Aerosol Geoengineering, Chemical and Biological Warfare, Department of Defense (DoD), Department of Defense Film Production, Geoengineering, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), U.S. Army Biological Warfare Laboratories (USBWL)
The original film titled “Naval Concepts of Chemical and Biological Warfare (1952)“ was originally obtained through the USA Freedom Of Information Act (FOIA) by the Government-attic.
It is now an officially declassified naval video and in the public domain. Naval Concepts of Chemical and Biological Warfare (1952) (see video below) discusses the US Navy’s offensive biological and chemical warfare tactics, capabilities and experiments in the early 1950’s, during the height of the cold war.
The Laboratories, United States Army Biological Warfare Laboratories (USBWL) were a suite of research laboratories and pilot plant centers operating at Camp (later Fort Detrick), Maryland, USA, and all their projects were allegedly discontinued in 1969 when President Richard Nixon disestablished all offensive Biological Warfare studies and directed the destruction of all stock piles of these agents and munitions.
The narrator does not say what chemicals were used in these tests but clearly notes that the aerosol agents were replacements for biological and chemical weapons.
Contrary to rumors of “conspiracy theory,” the Department of Defense first published “Chemtrails” in 1990 as the title to a chemistry course for new pilots attending the esteemed US Air Force Academy. The term “Chemtrails,” and its implied meaning was eventually adopted by civilian observers to describe unusual jet contrail emissions.
This bio weapon technology has continued to be developed to this day in secret and has evolved greatly since 1952 and 1990 with many US patents leading to the USA Department Of Defense and its military industrial complex.
People around the world are noticing that our planet’s weather is dramatically changing. They are also beginning to notice the long lingering trails left behind airplanes that have lead millions to accept the reality of chemtrail/geoengineering programs.
Could there be a connection between the trails and our severe weather? While there are many agendas associated with these damaging programs, evidence is now abundant which proves that geoengineering can be used to control weather.
In August 18, 2012, Michael J. Murphy released a ground breaking film exposing this crime called “What in the World Are They Spraying?“ The multi award winning film’s success led to Michael J. Murphy’s second follow up multi award winning documentary called “Why in the World are They Spraying?”  that dove deeper in to the climate engineering rabbit hole, thus proving these Aerosol Geoengineering technologies have been going on in secret with the assistance governments all around the world for many decades.
Because geoengineering changes our climate’s temperature, disrupts our natural weather events and causes a series of other events which mimic the consequences of climate change, we feel strongly that geoengineering must be stopped before proceeding with any climate talks, treaties and climate change legislation and mandates.
Climate Change Legislation will, if passed, lead to global governance, the disintegration of nations (including the sovereignty of Native American Nations,) transfer trillions of dollars into the hands of a few at the expense of many and allow an unelected body Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) to intervene and micro manage our lives.
If these Laws and Treaties are passed and goes into effect, it will most likely lead to public propaganda campaigns to influence people’s support of the legalization of geoengineering.
Legalization will prevent lawsuits, establish global governance, and create clear and open financing to such programs which will make it exponentially more difficult to stop.
Denied, yet ongoing geoengineering has not been included in any climate models, making it impossible to determine whether the planet is warming or cooling. We therefore demand that global geoengineering programs be stopped before any more climate change talks and legislation is enacted.
Department of Defense Film Production, National Archives and Records Administration.
- Parent Directory
Want sunshine? What Are You Doing To Help Save The World Today? (See Global March Against Chemtrails And Geoengineering – http://www.GMACAG.com) and Michael J. Murphy are Campaigning to Ban Climate Engineering Everywhere!
United States of America
Description of document: Records indicating the impact of federal budget
sequestration upon Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) operations and functions, FY 2013
Request date: 2013
Released date: 13-June-2014
Posted date: 05-October-2015
Source of document: National Freedom of Information Officer
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW (2822T)
Washington, DC 20460
Federal FOIA Online
The governmentattic.org web site (“the site”) is noncommercial and free to the public. The site and materials
made available on the site, such as this file, are for reference only. The governmentattic.org web site and its
principals have made every effort to make this information as complete and as accurate as possible, however,
there may be mistakes and omissions, both typographical and in content. The governmentattic.org web site and
its principals shall have neither liability nor responsibility to any person or entity with respect to any loss or
damage caused, or alleged to have been caused, directly or indirectly, by the information provided on the
governmentattic.org web site or in this file. The public records published on the site were obtained from
government agencies using proper legal channels. Each document is identified as to the source. Any concerns
about the contents of the site should be directed to the agency originating the document in
question. GovernmentAttic.org is not responsible for the contents of documents published on the website.
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
JUN 1 3 [014
RE: FOIA Request Number:
OFFICE OF THE
CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
Thank you for your inquiry on the impact that sequestration had on the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency FY 2013 budget. A review of our records identifies the enclosed letter sent
to Senator Mikulski. The enclosure was sent to her office on February 6, 2013.
If you have any additional questions, please contact Daniel Gonzalez at 202-564-2877 or
Carol Terris, Acting Director
Office of Budget
Internet Address (URL) • http //www epa gov
Recycled/Recyclable • Pnnted with Vegetable Oil Based Inks on 100% Postconsumer Process Chlorine Free Recycled Paper
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
The Honorable Barbara A. Mikulski
Committee on Appropriations
United States Senate
Washington. D.C. 20510
Dear Madam Chairwoman:
FEB 0 6 2013
THl: AOMIN 3T,”‘1A TGR
I am responding to your letter dated January 22, 2013, requesting information about the impact that
sequestration will have on the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s ability to protect the nation’s
environment and public health. As stewards of taxpayers· dollars. we have set priorities. made tough
choices and managed our budget carefully. Sequestration, however, will force us to make cuts we
believe will directly undercut our congressionally-mandated mission of ensuring Americans have clean
air, clean water and clean land. I am enclosing our preliminary assessment of some of the impacts of
sequestration, should it be implemented. Our assessment highlights a number of immediate impacts to
programs, people and services.
Should you have any questions about the information included. please have your staff contact Ed Walsh
of my staff at (202) 564-4594.
Lisa P. Jackson
Internet Address (URl.) • ‘l!Wl.’wwv•i epa gov
Recycl<Xl/Recyclable • Prmed with Vegetahll’ C:il 8.;sed Inks on 100% f”Mtconsu..,e’, Pmceso Ch!n~nr. !Oree Rilc.cled Paper
Potential Impacts of Sequestration
• ENERGY STAR is relied upon by millions of Americans and thousands of companies to save money
and protect the environment through energy efficient products and practices.
o Results are already adding up. Americans, with the help of ENERGY STAR, prevented 210 million
metric tons of GHG emissionsl in 2011 alone- equivalent to the annual emissions from 41
million vehicles-and reduced their utility bills by $23 billion.
• Under sequestration, there would be three specific impacts that could jeopardize, delay or impair
further progress: (1) EPA’s ability to keep ENERGY STAR product specifications up to date across
more than 65 categories would slow down, including electronics, appliances and home heating and
cooling systems; (2) EPA would have to reduce the number of energy-intensive industrial sectors it
works with to develop energy performance indicators and Energy Efficiency Guides; and (3) EPA
would reduce support for our Portfolio Manager, both the planned upgrade and our ability to
support its users, including the approximately 10 major cities and states as well as the federal
government, which use the tool in emissions and energy disclosure and benchmarking policies.
• Before new vehicles can be sold in the United States, EPA must first certify that they are in
compliance with emissions standards.
• Sequestration would harm EPA’s ability to confirm in a timely manner that manufacturers are
complying with all vehicle emission standards and creates the risk that some manufacturers would
be delayed in their ability to certify their products. Without this certification, they would be unable
to sell these products in the United States, thus depriving car-buyers access to the latest vehicles
and potentially harming vehicle sales and the economy.
State Air Monitors
• Air quality monitoring is vital to the protection of public health from harmful air pollution.
• Sequestration would reduce the funding EPA provides states to monitor alr quality, likely forcing the
shutdown of some critical air monitoring sites. Lost monitoring for high priority pollutants such as
ozone and fine particles would impact the collection of data necessary for determining whether
areas of the country meet, or do not meet, the Clean Air Act’s health-based standards.
• Sequestration would force the Agency to eliminate or significantly reduce essential air quality data
systems like AIRNow, a popular air quality reporting and forecasting system. Americans that have or
care for individuals with respiratory and cardiac health issues rely on AIRNow for information about
when to take action to avoid health impacts from air pollution. The Agency would eliminate
upgrades for the Emission Inventory and Air Quality Systems – the Agency would only fund
operations for these systems. These systems store and process air quality monitoring and emissions
data from across the nation that informs EPA, state, tribal, and local air agencies’ decisions on steps
needed to improve air quality. Without this monitoring data, future improvements in air quality
would be hampered or delayed.
Potential Impacts of Sequestration
Enforcement and Compliance Programs
Civil and Criminal Enforcement
Americans expect their government to protect them from violations of the nation’s environmental laws
that could harm their families and impact the safety and prosperity of their communities.
Sequestration’s reduction to EPA’s enforcement budget would:
Reduce EPA’s ability to monitor compliance with environmental laws – as fewer environmental cops
are on the “beat” to enforce environmental laws (note implementation of the sequester could result
in 1,000 fewer inspections in FY 2013.)
Limit EPA’s capacity to identify toxic air emissions, water discharges, and other sources of pollution
that directly affect public health and the environment.
National Environmental Policy Act
• EPA’s comments on environmental reviews are required by law and help to ensure that federal
agencies understand the potential environmental impacts and have considered alternatives to
proposed projects on federal lands. Sequestration would reduce support for environmental reviews
and could slow the approval of transportation and energy related projects.
Superfund enforcement ensures that responsible parties pay for necessary and often costly cleanups at
the nation’s most polluted sites. Sequestration would cut work to press responsible parties to clean up
contaminated sites in communities and restore clean up funds for use at other sites – putting the costs
back on the American public. (note: estimated $100 million loss in clean-up commitments and cost
reimbursements to the government).
EPA tribal funding supports environmental protection for 566 tribes on 70 million acres of tribal lands.
This funding includes the most significant grant resources to help tribal governments build the core
capacity necessary to protect public health and the environment. Funds are used to support staffing of
environmental directors and technicians to implement environmental projects, including safe drinking
water programs and development of solid waste management plans. Reduced funds under
sequestration would directly impact some of the country’s most economically disadvantaged
communities, resulting in loss of employment, and hindering tribal governments’ ability to ensure clean
air and clean and safe water.
Research and Development Programs
Air. Climate and Energy
• Under sequestration, cuts to EPA climate research would limit the ability of local, state and the
federal government to help communities adapt to and prepare for certain effects of climate change,
such as severe weather events. Without information provided by climate research, local
Potential Impacts of Sequestration
governments would not know how climate change would affect water quality, and therefore would
be unable to develop adaptation strategies to maintain protection of water quality as the climate
Implementation of the sequester would eliminate research to increase our understanding of
exposures and health effects of air pollutants on susceptible and vulnerable populations, such as
asthmatics, the growing aging population, and individuals living near air pollution sources which
would impact the development of national air quality standards as required by the Clean Air Act.
Chemical Safety for Sustainability
• Under sequestration, the reduction in funding would impede EPA’s ability to assess and understand
the effect of nanomaterials on human health and dispose of rare earth materials used in electronics,
thereby limiting innovation and manufacturing opportunities with these materials in the US. The
reduction in funding for endocrine disrupting chemicals research would limit our nation’s ability to
determine where and how susceptible people are exposed to endocrine disrupting chemicals, and to
understand how these toxic exposures impact their health and welfare. Limiting the use of advanced
chemical evaluation approaches recommended by the National Academy of Sciences would impair
the ability of business, states and EPA to make decisions on both the safety of existing industrial
chemicals, as well as on the development and use of safer chemicals.
Sustainable & Healthy Communities
Under sequestration EPA would reduce the number of undergraduate and graduate fellowships
(STAR and GRO) by approximately 45, thus eliminating any new fellowships. The Fellowship
program, one of the most successful fellowship programs in government, is educating the next
generation of environmental scientists, which is critical to a strong and competitive economy.
Reductions under Sequestration would discontinue funding for two joint EPA/National Institutes of
Health Centers of Excellence for Children’s Health Research. These centers are providing a greater
understanding of how the environment impacts today’s most pressing children’s health challenges,
including asthma, autism, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), neurodevelopmental
deficits, childhood leukemia, diabetes, and obesity. Eliminating funding would negatively impact
graduate students and faculty who would have to look for new funding to keep their research going
and ultimately slow down the pace of scientific research in these important areas. Research in these
areas translates to improved public health.
EPA research and grants to academic institutions for studies to understand human health disparities
at the community-level would both be severely curtailed by reductions under sequestration. This
would be especially significant to disproportionately affected communities across the US. Important
research would be stopped mid-stream and graduate students would be without expected funding.
This would delay scientific research in these fields, which are important to advancing public health.
Safe and Sustainable Water Resources
Under sequestration Reductions to green infrastructure (GI) research would slow the Agency’s
ability to provide GI best-management practices to municipalities dealing with costly storm water
enforcement actions. Other benefits of GI, such as wildlife habitat, flood and erosion control,
recreational opportunities, jobs and increased property values, would also be Jost.
Sequestration would cut research to find cleaner and cheaper solutions to help states and cities
address the nation’s crumbling water infrastructure that is contaminating clean drinking water and
Potential Impacts of Sequestration
causing substantial loss of valuable quantities of water.
Human Health Risk Assessment
Reductions under Sequestration would result in the significant delay of crucial Integrated Risk
Information System (IRIS) human health related assessments (e.g. arsenic, styrene, ethylbenzene,
naphthalene and manganese) that would limit the ability of EPA and states to make decisions to
protect people’s health.
Sequestration reductions delaying the delivery of four major Integrated Science Assessments would
limit the ability of EPA to make decisions that would protect people from certain air pollutants.
Homeland Security Research
Sequestration would stall development of approaches to manage waste from radiological
contaminants following a terrorist attack or a nuclear accident. Opportunities to learn lessons from
the Japanese Fukushima Disaster would be lost.
Under sequestration, reductions in practical research on preparedness following disasters would
inhibit the development of techniques and procedures for communities to prepare for and recover
from natural disasters and industrial accidents (e.g., Deepwater Horizon, Superstorm Sandy). This
would lead to longer recovery times and higher costs at the local, state, and national levels.
State Revolving Fund Program (SRFs):
• Under sequestration, cuts to Clean Water and Drinking Water SRFs would deprive communities from
access to funding to build or repair decaying water and wastewater infrastructure that provides safe
drinking water and removes and treats sewage.
Water Program State Implementation Grants:
• Reductions under sequestration would impact states’ ability to meet drinking water public health
standards and to reduce the nitrogen and phosphorus pollution that contaminate drinking water
supplies, cause toxic algae blooms, and deprive waters of oxygen that fish need to survive. This
reduction would result in the elimination of more than 100 water quality protection and restoration
projects throughout the United States. Examples of specific projects that would be impacted
include but are not limited to:
o Assisting small and/or disadvantaged public drinking water systems that need assistance to
improve the safety of the drinking water delivered to communities.
o Protecting children from harmful exposure to lead in drinking water by revising the Lead and
o Protecting public health from cancer-causing Volatile Organic Compounds in drinking water
EPA ‘s Water Program Implementation:
• Reductions under sequestration would limit assistance provided to states and tribes to ensure safe
and clean water, including protecting children from exposure to lead in drinking water; protecting
rivers and streams from industrial and municipal pollution discharges, identifying and developing
Potential Impacts of Sequestration
cleanup plans for polluted waterways, and developing science to support human health and aquatic
Superstorm Sandy Appropriation:
• Sequestration would reduce funding available to enhance resiliency and reduce flood damage risk
and vulnerability at treatment works in communities impacted by Superstorm Sandy.
Community Protection Reduced
The Agency’s cleanup programs protect communities from the risks posed by hazardous waste sites and
releases and returns formally contaminated properties to beneficial use.
The Superfund Remedial program would be unable to fund an estimated 3-5 new construction
projects to protect the American public at Superfund National Priority List sites due to constrained
funding from the sequestration.
Under sequestration, the Agency may have to stop work at one or more ongoing Superfund
Remedial construction projects. Stopping any ongoing work would increase costs in the long run
(due to contract termination penalties and the need to demobilize and re-mobilize construction
The sequestration would reduce funding available for other parts of the Superfund Remedial
program as well. Critical steps leading up to construction would be curtailed.
Cuts to the Brownfield Program’s budget under sequestration would limit the Agency’s ability to
provide cleanup, job training, and technical assistance to brownfield communities. The Program
leverages nearly $17 dollars of private and public sector funding for every dollar expended by the
Brownfields program to clean up sites and help revitalize communities and support economic
Under sequestration, funding cuts would reduce Risk Management Plan (RMP) Program inspections
and prevention activities. Both high-risk and non high-risk RMP facility inspections would be
reduced by approximately 26 inspections per year, from 500 to 474. Of the reduced inspections,
approximately 8 would be from high risk facilities and the RMP inspector training program would be
Cuts to the Oil Spill program under sequestration would reduce protection of US waters from oil
spills by reducing inspection and prevention activities. The largest program impact of an oil budget
reduction would be on inspections at regulated facilities. EPA currently conducts approximately 840
inspections per year at SPCC-regulated facilities (which represents 0.13 % of the total universe of
640,000) and 290 FRP inspections/ unannounced exercises (about 6.5% of the universe of 4,400).
EPA would reduce approximately 37 FRP inspections in FY 2013 and limit the development of a third
party audit program for SPCC facilities, which may lead to a decrease in compliance with
environmental and health regulations.
EPA I State Cleanup and Waste Program Cuts
Under sequestration state cleanup program funding would be cut reducing site assessments .
Cuts in Leaking Underground Storage Tank state grants under sequestration would result in nearly
290 fewer cleanups completed at contaminated sites, limiting further reductions to the backlog of
sites awaiting cleanup. It would reduce the number of sites and acres ready for reuse or continued
Potential Impacts of Sequestration
use, and therefore, fewer communities would receive the redevelopment benefit of cleaning up
Under sequestration, cuts in state grants would result in approximately 2,600 fewer inspections, and
would limit the States’ ability to meet the statutory mandatory 3-year inspection requirement.
Decreased frequency of inspections may lead to a decline in compliance rates and could result in
more UST releases.
Since 75% of state clean up grants and 80% of state prevention grants support state staff, these cuts
under sequestration could lead to the loss of state jobs.
Under sequestration, cuts to the Brownfield Program would reduce funds to states and tribes for
the development of voluntary response programs.
A cut of $2.5 million to CERCLA 128(a) State and Tribal response program Brownfields categorical
grants program under sequestration would reduce the ability to fund new grantees (7 tribal
grantees) without further reducing the allocations of existing grantees, and would decrease the
number of properties that could be overseen by Voluntary Cleanup Programs by nearly 600.
Cuts under sequestration would delay work on a three-year project to develop a fee-based system
for managing hazardous waste transport (e-Manifest) that would produce the estimated $77 million
to $126 million in annual projected savings to industry and the states.
Sequestration cuts would reduce funding for maintenance to the only national system for tracking
state and federal RCRA permitting and corrective action. RCRA Info is vital to the U.S. economy since
it enables states to prioritize and implement their haiardous waste programs by tracking facility
activities regarding the handling hazardous waste (generators, or treatment, storage, or disposal
|Newly added files listings/links:|