Governments and corporations are modifying the weather. The oversight agency hasn't done its job in 50 years. Solar geoengineering is expanding with no governance framework. The public was never consulted.
In 2025, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) released a report finding that NOAA — the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration — has failed its statutory responsibility to oversee weather modification for over 50 years.
Meanwhile, the UK announced a GBP 50 million solar geoengineering research program. Australia is deploying Marine Cloud Brightening over the Great Barrier Reef. Florida banned certain weather modification activities. And the public had no meaningful input on any of it.
The GAO Report
What NOAA Was Supposed to Do:
Maintain a registry of weather modification activities
Collect reports from operators conducting weather modification
Provide oversight and transparency for atmospheric interventions
Report to Congress on weather modification trends
What NOAA Actually Did:
Collected reports that were often incomplete or inaccurate
Failed to verify the data it received
Over half of weather modification reports contained errors
Provided minimal oversight or enforcement
The GAO Findings:
NOAA's weather modification registry is unreliable
Reporting requirements are not enforced
The agency lacks resources for proper oversight
The statutory mandate has been effectively ignored for decades
The GAO found that the agency responsible for oversight has been effectively ignoring its mandate for decades.
Weather Modification: It's Already Happening
Most people don't realize weather modification is routine:
Current Activities:
Cloud seeding: Silver iodide dispersed into clouds to increase precipitation
Hail suppression: Preventing damaging hailstorms through cloud modification
Fog clearing: Dispersing fog at airports and military bases
Snowpack enhancement: Increasing mountain snowfall for water supply
Scale of Operations:
Hundreds of weather modification programs active in the US
Dozens of countries conduct weather modification
Multi-billion dollar industry globally
Most operations occur without public knowledge
The Oversight Gap:
State regulations vary wildly
Federal oversight is essentially nonexistent
International coordination is minimal
Public awareness is near zero
Solar Geoengineering: The Next Frontier
While cloud seeding is old news, solar geoengineering is the new frontier:
What It Is:
Deliberately modifying Earth's reflectivity to reduce warming
Injecting aerosols into the stratosphere to block sunlight
Marine cloud brightening to increase cloud reflectivity
Space-based reflectors (theoretical)
Who's Doing It:
UK: GBP 50 million research program announced
Australia: Marine Cloud Brightening over Great Barrier Reef
United States: Various university and private research programs
China: Significant investment in weather modification research
The Risks:
Could alter global precipitation patterns
Might damage the ozone layer
Could create geopolitical conflicts over weather
"Termination shock" if systems are suddenly stopped
Unknown unknowns in complex atmospheric systems
The Governance Problem:
No international treaty governs geoengineering
No consensus on acceptable risk levels
No mechanism for affected nations to consent
No liability framework for unintended consequences
The Florida Precedent
Florida has taken a controversial step:
What Florida Did:
Banned certain weather modification activities
Responded to public concerns about "chemtrails"
Created regulatory framework for atmospheric interventions
Established penalties for unauthorized weather modification
The Controversy:
Critics say it legitimizes conspiracy theories
Supporters say it addresses legitimate oversight gaps
The law may be overly broad or too narrow
Other states are watching the implementation
The Broader Question:
Should states regulate what's essentially a global issue?
Can local laws address atmospheric interventions?
How do we balance innovation with precaution?
Who has the right to modify shared atmospheric resources?
The Consent Vacuum
Here's where this connects to our mission: there was no public input:
Who Wasn't Consulted:
The public, who lives under modified weather
Downwind communities affected by cloud seeding
Agricultural regions dependent on natural precipitation
Future generations who inherit the atmospheric consequences
The Democratic Deficit:
No public debate before weather modification programs began
No consent from affected populations
No transparency about ongoing operations
No accountability for unintended consequences
The Precedent:
Weather modification has been happening for decades
The public was never meaningfully informed
Consent was never sought or given
The practice became normalized through secrecy
The Corporate Angle
Weather modification isn't just government activity:
Private Weather Modification:
Companies offer cloud seeding services
Agricultural interests pay for precipitation enhancement
Ski resorts modify snowfall
Water utilities increase reservoir levels
The Profit Motive:
Weather modification is a service you can buy
Companies profit from atmospheric intervention
Liability for side effects is often limited
The commons (atmosphere) is treated as a commodity
The Ethical Questions:
Should anyone be able to buy weather?
Who owns the clouds?
What happens when one person's rain is another person's drought?
How do we value atmospheric integrity?
The International Dimension
Weather doesn't respect borders:
Geopolitical Risks:
Country A's cloud seeding could reduce Country B's rainfall
Solar geoengineering could alter monsoon patterns
Military applications of weather modification are conceivable
The 1978 Environmental Modification Convention is outdated
The Governance Gap:
No international body oversees geoengineering
The UN Framework Convention on Climate Change doesn't address it
Bilateral agreements are rare and limited
The technology is advancing faster than governance
The Equity Problem:
Rich nations can afford weather modification
Poor nations bear the consequences
The global South has little voice in decisions
Climate justice requires atmospheric justice
What We Recommend
Demand Transparency:
Ask your representatives about weather modification oversight
Request information about local cloud seeding programs
Support organizations advocating for atmospheric transparency
Push for public registries of all weather modification activities
Support Governance:
Advocate for international geoengineering treaties
Support the precautionary principle for atmospheric interventions
Demand consent mechanisms for affected communities
Push for liability frameworks for unintended consequences
Stay Informed:
Follow developments in solar geoengineering research
Understand the difference between conspiracy theories and legitimate concerns
Read the GAO report on weather modification oversight
Engage with the scientific community on atmospheric issues
Take Action:
Contact your representatives about geoengineering governance
Support organizations working on atmospheric commons issues
Participate in public comment periods for weather modification regulations
Demand that your consent be sought before your sky is modified
The Price
Governments, corporations, and research institutions are modifying the atmosphere without public consent. The oversight agency hasn't done its job in 50 years. There's no international governance framework. The public was never consulted.
The atmosphere is a shared resource. The decision to modify it should involve the people who breathe it. Instead, those decisions are being made in boardrooms, government agencies, and research labs without public knowledge or consent.
They didn't ask if they could modify the sky. The modifications began regardless.
You cannot opt out of the atmosphere. Whatever is released into it, you breathe. Choose your representatives accordingly.
—-
This article is part of our ongoing coverage of environmental crimes and government overreach. For more on environmental issues, see our investigation into PFAS forever chemicals and lead gasoline data suppression.