Stardust’s potential clients appear to be government entities, as nations contemplate geoengineering as a means to address climate change. Experts suggest that Stardust might be positioned to provide the necessary tools to achieve these objectives. In an emailed response regarding its business model, Yedvab outlined the company’s strategy, stating that it is based on the belief that solar geoengineering will significantly impact combating global warming in the coming decades.
Yedvab also mentioned that Stardust’s suite of technologies could be deployed following decisions by the U.S. government and the international community. The company is in the process of patenting its geoengineering technology. Yedvab expressed confidence that as research and development in geoengineering, particularly those led by the U.S., progress, the value of Stardust’s technology will increase. A report by Pasztor cautions, however, that if governments opt not to proceed with geoengineering, investors may face the risk of not receiving returns on their investments.
Some experts express concern over the proprietary nature of privately-owned geoengineering technology. Pasztor advises that Stardust should engage with its investors to explore ways of making their intellectual property publicly available, similar to how Volvo released its patented three-point seatbelt design to other manufacturers decades ago. Alternatively, Stardust could collaborate with governments to transfer full rights to the technology, enabling public access.
Pasztor emphasizes that for Stardust to conduct its operations ethically, transparency and independent oversight are imperative, stating that the company currently lacks the social license to proceed with its activities. Other experts, including Shuchi Talati, founder of The Alliance for Just Deliberation on Solar Geoengineering, have also raised questions about Stardust’s current practices. Talati argues that Stardust is not adhering to governance principles such as transparency and public engagement and highlights the lack of public consultation for the company’s outdoor field tests and the absence of disclosed data or relevant information.
Talati contends that this approach may engender distrust and potentially fuel conspiracy theories regarding what a “secret Israeli company” might be doing, ultimately posing challenges for public trust in Stardust. In a paper published earlier this year, Talati advocates for Stardust to communicate openly and establish trust by disclosing its operations and partnerships. She also suggests that the company’s funders should be transparent about the scope of their funded work.
The environmental organization Friends of the Earth, which has long criticized geoengineering as a “dangerous distraction,” echoes Talati’s concerns and criticizes Stardust further. Benjamin Day, FOE’s senior campaigner on geoengineering, expressed skepticism about the compatibility of venture capital funding with scientific ideals. He argues that Stardust’s engineers have a vested interest in concluding that stratospheric geoengineering is viable and necessary.
Day warns that if governments decide to adopt geoengineering, they might become heavily reliant on Stardust, especially if the company leads the field with little competition. With no private market for such technologies, Stardust would only profit if governments deploy their technologies, potentially leaving governments dependent on the company’s patented solutions.