In a Stroke of Irony, Environment Committee Nixes Bills to Prohibit Potentially Harmful Geo-engineering

The Maine Legislature’s Committee on Environment and Natural Resources voted against two Republican-led bills that would prevent geo-engineering in the name of combating climate change during a work session on Wednesday.

[RELATED: Public Advocate Pressed to Hold Solar Companies to Account for High Costs and Confusion…]

Both bills would have prevented a slew of actual or theoretical methods of modifying the weather or other large-scale efforts to alter the Earth’s natural systems, such as cloud seeding to influence rainfall.

“I submitted this bill on behalf of some of my constituents after they reached out to me regarding this issue. This bill seeks to prohibit individuals or organizations from engaging in geo-engineering activities,” said Sen. Russell Black, testifying in favor of his bill, LD 825.

“It defines geo-engineering as any large scale, intentional intervention in earth’s natural systems, including actions like stratospheric aerosol injection, weather modification, and the emission of excessive radiation or harmful chemicals,” said Sen. Black explained.

Black’s definition of geoengineering also includes excessive electromagnetic, radio frequency, or microwave radiation emissions, as well as harmful nuclear, biological, or chemical emissions.

LD 825 makes geo-engineering a Class C crime, with violations incurring a $500,000 fine per day, and does not include any exceptions for research.

LD -499, sponsored by Rep. Schmersal-Burgess, would ban a wide array of geoengineering practices, including large-scale attempts to shift the environment through carbon dioxide management, solar radiation management, and weather modification, such as cloud seeding or other “stratospheric injection” processes.

The DEP would be charged with enforcement, and violations would constitute a class E crime along with a fine of $10,000 per day for each day the violation continues. The bill includes an exception to allow researchers to continue their work on geo-engineering techniques.

Neither bill received extensive work sessions. Instead, the committee briefly read a legislative analysis and moved quickly to vote “ought not to pass” for both bills. The committee opposed both bills in 10–3 votes, with Rep. Mike Soboleski (R-Phillips), Rep. Tammy Schmersal-Burgess (R-Mexico), and Sen. Joseph Martin (R-Oxford) dissenting.

Reps. David Woodsome (R-Waterboro) and Dick Campbell (R-Orrington) joined the committee’s Democratic majority in opposition to the bills.

One week before the bills failed to garner support in the work session, the Environment Committee held a joint public hearing on the extremely similar bills.

Jeffrey Crawford, Director of the Bureau of Air Quality at the Maine Department of Environmental Protection (DEP), submitted testimony against both bills.

He acknowledged that geo-engineering could be dangerous, pointing to two main types: carbon geo-engineering, intended to reduce the amount of carbon in the atmosphere, and solar geo-engineering, which would increase the amount of solar radiation reflected into space. Nevertheless, he argued that the DEP is not equipped to enforce the bills.

“Clearly, many types of geo-engineering should be approached cautiously and we should focus on reducing emissions through proven strategies,” said Crawford.

“The proposed definitions of geo-engineering” are so broad as to potentially include reforestation and afforestation projects, yet lacking in specificity with respect to the term large-scale intervention. Finally, we have very real concerns that these bills as written could so increase the number of chemtrail related calls that the Department would need additional staffing to handle them,” he added.

The Maine Audubon Society also opposed the bill, arguing that it is premature in banning geo-engineering techniques that remain theoretical and that could ultimately prove beneficial.

“Banning geo-engineering outright, without scientific and technical evidence that a particular technology is being used and/or has an impact on our environment or citizens is unwarranted policy. Furthermore, it could preemptively limit future technologies that could become available to help address climate change through carbon sequestration enhancement or storage,” the conservation group said.

It did, however, suggest a willingness to revisit the issue if any specific instances of geo-engineering are shown to be impacting Maine residents.

“If specific impacts from geo-engineering are identified to affect Maine people, wildlife, or our environment in the future, Maine Audubon would be enthusiastic to comment,” the group added.

Rep. Tracy Quint (R-Hodgdon) testified in support of a geo-engineering ban, explaining that cloud seeding—injecting chemicals into clouds to affect their development—has already been used in the U.S. and across the world. She pointed to the use of cloud seeding by the U.S. during the Vietnam War in Operation Popeye, which intended to extend the monsoon season to harm North Vietnamese logistics.

She also highlighted the potentially unintended negative effects of cloud seeding, including unexpected storms, hail, high winds, and lightning. She further raised concerns about the unknown effects of the chemicals used in cloud seeding on humans.

“There are many questions, but one that we should really be asking is does the State of Maine even know what is aerosolized in our skies, and do we want to allow others dominion over our skies without our consent,” said Rep. Quint.

She pointed to similar laws in states such as Tennessee, Florida, and Iowa, showing that there is precedent for this legislation.