Climates of suspicion: ‘chemtrail’ conspiracy narratives and the international politics of geoengineering

Abstract

Concurrent with growing academic and policy interest in 'geoengineering' the global climate in response to climate change, a more marginal discourse postulating the existence of a climate control conspiracy is also proliferating on the Internet. Here, the term 'chemtrails' is used interchangeably with the term geoengineering to describe the belief that the persistent contrails left by aeroplanes provide evidence that a secret programme of large-scale weather and climate modification is ongoing. Despite recent calls for greater appreciation of the diverse ways in which people conceive of and relate to ideas of climate control, and widespread acknowledgement of the importance of democratic public engagement in governance of geoengineering, the chemtrail conspiracy narrative has received very little attention in academic work to date. This paper builds on work highlighting the instability of the distinction between 'paranoid' and 'normal' views, and examines the chemtrail conspiracy narrative as a discourse rather than a pathology (either psychological or sociological). The analysis finds that while some elements of the chemtrail narrative do not lend themselves to democratic processes of deliberation, and potential for engagement with more mainstream discourse appears to be low, nevertheless certain elements of the discourse (such as the moral outrage at the idea of powerful elites controlling the climate, or the importance of emotional and spiritual connections to weather and climate) highlight concerns of relevance to mainstream geoengineering debates. Furthermore, the pervasive suspicion that characterises the narrative and its reminder of the key role that trust plays in knowledge creation and the justification of beliefs, signals what is likely to be a perennial issue in the emerging international politics of geoengineering.

Believing in Conspiracy Theories: Evidence from an Exploratory Analysis of Italian Survey Data

“…The second statement concerns another cross-national conspiracy, that of Chemical trails (or 'ChemTrails'), namely, the belief that the persistent trails left by aircraft provide evidence of a secret programme of large-scale weather modification (Cairns 2016). According to an alternative version of the conspiracy, these released chemicals are aimed at depopulating the country (Ballatore 2015) or controlling people's minds, making the population more docile and prone to accept bad policies (Kollipara 2015).…”

Solar geoengineering and the chemtrails conspiracy on social media

“…The US Environmental Protection Agency says so (EPA, 2000). Scientists say so (Cairns, 2016;Shearer et al, 2016). An increasing number of investigative journalistic accounts say so (e.g., Dunne, 2017;Streep, 2008).…”

“…That goes for the Arab Spring (Jamal et al, 2015;Wagner and Gainous, 2013) as well as for US politics (Gainous and Wagner, 2014). The conspiracy similarly has important implications for global governance of solar geoengineering (Cairns, 2016).…”

“…The very characteristics that make climate change such a difficult public policy problem (e.g., Wagner and Zeckhauser, 2011) complicate addressing the chemtrails conspiracy further. While the US public's confidence in leaders of the scientific community writ large has been relatively stable since the 1970s (Rainie, 2017), the spread of the chemtrails conspiracy not least reflects a general distrust in science as an institution and in science communicators more broadly (Cairns, 2016;Lewandowsky et al, 2013).…”

Chemtrails, Crisis, and Loss in an Interconnected World

“…Environmental scientist Rose Cairns (:12–17), the main exception to the academic silence surrounding the issue, approaches the chemtrail discourse as “a constantly shifting ideoscape” constituted by many accounts, which are in constant flux and are often antagonistic to one another. These accounts converge on the understanding that large‐aerial spraying takes place and that it is extremely dangerous, but diverge with respect to the agencies responsible and their purposes.…”