Concerns have emerged regarding the engineering of the atmosphere as a potential means to address climate change. Many individuals express distrust over the possibility of negative consequences, uneven effects across global regions, and the fear that reliance on technological solutions may reduce the urgency to tackle the fundamental causes of climate change.
The involvement of business interests and wealthy investors adds another layer of complexity and worry. Startups focusing on atmospheric engineering depend on financial viability through service contracts, which raises concerns about the influence of profit motives. This reliance on revenue may lead companies to prioritize financial interests over objective assessments of the risks and benefits associated with such tools. The potential for financial pressures to skew decision-making arises, prompting queries about how these interests might impact government or public policy.
To attract investors, companies often emphasize the safety and efficacy of their technologies, which may not align with scientific evidence. This approach can hinder efforts to build public trust, particularly in an environment where claims may be overstated.
For example, the startup Stardust has stated on its website that it has developed novel particles designed to be injected into the atmosphere to reflect sunlight. The company claims these particles are “chemically inert in the stratosphere” and safe for humans and ecosystems, noting that they eventually return to Earth and recycle into the biosphere. However, critics argue that the assertion of chemical inertness is flawed, as even stable substances can alter the stratospheric chemistry due to interactions with highly reactive radicals and existing compounds.
Moreover, materials presented to potential investors by Stardust indicate that the company believes its particles improve upon sulfuric acid, commonly studied in solar radiation management (SRM) research. However, the use of sulfuric acid in scientific studies is not predicated on it being an ideal solution but rather on the extensive understanding of its environmental and climatic impacts.
Source: https://www.technologyreview.com/2025/11/04/1127532/why-the-for-profit-race-into-solar-geoengineering-is-bad-for-science-and-public-trust/