UK Sun-Dimming Research and David Keith on Geoengineering Risks

And this climate conversation has so many offshoots, and one of

them is what we reported on last week, the geoengineering

aspect of it. And so in the UK, the UK government is actually--

It made headlines last week, really just viral all over the place,

with this

headline, "Experiments to dim the sun will be

approved within weeks." And this

was approved by the Advanced Research and Invention Agency.

That is-- That was determined by Parliament. It

was created by Parliament.

It's kind of a research and development agency within the UK

government.

Mm-hmm.

It's interesting 'cause it sounds quite a bit like the Advanced Research Projects

Agency for Defense, DARPA, out of the United States.

It's very interesting the acronym goes along with that.

So that's happening in the UK. But here in the US, we

have Harvard. Harvard was kind of the main hub to really

run some of these programs or at least research these programs.

One of the key players there is a professor out of Harvard,

David Keith.

He caught The New York Times' eye with a c- with a handful of articles.

One of them was this, "This scientist, David Keith, has a risky plan to cool the

Earth. There's growing interest." That was in twenty twenty-four.

Bill Gates funded this venture, and it was called SCoPEx.

Um, s- basically, it's like Strato-stratospheric Controlled

Perturbation

Experiment. It's a big handful of words there,

but launched by Harvard,

funded by Bill Gates. And you can see here we have, um,

a l- over ten years ago, we have David Keith talking, kind of just

pontificating at a public event about geoengineering and the risks.

Take a listen.

Okay.

Can I have a leap in? This is a, a really important moral point.

So if I made a decision or if there was a collective decision to do a

geoengineering program, and you put, say, uh, the kind of

program I think makes more sense, we put about a million tons a year in,

but let's

say.

You might end up killing many tens of thousands of people a year as a direct

result

of that decision. I think that has moral consequences.

I don't sweep it under the rug. So this is a case where I take this much

differently from Alan and think it's a much more serious issue.

Now, it's true that as part of doing that, you would hope that the

overall benefits of human mortality would be so that you would save many, many more

people than that. But the fact that you, uh, would save more

people than you kill doesn't mean there's no moral impact of making a

decision that directly kills people.

And I think that we who talk about this have a duty to be clear-eyed

about the, the direct risks involved in doing it.

I don't-

So it-

Maybe that's more chilling than the new head of the WEF. I'm not sure.

Jeffrey, you're really... Y- you're making this a tough, uh,

coin toss today.

So this guy, you know, I'm, I'm being really honest with you.

We may have to kill tens of thousands of people every year in order to

do the proper climate science that we need to do.

You know, I think we have to think about that.

Of course, we'll move on, and we can definitely show through our own

shady

science that we've used throughout COVID and every other debacle we've ever

created that we're actually saving lives, just like the COVID vaccine has saved

lives. Forget about all the children dropping

with heart attacks on the football

field. Forget about the people that are dropping because the air

and whatever the

hell is in these lines in the sky that we're sucking down our, you know, uh,

into

our lungs. You know, forget about all of that.

Just look at the beauty.

Look at the fact that we're finally blocking the sun,

God's light, that we're

finally, you know, getting somewhere in cooling the Earth.

These people are absolutely nuts, and it'd be

hysterical if it was a South Park episode, but it happens to

be the world we live in.

And it's wonderful Keith is being transparent there

and speaking about that

publicly. It's also wonderful he's talking about the

moral aspect of this and

putting that on the, on the map. But what-- Like you said, what

if there's parts of

climate science that can't be modeled with our current modeling right now?

What if we don't understand how the sun works?

What if there's a lot of what-ifs here when he's talking about do the benefits

outweigh the risk, and the risk-

Right

... starts killing people, and if we green-light that, off they go.

That's a big conversation there. And so that venture

was shut down in twenty

twenty-four. So David Keith, Harvard's venture, completely dead.

David Keith's SCoPEx engineering program is dead.

That was March twenty twenty-four.

But this is a, a learning experience here because just

like Klaus Schwab, he's

out, Nestle guy in, and then we have, um, the

Harvard Bill Gates venture shuts down.

A year later, it pops up in the UK. This stuff is always going on.

It's more about the idea and the actions that are taking place.

There'll always be new heads that we have to focus on.

Yeah.

But it's not about the head. It's about what these actions

are moving forward.

And so here in the US, this is a big week.

We have our government now speaking like this.

My name is Emily, and, um, my biggest concern is the

stratospheric aerosol injections that are continuously

peppered on us every day. Um,

bromium, aluminum, strontium, it's sprayed in our

skies all day long.

That is, is not happening in my agency.

You know, we don't do that. It's, it's done, uh, we

think by DARPA,

and a lot of it now is coming out of the jet fuel.

Yes, sir.

So, you know, those materials are put in the jet fuel.

We--

I'm gonna do everything in my power to stop it.

We're bringing on somebody who's gonna think only about that,

find out who's doing it, and, and holding them accountable.

Wow.

Uh, fantastic. I mean, fantastic to be seeing government

officials finally taking

this seriously.

Yeah, and it goes beyond government officials

'cause arguably the way the United

States is set up, the states have even more power than the

federal government.

Mm-hmm.

So we, uh, we have Florida. Just this week, Florida makes history,

becoming the first state to criminalize geoengineering and weather

modification. So the law, the new law that is going to be signed,

is going to make it a felony crime to engage in this, uh,

geoengineering. Five years in prison, up to five years in prison,

hundred thousand

dollar fine. It passed the House in Florida by an

eighty-two to twenty-eight

vote.

Wow.

So this wasn't bipartisan right down the middle just by,

just by an inch. This was overwhelming, essentially.

There's thirty-four other states exploring this type of legislation, and this-

Thirty-four

... in Florida was, was mainly a grassroots push.

The people spoke up.

You know, that's always a big conversation

is how do we get them to change that up

there?

Yeah.

Well, the people are starting to do that.

They've, they've spoken from the Earth to change

the sky essentially.

So that's an important move and a grassroots move that's happening in

Florida.