News & Views
Florida bans weather control, and Canadians beware
“When we look up at the sky, we must ask who controls it, and why.”
I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but it seems like lately, bad news wants to continue to surface, and unfortunately, I have to be the messenger of said bad news. I am going to bring you back a few months to July 1st, 2025, when Senate Bill 56 took effect, criminalizing geoengineering and weather modification activities with penalties reaching third-degree felony status. As Canadians watch these developments from our northern vantage point, we must confront an unsettling possibility: what happens in Florida’s atmosphere may not stay in Florida’s atmosphere.
The law specifically prohibits “The injection, release, or dispersion, by any means, of a chemical, a chemical compound, a substance, or an apparatus into the atmosphere within the borders of this state for the express purpose of affecting the temperature, the weather, climate, or the intensity of sunlight.” Violators face up to five years imprisonment and fines reaching $100,000.
Let’s be clear about what this means. The bill targets cloud seeding operations, those controversial attempts to manipulate precipitation patterns that have dotted weather modification discussions for decades. This situation reaches further, touching on technologies most Canadians have never considered.
Behind this legislation lies a shadow world of patents and possibilities that reads like science fiction. US patent literature describes methods for atmospheric injection of reflective particles designed to reduce solar radiation. One recent patent family by Eastman Kodak proposes engineered porous polymeric particles optimized for suspension in the stratosphere—a “method of geoengineering to reduce solar radiation” in the patent’s own words.
“These represent real technologies being developed, with potential implications for weather patterns.”
These represent real technologies being developed, with potential implications for weather patterns, agricultural systems, and ecosystems that recognize no political boundaries.
The conversation around weather modification has long been mired in confusion. Many have mistakenly referenced Florida bills SB 269 or SB 1580 as addressing these concerns, but our investigation confirms SB 56 stands as the operative legislation. Meanwhile, SB 196 addresses entirely different matters; chemicals in consumer products rather than atmospheric interventions.
Perhaps most unsettling are the patents describing technologies for atmospheric monitoring and manipulation. The infamous US 4,686,605 patent, associated with HAARP, describes methods for altering regions in Earth’s atmosphere, ionosphere, and magnetosphere. While experts emphasize HAARP’s actual research purposes differ significantly from weather control claims, the patent language itself reveals ambitions that should give us pause.
As Canadians, we might feel insulated from these developments, but weather systems care nothing for borders. The jet stream that carries weather patterns across North America connects us inextricably to our southern neighbours. What happens in Florida’s atmosphere today may manifest in Alberta’s wheat fields tomorrow.
The question isn’t whether weather modification technologies exist; they clearly do. The question is who gets to decide how and when they are used, and who bears responsibility for unintended consequences.
Florida’s legislation represents a bold stance, asserting state control over atmospheric interventions. Whether driven by legitimate environmental concerns, or response to conspiracy theories, the law establishes a precedent that demands our attention.
“The ethical implications of weather modification extend far beyond technical feasibility.”
We find common ground in recognizing that our atmosphere represents a shared common, one that requires protection from both pollution and unregulated manipulation. The ethical implications of weather modification extend far beyond technical feasibility to questions of democratic governance and environmental justice.
As this story continues to unfold, Canadians must ask ourselves critical questions: What atmospheric activities are occurring over our own skies? What regulatory frameworks exist to protect our interests? How do we balance innovation with precaution in the face of technologies that could fundamentally alter our relationship with nature?
The answers won’t come easily, but the conversation must begin now. Florida has fired an opening shot in what may become a global conversation about atmospheric sovereignty. As Canadians, we would do well to listen closely and prepare our response.