Israeli Stardust Labs & Geoengineering Governance
Making money blocking sunlight. Is this the new normal and will this lead us toward global governance?
Stardust Labs LTD is a “stealth startup” founded by Professor Eli Waxman, head of the Particle Physics and Astrophysics department at the Weizmann Institute and former Chief Scientist of the Israeli Atomic Energy Commission (IAEC), and Dr. Yanai Yedvab, former Deputy Chief Scientist at the IAEC.
Stardust operates as an investor-funded startup incorporated in the USA, with a subsidiary company in Israel, where most of its activities are taking place. They are funded by AWZ Ventures, a Canadian-Israeli leading deep-tech VC3 and SolarEdge Technologies, an Israeli NASDAQ-traded renewable energy company.
Stardust does not receive any kind of funding or other form of support from the Israeli government, nor does it have or plans to have in the future any connections with the Israeli defense/security establishment.
Application for relevant intellectual property (IPs) has started such as trademarks, copyrights, and patents.
Investors are taking a risk by anticipating that in the future governments may adopt SAI technology, and if so, purchase the rights to use the technology developed by Stardust. If this expectation is not met, they risk not receiving a return on their investment.
Implications for governance of Stardust’s activities in relation to Stratospheric Aerosol Injection (SAI)
Janos Pasztor, former Executive Director of the former Carnegie Climate Governance Initiative (C2G) and former Senior Advisor to the UN Secretary-General on Climate Change, released a report on Stardust Labs’ activities and how their work should be guided by international governance:
On 2 May I posted here about my work as an independent consultant to Stardust Solutions, a USA/Israeli startup, to provide views and recommendations on the governance implications of their work on stratospheric aerosol injection. As promised, my report (attached below) would be made public.
Beyond Stardust, I hope that the ideas in this report will be of use for other startups, whether for- or non-profit, but also for relevant state and non-state actors.
In some ways, this is uncharted territory. But I do believe the report addresses some key issues. I also hope that by making this available publicly, it will encourage different actors to reflect on these, and to come up with their ideas on what the governance implications are, and what can be done about them.
I look forward to your feedback on this report.
In this report he states:
Activities (up to 1st half 2024)
Stardust has been tackling these challenges with an end-to-end approach, working to solve the main technical problems in parallel, including:
Developing and testing a particle that is inherently bio-safe and meets the top-level requirements – effective in reflecting sunlight, manufacturable at relevant scale and reasonable target price, and dispersible by an airborne dispersion system. To this end, Stardust has designed, manufactured, and tested an engineered particle that meets these top-level requirements and is primarily established to be safe to humans and the biosphere's other components. In addition, Stardust has attained preliminary evidence concerning heterogeneous chemistry features, which still needs to be further validated on various stratospheric conditions (see plans for the coming year below).
Developing a dispersion system (prototype level) mountable on an aircraft and demonstrating clusters of particles deagglomeration into single particles, both in lab experiments and aerial checks.
Developing a control system based on modeling capabilities and an extensive set of measurement toolkits capable of monitoring, forecasting, and intervening upon need in a potential future SAI operation and significantly reducing uncertainties in the climatic effects. To this end, Stardust has developed a conceptual design of the SAI control system, developed its own modeling and simulation tools, and tested these tools against advanced benchmark simulations and measurements. Stardust has also developed unique monitoring concepts essential for SAI control based on airborne and satellite measurement.
While considerable work is required on each of these aspects, and several major challenges need to be overcome, Stardust has made significant progress in addressing the primary technical challenges of SAI. These accomplishments have established the groundwork for a future SAI system that, according to Stardust will be safe, practical, and robust.
Activities planned for the coming year:
In the coming year, Stardust plans to consolidate and mature the technological building blocks mentioned above and to address a few critical technological challenges concerning:
Heterogeneous chemistry and aging of the particles at a variety of relevant stratospheric conditions.
Upgrading the prototype airborne dispersion system to an operational level, which will enable single particle dispersion at the required capacity from a future operational aircraft.
Expanding the set of monitoring & control tools and testing them: This comprehensive toolkit will enable monitoring and controlling the essential aspects of a potential future SAI operation. This work will bring the monitoring toolkit to a prototype level of maturity. These capabilities will be further validated in high-altitude aerial monitoring experiments measuring stratospheric background characteristic.
International Governance of Geoengineering
Due to the activities of private companies like Planktos, Make Sunsets, and Stardust Labs, there is growing concern among global policymakers that if not regulated, for-profit geoengineering companies, individual countries, or other rogue actors could initiate a large scale geoengineering deployment which could have dire consequences.
Despite previous attempts to regulate geoengineering activities by international bodies such as the United Nations Environmental Assembly (UNEA) and the Convention for Biological Diversity (CBD, 2010), little to no compromise has been made on regulations due to vocal advocates who want to ban geoengineering deployment until scientific studies can better understand the risks of solar radiation modification (SRM) techniques such as:
stratospheric aerosol injection (SAI).
marine cloud brightening (MCB)
cirrus cloud thinning (CCT)
Geoengineering Restrictions and Bans in 2024
Credit Andrew Lockley, Solar Geoengineering in 2024: Rays of Hope, Clouds of Doubt
Harvard researchers ceased a long-running effort to conduct a small geoengineering experiment (stratospheric controlled perturbation experiment (SCoPEx)) in the stratosphere, following repeated delays and public criticism.
U.N. delegates at the U.N. Environment Assembly (UNEA-6) withdrew the draft resolution calling for more research into SRM technologies. The motion was withdrawn after six revisions and a lack of consensus on the controversial topic.
In April, University of Washington scientists started outdoor testing a saltwater spraying machine for Marine Cloud Brightening in California. The city paused the experiment in May, citing health & environmental concerns— but outside consultants hired by the city later concluded the test doesn’t pose a measurable health risk to the surrounding community. On June 4, Alameda City Council votes to shut down MCB experiment, criticizing project's lack of transparency.
Rep. Tom Young of Washington Township has introduced Ohio House Bill 529 to ban the deliberate release of atmospheric pollutants for solar radiation modification (SRM), citing potential ecological and health risks. The bill proposes strict penalties, including fines and prison sentences, and mandates EPA oversight. Similar legislation has been enacted in Tennessee and proposed in a half-dozen other states like Florida, Kentucky and Pennsylvania.
Regulating Geoengineering Prior to the Trump Inauguration
In light of so many set-backs in the past year, there is a flurry of ideas rushed to address geoengineering deployment and research in the past six months. There seems to be consensus that global policymakers may agree to ban outdoor deployment of solar geoengineering in order to continue to research this controversial topic.
September 20, 2024: Notice of Receipt and Request for Public Comment on Petition for Rulemaking Regarding Maintaining Records and Submitting Reports on Weather Modification Activities (updating the US Weather Modification Reporting Act of 1972 to include solar geoengineering reporting)
https://climateviewer.substack.com/p/noaa-legalizing-private-geoengineering
October 17, 2024: American Geophysical Union. “Ethical Framework Principles for Climate Intervention Research.” ESS Open Archive. (2024)
https://doi.org/10.22541/essoar.172917365.53105072/v1
https://www.agu.org/ethicalframeworkprinciplesOct 23, 2024: Geoengineering: Building ethics, transparency and inclusion into climate intervention research. World Economic Forum (WEF)
https://www.weforum.org/stories/2024/10/geoengineering-building-ethics-transparency-inclusion-climate-research/“These five principles are not meant to be exhaustive or final. Rather, this framework is a living document, and these points are a launching point.”
Responsible research
Centering climate justice
Inclusive public participation
Transparency
Informed governance
December 2024: “Solar Radiation Modification.” European Commission: Directorate-General for Research and Innovation & Group of Chief Scientific Advisors. (2024). Solar radiation modification. Publications Office of the European Union.
https://doi.org/10.2777/391614December 10, 2024: The risks of ignoring SRM in the shadow of a second Trump Administration
https://sgdeliberation.org/the-risks-of-ignoring-srm-in-the-shadow-of-a-second-trump-administration/January 2, 2025: Duncan McLaren, Olaf Corry, “Solar geoengineering research faces geopolitical deadlock.” Science 387, 28-30 (2025).
https://doi.org/10.1126/science.adr9237
The Race To Agenda 2030
The Climate Clocks are ticking down to July 2029 and there is no chance of meeting emission reduction goals, meaning geoengineering deployment is likely on the agenda for 2030.
Donald Trump will be the president from 2025 through 2029 and the climate change activists and geoengineering advocates are seeing history repeat itself.
After decades of the JASON group (secretive think tank for Department of Defense and the Department of Energy) trying to influence the federal government to take action on CO2 and global warming, Ronald Reagan was elected and ignored their advice:
Losing Earth: The Decade We Almost Stopped Climate Change By Nathaniel Rich
After the election, Reagan considered plans to close the Energy Department, increase coal production on federal land and deregulate surface coal mining. Once in office, he appointed James Watt, the president of a legal firm that fought to open public lands to mining and drilling, to run the Interior Department. “We’re deliriously happy,” the president of the National Coal Association was reported to have said. Reagan preserved the E.P.A. but named as its administrator Anne Gorsuch, an anti-regulation zealot who proceeded to cut the agency’s staff and budget by about a quarter. In the midst of this carnage, the Council on Environmental Quality submitted a report to the White House warning that fossil fuels could “permanently and disastrously” alter Earth’s atmosphere, leading to “a warming of the Earth, possibly with very serious effects.” Reagan did not act on the council’s advice. Instead, his administration considered eliminating the council.
Those who forget the past are doomed to repeat it.
Donald Trump has made his plans clear: “Drill baby, drill!”
Neither Donald Trump nor Robert F. Kennedy Jr. have yet to state a position on banning or supporting geoengineering research or deployment.
Time will tell and when the climate clocks run out.
Connect With ClimateViewer
Attack Ideas, Not People
❤️ you, mean it.
Jim Lee
Israel's Stardust Geoengineering Company
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rx4TbX9aph0
https://rumble.com/v6d336p-israels-stardust-geoengineering-company.html
Geoengineering Global Governance
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GUwqXpW_FFk
https://rumble.com/v6diqej-geoengineering-global-governance.html
Mexico has not set a date for implementing its (geoengineering) ban, a spokeswoman for the environmental ministry said.
And it's unclear what effect a ban might have. Keith argues a ban is unenforceable. "You can't write legislation that says you can't put sulfur in the stratosphere since every commercial flight does that," he told Reuters.
Others note that a ban on geoengineering on Mexico's territory would offer no protection from the planet-scale impact of future experiments by any of its neighbors.
“It could happen literally next door. In terms of impacts on the world, it's the same," Pasztor said.
https://www.reuters.com/business/environment/how-two-weather-balloons-led-mexico-ban-solar-geoengineering-2023-03-27/