Sample Term Paper On Chemtrails, Geoengineering, Climate Change: Conflicting Frames?

Type of paper: Term Paper

Topic: Climate, Climate Change, Environmental Issues, Military, Conspiracy, Discourse, Power, Dialogue

Pages: 10

Words: 2750

Published: 2020/09/09

The dramatic change in climate has been a staple on global agenda for decades. Since climate change prominence to public awareness in 1980's, a broad range of UN-led and international programs and summits have been in place in order to help stop worrying climate phenomena. Typical issues include, for example, rising temperatures and sea levels, glacial meltdowns, carbon emissions and crop damage. The case for climate change has gained further momentum as mixed groups of international anti-globalization and anti-capitalism, anti-establishment organizations formed and called for political, economic and social changes far surpassing climate change and environmental conservatism demands. Contexts of politically, economically and socially charged have, indeed, risen into international prominence within contexts of global climate discussions. Against a background so charged, chemtrails, geoengineering and climate change continue to raise increasing controversy. Indeed, much has been said and written as to what constitutes chemtrails, geoengineering and climate change. Each appears to acquire a context-specific meaning (Poumadère, Bertoldo, and Samadi, 2011; Caims and Stirling, 2014; Fleming, 2010; Leviton, 2007). Given expanding roles of states and non-state actors, globalization, rapidly changing economic realities as well as dramatic changes in a post-Cold War world, chemtrails, geoengineering and climate change have come in sharp focus and developed into much broader contexts. Their meanings – and hence interpretations – have changed quickly in a radically changing world. Yet, notable of all meanings are ones embedded in military, political, sustainability, scientific contexts. The collapse of Soviet Union, U.S. dominance of world politics, shifting concerns for environment against a background of increased awareness of climate changes as well as spreading health hazards due to climate changes – all have only re-configured global agenda permanently.
The military position, for example, assumes a manipulation war of climate based on routine aerial exercises to geoengineer climate for military purposes (Chossudovsky, 2014; Sarich, 2014; Red Bull Films) not to oppose a well-defined military pole but to ascertain world dominance by pursuing military goals in less defined warfare contours. This militarization of a once civil public debate is, in fact, a response to growing militarization in U.S. civil discourse, locally and abroad. Accordingly, chemtrails, geoengineering and climate change all have come to be discussed and interpreted in pure military terms as befits a society adopting militarization as public discourse of priority.
The political position, meanwhile, posits that energy policies are decided based on political basis (Poumadère, Bertoldo, and Samadi) and are hence far removed from scientific pursuits per se (Bronson, Shand, and Thomas, 2011) and are, moreover, decided in response to dominant capitalist ideology (Klein, 2014). The global agenda of chemtrails / geoengineering / climate change is set by a handful of powerful political actors dominating major world organizations. As such, global agendas of chemtrails / geoengineering / climate change gains momentum by virtue of social powers informing global power structures.
The sustainability approach discusses geoengineering – which is viewed as an intervention mechanism – in terms of climate change control and management (Biello, 2011). Unlike military and political framings, sustainability ones seem to pursue older framings of climate change of environment conservatism. Yet, unlike military and political framings, sustainability framing is less responsive to state-level discourse (as in military framing) and power structures (of political framing) and appears to respond to a utilitarian approach by which solutions are sought for urgent climate challenges.
Scientifically, chemtrails and geoengineering are being discussed in medical terms (Blaylock, 2013; Melnik and Linnik, 2013). Unsurprisingly, expressions of chemtrails, geoengineering and climate change remain very much in question and are framed differentially. Although lacking in specificity of military, political or even sustainability framings as to source of danger or risk, a sustainability framing adopts a broad humane approach by which human health, above anything else, is emphasized and made focus of all efforts of climate change amelioration.
This paper aims, consequently, to address conflicting frames of reference to chemtrails, geoengineering and climate change in order to explore potentials of reconciling embedded discourses.
In framing climate change within military-driven contexts, geoengineering and chemtrails are viewed as means of modern warfare and weapons of mass destruction (Chossudovsky). The manipulation of weather becomes, accordingly, part of a broader military strategy to control (Chossudovsky). The discussion within military-driven contexts is, moreover, lent additional dimensions of conspiracy when military analysts and scientists – and, more generally, meteorologists – remain silent on geoengineering and climate change manipulations (Chossudovsky; Sarich). As conspiracy discourse infuses discussions of climate change within military-driven contexts, chemtrails (vis-à-vis contrails) come into prominence. The normality attached to regular jet exhaust changes into an abnormality by which clandestine, military operations are performed, routine – probably illegal – flights are conducted in which unknown biowars are launched in order to fend off homeland. Jargons such as "Solar Radiation Management" (SRM) and "global dimming" are adopted as well to suggest conspiracy (Walia, 2014). The military-driven, conspiracy infused discourse is even lent further credibility by accounting for specific details and differences between "chemtrails" and "contrails" (Leviton). The military-driven framing of climate change enjoys, in fact, a wide populist acceptance as conspiratory given national security claims and unclear, official pronouncements on what constitutes chemtrails.
Politically, chemtrails, geoengineering and climate change are discussed within policy-driven frames. Control of weather and climate, for example, is an issue deeply rooted in Western culture (Fleming). Unsurprisingly, given salience of environment control as part of overall human and hence political control, climate change / geoengineering falls into political realms of power (im)balances par excellence. Climate change, accordingly, becomes an issue of dominance and control, not one of modification and management (Fleming). Further, controversy over climate becomes one of a North-South dispute (Bronson, Shand, and Thomas). Whereas developed North sets climate global agenda, underdeveloped South has to incur consequences. Given developed countries' dominance over world politics, setting climate agenda becomes, consequently, a power politics issue (Bronson, Shand, and Thomas). The politicization of climate change is, moreover, most notable in international trade arena, an arena largely dominated by free market and capitalist principles (Klein). Indeed, neoliberal fundamental tenets permeate climate change discussions in almost every global energy policy (Klein). Consumption – according to neoliberal principles – decides economic – and hence climate – patterns. Integral to discussion of climate change control, within a policy-driven frame, is technologies used – and hence energy policies adopted (Poumadère, Bertoldo, and Samadi).
Within a sustainability framing, climate change / geoengineering is discussed as a means of control and management (Biello). Although still highly controversial, geoengineering remains, apparently, a last resort mechanism of climate modification for humanity's greater good. Hard-pressed between risks of climate-gone-awry and potential benefits for climate control, geoengineering remains largely ambiguous given unclear official pronouncements and/or policies. The sustainability approach, moreover, overlaps with military, political and scientific framings of climate change. Against developments in recent decades in climate discussions, environment stewardship – and hence sustainability – is hardly discussed solely in terms of environmental conservation per se. Rather, climate change – within a sustainability frame – is inevitably a discussion of climate issues within broader frames of global military, political and scientific framings. Interestingly still, given geoengineering deeply-rooted history in military, doubts – and arguably conspiracy claims – constitute an essential component of a sustainable framing of climate change / geoengineering.
The case for scientific framing can hardly be overemphasized against a backdrop of growing global health hazards. The scientific framing, for example, focuses on health hazards, particularly neurological disorders caused by inhaling nanoaluminum (Blaylock), (Melnik and Linnik). Interestingly, scientific framings of climate change do not seem to differentiate between normal contrails and controversial chemtrails. Only when chemtrails are emphasized is medical hazards bloated such as to suggest conspiratory streaks. Interestingly still, references made to sources of chemtrails and geoengineering are nothing but vague. For not only is emphasis laid on hazards per se within scientific framings of climate change but, apparently, no discussion is raised about actual sources of such hazards in order to pre-empt future ones as should a sound medical policy, one centered around prevention rather than treatment and containment. Again, conspiracy seems to underlie scientific framings of climate change.
All in all, meanings of chemtrails, geoengineering and climate change appear to be embedded in context-specific framings most notable of which are military, political, sustainability and scientific. Although, each framing seems to adopt an independent standing, all appear to incorporate conspiracy as a common denominator. Therefore, what appears as ostensibly conflicting frames could, in fact, be reconciled by a conspiracy discourse. Admittedly, although each framing might incorporate a different share of conspiracy for different reasons, conspiracy remains a unifying discourse.
The military framing of climate change / geoengineering, for example, probably incorporates greatest share of conspiracy among all framings. This is not only attributed to secrecy and national security claims surrounding military pursuits but also to how conspiracy per se is framed within a military farming. In a military framing, conspiracy is mainly conceived as part of warfare against potential and existing, external dangers (Chossudovsky). Against a backdrop of public mistrust against U.S. military, strategies and initiatives set by Department of Defense do not address actual risks and dangers but satisfy more often than not corporate needs (Sarich). Understood as such, external risk and dangers are discussed within conspiracy frames.
Likewise, political framings of climate change / geoengineering incorporate conspiracy as a constitutive component. Discussed within contexts of capitalism, cross-border corporate dominance as well as a North-South dispute, political framings of climate change could, unsurprisingly, be discussed within conspiracy frames. The conspiracy – according to such understanding – is one practiced both on local and global levels in order to maintain established power structures of few dominant actors. Further, in an increasingly dynamic world of shifting alliances, chemtrails / geoengineering / climate change discussions acquire a kaleidoscopic quality by which conspiracy of powerful players against less powerful ones are lent further credence in light of natural power consolidation dynamics.
Similarly, sustainability framings of climate change / geoengineering incorporates major conspiracy components, albeit in less clearer degrees than in military and political framings. Pursuing older lines of argument for environment conservatism, sustainability framings of climate change / geoengineering invoke dire consequences as major hurdles against climate upkeep. Thus, in adopting geoengineering adopting parties risk being complacent in climate deterioration rather than amelioration and hence are viewed within conspiracy frames. Moreover, adopting geoengineering not only trap adopters alone within conspiracy framings but connected parties as well. Therefore, independent efforts – in absence of a global consensus – to geoengineer climate are most likely doomed to fail because viewed unfavorably.
The scientific framing of climate change / geoengineering is most probably lest clear of all framings as regards conspiracy. As mentioned earlier, within a scientific framing of climate change / geoengineering specific reasons or actors are hardly mentioned. Although health hazards of chemtrails are detailed, reference to specific actors or accomplices is notably absent (Blaylock). Moreover, although pre-emption is one essential in any effective medical strategy, failing to identify specific actors responsible for chemtrails puts into question viability of proposed medical measures.
Thus, each of all four military, political, sustainability and scientific framings for climate change / geoengineering are differentiated by warfare, policy-driven, control and management as well as medical hazard contexts respectively but share conspiracy as a constitutive component, albeit with varying degrees of clarity and emphasis.
That chemtrails / geoengineering / climate change still remains semantically indefinite, moreover, adds more to each in terms of conspiracy. That is, in taping into public mistrust – in case of military framing – in absence of definite military response and/or pronunciation; in adopting policy – in case of political framing – against a background of global political dominance of few corporate and state players; in appealing to control and management – in case of sustainability framing – in pursuance of older environmental preservation arguments; and in defending against medical risks – in case of scientific framing – in absence of clear perpetrators – chemtrails / geoengineering / climate change are better fitted within a conspiratory understanding of military, political, sustainability and scientific framings. Only, therefore, within a conspiracy understanding could embedded discourses in all four framings of chemtrails / geoengineering / climate change be reconciled.
In conclusion, chemtrails, geoengineering and climate change has been discussed within four main framings: military, political, sustainability and scientific. The military framing assumes military purposes for any geoengineering / climate change action. States in military framings play most prominent role and are invoked for public in order to gain support for probably unacceptable military routines and/or operations. The political framing assumes a control and domination agenda. Through international trade, global energy policies and regional disputes such as North-South conflicts, chemtrails, geoengineering and climate change are best understood within policies of political hegemony and capitalist economy. The sustainability framing assumes an older environmental conservatism and is further shadowed by military and political framings. By emphasizing climate amelioration over modification, sustainability framing is discussed in more favorable lights. The scientific framing, finally, assumes a medical approach to chemtrails / geoengineering / climate change by emphasizing medical hazards caused by allegedly illegal aerial routines.
Though all four framings are differentiated by distinctive discourses, conspiracy comes as a common framework. Conspiracy is conceived within military framing in order to fend off against potential and existing dangers. In a political framework, conspiracy discourse is established such as to maintain existing power structures. In a sustainability framing, conspiracy is taped into by invoking serious repercussions which if not pre-empted would represent major hurdles against climate upkeep. The absence of clear actors in case of scientific framing only undercuts conspiracy discourse by alluding to unknowns for harmful actions.

Works Cited

Biello, David. "Can Geoengineering Save the World from Global Warming?" Scientific American, 25 Feb. 2011. Web. 1 Jan. 2015.
Blaylock, L. Russell. "Impacts of Chemtrails on Human Health. Nanoaluminum: Neurodegenerative and Neurodevelopmental Effects." Global Research, 13 Jul. 2013. Web. 1 Jan, 2015.
Bronson, Diana, Hope Shand, and Jim Thomas, eds. Earth Grab: Geopiracy, the New Biomassters and Capturing Climate Genes, Part 1. Cape Town: Pambazuka Press, 2011. Google Books. Web. 1 Jan. 2015.
Caims, Rose and Andy Stirling. "'Maintaining planetary systems’ or ‘concentrating global power?' High stakes in contending framings of climate geoengineering." Global Environmental Change 28(2014): 25–38. ScienceDirect. Web. 1 Jan. 2015.
Chossudovsky, Michel. "The Ultimate Weapon of Mass Destruction: “Owning the Weather” for Military Use." GeoEngineering Watch. GeoEngineering Watch, Jan. 13. Web. 1 Jan. 2015.
Fleming, R. James. Fixing the Sky: The Checkered History of Weather and Climate Control. New York: Columbia University Press, 2010. Google Books. Web. 1 Jan. 2015.
Klein, Naomi. This Changes Everything. New York: Simon & Schuster, 2014. Google Books. Web. 1. Jan. 2015.
Leviton, Richard. Welcome to Your Designer Planet!: A Brief Account of the Cosmogony on Earth. Lincoln, NE: iUniverse, 2007. Google Books. Web. 1 Jan. 2015.
Melnik, Y. and T. Linnik. "Chemtrails impact on the environment and human brains." Сумський державний університет За заг. ред(2013): 24-26. SumDu Repository. Web. 1 Jan. 2015.
Poumadère, Marc, Raquel Bertoldo, and Jaleh Samad. "Public perceptions and governance of controversial technologies to tackle climate change: nuclear power, carbon capture and storage, wind, and geoengineering." Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change 2.5(2011): 712-727. Wiley Online Library. Web. 1 Jan. 2015.
Red Bill Films. "SKYSCRATCH - The Geoengineering/Chemtrail Cover Up (NEW 2014 Documentary)." Online video clip. YouTube, 7 Jun. 2014. Web. 1 Jan. 2015.
Sarich, Christina. "The World Awakens: America Sleeps – Chemtrails from Around the Globe, a Satellite View." GeoEngineering Watch. GeoEngineering Watch, Oct. 28. Web. 1 Jan. 2015.
Walia, Arjun. "If You Think These Are Just “Contrails” Think Again – Here’s What They Really Are." GeoEngineering Watch. GeoEngineering Watch, Oct. 27. Web. 1 Jan. 2015.

Cite this page
Choose cite format:
  • APA
  • MLA
  • Harvard
  • Vancouver
  • Chicago
  • ASA
  • IEEE
  • AMA
WePapers. (2020, September, 09) Sample Term Paper On Chemtrails, Geoengineering, Climate Change: Conflicting Frames?. Retrieved April 22, 2024, from
"Sample Term Paper On Chemtrails, Geoengineering, Climate Change: Conflicting Frames?." WePapers, 09 Sep. 2020, Accessed 22 April 2024.
WePapers. 2020. Sample Term Paper On Chemtrails, Geoengineering, Climate Change: Conflicting Frames?., viewed April 22 2024, <>
WePapers. Sample Term Paper On Chemtrails, Geoengineering, Climate Change: Conflicting Frames?. [Internet]. September 2020. [Accessed April 22, 2024]. Available from:
"Sample Term Paper On Chemtrails, Geoengineering, Climate Change: Conflicting Frames?." WePapers, Sep 09, 2020. Accessed April 22, 2024.
WePapers. 2020. "Sample Term Paper On Chemtrails, Geoengineering, Climate Change: Conflicting Frames?." Free Essay Examples - Retrieved April 22, 2024. (
"Sample Term Paper On Chemtrails, Geoengineering, Climate Change: Conflicting Frames?," Free Essay Examples -, 09-Sep-2020. [Online]. Available: [Accessed: 22-Apr-2024].
Sample Term Paper On Chemtrails, Geoengineering, Climate Change: Conflicting Frames?. Free Essay Examples - Published Sep 09, 2020. Accessed April 22, 2024.

Share with friends using:

Related Premium Essays
Contact us
Chat now