AN ACT relating to geoengineering.
SB62 would create a new criminal offense in Kentucky for what it defines as “criminal atmospheric pollution.” The bill declares that geoengineering and related activities—such as solar radiation modification, cloud seeding, stratospheric aerosol injection, and other forms of atmospheric intervention—endanger public health, the environment, agriculture, aviation, and state security. It also states that Kentucky citizens do not consent to such actions by federal or international actors and cites the Tenth Amendment and World Meteorological Organization guidance as part of its justification.
The bill establishes a broad set of definitions for terms like “atmospheric contaminant,” “release,” “weather modification,” “solar radiation modification,” and “stratospheric aerosol injection.” It also includes artificial intelligence within the definition of actors that could engage in prohibited atmospheric interventions. Under the bill, a person who intentionally or wantonly engages in any atmospheric polluting intervention would commit a Class D felony and face a civil penalty of at least $500,000, with each day of violation treated as a separate offense. Peace officers would be required to enforce the law, and citizens could report suspected violations to law enforcement.
SB62 would add a new section to KRS Chapter 512 and create a new felony offense under Kentucky law. It would expand state criminal law into the area of atmospheric and weather-related activities, potentially affecting individuals, corporations, government entities, research organizations, and any other “person” as broadly defined in the bill. The measure would also create a substantial civil penalty and direct law enforcement to respond to suspected violations, while purporting to limit or reject federally approved atmospheric interventions within or over the Commonwealth.
No committee transcripts or recorded votes were provided, so there is no direct evidence of legislative debate or formal support/opposition in the available record. Based on the bill text alone, the measure is framed in strongly prohibitive and precautionary terms, reflecting a clear intent to ban geoengineering-related activities rather than regulate them. The overall tone is assertive and skeptical of atmospheric intervention, with the bill presenting such activities as a threat to health, safety, and sovereignty.
The main points of contention are likely to be the bill’s scientific assumptions, its extremely broad definitions, and its attempt to criminalize a wide range of conduct tied to weather modification and geoengineering. Critics may question whether the bill’s definitions of “atmospheric contaminant,” “physical agent,” and “release” are overinclusive or could sweep in legitimate scientific, industrial, or aviation-related activity. The inclusion of artificial intelligence as a possible actor, the large civil penalty, and the provision directing officers to notify federal officials if a federal agency approved the activity all suggest potential conflict over federal authority, enforcement practicality, and the scope of state power.