Activists tell the EPA to Stop Planetary Geoengineering
Why is the EPA claiming that six greenhouse gases emitted from jet planes are a “threat to human health” under the Clean Air Act while doing nothing to address ongoing lawsuits over leaded aviation gasoline or the real health concerns of stakeholders worldwide: cancer-causing, heavy metals in fuels and their additives, and aviation-induced cloudiness (AIC)?
This is the question that activists from the United States and France posed at a Washington, DC EPA hearing this week.
Both Jim Lee, a geoengineering researcher from South Carolina and Max Bliss, a builder from France, attended the hearing thanks to the support of friends and collaborators.
According to Lee and Bliss, the EPA claims the authority to regulate aviation emissions under the Clean Air Act, a law that should protect people from the aforementioned poisonous pollution. However, the definition of “pollution” is being perverted to mean “climate change gases” in what can only be called a violation of the spirit of the law.
While the EPA and other environmental and scientific organizations such as NASA, NOAA and the IPCC claim that greenhouse gases are responsible for global warming and are now pushing for regulations to decarbonize the West, barium and aluminum particles purposely added to jet fuel presente a greater challenge to life on Earth,
The EPA hosted a public hearing at its headquarters to gather statements from environmental groups, aircraft industry representatives, and others regarding the agency’s newly-released carbon emissions standards for commercial aircraft.
Mr. Bliss and Mr. Lee addressed their concerns directly to the EPA panel and their statements were broadcast on CSPAN. Other presenters who showed their concern about climate geoengineering included Michael Saraceno, Patrick Roddie and Amanda Williams.
Although the EPA is deeply concern about the potential role of CO2 in climate change, the organization ignores and does not address the role of chemical particles added to jet fuel.
“As you can see by the wording in the Clean Air Act, lead, barium, aluminum, and trade-secret, toxicchemicals clearly present a greater danger to public health than greenhouse gases, no matter howmuch climate science you accumulate,” states Lee in his presentation. According to him, aviation fuel and additives contained in them commonly released into the environment either by dumping or burning.
“The EPA and Obama administration are ignoring the global outrage over the most visible climatechange concern from airplanes: CLOUD CREATION.”
According to Lee, the EPA wrongfully claims that CO2 is a much more significant threat than contrails and “aviation-induced cloudiness” which is based on “incomplete IPCC data”. The data Lee argued, downplays the effects of contrails on our climate.
“Contrails formed by aircraft can evolve into cirrus clouds indistinguishable from thoseformed naturally. These ‘spreading contrails’ may be causing more climate warming today thanall the carbon dioxide emitted by aircraft since the start of aviation,” he warned.
“A single aircraft operating in conditions favorable for persistent contrail formation appears toexert a contrail-induced radiative forcing some 5000 times greater than recent estimates ofthe average persistent contrail radiative forcing from the entire civil aviation fleet.”
One of the worst problems with climate initiatives, rules and regulations is that they fail to consider how cirrus clouds created by aircraft fuel are filled with metal aerosol which are more dangerous to the environment than CO2.
“The big one that we’ve found is lead,” said Lee. “It comes from things like tetraethtyl lead in fuels still used in some light aviation. So that’s probably the biggest metal that we find, or the most frequent metal that we find. But we find a whole host of different metals, actually.
Activists who participated in the hearing warn that the newest research scientifically questions the IPCC’s contrail assumptions and “requires serious consideration when addressing the real climate change impact of aviation.”
They cite three considerations:
High altitude metals and cirrus cloud condensation nuclei (CCN) are likely coming from leadedAVGAS and jet exhaust.
Contrails are making cirrus clouds and small changes in atmospheric metal have large impacts on cirrus cloud creation.
Cirrus clouds trap heat and likely have a greater climate change impact than CO2.
“If the EPA is truly concerned about aviation-induced climate change, they will regulate theproduction of contrails and cirrus clouds which change our climate to a much greater extent than thesum of the six greenhouse gases named in this Proposal,” said Lee.
Max Bliss statement went even further to explain that there is historical evidence that in patents and public statements that prove that there is an intentional effort to melt the ice in the Arctic in order to tap into the vast resources contained therein and to open new shipping lanes for global commerce.
He also warned the the so-called anthropogenic global warming movement has been instigated to push for a world government under the United Nations Agenda 21 guidelines and its sustainable development program.
“Would we be naive enough to believe that all interest in geoengineering went away because of the signing of the ENMOD treaty?, asked Bliss.
He then reminded the EPA panel and the rest of the participants that the use of nanoparticles in in jet fuels is causing grave health problems to all life forms on the planet. Mr. Bliss called for the immediate regulation and prohibition of climate engineering. He said that those who have already made their minds about the science of climate change are stakholders who are interested in making money off the climate change scare. This group of people, Bliss said, includes academics, politicians and scientists.