Opposition Testimony for HB 1618 I oppose HB 1618, a bill that seeks to prohibit solar radiation modification, weather modification, and other atmospheric interventions. While the stated aim of the legislation is to protect public health and the environment from potential harm caused by atmospheric interventions, the underlying implications of this bill could be significantly detrimental to our ability to respond to climate change and environmental degradation. By outright banning innovative technologies that have the potential to manage extreme weather events and mitigate climate impacts, we risk stifling research and advancements that could offer valuable solutions in a rapidly changing climate. The precautionary principle, while certainly important, should not be employed as a means to dismiss entirely the potential benefits of responsible weather modification techniques. Furthermore, HB 1618 fails to acknowledge the nuanced understanding required for effective environmental governance. The provisions in the bill appear to focus exclusively on the harm that certain technologies might present without considering the broader context of climate challenges we face. For instance, techniques like solar radiation modification could serve as temporary measures to mitigate temperature increases and safeguard vulnerable ecosystems and communities. By creating a rigid framework that does not allow for future adaptive strategies, this legislation could lock us into a more dangerous status quo, where we’re unable to explore innovative solutions necessary for sustainability. Rather than prohibiting atmospheric interventions outright, New Hampshire should be fostering an open dialogue around these technologies, focusing on ethical and scientifically grounded regulations that ensure safety while enabling exploration of new frontiers in climate resillence
HB1618
House · 2026 sessionRepublicanKilled in HouseBan on weather modification programs
AIEstablishes a regulatory process prohibiting solar radiation modification, weather modification, and other polluting atmospheric interventions, sets penalties for violations, and requires that violations be reported to county sheriffs or deputized citizens for enforcement.
prohibiting solar radiation modification, weather modification, and other polluting atmospheric interventions.
Status
Killed in the House — Inexpedient to Legislate · February 5, 2026- ✓Introduced
- ✕House
- Senate
- Governor
- Law
Division of testimony
12 submissionsI support the bill to stop any solar radiation modification (solar geoengineering in our state. SRM (e.g., injecting aerosols into the stratosphere to reflect sunlight) only masks warming—it doesn’t reduce atmospheric CO2 levels or address the root causes, such as ocean acidification. If SRM were deployed at a meaningful scale to offset substantial warming and then suddenly stopped (due to war, political collapse, funding failure, technical breakdown, international conflict, or even a natural disaster damaging infrastructure), global temperatures could rebound extremely rapidly—potentially several degrees Celsius within years or even months in extreme scenarios. This rapid “whiplash” warming would be far more damaging than the gradual warming we’re experiencing now because: • Ecosystems, agriculture, and human societies have little time to adapt to such fast changes. • It could trigger cascading effects like intensified extreme weather, massive crop failures, accelerated ice sheet loss, and severe disruptions to monsoons and rainfall patterns that billions depend on. Even proponents acknowledge this as a serious risk, though some argue redundant systems could mitigate it. Critics (including many climate scientists, NGOs, and reports from groups like Climate Analytics and UNEP assessments) view it as an unacceptably dangerous gamble: SRM creates a new, fragile dependency where stopping becomes politically/technically harder than continuing, locking humanity into indefinite, escalating intervention while CO2 keeps accumulating underneath. In short, voting against SRM deployment (or premature large-scale experiments) avoids creating a system that could turn a solvable emissions problem into an irreversible, high-stakes commitment with a catastrophic failure mode built in. Other major concerns exist (moral hazard delaying real emissions cuts, unpredictable regional climate shifts, governance nightmares in a multipolar world), but termination shock stands out as a uniquely compelling physical reason to reject it outright. The safest path remains aggressive decarbonization, not gambling on planetary-scale atmospheric tinkering
Stop the spraying. This is insane!
Position recorded without written comment.
Position recorded without written comment.
Position recorded without written comment.
Position recorded without written comment.
Position recorded without written comment.
Position recorded without written comment.
Position recorded without written comment.
Position recorded without written comment.
Position recorded without written comment.