Undercover Video Exposes WEF Elites Discussing Weather Manipulation, Climate Intervention, And Aerosol Injection

 Many believe that the idea of governments or global institutions altering the atmosphere to “manage” climate conditions is a conspiracy theory. The language itself became radioactive, and we're at the point where the term “chemtrails” is enough to end a conversation before it even begins. Yet footage captured at the World Economic Forum by James O’Keefe revealed that the topic is discussed openly among the elites.

O’Keefe, the founder of O’Keefe Media Group, attended the World Economic Forum while undercover. Posing as an employee of a fictional climate engineering firm, he attended late-night events and hotel gatherings where he held conversations with climate finance executives, engineers, and consultants. Shockingly, they all spoke candidly about geoengineering, carbon markets, and weather intervention.

In one exchange, O’Keefe described the technology under discussion as a way to counter warming through atmospheric intervention. “So we invest in these technologies to assist with the warming climate,” he said, explaining that “the effect of sulfur dioxide in the atmosphere will help block some of the warming and the particles stay in the air for one year.” He added that conversations were already happening with aircraft manufacturers “to see if they can emit some of our technology into the atmosphere to help with the global warming.”

“We don’t like to use the term climate engineering, it scares people,” O’Keefe said during the exchange. “We call it aerosol injection, aerosol. It’s kind of like little droplets and the droplets form in the air and they stay there for a year. It’s modeled in kind of a mini volcanic eruption actually.”

If O'Keefe's statements about climate engineering were fake, you would think his listeners would be confused. Andreas Swahn, identified by O’Keefe as a serial entrepreneur, did not push back on the premise, and neither did others. That’s right: while people argue over whether climate intervention, atmospheric aerosol injection, or weather manipulation is even real, those inside these rooms are openly discussing how it works and how it could be carried out.

Another conversation featured Kennedy Ricci, President and CEO of 4Air, a company that says it aims to “decarbonize the aviation industry.” Ricci acknowledged that sulfur compounds already play a role in aviation. “Aviation fields have some sulfur in them, so it creates some sulfur dioxide in the air naturally and that does have a cooling effect,” he said.

Ricci also addressed where some of these ideas originated. “A lot of them actually came out of the military,” he said. When asked whether he had worked directly with military entities, Ricci replied, “No, because they’re a little more closed door about their opportunity here.”

Pressed on feasibility of sulfur dioxide, Ricci added, “It’s actually pretty cheap to do it.” He continued, “If you put sulfur dioxide there’s actually a pretty cheap way to cool down the air,” noting that “the opportunity for one or two people to do it is impressive.” He later raised concerns about what could happen if governments began engaging in weather intervention across borders.

Elsewhere in the footage, O’Keefe spoke with Emil C. Lüth, who has ties to defense and research agencies. When asked directly about artificial rain, Lüth did not deny the concept. “There might be people around me that would have an inclination to do that,” he said. Asked what organization he was with, Lüth replied, “Some with letters, some without.”

Climate finance surfaced repeatedly throughout the conversations. Sara Lemniei, identified as the CEO of SLK Capital, described her work designing carbon taxes and climate credits for governments and corporations. “We work with companies to give them new revenue streams,” she said, referring to carbon taxes. In another exchange, Lemniei explained, “We can help companies in Africa and India decarbonize their operations so they can remain competitive and continue exporting to Europe.”

Taken together, the conversations do not amount to a single declaration of an active global program. They do, however, show how freely these ideas are discussed away from public view. What is the reason for this? If decisions like this affect everyone, when are people meant to be informed — and how are they supposed to know whether what’s being discussed is actually safe?

 Subscribe today to get unlimited access to all of Evie’s premium content.