Political gridlock has paralysed Ohio’s campaign to ban geoengineering as the state enters 2026. After House Bill 529 died in 2024, sponsors returned last year with a two-pronged strategy—House Bills 272 and 290—yet neither measure broke the deadlock. This inaction separates Ohio from the movement's few victors. While our tracking identified 33 states that filed bills in 2025, only Florida and Louisiana signed bans into law, following the path Tennessee paved in 2024.

The stalled bills show legislative gridlock, driven by strategic errors, entrenched opposition, and procedural deadlocks. This article explains how these factors prevent Ohio's geoengineering legislation from advancing.

To make sense of Ohio's gridlock, it's essential to first understand the main political reasons behind stalled bills before diving into specific mistakes, opposition, and legal issues.

The 'Kitchen Sink' Bill: How Trying to Do Too Much Backfired

The first major obstacle was a bill that collapsed under its own weight. HB 272, the 'PURE LIFE Act,' attempted to broaden its coalition by bundling the geoengineering ban with several other controversial measures. The legislation included a ban on PFAS ('forever chemicals'), restrictions on food dyes, and a repeal of state water fluoridation mandates. To soften the blow, the bill classified geoengineering violations as minor fourth-degree misdemeanours, but this concession was not enough.

The "kitchen sink" strategy backfired completely. Instead of uniting different groups, it galvanised a powerful coalition of opponents who picked apart the bill's added provisions. Most notably, the Ohio Dental Association and public health officials fought the proposal to eliminate state fluoridation mandates, arguing that the move to "local control" threatened a long-standing public health standard used to prevent cavities.

The bill might also violate Ohio's 'Single Subject Rule,' which requires each law to cover only one topic. This bundling strategy echoes the controversy surrounding H.B. 96, where lawmakers inserted a repeal of the 'Air Nuisance Rule' into a large budget bill. As Miranda Leppla, director of the Environmental Law Clinic at Case Western Reserve University, explained to WYSO, these tactics hurt transparency:

“It's not something that any Ohioan should expect to be buried within a financial piece of legislation.”

Because this lawsuit is ongoing, legislative leaders are especially cautious about any new bill that could provoke additional legal challenges. This concern directly influences their approach to current and future legislation.

The 'Clean' Bill: A Standalone Ban with Its Own Problems

After the bigger bill failed, supporters turned to HB290, the 'Atmosphere Protection Act.' This stripped-down bill seeks only to ban geoengineering—defined as deliberate actions that alter the global climate, such as spraying particles into the air or removing carbon dioxide. However, its broad 'pollutant' definition and uncertain enforcement create legal and practical issues.

The bill lists many banned substances and agents, but some terms could cause serious unintended problems:

• "artificially produced electric field, magnetic field, electromagnetic field, electromagnetic pulse" —technologies central to electronic devices and radio communications.
• "microwaves"
• "chaff"

If taken literally, this language could affect critical state infrastructure. For example, banning electromagnetic fields and microwaves could trigger lawsuits against 5G towers, which rely on these signals for telecommunications. Banning 'chaff,' which is thin strips of metal or plastic used by the military to confuse radar, could put state law in conflict with federal defence work at places like Wright-Patterson Air Force Base. The bill’s strict penalties—a third-degree felony, a required 36-month prison sentence, and a $500,000 fine—make it even riskier for lawmakers.

Along with the definition issues, the bill’s enforcement plan fails both in practice and under the law. It allows county sheriffs to order aircraft to stop, ignoring the Federal Aviation Administration’s exclusive authority. If a sheriff attempted to ground a commercial or military plane at 30,000 feet, the order would violate federal law and invite immediate litigation. This jurisdictional overreach is another primary reason the bill has stalled.

The Committee Problem: A Political Conflict of Interest

A bill's progress often depends on its committee chair, and in this case, the situation is especially complicated. House leadership assigned HB 290 to the House Natural Resources Committee, led by Representative Monica Robb Blasdel.

Rep. Robb Blasdel faces a complicated conflict of interest:

• She is the Chair of the committee hearing HB290.
• She is a cosponsor of that same bill, HB290.
• She is a primary sponsor of the competing 'kitchen sink' bill, HB272.

This conflict is even more complicated because Chair Robb Blasdel also supports HB170. That bill would allow Carbon Capture and Sequestration (CCS), which means storing captured CO2 underground. HB290 is against injection, while HB170 supports it. Because of this, the Chair might delay HB290 to avoid sending mixed messages about these technologies.

A Small Chance: The Narrow Path Forward in 2026

Even with the gridlock, the legislation has not entirely died. While HB 272 has likely reached a dead end, HB 290 could still resurface.

Supporters found brief encouragement when HB 290 appeared on the October 29, 2025, docket, signalling that leadership is still considering the measure. However, the committee pulled the bill from the agenda just before the meeting began. This administrative hiccup suggests a complex reality: while the legislation is clearly active, unresolved internal disagreements likely led to the delay.

Another reason is that Rep. Robb Blasdel’s district includes East Palestine, a community still concerned about chemical exposure after the 2023 train derailment. She needs a popular environmental win to balance her industry support, and passing a revised HB290 could help her achieve that.

For the bill to pass in 2026, lawmakers and lobbyists must take several key steps:

• Consolidate support: Supporters must formally drop HB 272 and focus their efforts exclusively on HB 290.
• Refine the language: The committee must narrow the definition of 'pollutant' and remove language that targets telecom and defence operations.
• Time the vote: Leadership must bring the bill to a vote during the spring primary season, giving lawmakers a chance to support a popular measure before the election.

An Uncertain Outlook for Ohio's Skies

Ohio’s effort to ban geoengineering stalled due to flawed bill drafting, strong opposition, and committee conflicts.

Due to legislative gridlock, the 'PURE LIFE Act' (HB272) is no longer active. The 'Atmosphere Protection Act' (HB290) still has a slight chance of passing. Its future depends on a key amendment and the right timing. In 2026, the question is whether lawmakers can break the deadlock or if Ohio’s bills will remain stuck.