Addressing Environmental Modification and Climate Policy

A Deputation Script for Municipal Councils Considering Withdrawal from the FCM ICLEI PCP Program

Introduction to the Deputation Script

This deputation script is intended as a supplement to the previously published article on Environmental Modification Techniques (ENMOD) and their implications. For those who wish to raise these concerns at the municipal level, this script outlines the approach I would recommend at this time.

The Hidden Climate Debate: Weather Modification, Secrecy, and Accountability

While my primary work at KICLEI Canada focuses on empowering municipalities to critically assess and potentially withdraw from costly and restrictive climate action plans, the issue of environmental modification presents additional layers of complexity. As discussed in the article, the existence of the ENMOD Convention proves these technologies are real, yet they remain largely unacknowledged in public discourse.

This deputation script highlights the lack of transparency and accountability surrounding weather modification and geoengineering technologies and raises questions about how they intersect with the broader climate change narrative promoted through programs like the FCM ICLEI Partners for Climate Protection (PCP).

It is important to note that this approach does not require proving the role of weather modification in climate events. Instead, it focuses on the more immediate concerns about the financial and governance impacts of net-zero programs and the right of municipalities to prioritize local needs over global mandates.

For those who share these concerns, this deputation serves as a tool to open dialogue, encourage transparency, and reclaim decision-making authority at the municipal level. I encourage anyone interested in pursuing this issue further to use this script as a foundation and adapt it to their specific circumstances and audience.

---

KICLEI-Style Deputation On the PCP Program and Weather Modification Concerns

57.1KB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

Deputation to [Municipal Council Name] on Withdrawing from the FCM ICLEI PCP Program

[Date]
[Your Name]
KICLEI Canada Initiative

Good [morning/afternoon], Mayor [Name], Members of Council, and Staff,

Thank you for the opportunity to speak today. My name is [Your Name], and I represent KICLEI Canada, an initiative focused on empowering municipalities to critically assess and, if appropriate, withdraw from international climate programs that impose costly and data-driven obligations without considering local priorities.

I am here today to ask this council to consider withdrawing from the Federation of Canadian Municipalities' (FCM) ICLEI Partners for Climate Protection (PCP) program. I want to highlight some serious concerns related to transparency, accountability, and the broader climate narrative influencing this program—especially in light of evidence presented in the 1976 ENMOD Convention.

1. Environmental Modification Techniques (ENMOD) and the Climate Narrative

The 1976 Convention on the Prohibition of Military or Any Hostile Use of Environmental Modification Techniques (ENMOD) proves that Environmental Modification Techniques, or ENMOD, exist. These are technologies capable of altering weather patterns, ocean currents, and even causing earthquakes through the deliberate manipulation of natural processes. This is not speculation; it is codified in international law (Article II of the ENMOD Convention).

The Convention prohibits their use in warfare, yet their existence raises significant questions about transparency and public disclosure regarding their peaceful applications, such as weather modification programs, geoengineering, and cloud seeding.

While the FCM ICLEI PCP program focuses heavily on reducing CO2 emissions as the primary cause of climate change, it completely ignores the role that ENMOD technologies may play in weather events. This omission undermines public trust and hinders our ability to have honest, fact-based conversations about climate action.

2. Lack of Transparency and Accountability

Programs like ICLEI's PCP rely heavily on climate modeling and data collection, but they do not account for the influence of technologies like geoengineering. For example:

• Cloud seeding disperses chemicals like silver iodide into the atmosphere to induce rainfall.

• Solar radiation management reflects sunlight to reduce warming.

• Ocean fertilization stimulates algae growth to absorb CO2.

Yet, we are not told what chemicals are used, how they might affect human health, or whether their impacts are being mistaken for natural climate changes. These questions remain unanswered in the data-driven climate models promoted by ICLEI.

The public deserves transparency about these activities, as highlighted by the ENMOD Convention, to ensure we are addressing the true drivers of climate phenomena—not just CO2 emissions. Ignoring these realities may lead to flawed policies and costly programs that fail to deliver meaningful environmental benefits.

3. Financial and Local Impacts

Net-zero climate programs promoted by ICLEI come with high costs and impose long-term obligations on municipalities. These programs prioritize global mandates over local needs, often benefiting corporate interests while diverting resources from critical municipal priorities such as infrastructure, housing, and public safety.

Canada is responsible for only 1.5% of global CO2 emissions, and human activity accounts for just 4% of atmospheric CO2, which itself makes up only 0.04% of the atmosphere. Furthermore:

• 89% of Canada's landmass is uninhabited and acts as a vast carbon sink.

• Net-zero programs fail to account for these natural carbon sinks.

Given this context, it is fair to question whether the costs associated with these programs are justified, especially when alternative explanations, such as ENMOD activities, are ignored.

4. Recommendation and Call to Action

For these reasons, I respectfully request that this council:

1. Review the obligations, costs, and impacts associated with the ICLEI PCP program.

2. Consider withdrawing from the program to regain local decision-making control over environmental policies.

3. Support forming a local committee to investigate environmental modification technologies, their potential impacts, and how to communicate these concerns transparently with residents.

Conclusion

I understand this topic may feel outside the Overton Window—the range of publicly acceptable ideas—but it is essential to address these questions without fear of dismissal. The existence of the ENMOD Convention alone confirms the feasibility of weather modification technologies. Ignoring this reality risks misleading the public and wasting resources on flawed assumptions.

Thank you for your time and consideration. For those who wish to explore this topic further, I invite experts and researchers to join our committee through [insert registration link here]. I will also provide references, including the ENMOD Convention, for your review.

I look forward to any questions or feedback you may have.

References:

• ENMOD Convention (1976)