Solar geoengineering seeks to alter the climate by reflecting sunlight back into space. In theory, this could alleviate global warming. However, as the concept gains traction, concerns about possible repercussions also rise.
A startup named Stardust Solutions recently secured a $60 million investment round, marking the largest known funding for a geoengineering startup to date. My colleague James Temple has a new article discussing the company and how its rise is causing apprehension among some researchers.
Until now, the field has been mainly confined to discussions, proposed scholarly research, and—of course—a few fringe players to keep watch on. Now the situation is becoming more serious. What implications does this hold for geoengineering and the climate?
Scholars have contemplated the method of tackling global warming in this manner for many years. We already understand that volcanic eruptions, which emit sulfur dioxide into the atmosphere, can lower temperatures. The idea is that we could replicate that natural occurrence by injecting particles into the atmosphere ourselves.
This possibility is quite contentious, to say the least. Many have raised concerns about unforeseen outcomes and unequal advantages. Even publicly funded research from leading institutions has encountered obstacles—one notable Harvard study was officially canceled last year following prolonged discussions.
One of the challenges of geoengineering is that theoretically, a single entity, like a startup, could make choices that impact the planet on a large scale. Recently, we’ve seen an uptick in interest from the private sector in geoengineering.
Three years prior, James broke the story that Make Sunsets, a California startup, had already begun releasing particles into the air in an attempt to adjust the climate.
The CEO of the company, Luke Iseman, traveled to Baja California in Mexico, filled a weather balloon with some sulfur dioxide, and launched it into the air. The quantity used was insignificant, and it’s uncertain whether it even reached the appropriate part of the atmosphere to reflect sunlight.
However, worries that this organization or others might operate independently and conduct their own geoengineering sparked significant backlash. Mexico announced intentions to limit geoengineering experiments in the nation shortly after that news surfaced.
Cooling credits from Make Sunsets are still available for purchase, and the company recently received a patent for its system. Nevertheless, the startup is regarded as somewhat of a marginal player.
Enter Stardust Solutions. The enterprise has been operating quietly for several years, but it has begun to discuss its activities more publicly this year. In October, it revealed a major funding round, led by several prominent figures in climate investment. “Stardust is serious, and now it has acquired serious funding from serious investors,” as James articulates in his article.
This development has raised concerns among some experts. Even those who advocate for geoengineering research worry about the implications of such initiatives being pursued by private firms.
“Introducing business interests, profit motives, and wealthy backers into this equation only heightens concerns, complicating the ability of responsible scientists and engineers to perform the necessary work to advance our knowledge,” state David Keith and Daniele Visioni, two prominent figures in geoengineering research, in a recent opinion piece for MIT Technology Review.
Stardust asserts that it will refrain from engaging in any geoengineering until commissioned by governments, paired with established regulations and governance structures for the technology’s usage.
However, it’s uncertain how financial pressures might influence this stance in the future. We are already witnessing some of the complexities confronted by a private entity in this domain: the necessity to safeguard proprietary information.
Currently, Stardust is withholding details about the particles it plans to inject into the atmosphere, although it claims it will disclose such information once it obtains a patent, which could be finalized as early as the next year. The company contends that its unique particles will be safe, cost-effective to produce, and simpler to trace than the already prevalent sulfur dioxide. Nevertheless, at this juncture, there’s no mechanism for external experts to assess those assertions.
As Keith and Visioni express: “Research will not be effective unless it is credible, and credibility relies on transparency.”
