The Tennessee Senate has passed a bill targeting “chemtrails.”
SB 2691/HB 2063, sponsored by Rep. Monty Fritts, R-Kingston, and Sen. Steve Southerland, R-Morristown, passed in the Senate on Monday. The bill has yet to advance in the House.
The bill claims it is “documented the federal government or other entities acting on the federal government’s behalf or at the federal government’s request may conduct geoengineering experiments by intentionally dispersing chemicals into the atmosphere, and those activities may occur within the State of Tennessee,” according to the bill.
The legislation would ban the practice in Tennessee.
“The intentional injection, release, or dispersion, by any means, of chemicals, chemical compounds, substances, or apparatus within the borders of this state into the atmosphere with the express purpose of affecting temperature, weather, or the intensity of the sunlight is prohibited,” the bill reads.
The bill is scheduled to go to the House Agriculture and Natural Resources Committee on Wednesday.
This is how I see it backfiring.
Federal gov: we hereby formally request that the motorists of the great state of Tennessee drive their motor vehicles in order to release CO2 and other chemicals into the atmosphere for the express purpose of changing the temperature in Tennessee.
Oops, all motor vehicles are now banned in Tennessee.
Edit: also banned are parasols and air conditioners as they’re both an apparatus with the express purpose of affecting temperature
I’m wondering if this could actually be applied to things like crop-dusting, as it does temporarily affect the intensity of sunlight. The same might be true of any airplanes flying over the state – oops that airliner obscured the sun for a moment and their flight path was intentional. It would be hilarious if all airlines suspended flights “just in case”.
Lol.
But the bill says it’s only illegal if the intent was to impact weather or whatever. Would still be funny though.
Yeah but “intent” doesn’t seem like it is clearly defined? It’s like all these damn anti-abortion laws – nobody “intends” to have a miscarriage and yet the lawmakers made sure that women can still be prosecuted for it. Funny how they didn’t leave any loopholes to prosecute the men who were just as guilty. Shitty laws like this always make sure to leave some wiggle room so they can go after anyone who they randomly decide needs prosecuted, but hopefully this whole things slaps them in the face like the book bans.
Yeah, it’s a stupid bill. I hope it fails in their legislature or backfires.
I always prefer backfires, just to rub in their stupidity. 😄
The city where I work is currently ‘renovating’ the intersection near my parking lot. The direction I drive in is taking three lanes and converting them to four lanes – two left-turn lanes for practically non-existent traffic, the ‘new’ lane will be for the busses, and a single straight-through lane for a high amount of traffic which is already backing up because construction has dropped us to a single lane. Also, half of the straight-through traffic needs to immediately cut off the busses after the intersection because the remaining lane feeds directly into a pair of left-turn lanes for the next light a few hundred feet away.
Now the traffic leaving the area where I work, they are also switching one of the lanes to a dedicated bus lane. This means ALL of the exiting traffic gets funneled into a single lane, half of that traffic immediately cuts off the buses right after the light to make their exit to the freeway, the other half is split between a left turn lane that is always backed up blocking the remaining straight-through lane (why didn’t they make THIS side into a double turn lane???). Again because of the construction they have closed off the lane that will soon become a bus lane so the traffic is now backed up through two lights and half way to the third light (and no, the construction isn’t impeding the traffic, they just have the lane blocked off).
Of course all of us on reddit who discussed the proposed changes immediately pointed all the problems with this plan… and gee we were all correct except it’s already worse than imagined. But the city is being “progressive”… As I said, I love it when these idiot’s plans backfire.
Wow, that’s terrible, and it makes my complaining seem way more petty.
My kids go to school at a business park where there are some large trucks ending and leaving for deliveries. They’re also building a bunch of apartments and whatnot in the area, so they’re redesigning the intersection and street. They tore up a nice strip of trees in the middle of the street to make room for another lane.
Here’s a rough map:
There’s a stoplight at the H/C intersection, and they’re putting another in at the other intersection, as well as a dedicated turn from B to H and from H to B. Most people want to go between H and A/B. Going toward or from ∅ is very rare, and I think I’ve only seen large trucks to that way (if the turns are too tight in the business park).
Since almost nobody goes to ∅, I think a roundabout would make a ton more sense. The traffic from H to B would never need to stop and the traffic from B to H would rarely need to stop, so traffic would flow really nicely. It would also work really well for traffic from B to A, which is going to get more busy as people move in (it’s new construction). The light at H/C is frequent enough that it should keep up with the traffic from the roundabout.
But no, we get a left lane (B to H) that’s going to always be backed up enough to block people from going from B to A. And it’s probably way more expensive.
I guess one nice part is that kids walk from B to A, but since there’s almost no traffic going to ∅, we could just put a crosswalk there (almost nobody is going to ∅ anyway, so people probably won’t need to stop). The road that crosses ∅ is really wide, so there could totally be a protected island there as well.
But the real solution is to not have so many cars. There’s no bus service in this area despite a commuter train station being a mile or two away. I really don’t understand why you wouldn’t have at least a shuttle from the commuter rail to this business park…
It really makes you wonder who is paying these “planners” and whether or not they’ve even actually tried driving the route in question!
Yeah, there are some really confusing ones in my area:
Maybe I need to go to city meetings.
The law says “express purpose”, the purpose of the flight isn’t to block the sun. The purpose of the flight is to carry people to a destination and a by-product of that purpose creates a shadow.
I thought the same thing at first about the airplanes releasing CO2 into the air, but that release isn’t the express purpose of flying a plane.
There’s also the reverse: the bill doesn’t actually ban chemtrails. It bans dispersing chemicals for purposes of altering the weather. If they are dispersed for purposes of controlling people’s minds, they slip right past this bill.