Maori Activist Calls For More Transparency From Government Regarding Aerosol Spraying Operations

catherine

Activist, Catherine Murupaenga-Ikenn

Like many people around the world in recent years, Māori activist and lawyer, Catherine Murupaenga-Ikenn of Ahipara, Northland has become increasingly concerned at seeing lingering aerosol trails transforming her formerly unpolluted skies.

A passionate speaker on indigenous rights at international forums, she is a strong believer in people power and would like to see a citizen-based initiative where “sufficient compelling data is collected” on aerosol spraying operations and used to lobby the New Zealand Government to instigate a transparent and robust inquiry into these activities.

She writes here about what led her to the realization that geoengineering in all of its forms was unregulated in New Zealand and illustrates why government needs to be more transparent around this issue.

By Catherine Murupaenga-Ikenn

Catherine atun

Catherine Murupaenga-Ikenn speaking at the UN

 I decided to make inquiries about “geoengineering” to the Environmental Protection Authority, (EPA) and the Ministry for the Environment, (MfE), in early-2016 after becoming aware of evidence of atmospheric aerosol spraying operations.  These inquiries led me to the disturbing realization that this activity, and other forms of “geoengineering”  were not being regulated by government.

chemtrail Catherine

In the sky near my home in Ahipara, Northland. March 31, 2014. It motivated me to ask a meteorologist if this was a natural phenomenon.  It is not.

It began on the 29th of February, 2016 with a question to the EPA: “Could someone advise if it’s the EPA that is the monitoring body for geoengineering activities in Aotearoa, or if not who is?  I looked on the EPA’s website, but couldn’t seem to find anything on the matter.”

I received several replies from a number of different officials within the EPA.  The initial front-line staff,  including the EPA’s Māori perspective arm, Kaupapa Kura Taiao, dealt  with my query professionally and offered a response of some use.  However, the reply from the Policy and Legal team was dismissive, ridiculing and left me with the impression that the EPA wanted to shut this conversation down, which I found most disturbing.  Was I witnessing a deliberate attempt to suppress information?

Motivated by the EPA’s disappointing responses, I sent a more comprehensively-worded query to the MfE.  In contrast, the MfE’s handled my queries in a more respectful and helpful manner and showed a willingness and openness to discuss geoengineering matters, acknowledging it was more than just an “urban myth.”

However, MfE made statements which seemed to be at odds with reality, such as: “We are not aware of any credible evidence that aerosol geoengineering is occurring in New Zealand or anywhere else in the world” (my emphasis).  This begs a few questions which our campaign against this activity must address:

1.      What, scientifically or otherwise, constitutes “credible” evidence?;

2.      ‘Informal’/ ‘low level’ inquiries into different matters have been instigated upon a prima facie/ circumstantial evidence (e.g. public ‘tip-offs’ to police regarding criminal activity or Ministry for Primary Industries regarding fisheries offenses).  It is only after such an inquiry has begun that the real ‘smoking gun’ “credible” evidence (if any) is officially exposed.  Should MfE be lobbied to instigate a ‘low level’ inquiry on circumstantial grounds (and what would be the required evidence threshold to justify that level of inquiry)?; and

3.      Credible scientific evidence aside (because that may be quite a high MfE threshold to meet at this stage), how can MfE be ignorant of the other evidence that geoengineering is happening elsewhere in the world?  E.g.:

a.      Companies that openly advertise their “cloud seeding” and other weather modification services, including declaring such activities that they’re already engaged with around the planet (e.g. see “Geoengineering Company Directory” at http://www.geoengineeringwatch.org/documents-2/);

b.      Media and other reports about countries’ current and long historical use of geoengineering technology, (e.g. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/01/world/asia/01rain.html?_r=0); and

c.      Morphed Integrated Microwave Imagery of Total Precipitable Water (e.g. at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7RGLVkMVCeY&feature=youtu.be).

We’ll see what future lines of inquiry dig up.

(Editor’s note:   Aerosol operations are referred to on US government websites. More here.)

First, here are the emails I sent to the EPA and the EPA’s replies:

From: Catherine Murupaenga-Ikenn
Sent: Monday, 29 February 2016 2:35 p.m.
To: Hazardous Substances <Hazardous.Substances@epa.govt.nz>; Kaupapa Kura Taiao <Maori@epa.govt.nz>; Information Mailbox <Information.Mailbox@epa.govt.nz>
Subject: Geoengineering activity?

 

Kia ora,

Could someone advise if it’s the EPA that is the monitoring body for geoengineering activities in Aotearoa, or if not who is?  I looked on the EPA’s website, but couldn’t seem to find anything on the matter.

Ngā mihi,

Catherine Murupaenga-Ikenn

 

#1 Information.Mailbox@epa.govt.nz

From: Information Mailbox [mailto:Information.Mailbox@epa.govt.nz]
Sent: Monday, 29 February 2016 2:58 p.m.
To: Catherine Murupaenga-Ikenn
Subject: RE: Geoengineering activity?

Hi Catherine,

Thank you for your query, however unfortunately we cannot assist as its not something we do, probably your best bet would be to contact your local Regional Council .

cat2

From: Catherine
Sent: Monday, 29 February 2016 5:53 p.m.
To: ‘Kaupapa Kura Taiao’
Subject: RE: Geoengineering activity?

Kia ora Jennie, appreciate the help very much. Many people are becoming increasingly more rattled by geoengineering, but we can’t identify what the regulatory regime is and which agency holds responsibility for monitoring and enforcement.  Hence my other email to the EPA info mainline which drills down into the subject.  You might also have a view on that aspect.  I’ve attached an intervention I made at the UN last year on this subject just so you have some insight into where I (and others) are coming from, and the issues we’d like to see addressed.

Ngā mihi,

Catherine

 

From: Kaupapa Kura Taiao [mailto:Maori@epa.govt.nz]
Sent: Monday, 29 February 2016 3:29 p.m.
To: Catherine Murupaenga-Ikenn
Subject: RE: Geoengineering activity?

Kia ora Catherine

I believe that this would be taken care of at GNS.  I’ve spoken to a couple of colleagues here and they are of the same opinion.  I believe that Bevan Hunter is now at GNS who you may recall being in this team.  He maybe able to assist.  I’ve attached the link to their website http://www.gns.cri.nz/Home/Contact-Us.  I hope this helps.

Nga mihi

Jennie

From Policy and Legal, EPA:

From: Frances Duignan [mailto:Frances.Duignan@epa.govt.nz]
Sent: Wednesday, 2 March 2016 9:40 a.m.
To: Catherine Murupaenga-Ikenn
Subject: RE: Enquiry – 29th February 2016 REF:0660018

Good morning Catherine

The EPA does not, and has never, acknowledged any existence of geoengineering in New Zealand. After consulting both staff members you were in communication with, I know that neither of them were aware of the urban myth of which you referred.

To reiterate, the EPA’s official position, and unofficial position, is that the “high altitude aerosol spraying from aircraft” also known as “chemtrails” or “geoengineering” in New Zealand does not exist.

We have no further information on this issue. Further correspondence will not be fruitful.

Regards
Frances

Frances Duignan

Advisor, Strategy and Risk

Policy and Legal

Environmental Protection Authority · Level 10 · 215 Lambton Quay · Private Bag 63002 · Wellington 6140 · New Zealand · Tel +64 4 916 2426 · Fax +64 4 914 0433 · DDI +64 4 474 5482 · www.epa.govt.nz

From: Catherine
Sent: Wednesday, 2 March 2016 3:24 p.m.
To: ‘Frances Duignan’  Cc: ‘Jennie Smeaton’; ‘Kaupapa Kura Taiao’
Subject: RE: Enquiry – 29th February 2016 REF:0660018 – Geoengineering

Kia ora Frances,

Firstly, may I suggest you might possibly be erroneously conflating geoengineering and “high altitude aerosol spraying from aircraft”, when in fact the latter activity is a separate internationally-recognized subset of the former. Others include land and/or ocean-based geoengineering “including several that could be used in waters south of New Zealand” (ref Royal Society of New Zealand: see para 1.b. below).  If you’d done even basic research into the subject, you’d know this.  The fact that you’re unaware of so significant a distinction in itself begs the questions “What else might the EPA have gotten wrong? Might it be time for the EPA to update its understanding of geoengineering issues?”

Secondly, I think it’s more helpful (fruitful) to suspend the temptation to demonize an idea, especially a controversial one (ref your comment “urban myth”). Rather one should examine an idea robustly with an open mind first before forming immovable positions.  Otherwise, one might go the way of those who demonized ideas such as “women deserve the right to vote”, “smoking kills”, “the Earth is flat”, and “average global temperatures are dangerously increasing due in large part to human activity” (A.K.A. climate crisis).

Thirdly, simply repeating an opinion – in the absence of producing any persuasive basis for that opinion – doesn’t make that opinion any more true.  This is especially the case where:

1.      Irrefutable evidence to the contrary has in fact been produced, i.e. declassified Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade documents and mainstream media reports that geoengineering in New Zealand has in fact already occurred: ref for example “Tsunami bomb NZ’s devastating war secret” (Jun 30, 2000) at http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=14727; and

2.      The body of circumstantial evidence to the contrary is growing: e.g.:

a.      New Zealand has been, and is joining the international community by becoming more, actively involved in geoengineering dialogues: e.g.

i.     “In 2006, a New Zealand-led group of scientists published a paper arguing that any attempt to remediate radiation could lead to worldwide blackouts of high-frequency radio waves, disrupting communications and navigation.” At http://www.nature.com/news/2008/080423/full/452930a.html;

ii.     In 2011, the Royal Society of New Zealand hosted a geoengineering conference, including NIWA scientists, raising the concern (which we share) that: “there are no national or international policies controlling these [geoengineering] activities.” At http://www.royalsociety.org.nz/2011/03/08/implications-of-geoengineering-schemes-for-nz/.

iii.      In 2013, the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment recognized the role of geoengineering in regards to “sustaining New Zealand’s environment, economy and society in a world with a changing climate”, saying that the Government should:

§  “Conduct research to better understand the potential consequences of geoengineering (the intentional modification of the global climate system) for the New Zealand environment and agricultural productivity, and to underpin New Zealand’s international policy position on geoengineering.” See “National Science Challenges: Potential Challenges for Consideration by Peak Panel” Full report downloadable from: http://www.msi.govt.nz/assets/MSI/Update-me/National-science-challenges/key-documents/Potential-challenges-peak-panel-Sustaining-environment-dealing-with-changing-environment.pdf

b.      Increasing numbers of citizens’ sightings of phenomena in our New Zealand skies consistent with sighting of phenomena in other countries like the United Kingdom and the USA where geoengineering (including “high altitude aerosol spraying from aircraft”) has been definitely proven to have occurred or is still occurring.

Is the EPA really willing to label all the experts (and others) as people who believe in an “urban myth” of geoengineering – whether currently undertaken, or proposed for the future – in New Zealand? Especially in a political environment of increasing citizen mistrust in our elected parliamentary representatives to tell us the truth?

Rather, and as taxpaying citizens concerned to protect our human and environmental health in Aotearoa, we’d expect the EPA to show a little more interest (given the EPA’s human health and environmental mandate) or at least do us the courtesy of not simply shrugging our concerns off so dismissively.

So, may I ask again whether the EPA has investigated geoengineering in an open, transparent, robust way – in particular, in a way which justifies:

1.      Its opinion that ““high altitude aerosol spraying from aircraft” also known as “chemtrails” or “geoengineering” in New Zealand does not exist”?; and/or

2.      Its opinion that any geoengineering in New Zealand does not exist?; and

3.      Dismissing, in such an unhelpful manner, citizens’ concerns about the lack of an effective regulatory regime in Aotearoa?

As a member of two WAI 262 iwi, and having spent years dealing with such matters at the United Nations (sometimes on their behalf), I assure you: I am sincere with my concerns.

Ngā mihi,

Catherine

 

From: Frances Duignan [mailto:Frances.Duignan@epa.govt.nz]
Sent: Tuesday, 1 March 2016 4:00 p.m.
To: catherinedavis@hotmail.co.nz
Subject: Enquiry – 29th February 2016 REF:0660018

 Good afternoon Catherine

Thank you for contacting a number of EPA staff members regarding “geoengineering activities”. I thought it would be best to get in touch with you directly in order to provide a response to your enquiry on behalf of the organisation as a whole.

The EPA’s official position is that the “high altitude aerosol spraying from aircraft” also known as “chemtrails” or “geoengineering” in New Zealand does not exist.

Trails observed in the sky from aircraft come from water vapour condensing in jet engines. The EPA has no credible evidence to suggest otherwise.

I do hope this clarifies things for you and that this information is helpful.

Have a great day and we look forward to seeing you again at the next Te Herenga hui.

Kind regards

Frances

Frances Duignan

Advisor, Strategy and Risk

Policy and Legal

Environmental Protection Authority · Level 10 · 215 Lambton Quay · Private Bag 63002 · Wellington 6140 · New Zealand · Tel +64 4 916 2426 · Fax +64 4 914 0433 · DDI +64 4 474 5482 · www.epa.govt.nz

From: Catherine Murupaenga-Ikenn
Sent: Tuesday, 1 March 2016 4:36 p.m.
To: Frances Duignan <Frances.Duignan@epa.govt.nz>
Subject: RE: Enquiry – 29th February 2016 REF:0660018

Thanks for your reply Frances,

I took from the EPA’s preliminary replies that the EPA acknowledged the existence of geoengineering in New Zealand (otherwise, why would your staff have suggested I make enquiries with GNS and local authorities about something that didn’t exist?  Likewise, with GNS who suggested geoengineering is within councils’ jurisdiction).  So just to understand clearly, are you saying:

1.       The EPA has an “unofficial” position?  And if so what is that position?; and

2.       The EPA believes:

a.     All forms of geoengineering don’t exist in New Zealand (including high altitude aerosol spraying); or

b.    All forms of geoengineering don’t exist at all anywhere in the world (including high altitude aerosol spraying); or

c.     Only high altitude aerosol spraying doesn’t exist in New Zealand (but other forms of geoengineering may); or

d.    Only high altitude aerosol spraying doesn’t exist in the world (but other forms of geoengineering do)?

Regarding whether something exists, I think you’d agree that an absence of “credible evidence” would only be decisive if one had undergone an open, transparent, robust investigation into the matter that enabled evidence from all perspectives to be safely presented and critically analysed. Has the EPA conducted such an investigation, and if so may I please obtain a copy of the EPA’s report, findings and recommendations?

Ngā mihi,

Catherine

 

        From: Hazardous Substances <Hazardous.Substances@epa.govt.nz>

To: “catherinedavis
Date: Tue, 1 Mar 2016 02:50:47 +0000
Subject: Re: Geoengineering activity?

Good Afternoon

Thanks for your enquiry to the EPA.

We have received you enquiry and have forwarded your questions to our head office team.

Each e-mail should be replied to within 48 – 72 hours, and preferably within the same working day.

Kind regards,

Cilla Scholes
Client Service Advisor, Hazardous Substances Contact Centre
Environmental Protection Authority • www.epa.govt.nz


From: Catherine Murupaenga-Ikenn
Sent: Monday, 29 February 2016 5:46 p.m.
To: Information Mailbox
Cc: Kaupapa Kura Taiao; Hazardous Substances
Subject: FW: Geoengineering activity?

Thanks for the response.

So the EPA acknowledges geoengineering is occurring in New Zealand?  If so, could you please further advise:

1.      If the EPA “manages the decision making process for proposals of national significance under the Resource Management Act 1991” (including applications for resource consent – see http://www.epa.govt.nz/Resource-management/about-rm/Pages/default.aspx), are you saying geoengineering has no, or would never have any, national significance?; and

2.      Does the EPA believe geoengineering activities (such as solar radiation management or stratospheric aerosol spraying) routinely involve the use of chemical components (like aluminium, sulfuric acid or other) which are hazardous substances as defined by the HSNO Act?  And:

a.      If so, why is do such activities fall outside the EPA’s jurisdiction; or

b.      If not, why not?

Ngā mihi,

       Catherine

(Editor’s note:  While many activists refer to atmospheric aerosol spraying operations using the politically correct term ‘solar radiation management,’ which suggests there is evidence to show aerosol trails are being used to  counteract so-called “anthropogenic climate change,”  this is not supported by the evidence, which shows they function as an “exotic weapon” as defined in HR-2977.   Please refer: A Clash of Evidence:  The Realities of Solar Radiation Management (SRM) ).

Below are my emails and those received in reply from the Ministry for the Environment:

From: Catherine Murupaenga-Ikenn
Sent: Tuesday, 1 March 2016 12:34 p.m.
To: Info at MfE
Subject: Regulation of Geoengineering activity

Tēnā koe,

I’m looking please for which agency is responsible for regulating geoengineering activity in New Zealand.

The use of geoengineering in one form or another over the decades has been documented, including in New Zealand.  See for example:

§  “Tsunami bomb NZ’s devastating war secret,” (30 June, 2000) http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=14727; and

§  http://www.tgdaily.com/hardware-brief/68475-did-the-us-and-new-zealand-test-secret-tsunami-bomb, (3 January 2013) which connects the tsunami bomb experiment to “High Frequency Active Auroral Research Program” or HAARP activity.

Geoengineering is receiving increasing attention now as a proposed basket of responses to the challenge of climate crisis mitigation/adaptation, for example, as most recently openly discussed (and hotly debated) at the COP21 climate change conference, Paris, 2015.

By email of 29 February, the Environmental Protection Authority advised that geoengineering is “not something we do, probably your best bet would be to contact your local Regional Council.”   They also suggested I enquire with GNS, which I did. Today, GNS replied by email also confirming their view that Councils held regulatory responsibility. I’m awaiting an EPA reply to my supplementary query as follows:

“So the EPA acknowledges geoengineering is occurring in New Zealand?  If so, could you please further advise:

1.      If the EPA “manages the decision making process for proposals of national significance under the Resource Management Act 1991” (including applications for resource consent – see http://www.epa.govt.nz/Resource-management/about-rm/Pages/default.aspx), are you saying geoengineering has no, or would never have any, national significance?; and

2.      Does the EPA believe geoengineering activities (such as solar radiation management or stratospheric aerosol spraying) routinely involve the use of chemical components (like aluminium, sulphuric acid or other) which are hazardous substances as defined by the HSNO Act?  And:

a.      If so, why is do such activities fall outside the EPA’s jurisdiction; or

b.      If not, why not?”

I would appreciate if MfE could advise what its view is re my supplementary query to the EPA above.  Interestingly, I note that MfE’s website lists Sulphur dioxide as an air pollutant for which there are management standards and guidelines (when combined with water, sulphur dioxide forms sulphuric acid which is apparently used for stratospheric aerosol spraying: see http://www.mfe.govt.nz/air/specific-air-pollutants/sulphur-dioxide).

However, geoengineering has widespread implications, including the prospects for human and environmental harm (and therefore creates potential legal liability uncertainty).  Therefore, I imagine that much like for sulphur dioxide and for GMOs (to which geoengineering has been likened to: “Another way to think of [geoengineering] is as a meteorological equivalent of the highly controversial Genetically Modified Organisms technology.”), there is some high level policy guidance and monitoring oversight to help either the EPA and/or Councils to make informed regulatory decisions.  Therefore, as “the Government’s principal adviser on the environment in New Zealand and on international environmental matters” (geoengineering certainly falling under both categories), could MfE also confirm which Government agency is responsible for, or what mechanism produces, monitors and enforces, the overarching geoengineering high level policy and regulatory rules?  In other words, if MfE is ultimately responsible, what, specific to geoengineering, has MfE provided by way of (see http://www.mfe.govt.nz/more/about-us/about-ministry):

§  “environmental management systems, including laws, regulations and national environmental standards

§  national direction through national policy statements and strategies

§  guidance and training on best practice

§  information about the health of the environment.”

Ngā mihi,

Catherine Murupaenga-Ikenn

Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/catherine.davis.520

From: Info at MfE [mailto:InfoatMfE@mfe.govt.nz]
Sent: Tuesday, 15 March 2016 1:22 p.m.
To: Catherine Murupaenga-Ikenn
Subject: RE: Regulation of Geoengineering activity

Dear Catherine Murupaenga-Ikenn

Thank you for your email of 1 March 2016 regarding the regulation of geoengineering activity.

You are correct that geoengineering, or the deliberate large-scale intervention in the Earth’s natural systems to counteract climate change, has been discussed in the scientific community as a possible method of counteracting climate change.

There are a wide range of proposed geoengineering techniques, which can be grouped into two categories: solar radiation management and carbon dioxide removal.  Solar radiation management aims to reduce the absorption of solar radiation by increasing the earth’s reflectivity, while the aim of carbon dioxide removal is to remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. 

Most of the proposed techniques would need further (and often substantial) developments before reaching an operational stage. There are also a significant number of potential consequences that would need to be considered before any proposed geoengineering technique could be implemented.

For example, once geoengineering methods have started they are likely to be difficult to stop due to commercial and employment interests.  There are also ethical issues to consider, as many people do not think we have the right to intentionally modify the climate.

As you point out, another significant problem for geoengineering is the issue of regulation – who will decide when and what geoengineering methods to carry out.

Despite the lack of certainty and knowledge around geoengineering and its impacts, the negative impacts appear to outweigh any potential usefulness of most geoengineering methods. Many of the impacts would be difficult or even impossible to undo.

Therefore, there is currently no justification to choose geoengineering over conventional mitigation as a preferred approach to address climate change.

The Ministry for the Environment has no official position on geoengineering at this stage, and New Zealand is not involved in any programme of geoengineering or atmospheric aerosol solar radiation management.

Kind regards

Info at MfE

Ministry for the Environment – Manatu Mo Te Taiao
Website: www.mfe.govt.nz           
23 Kate Sheppard Place, PO Box 10362, Wellington 6143
cid:image001.png@01CB3A08.8CB0D6A0

From: Catherine Murupaenga-Ikenn [mailto:catherinedavis@hotmail.co.nz]
Sent: Tuesday, 15 March 2016 1:40 p.m.
To: Info at MfE
Subject: RE: Regulation of Geoengineering activity

Kia ora “Info at MfE”,

Thank you for treating my query in a respectful, professional manner (you might be surprised to know that just the mention of “geoengineering” in NZ conversation can elicit resistance and ridicule from some people). I am particularly encouraged to hear MfE’s opinion that “there is currently no justification to choose geoengineering over conventional mitigation as a preferred approach to address climate change.”

Two further quick clarifying questions: with no specific monitoring ‘net’ in place:

1.      What is the mechanism/s by which MfE can determine with certainty that “New Zealand is not involved in any programme of geoengineering or atmospheric aerosol solar radiation management”; and

2.      Is there any risk that even though New Zealand isn’t currently involved, the activity might yet happen (or be happening) in New Zealand involving other third parties?

Ngā mihi,

Catherine

From: Info at MfE [mailto:InfoatMfE@mfe.govt.nz]
Sent: Wednesday, 23 March 2016 8:44 a.m.
To: Catherine Murupaenga-Ikenn
Subject:  Regulation of Geoengineering activity

Dear Catherine

Thank you for your email of 15 March 2016.

The Climate Change Analysis team here at the Ministry has the role of key evidence supplier to the Minister for Climate Change Issues Paula Bennett.  We are not aware of any credible evidence that aerosol geoengineering is occurring in New Zealand or anywhere else in the world. We are aware that some people believe that aerosol spraying is occurring, but expert consideration of these claims finds that the observations can be explained by vapour trails from aircraft or natural processes of cloud formation.

 Both the Ministry for the Environment and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade stay informed on global developments in geoengineering research and policy. Marine geoengineering, for example, is already forbidden under the London Convention of the International Maritime Organisation. Geoengineering research and possible governance is also discussed in other international forums such as the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD). You can access the IPCC’s report of an expert meeting on geoengineering at the following link: www.ipcc.ch/pdf/supporting-material/EM_GeoE_Meeting_Report_final.pdf

There have also been research programmes in other countries to investigate the governance and implications of possible geoengineering, for example:

•           The UK “Integrated Assessment of Geoengineering Proposals” project: iagp.ac.uk/. The four briefing notes on that website are a good summary of the state of discussion on geoengineering

•           The US National Academies produced two reports on climate intervention (nas-sites.org/americasclimatechoices/other-reports-on-climate-change/2015-2/climate-intervention-reports/).

Nowhere in this work does it appear that any operational geoengineering is occurring. Indeed, the prevailing opinion is that it would be a bad idea, and that reducing emissions of greenhouse gases is the best approach to mitigating climate change.  The Ministry’s work program is prioritised on a balance of risk and probability, and on that basis geoengineering is not something we are currently working on, given the low probability of geoengineering activity taking place.

The Ministry for the Environment is also responsible for monitoring the state of New Zealand’s environment across the air, atmosphere and climate, fresh water, land, and marine domains.  There is no indication of geoengineering activity in New Zealand in the various environmental parameters monitored.  ‘Environment Aotearoa 2015’ is our latest publication summarising the state of the New Zealand environment, and if you are interested you can access it at the following link: www.mfe.govt.nz/publications/environmental-reporting/environment-aotearoa-2015.

Kind regards

Info at MfE

Ministry for the Environment – Manatu Mo Te Taiao
Website: www.mfe.govt.nz           
23 Kate Sheppard Place, PO Box 10362, Wellington 6143
cid:image001.png@01CB3A08.8CB0D6A0

End.

This entry was posted in Activism, Poisoning Environment, Politics, Weather Modification. Bookmark the permalink.

13 Responses to Maori Activist Calls For More Transparency From Government Regarding Aerosol Spraying Operations

  1. Pingback: Maori Activist Calls For More Transparency From Government Regarding Aerosol Spraying Operations — NORTHLAND NEW ZEALAND CHEMTRAILS WATCH | Lissa's Humane Life

  2. Nigel Gray says:

    Definitely needs to be more transparency!

  3. South Canterbury Sky Watch says:

    Holy Heck, what a great article, with a head smacking headline.
    There is one saying i like and that is:
    “IF YOU’RE NOT PISSED OFF WITH THE WORLD, YOUR NOT PAYING ATTENTION!!”
    So many, sooooo many just sit back and do nothing. They are quick to jump up and down when they stub their toe on a piece of pavement, quick to follow other sheep on bagging something, without even looking into the topic for themselves.. good example is fluoride and now in the last few years, chemtrails.
    Just released yesterday is Ken O`Keefe. If you don’t know this bloke, take a listen, very, very up with a lot of what is going on and is definitely not scared to open his mouth.
    Must say, there is SOME HEAVY LANGUAGE, so if your ears are a little delicate, toughen up and listen, listen to what he is saying. This bloke is trying to open up the eyes of the sleepy. Listen around 2min44sec.

  4. Ian Mitchell says:

    We need more people like this fantastic young woman, who is prepared to stick her neck out and is prepared not to give up on what she believes in. Good on you, keep up the fight, because the truth is worth fighting for.

  5. Mischele says:

    I concur with Ian Mitchell. Keep up the excellent work Catherine (and also to Clare for getting the word out there with your website ! ) The TRUTH shall prevail….

  6. Jen says:

    good on you Catherine This is what we need to be concentrating on.. think they institute the internal bickering issues and media garbage to distract us from the important issues

  7. Hunanga Hohaia says:

    “Pie in the sky” eh Catherine

  8. Marian Sutherland says:

    To stereotype and label the opposition is a strategy in psych-war, and using words such as ” urban myth ” is meant to sent a message to others that Catherine and all those people who are concerned about this crime are ” not the full quid.”
    It’s very encouraging to me to see that Catherine is not allowing herself to be manipulated, marginalized, or flustered. What an inspirational and encouraging example of how we must be resolute and wise and to keep our eyes on the ball when aiming at bringing the ” authorities ” to account. Thankyou Catherine, and thankyou Clare for all your work providing your website, with excellent articles such as this to keep us all informed.

  9. Sarah says:

    Thank you to the people who care. We are on the map in this video. The Truth about Chemtrails – YouTube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AJBsynJW1W0

  10. Angus Lamond says:

    Use different terminology – just refer to undeniable ‘cumulative jet aircraft multiple chemical constituent waste pollution discharged into and across the troposphere disfiguring our skies, diminishing our sunlight and altering our weather’.
    Ask them what they are proposing to do about cleaning up our skies and restoring them to natural normality.

    • Talking of multiple chemical constituent Angus, one element you do not hear much about in relation to aerosol trails is cadmium. It was used in the UK by the Ministry of Defence over millions over a number of years (to cull the population) in the form of zinc cadmium sulfide from planes between 1955 and 1963. Cadmium was known to be harmful to human health and some of those who lived in areas that were heavily sprayed have attributed their development of cancers to this spraying.
      It was present in the rainwater in Brisbane in 2012. https://chemtrailsnorthnz.wordpress.com/2012/10/21/aluminium-strontium-barium-in-brisbane-rainwater/

      • South Canterbury Sky Watch says:

        Yes Clare, that analysis which I organized showed that a few toxic nasties were present and looking at other rain tests that have been done around the globe, it makes me wonder why so many have all seemed to concentrate of the 3… Aluminum, Barium and Strontium.
        Even now in the States, we are hearing of Fluoride being found, dropping from the sky.
        Here is a video I did of this rain collection when I was in Brisbane.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s