Manmade Weather from Blue to Haze
Thanks to Chantal Dupuis for her contributions to the fight against climate engineering with the attached video and the letter below addressed to officials. Source: Cybel Production Premier of Ontario, Service Ontario The Honorable Kathleen O. Wynne Minister of Transportation, The Honorable Steven Del Duca Minister of the Environment and Climate Change, The Honorable Glen Murray SUBJECT: Exoneration from the Drive Clean Program's obligations for reasons of Conscience Dear Ministers, I am writing to you jointly because you represent all of the accountable bodies for the Drive Clean program: Service Ontario, the ministry of Transportation and the ministry of the Environment and Climate Change. This letter is to signify my refusal to comply with the Drive Clean program in order to obtain a legal registration for my personal use vehicles, the mandatory Safety Standards Certificate shall be enough. Many reasons led to this decision. The Drive Clean program requires that an emission test be performed on my car for pollution reduction goals by the government of Ontario. At first it sounds laudable but in reality, it no longer has a significant effect according to an Auditor General's report written back in 2012: "the program has outlived its usefulness". In that light, where can I find the data proving that the Drive Clean program significantly improves air quality like it boasts about? Why should I be required to adhere to such policies if the government does not monitor the actual effectiveness of the measures it imposes on its citizens? Maybe it does monitor something but there is no up-to-date data available or it's hard to access. The Auditor added: "They’re going after the low-lying fruit in order to try to deal with the politics of this issue and not the practicalities of the issue". Almost five years have passed now. What has your government done since to review the Drive Clean program? It seems that the government of Ontario is trying to pin the price tag on small players in the preservation of our environment. Although the program does not prove to be a significantly effective initiative, the government does not take in account the Auditor's advice to dismiss the program or replace it entirely by real incentive measures. The Drive Clean program is only targeting the most populated areas, and therefore it is a discriminatory factor. Passing a test every second year for only part of the residents of Ontario in the effort to combat global pollution is unrealistic. As an example, if I lived in rural area just west of Ottawa, I would not have to submit my car to any emission testing. How is it logical that a region located west of a city does not have to comply while everybody knows that dominant winds do come from the west? Your program's geographical criteria allows the untested vehicle’s pollutants released into those winds, to be transported over the most populated areas. How cynical is that? I can not consciously agree with such unfounded and discriminatory criteria. In addition, if it were a light-duty commercial farm vehicle, I would be exempt from testing it. Here we can understand that commercial farms while in direct contact with the food chain, can use polluting vehicles without any restriction, and this is acceptable according to your program's criteria. The Auditor's report mentioned that "it eases economic burden on farmers", even though vehicle expenses are deductible from their taxes, it is just a smoke screen in my point of view. To be cohesive with its pollution reduction goal, the Drive Clean program should either be applied to every type of vehicle across Canada or none. The pollution problematic is a national issue not just a provincial one and since British Columbia just terminated their similar emission-test program, it seems like better initiatives can be put in place to really attack the smog issue at its root. My new car being older than 7 years but not over 25 years old makes it obligatory to have its emissions tested to comply with the Drive Clean program. This means that if I prefer to buy a used car in order to save the environment in my own way by re-using existing cars to hinder car production's pollution, I am penalized because it might emit a little more pollutants than a newer vehicle. Knowing the fact that manufacturing a new car generates a carbon footprint between 6 to 35 tons of CO2 or if you prefer, the equivalent of what it will consume during its lifespan, this criteria becomes questionable since it does not account for the carbon footprint as part of the equation. We are being told by the government and the media that we should change our habits in order to reduce our individual footprint and on the other side, we are encouraged to get new cars with improved emission-control systems but avoid mentioning the additional carbon footprint being generated. This also implies that people, who can't afford new cars or overpriced hybrid-electric vehicles, have to pay more for their family vehicle’s registration. This is an additional hidden discriminatory fee that affects mostly the poorer portion of the population. If a new vehicle is sold after only one year, it must have an other emission test performed by the new owner even though emission testing is ordered every two years. How is it that cars have to be tested every two years? Don't your respective ministries question the reasons why parts of emission systems do not have a longer lifespan or reliability? The Drive Clean program transfers the responsibility of a polluting vehicle from the big corporations to consumers. This facilitates the obsolescence of car parts rather than holding the car industry accountable for profiting financially in manufacturing polluting vehicles and emission systems which have created, in the long run, a series of collateral damages to the climate, the environment and the public's health. Why not reverse the burden and make it mandatory for car manufacturers to produce zero emission vehicles from now on? The government can create new sustainable markets accessible to a majority of Ontarians by putting in place new policies to facilitate the
Fifty Shades Of Day
Source: Dorset Eye, article by Sean Hunter I awake at four AM. And as I lay there in the darkness trying to retrieve a dream, I become aware of the constant droning in my head. After twenty minutes, unable to get back to sleep – let alone recover the dream – I get up to use the bathroom. I take a sip or two of water, go back to bed and try to settle for sleep. But the droning noise persists, swelling and fading but never ceasing. Try as I might, I just can’t ignore it. What makes it worse is that I know the cause. I’ve been here before. After an hour or so I concede defeat, take a shower and dress. Downstairs, I make coffee and as I drink it I look out of the window. As dawn begins to break my suspicions are proved. In the sky there are scores of trails and struggling in the distance just above the horizon a weak sun shines. It resonates with the thickening sky and just like deadly nightshade, the colours are vibrant and strangely beautiful but indicative of the pure poison that lies within. This small golden glow will be short lived. Most people, still sleeping, will not see the sun at all today. I grab my camera and venture outside to get some pictures (see above). My neighbour is returning from walking her dog and smiles smugly “They’re just trails!” She says sarcastically as she passes. “You still think that’s normal do you?” I reply, nodding at the sky. It looks like an air display has just finished. She doesn’t answer. I admit I have failed miserably at educating my neighbours on the subject of geoengineering. I have bored them with my concerns, left them website links and information and handed out free copies of ‘Why In The World Are They Spraying’. They have decided that they don’t need to watch the film or investigate. Such is the extent of their hubris. For the sake of affability it is now, for the moment, a taboo subject. Daybreak plus a couple of hours and the sky is white. Don’t tell me that you haven’t noticed that the sky is white most of the time these days? Even during summer on a ‘clear’ day we don’t get true, blue sky – but in the winter we have what I call ‘sky fog’ most of the time. Sometimes the sky is a washed-out grey/blue with streaky, dirty looking clouds but mostly it’s just a dirty white. Nobody questions this. We walk around under this heavy, oppressive, foggy umbrella feeling heavy and oppressed ourselves but nobody asks where the sky went or why we only see the sun once or twice a week. It lowers our moods and our stature, curbs our smiles and deprives us of valuable vitamin D. Other people in other countries live under different – but similarly unnatural skies. I’ve been watching the sky and taking pictures for six years now. I have come to realise that you could write obscenities in the sky in capitol letters and no one would notice – because no one ever looks up. I recently read an article by Joe Scanlan discussing chemtrails in Vaccination Information Network.com he posed the question: Is your Eye/Brain switch set to off? I laughed out loud when I read it. I mean, how much more obvious does it have to be before people start to wake up? The geoengineering deniers would have us believe that the trails are just the result of normal flight. I live in a small county town. Does the picture above represent normal air traffic? I think not. The nearest commercial airport is about 20 miles away so, even if this was the result of commercial flying….I mean, come on! What the hell were they doing up there? This is just one photograph taken on one day but I have photographed hundreds of anomalies like this. It’s not as if the climate isn’t a subject on everyone’s lips. Even before The Kyoto Protocol, which came into force in 2005 and Al Gore’s 2006 documentary ‘An Inconvenient Truth’, ‘experts’ were talking about pollution and the climate. I could drill down into the fine details here, about contrail science, aerosol dispersal patents and hockey stick temperature charts. I could discuss the thin and dubious ‘conclusive’ evidence ‘proving’ that you and I are to blame for the world’s weather and why we must, therefore, pay more for our energy. But sadly, I know that by now I have already lost half the readers of this article – because we live in an age of apathy. We are weary: War weary, recession weary, corruption weary and political promise weary. We’ve had so much bad news so often that facing the truth (more bad news) is about as nourishing as a fast-food burger. We are told we must further tighten our belts as the bankers gamble with our savings and pay themselves yet more bonuses. But face the truth we must if we are to survive into the near future. That means holding the people responsible to account for their reckless attitudes and abuses of privileges right across the board – and that takes some courage and determination. I recently wrote two other articles about geoengineering (details below) which addressed more of the science and agenda. Some irate Facebook comments and emails immediately followed which I then did my best to answer. But this article is not about proof, it’s about personal experience, observation and the employment of common sense – because it is so little used these days. We are constantly being ‘nudged’ – to do only what we are encouraged to do, to believe only what we are encouraged to believe and we are persuaded that anyone who believes that the emperor really is naked is a conspiracy theorist – or worse, a terrorist! Well, the emperor in this instance is geoengineering and he’s waving his intimate parts right in our faces. If you