Stardust is focusing on governments as potential clients, especially as countries begin to explore geoengineering. The company may be in a position to offer tools that align with these goals, noted several experts. In a statement responding to inquiries about its business strategy, Yedvab indicated that the company’s approach is based on the belief that solar geoengineering will play a crucial role in tackling global warming in the upcoming decades.
Yedvab further stated that the company’s suite of technologies could be implemented following decisions by the U.S. government and the international community. Stardust is currently seeking to patent its geoengineering technology. Yedvab expressed that as research and development programs in the U.S. advance, Stardust’s technology portfolio is expected to increase in value. However, Pasztor’s report highlights that if governments opt against geoengineering, investors may not see returns on their investments.
The notion of proprietary, privately held geoengineering technology raises concerns among some experts. Pasztor suggests that Stardust should collaborate with investors to explore options for openly sharing their intellectual property, akin to how Volvo shared its three-point seatbelt patent with other manufacturers decades ago. Alternatively, governments could purchase full rights to the intellectual property and make the technology accessible to all.
Pasztor argues that Stardust needs to operate ethically by maintaining full transparency and allowing for independent oversight, emphasizing that there is no societal consent for their current undertakings. Other experts, like Shuchi Talati, founder of The Alliance for Just Deliberation on Solar Geoengineering, have also questioned Stardust’s practices concerning governance principles such as transparency and public engagement. Talati noted that Pasztor’s report is the only public document about Stardust’s activities. She criticized the lack of public consultation for its field tests and the absence of released data, which could foster public mistrust and conspiracy theories regarding Stardust’s activities.
Talati, in a publication, advocated for Stardust to be communicative from the start, fostering trust by being transparent about its activities and collaborations. Additionally, Talati urged the company’s funders to openly disclose the scope of the research they finance.
Members of Friends of the Earth, an environmental organization traditionally critical of geoengineering, mirror Talati’s concerns and offer further critiques of Stardust. Benjamin Day, a senior campaigner on geoengineering at Friends of the Earth, expressed skepticism about the compatibility of venture capital funding with scientific ideals. He cautioned that if governments adopt geoengineering, they could become dependent on Stardust if the company leads in the field, despite the lack of competition. Day noted that a private market for geoengineering technologies does not exist, suggesting that Stardust could potentially leverage their technology patents to exert influence over government decisions.
