Chemtrails and Solar Geoengineers: Governing Online Conspiracy Theory Misinformation.

• Date: 22 June 2020
• Author: Corbett, Charles R.

TABLE OF CONTENTS ABSTRACT 633 TABLE OF CONTENTS 635 I. INTRODUCTION 637 A. A Call to Action on ChemtrailMisinformation 642 II. BACKGROUND 644 A. A Chemtrails Primer 644 1. The Chemtrail Theory: Message and Medium 644 2. The Numbers: Chemtrail Belief Is Widespread 647 B. Misinformation Governance 650 1. "Governance" 651 2. Misinformation, Disinformation, and Fake News 652 C. Conspiracies and the Chemtrail Problem Revisited 653 D. Limits of Misinformation Governance: Climate Denialism 656 III. REGULATING MISINFORMATION 657 A. Should We Govern? 658 B. Patently False Statements of Fact Under the First 659 Amendment C. Contemporary Models of "Self-Regulation 663 1. Internet Law in the United States 663 2. The Content Moderation Values of Social Media Platforms 665 3. Practicing Moderation: The Legal Flavor of Facebook's 667 Content Policies 4. Moderating Patently False Conspiracy Theory Content on 670 Facebook 5. Paths Not Taken: Stricter Content Controls Abroad 672 IV. PROPOSED METHODS OF CHEMTRAIL MISINFORMATION GOVERNANCE 674 A. Direct Responses to Chemtrail Misinformation 674 1. Inclusive Administrative Procedures for Solar 674 Geoengineering Decision-Making 2. Direct Petitioning of Platforms to Control Chemtrail 675 Content 3. High-Quality Accessible Content on Solar Geoengineering 676 Research 4. Tort Actions for Speech-Based Harms 677 B. Broader Responses to Online Misinformation 679 1. Information Literacy Initiatives 679 2. Safe Harbor for Research 681 3. Public Trustee Agreement 682 C. Proposals to Avoid 683 1. Targeted Counterspeech Campaigns to Debunk Chemtrail 684 Conspiracy Theories 2. Stripping Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act 684 of Platform Liability Protections V. CONCLUSION 685 I. INTRODUCTION

Solar geoengineering describes a set of proposed technologies that would limit the harms of climate change by altering Earth's flows of incoming and outgoing solar energy. (1) Of these proposals, stratospheric aerosol injection is the most researched and widely discussed, though many basic technical questions remain unexplored. (2) A stratospheric aerosol injection program would spray a reflective aerosol high above in the atmosphere, perhaps using aircraft or balloons. (3) While the dispersed aerosol droplets remain suspended in the stratosphere, they would reflect a small portion of incoming sunlight back out into space, producing a cooling effect across the planet. (4) Stratospheric aerosol injection takes inspiration from episodes of global cooling observed after volcanic eruptions, especially the 1991 eruption of Mount Pinatubo. (5) That scientists have observed such cooling in the past is one of the reasons some are so confident that stratospheric aerosol injection could work as promised. But much scientific research would be needed for decision makers to reach an informed decision on whether to develop, let alone deploy, the technology.

The most challenging problems posed by solar geoengineering are not technical or scientific, but rather "social, ethical, legal and political." (6) Over the last fifteen years or so, a new area of academic literature, "geoengineering governance," has sprung up to identify and begin answering these questions. (7) A topline finding of the governance literature concerns public engagement and communications. In short, building an informed public discourse on geoengineering is fundamental to the legitimacy of research and of potential development. (8) Without informed public deliberation, there can be no genuine democratic processes to guide oversight and decision-making. (9)

Solar geoengineering researchers, however, face a surreal challenge when it comes to building an informed public discourse: the popularity of chemtrail conspiracy theories online. Chemtrail conspiracy theorists claim that contrails, the plumes of water vapor condensation left behind by aircraft engines (the "trails"), are not made of water vapor at all, but rather poisonous chemicals or covert geoengineering agents (the "chems"). (10) The claims of these "chemtrailers" have been debunked by scientists, (11) public-facing factchecking organizations, (12) and at least one court, (13) but belief in the conspiracy theory has persisted and spread. (14) Online conspiracy theory networks dedicated to researching and promoting chemtrail conspiracy theories have been successful at promoting their worldview on social media, attracting followers, and crowding out legitimate coverage of geoengineering technologies. (15) Their success comes from a deliberate communications strategy, (16) frequent and enthusiastic publication of their ideas, (17) gullible groups, (18) and the engagement-maximizing design of social media's contentpromotion algorithms. (19)

There is a striking, if superficial, resemblance between solar geoengineering proposals for stratospheric aerosol injections and chemtrail conspiracy theories. (20) Both imagine aerial spraying of potent chemicals, far above in the atmosphere, carried out by powerful, mysterious state actors to bring about observable effects on the surface. Many popular forms of the chemtrail conspiracy theory resemble factually accurate coverage of stratospheric aerosol injections and geoengineering, with the key difference and misrepresentation - being that the conspiracy theorists allege the "spraying" is already underway. (21) This affinity between geoengineering conspiracy and reality is due in part to the intellectual histories of the ideas. The chemtrail conspiracy theory was formulated by environmental journalist William Thomas, who drew on a speculative U.S. Air Force research paper called Weather as a Force Multiplier: Owning the Weather in 2025, (22) as well as a 1991 patent describing a solar geoengineering-like technology, (23) to argue that the U.S. government was carrying out a covert geoengineering program to fight global warming. (24) Thomas's ideas were popularized by nationallysyndicated talk-show host Art Bell, who had Thomas on his show Coast to Coast several times in the late 1990s and early 2000s to discuss chemtrails. (25)

Art Bell was well known for covering fringe conspiracy theories on his show, and a story by Time magazine in 1999 reported the chemtrail conspiracy theory was particularly popular among Bell's audience. (26)

A few years later, Nobel laureate Paul J. Crutzen penned an influential essay calling for serious scientific and academic examination of geoengineering technologies, including stratospheric aerosol injection. (27) This piece has been widely credited as having "broke the taboo" on solar geoengineering within the climate policy world, launching the geoengineering governance literature that exists today. (28) Suddenly, reputable academics were imagining scenarios reminiscent of those described by Thomas and other conspiracy-theory communities. The two discourses, chemtrails and solar geoengineering governance, matured side by side. Chemtrail theorists have closely monitored developments within the geoengineering world for clues into the supposed conspiracy. (29) Occasionally, geoengineering researchers have responded with debunking content of their own. (30)

The resemblance between chemtrail content and solar geoengineering can also be explained on a more abstract level. The governance discourse on solar geoengineering technologies has uncovered concerns of legitimacy and trust: who will carry a solar geoengineering program out? How can one be sure they will act for the good of the globe? What will hold them accountable? (31) A lack of trust, in turn, can create fertile ground for chemtrail conspiratorial ideation. (32) Public discourse on solar geoengineering therefore may be indefinitely linked to online communities peddling chemtrail conspiracy theories, due to this problem of trust, perceived and actual degradation of local environments, and resentment of concentrated control by a small number of elites. (33)

1. A Call to Action on Chemtrail Misinformation

   We know that chemtrail conspiracy theories are relatively widespread, that they are often linked to solar geoengineering in popular sources of information, and that they are already clouding public perception on geoengineering. These patterns can be expected to continue into the future due to the superficial resemblance between the conspiracy theory and solar geoengineering technology, as well as the chemtrail narrative's ability to speak to feelings of distrust, disgust, and resentment toward solar geoengineering. The conversation on geoengineering governance should therefore be expanded to include responses to chemtrail misinformation online.

   The problem of chemtrail misinformation is intertwined with the broader problem of misinformation on social media. Many of the observations of how and why chemtrail conspiracy theories thrive online are equally applicable to flat-earthers, anti-vaxxers, or 9/11 truthers. (34) Accordingly, academic assessments of online conspiracy theories and misinformation usually lump these conspiracy narratives together and consider legal and governance responses to them as a whole. (35) This generalizing goes a little too far, however, in that it overlooks the ways that each strain of misinformation has a life and social reality of its own. For example, antisemitic conspiracy theories advancing white nationalist political projects have different audiences, purposes, and impacts than science-skeptic conspiracies sowing doubt about vaccination efficacy. A state law mandating vaccinations and limiting the use of parental objections could respond to the fallout from antivaxxer misinformation but would do nothing to respond to the harms of crypto-fascist propaganda. To that end, this Article identifies a few governance responses that can directly target the solar geoengineering and chemtrail-conspiracy nexus.

   The most effective governance responses, however, will focus on structures that take advantage of the gullibility of...