Got a hankering to do a little weather modification? Wanna play the HAARP or Chemtrail your way across the clear blue sky? Feel free! According to researcher Jesse Reynolds, technical trials are at worst legally ambiguous and at best (for the would be geo-engineer) smiled upon by national governments.
To find out the legal status of such trials, Jesse Reynolds of Tilburg Law School in the Netherlands went through the fine print of 15 major environmental treaties, including the CBD, the LCP and the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. He found that apart from the LCP’s ruling on dumping material into the sea, which is legally binding, the language of the other treaties actually permits field tests. The CBD statement, for example, merely “invites” governments to ensure no geoengineering activities take place, rather than making it a legal requirement to do so (Washington and Lee Journal of Energy, Climate, and the Environment, ssrn.com/=2326913).
Reynolds found that most of the treaties encouraged countries to perform research, clean up pollution and minimise risks. Because geoengineering research is meant to reduce the risk from climate change, Reynolds says “international environmental law generally favours such field tests”.