The War Against Geoengineering and a potential role for RFK/ France Soir
I used a translate app but the article is too long for email in its entirely--please go to the substack site for the entire translated article or to FranceSoir (with embedded videos)
Climate geo-engineering at the center of citizen concerns
On March 24, 2025, a major movement marked the United States: 24 states, joined by Michigan, tabled bills to prohibit climate geoengineering, accused of threatening public health and the environment.
This movement, carried by activists and concerned citizens, was welcomed by Robert F. Kennedy Jr., an influential public health figure and recently appointed head of the Department of Health and Social Services (HHS). In a tweet published the same day, Kennedy said: “24 states are mobilizing to ban the geoengineering of our climate by exposing our citizens, our rivers and our landscapes to toxins. This is a movement that every MAHA must support. HHS will do its part. “. This article explores climate geoengineering, the decision of American states, Kennedy’s role, the reactions, the implications for Europe, and the question of whether “chemtrails” are moving from conspiracy theory to a recognized truth.
What is climate geoengineering?
Climate geoengineering includes techniques aimed at modifying the climate on a large scale to combat global warming. According to the Grantham Research Institute, it is divided into two main categories:
(1) solar radiation management (SRM): such as the injection of aerosols into the stratosphere to reflect part of the solar radiation, thus reducing the overall temperature and
(2) carbon dioxide (CDR) removal: for example, CO2 capture and storage (CCS). Solar radiation management (SRM): injection of aerosols into the stratosphere to reflect solar radiation and reduce the overall temperature.
These methods are considered as emergency solutions to achieve the objectives of the Paris Agreement (limiting warming to 2 °C, or even 1.5 °C). However, a recent study suggests that temperature increases of up to 5 °C could have stable or positive effects on agricultural yields, calling into question the scientific basis of these agreements.
Consequences for humans and the environment
However, these techniques pose major risks to human health and the health of the planet: the environment. First of all, in terms of public health, injected aerosols, such as sulfur dioxide, could be deposited in the air, water and soil, exposing populations to toxins. On X, @plantparadise7 says that “every breath we take is loaded with highly toxic particles“. An element that is reinforced by the French positions on Low Emission Zones.
Then, in terms of climate imbalances: the Grantham Research Institute warns of side effects, such as changes in precipitation patterns or damage to the ozone layer, that could aggravate climate problems.
Finally, in terms of ecological impact, geoengineering does not solve problems such as ocean acidification, attributed to excess CO2, and could disrupt local ecosystems.
“chemtrails”: conspiracy theory or reality?
The term “chemtrails” is often associated with geoengineering in conspiracy circles, which claim that the white trails left by aircraft are chemicals sprayed for secret purposes, such as climate modification or population control.
Scientists and agencies such as the US Air Force refute these allegations, explaining that these trails are contrails (condensed water vapor) formed under certain atmospheric conditions. The traditional media serving as a relay to the military-industrial complex treat this theory as a manifestation of anti-government paranoia, rarely covered except to discredit it.
However, experts like Dane Wigington hold evidence – laboratory tests, military documents – and denounce a “gaslighting” of the authorities, which fuels distrust. Wigington’s messages are of course attacked as misinformation.
Video subtitled by AI
In June 2024, Professor Joseph Tritto, president of the World Alliance for Biomedicine & Technology (WABT), confirmed in an interview with France-Soir that climate manipulation, especially via technologies such as HAARP, is a reality and not a myth, calling for a transparent scientific approach.
The decision of the American states: a rejection of geoengineering
On March 24, 2025, Sayer Ji announced on X that 25 U.S. states have introduced bills to prohibit atmospheric geoengineering. These states include: Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Connecticut, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Louisiana, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, North Dakota, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Tennessee, Vermont, and West Virginia.
The motivations behind this ban are multiple.
- First of all, health risks, in fact, sprayed substances, often heavy metals such as aluminum or barium according to activists, are accused of contaminating the air, water and soil, affecting human and animal health. A recent scientific report “The stakes of pollution” by biochemist Jean-François Lesgards evokes these risks as being very real, even if often misunderstood by the general public.
- Then comes environmental sovereignty: citizens refuse non-consensual interventions, it is in a way a question of protecting the air and the sky in a form of “plea for the sky”.
- These topics are also fueled by a constant lack of transparency, because geo-engineering programs, often conducted by military or private entities. The latter are often perceived as opaque, fueling suspicions of concealment.
- Finally, real climate risks with unpredictable side effects, such as monsoon or ecosystem disturbances, are considered too dangerous (Grantham Research Institute).
Robert F. Kennedy Jr.: a strategic commitment
Robert F. Kennedy Jr., whom France-Soir is the only French media to have interviewed, is known for his environmental activism. He was appointed by Donald Trump to lead the HHS, with the mission of protecting Americans from environmental toxins. His tweet is part of this mission, denouncing the “toxins” of geo-engineering and promising action by the HHS. Founder of Children’s Health Defense (now chaired by Mary Holland), Kennedy has a long history of fighting against practices harmful to public health.
Kennedy is regularly attacked without real grounds by the traditional media for his skepticism towards vaccines. However, his motivations, as he stated during his hearing before the US Senate for his nomination, are quite different: to obtain real vaccine efficacy data in order to remove any doubt with a view to protecting the population. These targeted attacks by traditional media are of course linked to the Military Industrial Complex also decried by Kennedy. It was until his appointment, a fight of the iron pot against the earthen pot whose dynamic is currently changing with President Trump’s white breast to make America healthy (MAHA: Make America Healthy Again).
The parallel between geo-engineering and the pharmaceutical industry exists. Scientists suggest that spray media (nanoparticles, polymers) are of the same nature, and therefore similar to those used in vaccines, such as aluminum-based adjuvants. However, these hypotheses must be questioned: geo-engineering aerosols (sulfur dioxide, reflective particles) differ from vaccine adjuvants, although both may involve nanoparticles. Kennedy could nevertheless use this parallel to demand more transparency on the substances used, a fight he is already waging against the pharmaceutical industry.
As a leader of the HHS, Kennedy could have privileged access to data on geoengineering programs, often funded by public or military funds. Unlike patent-protected pharmaceutical data, information on airborne substances could be more accessible through government audits. Vigilant Fox notes that Kennedy has committed to “do everything in his power” to stop these practices
Mixed reactions
There are many positive reactions with the support of the activists. Here are some examples. @sayerjigmi praised Kennedy’s “courageous leadership”, calling for joining an international coalition. For its part, LaShonLuv calls for federal action by sharing photos of drags in Florida, asking Kennedy to convince Trump to sign an executive decree for a national ban.
On the critical side, @bobby_deeps expresses his doubts by attacking the perceived inaction of RFK since taking office. He demands immediate measures: “When exactly will you play your role? “He is supported by those who express their doubts about the opposition formed by certain refractory states: “states like California could resist without strong federal intervention“.
In the media, the voices are either cautious, Vigilant Fox who supports Kennedy’s commitment, citing his promise to “stop this crime” and his alliance with organizations such as Children’s Health Defense. Or scientific criticism: the New York Times notes that some Republicans, such as the governor of Tennessee, supported the ban, but researchers, such as those cited in the MIT Technology Review, believe that banning geo-engineering without prior research is premature.
In June 2024, Professor Joseph Tritto insisted that climate geoengineering is not a myth, but a reality used in geopolitical contexts, especially through technologies such as HAARP.
Consequences for Europe
Since geoengineering is a global subject, particles injected into the stratosphere by a country can affect the global climate, including in Europe. If the United States curbs these practices, it could reduce the risk of cross-border climate disruption, such as changes in European rainfall.
This movement could inspire similar initiatives in Europe, especially in France or Germany, sensitive to environmental health issues. However, the European Union, which is investing in geoengineering research (as noted by MIT Technology Review), could adopt a more cautious approach, favoring research before any ban. Proposals such as that of African nations at the UN, calling for a moratorium on geo-engineering, could gain ground in Europe.
The debate will probably rage in connection with the ZFE law and the Paris Agreements, 60% of which ask for the repeal of the ZFE law, which they consider discriminatory towards the poorest. Or on the climate, or 74% think that the government must completely review its policy on global warming taking into account divergent opinions.
A ban in the United States could slow down investment in these technologies, affecting European companies involved in geo-engineering research, such as carbon capture technologies.
“chemtrails”: from conspiracy theory to a new truth?
An implicit recognition? The decision of the American states and the support of Kennedy mark a turning point: by prohibiting atmospheric geoengineering, these states implicitly recognize that spraying operations are taking place or are being considered, which gives credence to the concerns of the defenders of the “chemtrails” theory.
Traditional media face an ethical dilemma. The media, having described “chemtrails” as a conspiracy theory, could adopt a gradual approach, as for the origin of Covid-19, which went from “conspiracy theory” to “main hypothesis” in five years. They could recognize concerns about geoengineering while distinguishing official programs from extreme theories. The Munich Charter of 1971, which obliges journalists to rectify inaccurate information, could push them to correct their past writings, otherwise risking being accused of misinformation, in a context of growing distrust, as shown by EDMO.
This rectification could take the form of retrospective articles or public mea-culpa, but it will be complex in the face of an already polarized public. Let’s not dream too much! The editorial director of a traditional media explains: “we have signed this environmental charter that forces us not to speak. We are therefore muzzled by group agreements that do not correspond to journalistic ethics” and adds “listen to the arguments of authority of Mrs. van Reeth, director of France Inter who claims her biases to serve the general interest, it is not science at the service of information, but a propaganda narrative“.
Lobby war in perspective?
The increasing recognition of the risks of geoengineering could also disrupt industrial dynamics. The petrochemical military-industrial complex, often involved in geo-engineering programs (as shown in the 1975 patent on “Powder Contrail Generation), could seek to ally itself with the Big Pharma lobby, already criticized by Kennedy for its opaque practices. Such an alliance could aim to protect their common interests, especially if substances used in geoengineering (such as nanoparticles) share similarities with those of vaccines. In addition, we could see a new lobby war, where these industries would oppose those of GMOs, also accused of harming health and the environment. This battle could redefine political and economic priorities, with major implications for research and regulation of environmental technologies.
A truth in construction
We cannot yet say that the “chemtrails” have passed into the domain of the “new true”. However, public debate and political actions, such as those of American states, legitimize concerns about the impacts of geoengineering, blurring the line between conspiracy theory and reality. If concrete evidence of toxic sprays emerges, thanks to figures like Kennedy, this perception could change.
A fight for transparency and health
The decision of the 25 U.S. states marks a turning point in the struggle for environmental sovereignty and public health. The support of Robert F. Kennedy Jr., as a leader of the HHS, reinforces this movement, with the promise of concrete actions to protect Americans from toxins. This fight, which could have repercussions in Europe, raises crucial questions about the transparency and risks of climate interventions.
If the “chemtrails” still remain “officially” a conspiracy theory, the concerns they raise gain in legitimacy, carried by a large-scale citizen and political movement, as well as by scientific voices such as that of Professor Tritto. Kennedy, with his access to data and influence, could play a key role in sheding light on these practices, potentially redefining what we consider “truth” in this area.