Geoengineering, once marginal, is now a focus in the New York State Legislature. Lawmakers are weighing two bills for the 2025-2026 legislative session to ban atmospheric modifications: Assembly Bill A05476 and Senate Bill S08529A.

The debate in New York's Legislature over geoengineering is more than a policy dispute—it is a test of how far lawmakers will go to control emerging environmental technologies versus keeping options open for combating climate change. The issue exposes fundamental divisions over costs, governance, and the future direction of environmental policy.

The Simple First Attempt Failed for a Reason

The first bill, Assembly Bill A05476, sponsored by Assembly member David DiPietro, was a direct prohibition against the "intentional injection, release or dispersion... of chemicals... into the atmosphere with the express purpose of affecting temperature, weather or the intensity of sunlight."

But its path was short-lived. After referral to the Assembly Environmental Conservation Committee, the bill was "held for consideration" on May 13, 2025, following a 19-8 vote along strict party lines. In legislative terms, this is a manoeuvre to kill a bill without a formal vote effectively.

A05476 conflicted with the majority’s climate policy priorities under the Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act (CLCPA). Without a Senate counterpart, it was viewed as a partisan outlier and failed to move forward.

The Follow-Up Bill Isn't Just a Rewrite; It's a Major Escalation

Senate Bill S08529, introduced on October 15, 2025, and sponsored by Sen. Alexis Weik, was revised as S08529A and expanded from a simple ban to regulations and penalties, reflecting lessons from the first bill.

A December 2025 amendment added strict criminal penalties, marking a key shift in strategy. Lawmakers timed this change to reflect lessons from Tennessee, which had to add penalties to its own law after it first passed. New York is now following a similar national approach.

The differences between the two New York bills are stark:

* The bill classifies the offence as a Class E felony but sets a maximum penalty of five years—creating a direct conflict with New York Penal Law §70.00, which caps Class E sentences at four years. This discrepancy leaves the law open to immediate legal challenges.

A05476 was a straightforward ban on atmospheric modification, with no enforcement provisions or involvement by state agencies. In contrast, S08529A introduces mandatory public reporting via the Department of Environmental Conservation and imposes strict criminal penalties: violations would constitute a Class E Felony. The shift marks a move from a simple ban to comprehensive regulation, oversight, and enforcement.

New York’s Story Reflects a Broader National Movement

New York’s bill reflects a national trend, with Tennessee enacting a ban in 2024, and Florida and Louisiana following in 2025.

The movement is clearly gaining ground. In 2025, bills stayed in committee in 32 other states, including large states like Illinois, Pennsylvania, and Michigan. This trend is driven by strong public feelings, often shaped by scepticism of federal programs and widespread "chemtrail" theories. Comments on the New York Senate website show this grassroots energy, with some people describing geoengineering as:

"poisonous to all life forms" and represents a "crime against humanity".

However, these state efforts face a major legal challenge: federal preemption. Critics say that federal law under Title 50, which covers national security and military actions, could override state bans. This legal conflict could render state laws more symbolic than practical.

The Next Battle Will Take Place in the Senate's Most Powerful Committee

S08529A is now in the Senate Rules Committee. This committee is the most powerful in the Senate and decides which bills move forward for a full vote.

The bill’s future depends on two key Senate leaders: Majority Leader Andrea Stewart-Cousins (D), who chairs the committee and controls the floor, and Minority Leader Robert G. Ortt (R), the committee’s top Republican and a prominent supporter of the bill. To move forward in 2026, the sponsor must persuade the Democratic majority that the legislation is a "necessary public safety measure rather than a partisan political statement."

Legislators Gear Up for the 2026 Effort

The debate over banning geoengineering in New York has evolved from a quickly dismissed bill to a high-stakes legislative contest that could set a national precedent. The shift from A05476 to S08529A marks not just persistence, but a more strategic attempt to determine who controls environmental innovation in the state.

As the 2026 session approaches, S08529A could take one of three paths:

1. A bipartisan compromise reducing penalties but keeping reporting.
2. A referral for more scientific review.
3. Integration into a broader climate package.

The outcome will signal just how far New York is willing to go to ban new technologies as it pursues ambitious climate targets under the CLCPA. Lawmakers now face a defining choice that will reveal the state's priorities on innovation, risk, and climate leadership.