Pilot Study Shows Dramatic Difference In Brain Activity With EHS (Electrohypersensitive) Cases As Compared To Controls (Non EHS).

PRESS TELE-CONFERENCE, THURS., Dec. 7th, 12 NOON PST.

This is the first known published study to show pictures of EHS on an fMRI.

LOS ANGELES, Dec. 5, 2017 /PRNewswire/ — The Peoples Initiative Foundation has announced the conclusion of a pilot study they organised, headed up by Dr. Gunnar Heuser, showing EHS on an fMRI. This study was originally published by Degruyter in July of 2017, but was absent pictures of the controls.  The company waited until the pictures were placed in the study to issue this press release, as the visual difference between the cases and controls is quite dramatic.

Exposure to wireless devices and infrastructure is believed to have been the cause of the EHS in the cases.

The large white area on the left side of the left picture shows hyperconnectivity in the brain of a case (EHS person). The same small white area in the picture to the right shows normal brain activity in a control (non EHS person).

EHS or “electrohypersensitivity” in civilian terms, “microwave radiation poisoning” in military terms, is an RF (radio frequency) or microwave radiation induced illness who’s very existence is hotly debated by government and wireless industry scientists and personnel.  This study provides evidence that abnormalities exist in the EHS brain that are not present in the non EHS brain and could put an end to the debate on the existence of EHS.  It also defies the widely held governmental and wireless industry stance that wireless devices and infrastructure have no consequences to human health and could impact the prevailing opinion of wireless radiation being deemed safe. 

The Peoples Initiative Foundation will be holding a tele-press conference to take questions from the media Thurs. Dec. 7th @ 12 noon PST.  The study’s principle author, Dr. Gunnar Heuser will be on the call to take questions about the study, as well as Liz Barris, study organizer and one of the EHS cases in the study to take questions about EHS.

Journalists on deadline who RSVP by emailing: contact@thepeoplesinitiative.org with the # they will be calling in from will be given first priority in the tele-press conference queue.

https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/pilot-study-shows-dramatic-difference-in-brain-activity-with-ehs-electrohypersensitive-cases-as-compared-to-controls-non-ehs-300566854.html

5G lkeaflet            

THE LINK ABOVE IS A 5G LEAFLET THAT CAN BE DOWNLOADED, PRINTED AND SHARED IN YOUR NEIGHBOURHOOD.

The Dangers of 5G and What We Are Not Being Told!

Governments throughout the world are pushing for the rollout of 5G (Fifth Generation) technology as if it is just an upgrade from 3G and 4G.

THIS IS FALSE

Mobile and Wireless experts such as Nick Hunn and William Webb state that this technology does NOT guarantee better connectivity, faster speeds or reliability and that the huge amounts of tax payers’ money being used to fund this would have been better spent upgrading the 4G network AND been far cheaper.

4G is between 1GHZ and 4GHZ whilst 5G Technology is 4GHZ to 100’s. xBandwidths of 26-90 GHZ are to be utilised. This is the equivalent of 90 billion electromagnetic waves hitting the body per second – tens of Billions MORE electromagnetic waves than what we have been used to.

The difference will also be in wave lengths, millimetre wave lengths that are shorter and pulsed and can penetrate the skin easier.

There are already over 10,000 studies showing the radiation that we are exposed to using EM radio frequency levels from 3+4G.

220 doctors and scientists in 39 countries have petitioned to stop this technology from being used and many citizens worldwide are against this being used in this way.

There are NO research studies on the long term effects of this onslaught of millimetre wave radiation but government agencies are going to go ahead regardless.

This type of radiation is called non-thermal or non-ionizing and government agencies have tried to deny that there is any danger despite the studies of medical and Independent researchers.

The technology is also government surveillance technology.

Millimetre waves in the ultra-high bands can affect our cells and cause higher levels of cancers, strokes, heart problems – all the life threatening diseases that we already suffer from.

Also, the biggest insurers, Lloyds, have refused to insure against EMF injuries from using phones, etc.

According to the Infrastructure Commission in the UK, small cell towers will need to be placed between 100 and 300 meters apart EVERYWHERE.

The so-called ”Internet of Things” means even household appliances will use this technology and smart cars will also contain heavy radars systems that will spew out EMR (electromagnetic radiation) from all angles – magnify this by millions of cars!

Government Agencies and University funded research is being paid for by the telecommunications Industry who stand to profit. Government can no longer be trusted to put our health before profits.

If this technology is supposedly safe, why do the American military use millimetre wave technology weapons that disperse crowds, causing burns to the skin?

We demand Independent, long term, medical and safety research BEFORE this technology is rolled out in our streets and homes. Those who force this technology on us without proper safety assessments will be served Notices of Liability and will be personally liable for any harm that this technology causes.

Further Info at: inpowermovement.com Annie Logical Uncensored: www.vigiliae.org Real Change is a group started in Leeds by Jason Nota and we have many local Facebook groups that help homeless and street kitchens, etc. To get in touch, contact Annie at her site above.

Presentation by Professor Emeritus Martin L. Pall. This video is footage from the High School GIH on 10th of March 2016 in Stockholm, Sweden.  Link to Martin Palls presentation from the video in PDF-format: http://www.vagbrytaren.org/Hur_tradlo…   According to some authorities and governments, it is not possible for microwaves from mobile phones, WiFi, ‘smart’ meters, etc. to cause harm to human health or nature. They claim that research in the field is inconsistent and that there is no proof that such radiation can cause health issues.  According to the eminent physicist, geneticist and cell biologist, Prof. Emeritus Martin L. Pall, they are wrong on all counts.  Martin Pall, prof. Emeritus at Washington State University, has an impressive body of work. His first article on EMFs and their role in VGCC ion channels activation in cells earned a place in the “Global Medical Discovery” list of the most important articles in medicine in 2013.  Organizers: the Swedish Organization Vågbrytaren (the Breakwater, litt the Wavebreaker) in cooperation with Strålskyddsstiftelsen (Swedish Radiation Protection Foundation).  More information about the organizers here: http://www.vagbrytaren.org  http://www.vagbrytarenstockholm.se/ http://www.stralskyddsstiftelsen.se/ http://www.stralskyddsstiftelsen.se/e…

Douglas Gabriel from www.aim4truth.org joins Leader Technologies CEO and Founder Michael McKibben the real inventor of the technology that made all social media from Twitter, Facebook, Paypal, Google—all of them scalable. See https://aim4truth.org/2017/11/21/face… In this audio McKibben and Gabriel look at the boy kings of Silicon Valley and unmask their corruption and evil intentions.

Lloyd’s of London excludes liability coverage for RF/EMF claims + woensdag, 25 maart 2015 – Dossier: Juridische informatie

Bron 1: smartmeterharm.org/2015/03/18/lloyds-of-london-excludes-liability-coverage-for-rfemf-claims/ . 18 maart 2015 Credit to Sharon Noble, Director, Coalition to Stop Smart Meters in British Columbia, for bringing this information to the public.

Lloyd’s of London excludes any liability coverage for claims, “Directly or indirectly arising out of, resulting from or contributed to by electromagnetic fields, electromagnetic radiation, electromagnetism, radio waves or noise.” (Exclusion 32) This information is from CFC Underwriting Limited, which is a Lloyd’s of London underwriter (page 12-13 of policy document, page 13-14 of pdf), and was posted by Citizens for Safe Technology: This is a recent renewal policy which, as of Feb. 7, 2015, excludes any coverage associated with exposure to non-ionizing radiation.

In response to clarification, this response was received on Feb. 18, 2015 from CFC Underwriting LTD, London, UK agent for Lloyd’s: “‘The Electromagnetic Fields Exclusion (Exclusion 32) is a General Insurance Exclusion and is applied across the market as standard. The purpose of the exclusion is to exclude cover for illnesses caused by continuous long-term non-ionising radiation exposure i.e. through mobile phone usage.” www.citizensforsafetechnology.org/Lloyds-of-London-excludes-coverage-for-RFEMR-claims,2,4168 The policy document is here: emrabc.ca/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/InsuranceAEWordingCanadav17Feb2015.pdf or www.citizensforsafetechnology.org/uploads/scribd/Insurance%20AE%20Wording%20Canada%20v1%207%20Feb%202015.pdf From the Lloyd’s of London policy: “Exclusions (starting on Page 6 of policy, Page 7 of pdf): We will not a) make any payment on your behalf for any claim, or

b) incur any costs and expenses, or c) reimburse you for any loss, damage, legal expenses, fees or costs sustained by you, or d) pay any medical expenses: … 32. Electromagnetic fields (General Insurance Exclusions –Page 7 of policy): directly or indirectly arising out of, resulting from or contributed to by electromagnetic fields, electromagnetic radiation, electromagnetism, radio waves or noise.” This would include the microwave radiation and electromagnetic radiation emitted from Smart Meters (AMR, AMI, PLC), from Home Area Network devices and appliances (including AC and thermostats), from Wi-Fi transmitters, from wireless devices in schools, offices, and homes, and from wireless sensors and wireless-connected fire alarms.

“This means that the Province (that is we, the taxpayer) will be held liable for claims from teachers and parents of children suffering biological effects from wifi in schools, from homeowners exposed to RF from mandated smart meters on homes, and from employees forced to use cell phones or exposed to wifi at work. Lawsuits in other countries have resulted in huge payments already, and it is only a matter of time before similar lawsuits are filed and won in Canada. “Potentially those who allow such devices, after having been fully informed about the dangers, could be held liable for negligence, and directors’ insurance may not provide financial protection. Directors’ insurance applies when people are performing their duties “in good faith”. It is hard to argue they are acting “in good faith” after having been warned by true scientific experts and by a well-respected insurer. “Consider yourself notified once again that you could be held legally responsible for the decisions you have made.” Yours truly, Sharon Noble Director, Coalition to Stop Smart Meters in British Columbia Victoria, British Columbia, Canada The full letter with policy document is here: www.citizensforsafetechnology.org/Lloyds-of-London-excludes-coverage-for-RFEMR-claims,2,4168 . Scholen verantwoordelijk voor schade door RF straling Bron 2: thebridgenewsservice.com/2015/02/26/school-boards-left-on-the-hook-for-wi-fi-injuries/ . 26 febr. 2015

CANADA, CORPORATIONS, GOVERNMENT, HEALTH School Boards Left On The Hook For Wi-Fi Injuries. By Janis Hoffman School officials could be personally liable for exposing children and staff to microwave radiation in our schools. School districts, school boards and school medical health officers have been notified that Lloyd’s of London has now excluded any liability coverage for injuries, “directly or indirectly arising out of, resulting from or contributed to by electromagnetic fields, electromagnetic radiation, electromagnetism, radio waves or noise.” This would include the microwave radiation emitting from the commercial wi-fi transmitters and wireless devices in our schools. In response to a request for clarification, this response was received on Feb. 18, 2015 from CFC Underwriting LTD, London, UK agent for Lloyd’s: “The Electromagnetic Fields Exclusion (Exclusion 32) is a General Insurance Exclusion and is applied across the market as standard. The purpose of the exclusion is to exclude cover for illnesses caused by continuous long-term non-ionizing radiation exposure i.e. through mobile phone usage.” Lloyd’s of London, one of the world’s largest insurance companies often leads the way in protection by taking on risks that no one else will. At the end of this article there is a copy of a recent renewal policy which, as of Feb. 7, 2015, excludes any coverage associated with exposure to non-ionizing radiation. In 2011 the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) dropped a bombshell on the wireless industry. They designated exposure to wi-fi radiation to be a possible human carcinogen. As well in the 1990s illnesses resulting from asbestos exposure, covered by Lloyd’s at the time, almost destroyed the insurance company. Due to these issues, it appears Lloyd’s is acting fast to avoid another such financial fiasco by not covering illnesses that result from exposure to wireless radiation. With the Lloyd’s of London announcement, parents and teachers are left with this question: exactly who is liable if their child is harmed by wi-fi in their school? Concomitantly, are the individuals who approved the installation of wireless internet networks in our schools to be held personally liable for negligence? School officials and administrators appear to be in a bind as they have refused to acknowledge the 1000s of peer-reviewed, non-industry funded studies by scientists and medical experts that show that wi-fi radiation is harmful, especially to children. Moreover, their dogged allegiance to Health Canada’s now invalidated safety guidelines have left parents with nowhere else to turn other than the courts. It appears that school boards’ intransigent position on the issue may have left board members themselves vulnerable to being personally sued.

School boards may be covered by directors’ insurance which applies to people who are performing their duties “in good faith.” The question is: are they still protected when it could be shown that they were being “willfully blind?” Definitions: “In good faith:” in contract law, the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing is a general presumption that the parties to a contract will deal with each other honestly, fairly, and in good faith, so as to not destroy the right of the other party or parties to receive the benefits of the contract. “Wilful blindness:” (sometimes called ignorance of law, wilful ignorance or contrived ignorance or Nelsonian knowledge) is a term used in law to describe a situation in which an individual seeks to avoid civil or criminal liability for a wrongful act by intentionally putting him or herself in a position where he or she will be unaware of facts that would render him or her liable.

https://thebridgenewsservice.files.wordpress.com/2015/02/image001.jpg Zie ook: www.andrewgeller.me/blog/2015/03/25/lloyds-wont-discuss-emf-clause/ . 25 maart 2015

Lloyd’s Won’t Discuss Their New EMF Exclusion Clause Last week, a couple of blogs noted that a recent commercial liability insurance renewal policy issued through a Lloyd’s of London underwriter contained a liability exclusion clause about electromagnetic fields. The clause excludes any compensation for claims: “directly or indirectly arising out of, resulting from or contributed to by electromagnetic fields, electromagnetic radiation, electromagnetism, radio waves or noise.” It is important that “radio waves” are explicitly included as they, specifically the microwave zone, are what enable wireless communications devices like cell phones, wi-fi, cordless phones etc. After the policy holder made an inquiry seeking clarification about the exclusion language, CFC Underwriting LTD in London, the UK agent for Lloyd’s, sent the following: “The Electromagnetic Fields Exclusion (Exclusion 32) is a General Insurance Exclusion and is applied across the market as standard. The purpose of the exclusion is to exclude cover for illnesses caused by continuous long-term non-ionising radiation exposure i.e. through mobile phone usage.” Sharon Noble, Director of the Coalition to Stop Smart Meter Harm in British Columbia (Canada) brought the clause and CFC’s response to public attention.

My interpretation of this revealing statement is that CFC Underwriting, and perhaps all of “the market” is that the time has come to hedge against a future surge in “illnesses caused by continuous long-term non-ionising radiation exposure i.e. through mobile phone usage.” Why else would they refuse coverage “across the market as standard.”? “Unfortunately, Lloyd’s doesn’t have a spokesperson who can talk about this so we’re going to have to decline.” Lloyd’s of London describes itself as “the world’s specialist insurance market,” and they’ve insured and paid on a variety of unusual risks and catastrophic claims. Unlike many other insurance brands, Lloyd’s is not a company; it’s “a market where our members join together as syndicates to insure risks.” What they insure falls into seven broad categories: casualty, property, marine, energy, motor, aviation and reinsurance. Reinsurance is the key here, as, among other things, it serves “to protect an insurer against very large claims.” Think tobacco, asbestos and climate change. And microwave radiation apparently, even though regulatory and health agencies around the world refuse to accept RF exposure as causing illness. www.andrewgeller.me/blog/2015/03/25/lloyds-wont-discuss-their-emf-exclusion-clause/lloyds-emf-exclusion/ I was seriously intrigued at all of this and emailed an inquiry to the Lloyd’s press center stating that I wanted some more details about the exclusion. I told them that as I primarily produce radio, I’d want to capture the conversation on tape, but would also be happy to talk with someone off tape, but on the record. Two hours later, I received a response from a woman at Prosek Partners, “a communications consultancy that delivers an unexpected level of passion, creativity and marketing savvy,” which apparently handles such issues for Lloyd’s. She wanted to know more about what exactly I was seeking and asked if I would “mind expanding on your request a bit?” so she could best determine how to help me. I obliged, sending back “Basically I’m interested in the 5 Ws, but why especially. I’d also like to how widely the exclusion is being replicated in Lloyd’s policies. Is there any sense internally at Lloyd’s about this being a first step that is likely to be copied industry wide? Was there any conversation pre/post release of the exclusion language with any wireless industry businesses?” This afternoon (she apologized for the 24 hour ‘delay’) she wrote back to tell me “Unfortunately, Lloyd’s doesn’t have a spokesperson who can talk about this so we’re going to have to decline.” Now I’m used to rejection as a reporter, but I couldn’t quite believe this and told her so in my reply, mentioning that their refusal to talk about the policy change would possibly “draw attention away from more important aspects of the story.”

The takeaway here is that the Lloyd’s, the world’s largest insurance market place has “across the market” not only refused to provide coverage for any claims arising from exposure to cell phones, wi-fi or any other source of electromagnetic frequency radiation, but also refused to answer a media inquiry about why, claiming that there is no one “who can.” Hmmm…

 

CLIMATE CHANGE:

A Coordinated Strategy Could Focus Federal Geoengineering Research and Inform Governance Efforts

GAO-10-903: Published: Sep 23, 2010. Publicly Released: Oct 26, 2010.

http://www.gao.gov/assets/320/310105.pdf

Policymakers have raised questions about geoengineering–large-scale deliberate interventions in the earth’s climate system to diminish climate change or its impacts–and its role in a broader strategy of mitigating and adapting to climate change. Most geoengineering proposals fall into two categories: carbon dioxide removal (CDR), which would remove carbon dioxide (CO2) from the atmosphere, and solar radiation management (SRM), which would offset temperature increases by reflecting sunlight back into space. GAO was asked to examine (1) the state of geoengineering science, (2) federal involvement in geoengineering, and (3) the views of experts and federal officials about the extent to which federal laws and international agreements apply to geoengineering, and any governance challenges. GAO examined relevant scientific and policy studies, relevant domestic laws and international agreements, analyzed agency data describing relevant research for fiscal years 2009 and 2010, and interviewed federal officials and selected recognized experts in the field.

Few geoengineering experiments or modeling studies have been conducted, and major uncertainties remain on the efficacy and potential consequences of geoengineering approaches. GAO’s review of relevant studies and discussions with selected experts indicated that relatively more laboratory and field research relevant to certain CDR approaches exists, although most of this research was not designed to apply to geoengineering. In contrast, few modeling studies or field experiments have focused on SRM approaches, according to experts and recent studies. Experts identified only one SRM field experiment with published results–a 2009 Russian experiment that injected aerosols into the middle troposphere to measure their reflectivity. Experts, as well as relevant studies, identified several major uncertainties in need of further investigation for CDR and SRM. Federal agencies identified 52 research activities, totalling about $100.9 million, relevant to geoengineering during fiscal years 2009 and 2010. GAO’s analysis found that 43 activities, totalling about $99 million, focused either on mitigation strategies or basic science. Most of the research focused on mitigation efforts, such as geological sequestration of CO2, which were identified as relevant to CDR approaches but not designed to address them directly. GAO found that nine activities, totalling about $1.9 million, directly investigated SRM or less conventional CDR approaches. Officials from interagency bodies coordinating federal responses to climate change indicated that their offices have not developed a coordinated strategy, and believe that, due to limited federal investment, it is premature to coordinate geoengineering activities. However, federal officials also noted that a large share of existing federal climate science research could be relevant to geoengineering.

Agencies requested roughly $2 billion for such activities in fiscal year 2010.

Without a coordinated federal strategy for geoengineering, it is difficult for agencies to determine the extent of relevant research, and policymakers may lack key information to inform subsequent decisions on geoengineering and existing climate science efforts.

According to legal experts and federal officials, the extent to which federal laws and international agreements apply to geoengineering is unclear. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has taken steps to regulate one CDR approach and has determined that it has sufficient authority to regulate two other approaches. EPA officials said EPA has not assessed the applicability of other laws because geoengineering research is in its initial stages. Similarly, legal experts and Department of State officials said that, except for three instances, parties to international agreements have not addressed their agreements’ applicability to geoengineering, largely due to limited geoengineering activity and awareness of the issue. Legal experts’ and officials’ views differed on the best approach for international governance, but generally agreed that the federal government should take a coordinated, interagency approach on domestic regulation. Experts and officials also identified governance challenges, such as the need to address liability. GAO recommends that within the Executive Office of the President, the appropriate entities, such as the Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP), establish a clear strategy for geoengineering research in the context of the federal response to climate change to ensure a coordinated federal approach. OSTP neither agreed nor disagreed with our recommendation, but provided technical comments.

http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-10-903

 

Weather Modification Association Annual Meeting

An Opportunity to Learn, Meet & Network with Worldwide Members

The 2018 Annual Meeting will take place in Estes Park, Colorado on April 24-27, 2018. The meeting will feature technical sessions that will inform and educate attendees about current research and operations occurring in the field of weather modification.

On Thursday afternoon, a workshop will be held in conjunction with the ASCE to discuss the latest Standard Practice for Design, Conduct and Evaluation of Operational Precipitation Enhancement Projects (ASCE document 42-17). Details on the workshop will be posted as they become available.

Online registration will be posted in January 2018 with more details regarding the meeting. See you in Colorado!

WMA conferences wouldn’t be possible without the financial support of our sponsors. Becoming a sponsor is a great chance to promote your program, company, or institution. Thank you for considering to help host this annual event!

http://weathermod.org/meetings/

 

DAILY NEWS

1 September 2009

Top science body calls for geoengineering ‘plan B’

Computer artwork of a large mirror (circular) in Earth orbit with a spacecraft (lower left). The mirror is designed to shield the Earth (lower right) from the sun (behind mirror), in an attempt to control changes in the climate of the Earth. This proposed method is one of several that could be used to reduce the effects of human-made global warming. Many such mirrors would be needed.

Computer artwork of a large mirror (circular) in Earth orbit with a spacecraft (lower left). The mirror is designed to shield the Earth (lower right) from the sun (behind mirror), in an attempt to control changes in the climate of the Earth. This proposed method is one of several that could be used to reduce the effects of human-made global warming. Many such mirrors would be needed.

(Image: Victor Habbick Visions/SPL)

The most promising method in terms of cost and effectiveness would be to pump sulphate particles into the stratosphere

The most promising method in terms of cost and effectiveness would be to pump sulphate particles into the stratosphere

Comment and analysis: Do mention the ‘G’ word

Take note: the back-up plan for saving the world is no joke. A major scientific institution has published a comprehensive review of possible ways to engineer the climate to reverse global warming.

The UK Royal Society‘s review of geoengineering will make it difficult for governments to ignore the issue. It says that while reducing emissions of greenhouse gases “absolutely” must remain a priority, there is a serious chance that this will not be enough to stave off global warming of 2 °C.

“My guess would be that there is a 50-50 chance that we can achieve something with emissions reductions,” says John Shepherd of the University of Southampton in the UK, chair of the Royal Society group behind the report.

If humanity wants to avoid the worst effects of climate change, it must be ready to safely deploy geoengineering methods as and when necessary, the report says. “We are already staring 1.6 °C in the face,” says Shepherd.

He believes we should know some time in the next two decades whether or not efforts to curb emissions will be enough to avoid 2 °C of warming. If not, his personal view is that we should be prepared for a two-step plan B.

Sun shield

Step one: deploy some sort of sun shield to deflect solar energy away from Earth. Reflective technologies could cool the planet within a year, and according to the Royal Society’s findings the most promising method in terms of cost and effectiveness would be to pump sulphate particles into the stratosphere (see illustration). However, this will not curb ocean acidification and other side effects of greenhouse emissions, and could disrupt weather patterns, so another method is required.

Step two: enact a means of sucking carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere. Several methods are already being investigated, which fall broadly into two categories: “tech-heavy” solutions, such as artificial trees that filter air and extract CO2 for storage, and “biological” methods, such as planting trees, using biofuels and fertilising the oceans.

According to Shepherd, tech-heavy methods are preferable because they are less likely to interfere with complex ecosystems. “Most of the things that have gone wrong in the past have happened when we’ve tampered with biological systems,” he says.

Geoengineering methods have so far been on the fringe of climate discussions and research. Few, if any, could be developed tomorrow or even tested on a large scale. The Royal Society report calls on the UK government to invest £10 million a year towards an international research effort into geoengineering. This amounts to roughly 10 per cent of the UK climate research budget.

Another unresolved issue is for governments to agree on how to regulate geoengineering efforts. The Royal Society proposes that the UN Commission for Sustainable Development be charged with the task. It also suggests the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change should establish a geoengineering working group.

Bandwagon rolling

Such an international effort is conceivable. There are signs that the field is increasingly being taken seriously at national and international levels. Earlier this month the US National Academies tweaked the remit of its climate panel such that it will now assess geo-engineering proposals. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change will decide next month whether or not to do the same.

“It is clear that a lot of people are arguing that the IPCC should include an assessment of geoengineering in its next report,” says Ottmar Edenhofer of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research in Germany and co-chair of one of the IPCC’s three working groups. More worryingly, perhaps, military and naval representatives have also taken to attending research and policy workshops on the topic.

The Royal Society gave some reassurance that discussions of geo-engineering will not deflate the public will to cut emissions. Results from focus groups suggested that the fact that scientists are giving geo-engineering serious thought could be enough to spur people into acting on climate change. Whether this will hold true for politicians remains to be seen.

https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn17716-top-science-body-calls-for-geoengineering-plan-b/

UN Documents 

Gathering a body of global agreements

Home | Sustainable Development | Education | Water | Culture of Peace | Human Rights | Keywords | Search

Adopted by Resolution 31/72 of the United Nations General Assembly on 10 December 1976.

The Convention was opened for signature at Geneva on 18 May 1977. 

Convention on the Prohibition of Military or Any Other Hostile Use of Environmental Modification Techniques

The States Parties to this Convention,

Guided by the interest of consolidating peace, and wishing to contribute to the cause of halting the arms race, and of bringing about general and complete disarmament under strict and effective international control, and of saving mankind from the danger of using new means of warfare,

Determined to continue negotiations with a view to achieving effective progress towards further measures in the field of disarmament,

Recognizing that scientific and technical advances may open new possibilities with respect to modification of the environment,

Recalling the Declaration of the United Nations Conference on the Human Environment, adopted at Stockholm on 16 June 1972,

Realizing 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,

Recognizing, however, that military or any other hostile use of such techniques could have effects extremely harmful to human welfare,

Desiring to prohibit effectively military or any other hostile use of environmental modification techniques in order to eliminate the dangers to mankind from such use, and affirming their willingness to work towards the achievement of this objective,

Desiring also to contribute to the strengthening of trust among nations and to the further improvement of the international situation in accordance with the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations,

Have agreed as follows:

Article I

1. 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.

2. Each State Party to this Convention undertakes not to assist, encourage or induce any State, group of States or international organization to engage in activities contrary to the provisions of paragraph 1 of this article.

Article II

As used in article 1, the term “environmental modification techniques” refers to any technique for changing – through the deliberate manipulation of natural processes – the dynamics, composition or structure of the Earth, including its biota, lithosphere, hydrosphere and atmosphere, or of outer space.

Article III

1. The provisions of this Convention shall not hinder the use of environmental modification techniques for peaceful purposes and shall be without prejudice to the generally recognized principles and applicable rules of international law concerning such use.

2. The States Parties to this Convention undertake to facilitate, and have the right to participate in, the fullest possible exchange of scientific and technological information on the use of environmental modification techniques for peaceful purposes. States Parties in a position to do so shall contribute, alone or together with other States or international organizations, to international economic and scientific co-operation in the preservation, improvement and peaceful utilization of the environment, with due consideration for the needs of the developing areas of the world.

Article IV

Each State Party to this Convention undertakes to take any measures it considers necessary in accordance with its constitutional processes to prohibit and prevent any activity in violation of the provisions of the Convention anywhere under its jurisdiction or control.

Article V

1. The States Parties to this Convention undertake to consult one another and to co-operate in solving any problems which may arise in relation to the objectives of, or in the application of the provisions of, the Convention. Consultation and co-operation pursuant to this article may also be undertaken through appropriate international procedures within the framework of the United Nations and in accordance with its Charter. These international procedures may include the services of appropriate international organizations, as well as of a Consultative Committee of Experts as provided for in paragraph 2 of this article.

2. For the purposes set forth in paragraph 1 of this article, the Depositary shall within one month of the receipt of a request from any State Party to this Convention, convene a Consultative Committee of Experts. Any State Party may appoint an expert to the Committee whose functions and rules of procedure are set out in the annex which constitutes an integral part of this Convention. The Committee shall transmit to the Depositary a summary of its findings of fact, incorporating all views and information presented to the Committee during its proceedings. The Depositary shall distribute the summary to all States Parties.

3. Any State Party to this Convention which has reason to believe that any other State Party is acting in breach of obligations deriving from the provisions of the Convention may lodge a complaint with the Security Council of the United Nations. Such a complaint should include all relevant information as well as all possible evidence supporting ItS validity.

4. Each State Party to this Convention undertakes to cooperate in carrying out any investigation which the Security Council may initiate, in accordance with the provisions of the Charter of the United Nations, on the basis of the complaint received by the Council. The Security Council shall inform the States Parties of the results of the investigation.

5. Each State Party to this Convention undertakes to provide or support assistance, in accordance with the provisions of the Charter of the United Nations, to any State Party which so requests, if the Security Council decides that such Party has been harmed or is likely to be harmed as a result of violation of the Convention.

Article VI

1. Any State Party to this Convention may propose amendments to the Convention. The text of any proposed amendment shall be submitted to the Depositary, who shall promptly circulate it to all States Parties.

2. An amendment shall enter into force for all States Parties to this Convention which have accepted it, upon the deposit with the Depositary of instruments of acceptance by a majority of States Parties. Thereafter it shall enter into force for any remaining State Party on the date of deposit of its instrument of acceptance.

Article VII

This Convention shall be of unlimited duration.

Article VIII

1. Five years after the entry into force of this Convention, a conference of the States Parties to the Convention shall be convened by the Depositary at Geneva, Switzerland. The conference shall review the operation of the Convention with a view to ensuring that its purposes and provisions are being realized, and shall in particular examine the effectiveness of the provisions of paragraph 1 of article I in eliminating the dangers of military or any other hostile use of environmental modification techniques.

2. At intervals of not less than five years thereafter, a majority of the States Parties to this Convention may obtain, by submitting a proposal to this effect to the Depositary, the convening of a conference with the same objectives.

3. If no conference has been convened pursuant to paragraph 2 of this article within ten years following the conclusion of a previous conference, the Depositary shall solicit the views of all States Parties to this Convention concerning the convening of such a conference. If one third or ten of the States Parties, whichever number is less, respond affirmatively, the Depositary shall take immediate steps to convene the conference.

Article IX

1. This Convention shall be open to all States for signature. Any State which does not sign the Convention before its entry into force in accordance with paragraph 3 of this article may accede to it at any time.

2. This Convention shall be subject to ratification by signatory States. Instruments of ratification or accession shall be deposited with the Secretary-General of the United Nations.

3. This Convention shall enter into force upon the deposit of instruments of ratification by twenty Governments in accordance with paragraph 2 of this article.

4. For those States whose instruments of ratification or accession are deposited after the entry into force of this Convention, it shall enter into force on the date of the deposit of their instruments of ratification or accession.

5. The Depositary shall promptly inform all signatory and acceding States of the date of each signature, the date of deposit of each instrument of ratification or accession and the date of the entry into force of this Convention and of any amendments thereto, as well as of the receipt of other notices.

6. This Convention shall be registered by the Depositary in accordance with Article 102 of the Charter of the United Nations.

Article X

This Convention, of which the Arabic, Chinese, English, French, Russian and Spanish texts are equally authentic, shall be deposited with the Secretary-General of the United Nations, who shall send duly certified copies thereof to the Governments of the signatory and acceding States.

In witness whereof, the undersigned, being duly authorized thereto, have signed this Convention

Done at Geneva, on the 18 day of May 1977.

Annex to the Convention

Consultative Committee of Experts

1. The Consultative Committee of Experts shall undertake to make appropriate findings of fact and provide expert views relevant to any problem raised pursuant to paragraph 1 of article V of this Convention by the State Party requesting the convening of the Committee.

2. The work of the Consultative Committee of Experts shall be organized in such a way as to permit it to perform the functions set forth in paragraph 1 of this annex. The Committee shall decide procedural questions relative to the organization of its work, where possible by consensus, but otherwise by a majority of those present and voting. There shall be no voting on matters of substance.

3. The Depositary or his representative shall serve as the Chairman of the Committee.

4. Each expert may be assisted at meetings by one or more advisers.

5. Each expert shall have the right, through the Chairman, to request from States, and from international organizations, such information and assistance as the expert considers desirable for the accomplishment of the Committee’s work.

Home | Sustainable Development | Education | Water | Culture of Peace | Human Rights | Keywords | Search

UN Documents: Gathering a Body of Global Agreements 

has been compiled by the NGO Committee on Education of the 

Conference of NGOs from United Nations web sites 

and made possible through freely available information & communications technology.

http://www.un-documents.net/enmod.htm