HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOM 0372.146 2024-2026From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Attachments:
Council Members,
Ken Honma
Thursday, September 11, 2025 10:17 AM
Kierkiewicz, Ashley, Kanealii-Kleinfelder, Matt, Kimball, Heather, Onishi, Dennis; Inaba,
Holeka; Kagiwada, Jennifer, Galimba, Michelle M.; Villegas, Rebecca; Hustace, James
Council Testimony, Planning Internet Mail; Kalei Kailikini; Claudia; Sarah;
StanclTogether Hawaii; katrena meeker, Debbie Guanzon; Dan Fisher, Dave DeCleene
National Science Foundation and weather modification
ADA319117.pdf
After a recent post council meeting chastisement by one of the County Council members about peer
reviewed only information being accepted by the County Council in regards to the 2045 general plan, I
had to re-evaluate what form of information to provide the County Council with. The discussion that the
Council had just concluded was about climate change anditseffect on the plan.
My previous testimony brought information about the weather modification that the government is
involved in. I was very disappointed that the Committee did not ask about weather modification
otherwise today termed Geoengineering.
One of the important grant providers to "peer review" organizations is the National Science Foundation
(NSF), a government agency. The attached 1965 NSF report entitled "Weather Modification" provides
proof that the government was very interested in this topic and created an organization specifically
dedicated to this investigation, The National Center For Atmospheric Research or NCAR. It isyour
responsibility to do your due diligence in this matter and provide your findings about weather
modification advancement today, to the inhabitants of Hawaii County before your final vote on GP2045.
What is the status of NCAR's work in this area? Are they carrying out atmospheric experiments in our
skies? If so, what specifically are they doing and what impact does it have on the climate? I await your
response to this very pressing issue. 00
c
cn � o
Sincerely, z
Ken Honma
ken h.7553(d)9maiLcom P.O. box451 Kurtistown Hi. 8089677553 N �ru
.. ��
w ;>
c.n
CAmRi. f' L•:
?ef. To:
Lief. Date $E 7 2025
Testimony to the Hawaii County Council
On GP 2045 Sustainable and Resilient communities
9/17/2025 Hilo, Hawaii
The concept of "sustainable and resilient communities", though noble sounding, is a
concatenation of words without clear meaning that impress and confuse Hawaii County
inhabitants and Council members. These words must be removed from the planning
document along with any actions associated with them. The words are hypnotic
language, ideologically biased to give an impression of a higher calling to "do the right
thing". Who, then, would question this virtuous plan?
In actuality, the words "sustainable" and "resilient" are without any actual supporting
data.
What is sustainable? Are we sustainable now? Where is the example of a sustainable
community? How do we know when we are "sustainable"?
What is resilient? Are we resilient now? What are the conditions that make the county
resilient, whether the answer is positive or negative?
How do the writers of this document know that the imputed sustainability and resilience
has been achieved if this plan is followed? What are the metrics of success? What is
the probability of success? What resources will need to be allocated to achieve these
communities?
I look around Hawaii County and see increasing empty storefronts, businesses with
abbreviated hours, roads needing upkeep, and most of Hilo needing a new paint job
...etc. People are becoming more pessimistic about their present conditions and future
prospects. Young working people have little hope of ever owning their own home. We
have homelessness, drug deals at street intersections, mentally unstable people fighting
their demons on the sidewalks. Is this what we want to sustain? Is this the resilient
community that the plan anticipates creating and supporting?
Where in the plan does it address how to correct these existing conditions?
GP2045 does not address our current conditions, financially and otherwise. There is no
way that this plan can realistically imply we can achieve anything. Completely eliminate
the use of the words "sustainable and resilient communities" in the plan. They are
useless, lofty, empty words.
We need to begin again, this time, with a realistic characterization of where we stand
now, and then clearly define the desired outcome, without hypnotic language. The to-do
list generated must be prioritized toward these ends and funded without invoking
stakeholders and Public -Private -Partnerships, which will only exacerbate the problem of
concentration of wealth.
Sincerely,
Ken Honma P.O. box 451 Kurtistown Hi. 96760 kenh.7553(a)gmail. corn 8089677553