this is “healthy”
for our environment. Is China using this technology recklessly
because of the combination of wealth and power they hold globally?
Conclusion
Fortunately,
environmental law is
governed and protected at an international level. However, this part
of law is known to be highly diluted with political and economical
priority, mainly in the hands of those countries that hold the
most power. The advantage could be seen in the
fact that environmental law is highly governed by international
regimes and conventions, and this is essential because the
jurisdiction that is effected (in terms of the weather) may not
always be part of one nation. The disadvantage that international law
brings with it is its primitive traits, in terms of the “I’ll
scratch your back, you’ll scratch mine” attitude that is taken.
E.g. If two neighbouring countries are in unity and share similar
interests, relying on each other to survive, unpredicted
environmental issues from the neighbouring country can be easily
forgiven or overlooked and these could be issues varying from co²
emissions, other forms of pollution, acid rain, etc; however, if
those countries do not have that level of proximity, the
enforceability of contracts. Or any level of interference is unlikely
and could depend on the level of power that one specific state holds.
The political issues therefore undermine the needs of the environment
and these are sometimes illustrated in the way in which the laws are
generally interpreted.
As Weather
Modification has been present for more than sixty years, its complete
prohibition would just be possible. The same principle applies for
cigarette manufacturing companies, so to speak. Once a something is
built and put into place, it is very difficult to retract it from
existence once the smallest form of benefit has been gained, even if
the disadvantages sometimes outweigh the advantages. I strongly
believe the “iron cast” of secrecy needs to be removed, and
experiments need to be publicised without causing global panic. The
creation of this phenomenal technology is
a great achievement for mankind;
however, evidence has proven that neglecting the ramifications, or
using this technology recklessly, could albeit intentionally, change
the course of nature very unexpectedly.
Appendix
1: Table of Countries Involved in Weather Modification activities (2011)
Bibliography
Books:
- “The Physics of Clouds” Oxford Monographs on Meteorology, Clarendon Press, Oxford (1971), p. 671
- Module Handbook and Notes Taken in Lectures
Journals:
- “Environmental Warfare: Climate Modification Schemes” -Spencer Weart. (2009)
- “A Water Resource Strategy to be Researched, Tested before Tried”- J. Gelt (1992) Vol.6, No.1
- “Legal Response to environmental concerns about weather modification (1975) - Ray Jay Davis
- Journal of Applied Meterology, Vol. 14 - Ray Jay Davis.
- Weather modification incorporations 2007 Annual Meeting - George N. Farazoulis
- “The Design of Grossversuch IV, “A Randomized Hail Suppression Experiment in Switzerland.” - B. Federer, W. Schmid and A. Waldvogel
- “Weather Modification” by Philip L.Hoag (1998)
- “Environmental Warfare and Climate Change, The world’s climate can be modified by a new generation of sophisticated electromagnetic weapons” by Michel Chossudovsky. (2005)
- “Preliminary Report, Advisory Committee on Weather Control” Vol. 69, No.5 (1954)
Treaties/Acts:
- Agreement relating to the exchange of information on weather modification activities (1975)
- Convention on the Prohibition of Military or Any Other Hostile Use of Environmental Modification Techniques (1978)
- S.517: Weather Modification Research and Development Policy Authorization Act of 2005
- Weather Modification Research & Technology Act of 2005
Websites:
- www.weathermodification.com
- www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,178183,00.html – Online News, by Greg Simmons, 8th Dec 2005
- www.news.xinhuanet.com – Online News, Lui Hui, 15th July 2008
1
University of Amsterdam
2
Registered by
Canada on 18th
August 1975/No. 14202
3
“Environmental
Warfare: Climate Modification Schemes” -Spencer Weart. Published
9th
Dec 2009.
4
‘A Water Resource Strategy to be Researched, Tested before Tried’
J. Gelt (1992) Volume6, No.1
5
Signed in Geneva May 18, 1997, Entered
into force Oct 5, 1979. Ratification by U.S. Dec 13, 1979.
6
109th
Congress 2005/2006, Written by the Congressional Research Service,
part of the Library of Congress.
The
purpose of this act was
to establish the weather modification operations and research
board... a Bill introduced by Mrs Kay Bailey Hutchison. And took
effect on October 1, 2005.
8
for
the Weather Modification Research and Development Fund
9Article
“Bill May Renew U.S. Weather Control Efforts.” by Greg Simmons
(2005) Please see http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,178183,00.html
10Quoted
by Wesley Dinton
12
“Environmental
Warfare: Climate Modification Schemes” By Spencer Weart (2009)
13
Ray Jay Davis, “Legal Response to
environmental concerns about weather modification, 1975
15
1967
16
Please see p682, Journal of Applied Meterology, Volume 14, Ray Jay
Davis.
17
See Charak and Digiulian -1974.
18
This was the 83d
Congress as public law 256
19
Ray Jay Davis,
“Legal Response to environmental concerns about weather
modification, 1975
20Ph.D,
of Toronto, Canada
21“Environmental
Warfare and Climate Change, The World’s climate can be modified”
22
Please see,
European Parliament, Committee on Foreign Affairs, Security and
Defense Policy
23
16th
June 1972
24
Please see weather
modification incorporations 2007 Annual Meeting - George N.
Farazoulis
25Evidence
gathered by Mason,
B. J., 1971:
The Physics of Clouds. Oxford, p671
26B.
Federer, W. Schmid and A. Waldvogel – “The Design of
Grossversuch IV, “A Randomized Hail Suppression Experiment in
Switzerland.”
27Who
is director of the Weather Modification Department under the Chinese
Academy of Meteorological Sciences
28Xinhua
News – Online News (2009)
No comments:
Post a Comment