Using "Stardust" To Cool The Planet

Stardust Solutions, an Israel-based startup, believes it can help cool the planet—and eventually generate more than a billion dollars a year by delivering its specially engineered particles into the stratosphere by custom aircraft. These particles would reflect enough sunlight to counter more than a century of greenhouse-gas emissions. In its words, this might be the “only technologically feasible solution” to climate change.

Stardust raised $60 million in 2023, the largest investment yet for a solar geoengineering startup. The company emerged amid frustration in the tech world over the slow, cautious pace of academic research. However, many researchers argue that Stardust is moving far too quickly and making claims that still require rigorous, public scientific scrutiny. They also worry that a private company shouldn’t be the one “setting the global temperature.”

“They’ve ignored every recommendation from everyone,” says Cornell’s Douglas MacMartin, who fears the company’s approach could “backfire” and harm the entire field.

Company Background

Stardust was founded by respected scientists, including CEO Yanai Yedvab, who was formerly the deputy chief scientist at the Israeli Atomic Energy Commission. The team insists its mission is simply to help the world prepare for climate extremes. Yedvab says decisions about experiments or large-scale deployment will rest with governments: “It’s not for us to decide… It’s the sense of urgency that will dictate how this will evolve.”

The company is developing three main components: safe, affordable particles; aircraft equipped to disperse them; and systems to track and monitor the results. It promises transparency and plans to publish data soon, including details about the particles themselves. Stardust says solar geoengineering won’t be a “silver bullet,” but it could be a short-term tool to “buy us time” as the world works to cut emissions.

Scientists' Concerns

Still, concerns run deep. Many scientists believe solar geoengineering research should be driven by universities, governments, and transparent nonprofits—not venture-backed startups. Others argue the technology shouldn’t be pursued at all, warning that even studying it could nudge the world toward deployment without the necessary global governance. Hundreds of researchers have already signed an open letter urging a worldwide ban.

Stardust’s early pitch deck projected rapid progress: small tests within a year, a large demonstration by 2030, and a global deployment by 2035. Experts called that timeline unrealistic and potentially dangerous, noting that any decision to alter the planet’s temperature must come from broad international agreement. Even small outdoor tests have faced intense public backlash, as seen in Harvard’s abandoned SCoPEx project.

Public mistrust also makes it unlikely that governments would fund a for-profit effort anytime soon. “It seems implausible to me that you’d turn around and give money to an Israeli company to deploy it,” MacMartin says. Some researchers fear that if a few nations proceed anyway, it could trigger a geopolitical conflict. As Rutgers professor Alan Robock famously asked: “What if Russia wants it a couple of degrees warmer, and India a couple of degrees cooler?”

Stardust says its plans have evolved. While it has tested monitoring systems in the lower atmosphere and conducted indoor experiments, the company now states that it will not conduct outdoor particle tests without government approval. Yedvab stresses the need for strong oversight: “There is no way this field could move forward if you don’t have this governance framework.”

The company also faces questions about financial incentives. Venture-backed startups are expected to generate returns, which could pressure Stardust to aggressively promote its technology. Critics fear that this could prompt governments to deploy prematurely. Stardust has begun engaging with policymakers in the U.S., Europe, and the Global South—but says it’s not asking anyone to fund deployment yet. Instead, it’s urging countries to create rules now, before the technology matures.

The team claims it’s comfortable with the possibility that governments may ultimately choose not to deploy solar geoengineering at all. “We are perfectly fine with building an option that will sit on the shelf,” Yedvab says. If so, they’ll move on to other problems.

Still, Stardust is driven by a belief that someday, in the face of escalating disasters, nations might welcome a tool that could provide quick relief. Fiction and research alike have imagined scenarios where solar geoengineering is used as an emergency measure when climate impacts become unbearable.

Yedvab acknowledges the risks but says the work is fueled by a “sentiment of hope”—the hope that humanity may have one more option in a rapidly narrowing window.

What this could mean for Virginians

Local weather patterns could become more unpredictable if Stardust's solar geoengineering technology ever gets deployed. Virginia's already variable climate — from humid summers to unpredictable winter storms — may experience new disruptions, as atmospheric particle dispersion could affect regional precipitation and temperature patterns in ways scientists do not yet fully understand.

Energy bills might feel indirect effects from this technology's development timeline. If solar geoengineering becomes a reality by the 2030s, it could influence how Virginia approaches renewable energy investments and utility planning. Virginia's ongoing solar and wind projects might see shifted priorities or funding as policymakers debate whether to rely more on technological climate fixes versus traditional clean energy transitions.

Agriculture may face new uncertainties as farmers must adapt to changing growing conditions. Solar geoengineering particles could change rainfall patterns or sunlight intensity, potentially affecting local crop yields and food prices at your grocery stores, farmers' markets, and the crops grown in Virginia's agricultural regions.

Political tensions in Virginia could intensify around climate policy decisions. The state might see heated legislative debates about whether Virginia should support or oppose solar geoengineering initiatives. Local environmental groups and industry lobbyists could clash more frequently, potentially affecting city council meetings and state policy discussions that shape everything from building codes to transportation funding.

---

Source: MIT Technology Review