Venture capitalist Finn Murphy believes world leaders could soon resort to deflecting sunlight into space if the Earth gets unbearably hot. That’s why he’s invested more than $1 million in Stardust Solutions, a leading solar geoengineering firm that’s developing a system to reduce warming by enveloping the globe in reflective particles. Murphy isn’t rooting for climate catastrophe. But with global temperatures soaring and the political will to limit climate change waning, Stardust “can be worth tens of billions of dollars,” he said. “It would be definitely better if we lost all our money and this wasn’t necessary,” said Murphy, the 33-year-old founder of Nebular, a New York investment fund named for a vast cloud of space dust and gas. Murphy is among a new wave of investors who are putting millions of dollars into emerging companies that aim to limit the amount of sunlight reaching the Earth — while also potentially destabilizing weather patterns, food supplies and global politics. He has a degree in mathematics and mechanical engineering and views global warming not just as a human and political tragedy, but as a technical challenge with profitable solutions. Solar geoengineering investors are generally young, pragmatic and imaginative — and willing to lean into the adventurous side of venture capitalism. They often shrug off the concerns of scientists who argue it’s inherently risky to fund the development of potentially dangerous technologies through wealthy investors who could only profit if the planet-cooling systems are deployed. “If the technology works and the outcomes are positive without really catastrophic downstream impacts, these are trillion-dollar market opportunities,” said Evan Caron, a co-founder of the energy-focused venture firm Montauk Capital. “So it’s a no-brainer for an investor to take a shot at some of these.” More than 50 financial firms, wealthy individuals and government agencies have collectively provided more than $115.8 million to nine startups whose technology could be used to limit sunlight, according to interviews with VCs, tech company founders and analysts, as well as private investment data analyzed by POLITICO’s E&E News. That pool of funders includes Silicon Valley’s Sequoia Capital, one of the world’s largest venture capital firms, and four other investment groups that have more than $1 billion of assets under management. Of the total amount invested in the geoengineering sector, $75 million went to Stardust, or nearly 65 percent. The U.S.-Israeli startup is developing reflective particles and the means to spray and monitor them in the stratosphere, some 11 miles above the planet’s surface. At least three other climate-intervention companies have also raked in at least $5 million. The cash infusion is a bet on planet-cooling technologies that many political leaders, investors and environmentalists still consider taboo. In addition to having unknown side effects, solar geoengineering could expose the planet to what scientists call “termination shock,” a scenario in which global temperatures soar if the cooling technologies fail or are suddenly abandoned. Still, the funding surge for geoengineering companies pales in comparison to the billions of dollars being put toward artificial intelligence. OpenAI, the maker of ChatGPT, has raised $62.5 billion in 2025 alone, according to investment data compiled by PitchBook. The investment pool for solar geoengineering startups is relatively shallow in part because governments haven’t determined how they would regulate the technology — something Stardust is lobbying to change. As a result, the emerging sector is seen as too speculative for most venture capital firms, according to Kim Zou, the CEO of Sightline Climate, a market intelligence firm. VCs mostly work on behalf of wealthy individuals, as well as pension funds, university endowments and other institutional investors. “It’s still quite a niche set of investors that are even thinking about or looking at the geoengineering space,” Zou said. “The climate tech and energy tech investors we speak to still don’t really see there being an investable opportunity there, primarily because there’s no commercial market for it today.” AEROSOLS IN THE STRATOSPHERE Stardust and its investors are banking on signing contracts with one or more governments that could deploy its solar geoengineering system as soon as the end of the decade. Those investors include Lowercarbon Capital, a climate-focused firm co-founded by billionaire VC Chris Sacca, and Exor, the holding company of an Italian industrial dynasty and perhaps the most mainstream investment group to back a sunlight reflection startup. Even Stardust’s supporters acknowledge that the company is far from a sure bet. “It’s unique in that there is not currently demand for this solution,” said Murphy, whose firm is also supporting out-there startups seeking to build robots and data centers in space. “You have to go and create the product in order to potentially facilitate the demand.” Lowercarbon partner Ryan Orbuch said the firm would see a return on its Stardust investment only “in the context of an actual customer who can actually back many years of stable, safe deployment.” Exor, another Stardust investor, didn’t respond to a request for comment. Other startups are trying to develop commercial markets for solar geoengineering. Make Sunsets, a company funded by billionaire VC Tim Draper, releases sulfate-filled weather balloons that pop when they reach the stratosphere. It sells cooling credits to individuals and corporations based on the theory that the sulfates can reliably reduce warming. There are questions, however, about the science and economics underpinning the credit system of Make Sunsets, according to the investment bank Jeffries. “A cooling credit market is unlikely to be viable,” the bank said in a May 2024 note to clients. That’s because the temperature reductions produced by sulfate aerosols vary by altitude, location and season, the note explained. And the warming impacts of carbon dioxide emissions last decades — much longer than any cooling that would be created from a balloon’s worth of sulfate. Make Sunsets didn’t respond to a request for comment. The company has previously attracted the attention of regulators in the U.S. and Mexico, who have claimed it began operating without the necessary government approvals. Draper Associates says on its website that it’s “shaping a future where the impossible becomes everyday reality.” The firm has previously backed successful consumer tech firms like Tesla, Skype and Hotmail. “It is getting hotter in the Summer everywhere,” Tim Draper said in an email. “We should be encouraging every solution. I love this team, and the science works.” THE NEXT FRONTIER One startup is pursuing space-based solar geoengineering. EarthGuard is attempting to build a series of large sunlight deflectors that would be positioned between the sun and the planet, some 932,000 miles from the Earth. The company did not respond to emailed questions. Other space companies are considering geoengineering as a side project. That includes Gama, a French startup that’s designing massive solar sails that could be used for deep space travel or as a planetary sunshade, and Ethos Space, a Los Angeles company with plans to industrialize the moon. Both companies are part of an informal research network established by the Planetary Sunshade Foundation, a nonprofit advocating for the development of a trillion-dollar parasol for the globe. The network mainly brings together collaborators on the sidelines of space industry conferences, according to Gama CEO Andrew Nutter. “We’re willing to contribute something if we realize it’s genuinely necessary and it’s a better solution than other solutions” to the climate challenge, Nutter said of the space shade concept. “But our business model does not depend on it. If you have dollar signs hanging next to something, that can bias your decisions on what’s best for the planet.” Nutter said Gama has raised about $5 million since he co-founded the company in 2020. Its investors include Possible Ventures, a German VC firm that’s also financing a nuclear fusion startup and says on its website that the firm is “relentlessly optimistic — choosing to focus on the possibilities rather than obsess over the risks.” Possible Ventures did not respond to a request for comment. Sequoia-backed Reflect Orbital is another space startup that’s exploring solar geoengineering as a potential moneymaker. The company based near Los Angeles is developing a network of satellite mirrors that would direct sunlight down to the Earth at night for lighting industrial sites or, eventually, producing solar energy. Its space mirrors, if oriented differently, could also be used for limiting the amount of sun rays that reach the planet. “It’s not so much a technological limitation as much as what has the highest, best impact. It’s more of a business decision,” said Ally Stone, Reflect Orbital’s chief strategy officer. “It’s a matter of looking at each satellite as an opportunity and whether, when it’s over a specific geography, that makes more sense to reflect sunlight towards or away from the Earth.” Reflect Orbital has raised nearly $28.7 million from investors including Lux Capital, a firm that touts its efforts to “turn sci-fi into sci-fact” and has invested in the autonomous defense systems companies Anduril and Saildrone.” Sequoia and Lux didn’t respond to requests for comment. The startup hopes to send its first satellite into space next summer, according to Stone. SpaceX CEO Elon Musk, whose aerospace company already has an estimated fleet of more than 8,800 internet satellites in orbit, has also suggested using the circling network to limit sunlight. “A large solar-powered AI satellite constellation would be able to prevent global warming by making tiny adjustments in how much solar energy reached Earth,” Musk wrote on X last month. Neither he nor SpaceX responded to an emailed request for comment. DON’T CALL IT GEOENGINEERING Other sunlight-reflecting startups are entering the market — even if they’d rather not be seen as solar geoengineering companies. Arctic Reflections is a two-year-old company that wants to reduce global warming by increasing Arctic sea ice, which doesn’t absorb as much heat as open water. The Dutch startup hasn’t yet pursued outside investors. “We see this not necessarily as geo-engineering, but rather as climate adaptation,” CEO Fonger Ypma said in an email. “Just like in reforestation projects, people help nature in growing trees, our idea is that we would help nature in growing ice.” The main funder of Arctic Reflections is the British government’s independent Advanced Research and Invention Agency. In May, ARIA awarded $4.41 million to the company — more than four times what it had raised to that point. Another startup backed by ARIA is Voltitude, which is developing micro balloons to monitor geoengineering from the stratosphere. The U.K.-based company didn’t respond to a request for comment. Altogether, the British agency is supporting 22 geoengineering projects, only a handful of which involve startups. “ARIA is only funding fundamental research through this programme, and has not taken an equity stake in any geoengineering companies,” said Mark Symes, a program director at the agency. It also requires that all research it supports “must be published, including those that rule out approaches by showing they are unsafe or unworkable.” Sunscreen is a new startup that is trying to limit sunlight in localized areas. It was founded earlier this year by Stanford University graduate student Solomon Kim. “We are pioneering the use of targeted, precision interventions to mitigate the destructive impacts of heatwave on critical United States infrastructure,” Kim said in an email. But he was emphatic that “we are not geoengineering” since the cooling impacts it’s pursuing are not large scale. Kim declined to say how much had been raised by Sunscreen and from what sources. As climate change and its impacts continue to worsen, Zou of Sightline Climate expects more investors to consider solar geoengineering startups, including deep-pocketed firms and corporations interested in the technology. Without their help, the startups might not be able to develop their planet-cooling systems. “People are feeling like, well wait a second, our backs are kind of starting to get against the wall. Time is ticking, we’re not really making a ton of progress” on decarbonization, she said. “So I do think there’s a lot more questions getting asked right now in the climate tech and venture community around understanding it,” Zou said of solar geoengineering. “Some of these companies and startups and venture deals are also starting to bring more light into the space.” Karl Mathiesen contributed reporting.

A minimum tax on the EU’s richest individuals will not discourage innovators and start-up founders from investing in the bloc, prominent economist Gabriel Zucman told POLITICO. “Innovation does not depend on just a tiny number of wealthy individuals paying zero tax,” Zucman said in an interview at this year’s POLITICO 28 event. The young economist has become a household name in France thanks to his proposal to have households worth more than €100 million paying an annual tax of at least 2 percent of the value of all their assets. Critics of the tax warned about the risk of scaring investors out of the EU and that tech entrepreneurs could leave the bloc as they would be forced to pay a tax based on the market value of shares they own in their companies without necessarily having the liquidity to do so. But Zucman rejected “the notion that someone […] would be discouraged to create a start-up, to innovate in AI because of the possibility that once that person is a billionaire, he or she will have to pay a tiny amount of tax” “Who can believe in that?” he scoffed. The “Zucman tax” was one of the key demands by left-wing parties for France’s budget for next year. But the measure has been ignored by all France’s short-lived prime ministers, and rejected by the French parliament during ongoing budget debates. But Zucman is not giving up and still promotes the measure, including at the EU level. “This would generate about €65 billion in tax revenue for the EU as whole,” Zucman insisted.

U.S. President Donald Trump’s top envoy to the EU told POLITICO that overregulation is causing “real problems” economically and forcing European startups to flee to America. Andrew Puzder said businesses in the bloc “that become successful here go to the United States because the regulatory environment is killing them.” “Wouldn’t it be great if this part of the world, instead of deciding it was going to be the world’s regulator, decided once again to be the world’s innovators?” he added in an interview at this year’s POLITICO 28 event. “You’ll be stronger in the world and you’ll be a much better trade partner and ally to the United States.” Puzder’s remarks come as the Trump administration launched a series of blistering attacks on Europe in recent days. Washington’s National Security Strategy warned of the continent’s “civilizational erasure” and Trump himself blasted European leaders as “weak” and misguided on migration policy in an interview with POLITICO. Those broadsides have sparked concerns in Europe that Trump could seek to jettison the transatlantic relationship. But Puzder downplayed the strategy’s criticism and struck a more conciliatory note, saying the document was “more ‘make Europe great again’ than it was ‘let’s desert Europe’” and highlighted Europe’s potential as a partner.

LONDON — Britain’s Treasury unveiled a provisional licensing authorization regime for start-up financial firms, allowing them to start operating before they get full authorization from the Financial Conduct Authority. The move comes as part of the British government’s deregulatory push to try and encourage growth in the U.K.’s sizable financial services and start-up industry. Speaking at POLITICO’s Financial Services forum Thursday, City Minister Lucy Rigby said U.K. start-ups that don’t yet meet the “onerous” conditions for formal authorization under the Financial Services and Markets Act would be “be able to obtain a provisional license.” However, Rigby stressed that firms will still need to meet some qualifications to receive the licenses, stating: “We are maintaining standards which we believe are vital for consumer protection.” “It will enable them to grow, to be able to secure the further investments that we know that they will need to be able to grow,” she added. It’s the latest sign that the British government is aiming to ease the regulatory rulebook in the U.K. in a bid to spur growth. Prime minister Keir Starmer wrote to the Financial Conduct Authority last year ordering them to produce a list of pro-growth initiatives that could be implemented by the regulator. TREASURY DOESN’T WANT TO ‘RUSH’ ON PENSION CHANGES Speaking at the forum just a week after a headline-grabbing and chaotic U.K. budget, Rigby was also grilled on whether the financial services industry will have the chance to press for changes to some of its more unpopular policies. Rigby said “a huge part of [her] role” involves listening to feedback from the financial sector, “because I think that’s how you ultimately get to the best results, and certainly how you get to things that will actually work.” Several policies announced in the budget, such as a cut to salary sacrifice limits for pension savers, are not due to come into effect until 2029, which has left some in the pension sector hopeful that changes can still be made. “It’s critical that there is sufficient time spent working with industry on the detail of exactly how this is going to operate, and we definitely do not want to rush that,” Rigby said. The City minister also addressed Chancellor Rachel Reeves’ decision not to hike taxes on banks at last week’s budget, saying the government wanted “to see the U.K. staying competitive globally and indeed, becoming more competitive.”

BRUSSELS — The European Commission has unveiled a new plan to end the dominance of planet-heating fossil fuels in Europe’s economy — and replace them with trees. The so-called Bioeconomy Strategy, released Thursday, aims to replace fossil fuels in products like plastics, building materials, chemicals and fibers with organic materials that regrow, such as trees and crops. “The bioeconomy holds enormous opportunities for our society, economy and industry, for our farmers and foresters and small businesses and for our ecosystem,” EU environment chief Jessika Roswall said on Thursday, in front of a staged backdrop of bio-based products, including a bathtub made of wood composite and clothing from the H&M “Conscious” range. At the center of the strategy is carbon, the fundamental building block of a wide range of manufactured products, not just energy. Almost all plastic, for example, is made from carbon, and currently most of that carbon comes from oil and natural gas. But fossil fuels have two major drawbacks: they pollute the atmosphere with planet-warming CO2, and they are mostly imported from outside the EU, compromising the bloc’s strategic autonomy. The bioeconomy strategy aims to address both drawbacks by using locally produced or recycled carbon-rich biomass rather than imported fossil fuels. It proposes doing this by setting targets in relevant legislation, such as the EU’s packaging waste laws, helping bioeconomy startups access finance, harmonizing the regulatory regime and encouraging new biomass supply. The 23-page strategy is light on legislative or funding promises, mostly piggybacking on existing laws and funds. Still, it was hailed by industries that stand to gain from a bigger market for biological materials. “The forest industry welcomes the Commission’s growth-oriented approach for bioeconomy,” said Viveka Beckeman, director general of the Swedish Forest Industries Federation, stressing the need to “boost the use of biomass as a strategic resource that benefits not only green transition and our joint climate goals but the overall economic security.” HOW RENEWABLE IS IT? But environmentalists worry Brussels may be getting too chainsaw-happy. Trees don’t grow back at the drop of a hat and pressure on natural ecosystems is already unsustainably high. Scientific reports show that the amount of carbon stored in the EU’s forests and soils is decreasing, the bloc’s natural habitats are in poor condition and biodiversity is being lost at unprecedented rates. Protecting the bloc’s forests has also fallen out of fashion among EU lawmakers. The EU’s landmark anti-deforestation law is currently facing a second, year-long delay after a vote in the European Parliament this week. In October, the Parliament also voted to scrap a law to monitor the health of Europe’s forests to reduce paperwork. Environmentalists warn the bloc may simply not have enough biomass to meet the increasing demand. “Instead of setting a strategy that confronts Europe’s excessive demand for resources, the Commission clings to the illusion that we can simply replace our current consumption with bio-based inputs, overlooking the serious and immediate harm this will inflict on people and nature,” said Eva Bille, the European Environmental Bureau’s (EEB) circular economy head, in a statement. TOO WOOD TO BE TRUE Environmental groups want the Commission to prioritize the use of its biological resources in long-lasting products — like construction — rather than lower-value or short-lived uses, like single-use packaging or fuel. A first leak of the proposal, obtained by POLITICO, gave environmental groups hope. It celebrated new opportunities for sustainable bio-based materials while also warning that the “sources of primary biomass must be sustainable and the pressure on ecosystems must be considerably reduced” — to ensure those opportunities are taken up in the longer term. It also said the Commission would work on “disincentivising inefficient biomass combustion” and substituting it with other types of renewable energy. That rankled industry lobbies. Craig Winneker, communications director of ethanol lobby ePURE, complained that the document’s language “continues an unfortunate tradition in some quarters of the Commission of completely ignoring how sustainable biofuels are produced in Europe,” arguing that the energy is “actually a co-product along with food, feed, and biogenic CO2.” Now, those lines pledging to reduce environmental pressures and to disincentivize inefficient biomass combustion are gone. “Bioenergy continues to play a role in energy security, particularly where it uses residues, does not increase water and air pollution, and complements other renewables,” the final text reads. “This is a crucial omission, given that the EU’s unsustainable production and consumption are already massively overshooting ecological boundaries and putting people, nature and businesses at risk,” said the EEB. Delara Burkhardt, a member of the European Parliament with the center-left Socialists and Democrats, said it was “good that the strategy recognizes the need to source biomass sustainably,” but added the proposal did not address sufficiency. “Simply replacing fossil materials with bio-based ones at today’s levels of consumption risks increasing pressure on ecosystems. That shifts problems rather than solving them. We need to reduce overall resource use, not just switch inputs,” she said. Roswall declined to comment on the previous draft at Thursday’s press conference. “I think that we need to increase the resources that we have, and that is what this strategy is trying to do,” she said.

BRUSSELS — The European Commission is in talks with eight of Europe’s top investors to involve them in a fund to support homegrown companies working on critical technologies. Representatives from the private investors are in Brussels on Tuesday to discuss their involvement, according to a planning note seen by POLITICO. The fund has been in the works since the spring and will combine EU money with private investment to fill a late-stage financing gap for European tech startups — buying stakes to support companies ranging from artificial intelligence to quantum. It could range from €3 billion to €5 billion, depending on how much investors contribute. The investors invited to meet with the Commission on Tuesday are Danish investment company Novo Holdings, the Export and Investment Fund of Denmark, Spanish CriteriaCaixa and Santander, Italian Intesa Sanpaolo, Dutch pension fund APG Asset Management, Swedish Wallenberg Investments, and Polish Development Bank Gospodarstwa Krajowego, according to the planning note. The fund will focus on “strategic and enabling technologies,” the note read, including advanced materials, clean energy, artificial intelligence, semiconductors, quantum technology, robotics, space and medical technologies. The Commission is seeking to address the issue of companies struggling to scale in Europe. Many turn to investors from the U.S. or elsewhere for late-stage financing, after which they often relocate. The goal of the fund is to make sure that startups that have completed their early funding rounds can “secure scaleup financing while maintaining their headquarters and core activities in Europe,” the note said.  The fund follows an earlier effort to take direct equity stakes in companies through the European Innovation Council Fund. Investments under the EIC Fund are capped at €30 million, while the new fund would invest €100 million or more. The fund will launch in April. Other investors could still come in at a later date. In November, the Commission plans to begin the search for an investment adviser — a process that should be wrapped up by January, according to the planning note.

AI is intensifying the strategic rivalry between the European Union and the United States, reshaping models of industrial policy and regulatory sovereignty. Amid a flurry of investment announcements, the exposure of security vulnerabilities and the contest over global standards, one critical factor remains largely in the shadows — seldom acknowledged, scarcely quantified and rarely debated: its environmental footprint. The environmental blind spot of a strategic technology The silence surrounding the impact of AI is surprising. A study carried out by Sopra Steria and Opsci.ai analyzing over 3 million posts about AI on social media reveals that its environmental impact accounts for less than 1 percent of the global conversation.1 Worse still, among the 100 most influential AI personalities,2 ecological concerns are only eighth on the list of subjects they discuss most, far behind technological and economic issues. > A study carried out by Sopra Steria and Opsci.ai analyzing over 3 million > posts about AI on social media reveals that its environmental impact accounts > for less than 1 percent of the global conversation AI relies on energy-intensive infrastructure that consumes resources and water, the footprint of which remains largely underestimated, poorly measured and therefore little considered in industrial and political trade-offs. This misalignment can also be explained by the trajectory of the sector itself: driven by the rise of AI, the digital sector is one of the few areas whose environmental impact is continuing to grow, contrary to the climate objectives set out in the Paris Agreement. While American players are already crushing the AI market, technological dependence must not be compounded by a setback on Europe’s carbon trajectory. This omission undermines the credibility of any European industrial strategy built on AI. To serve as genuine drivers of transformation, the leading AI companies must bring full transparency to their environmental trajectory — one they are progressively shaping for Europe. © Sopra Steria Measuring for action: The need for transparency and rigor We must not rush to condemn AI, but we must insist on setting the conditions for its long-term sustainability. This means measuring its impact objectively and transparently, equipping stakeholders with the tools for informed debate, and guiding decision-makers in their technological choices. Recent research indicates that the environmental footprint of a given model can vary significantly depending on where it is assessed, the energy mix of the countries hosting the data centers,3 the duration of the training, the architecture employed and the extent to which low-carbon energy sources are used. Breaking through the methodological vagueness means providing developers, purchasers and decision-makers with common frames of reference, impact simulators, libraries of low-carbon models and low-carbon computing infrastructures. Numerous levers for action and choice exist, provided we have the necessary data and tools. This requirement is not a regulatory whim but a strategic steering tool. Sustainability must be given as much weight as performance or security in industrial and economic trade-offs, because it determines the very viability of Europe’s strategic autonomy. At a time when free international trade faces headwinds, and as the second phase of the AI Act — in force since August 2025 — continues to overlook environmental sustainability, transparency on environmental impact must become a prerequisite for access to European markets, financing and large-scale deployment. Making sustainability a central pillar of European competitiveness Europe has an opportunity to seize. It has a robust standards base that is a powerful lever for competitiveness and responsible innovation, provided that it is supported by targeted investment, shared standards and an industrial strategy aligned with our climate objectives. But Europe can rely on something even more decisive: its people. We have world-class researchers, visionary entrepreneurs, and thriving companies that embody the best of technological and industrial excellence. The recent strategic partnership between ASML, a key supplier to the world’s semiconductor industry, and Mistral, an AI start-up, illustrates Europe’s capacity to connect its industrial and digital strengths to shape a sovereign and sustainable future4. It would be dangerous to suggest that Europe’s technological strength could be built on deferred ecology. What is tolerated as a gray area today will be a competitive handicap tomorrow. Customers, investors and citizens will increasingly demand transparency. The emergence of responsible AI does not mean making it perfect, but making it readable, controllable and adjustable. In a technological landscape dominated by two superpowers that have hitherto favored efficiency and technological competitiveness to the detriment of ethical safeguards, Europe can chart a singular course. It has the means to assert itself by defending responsible AI, at the service of the common good and in line with its fundamental values: the rule of law, individual freedom, social justice and respect for the environment. This orientation is not a brake on innovation, but on the contrary a lever for differentiation, capable of inspiring confidence in a digital ecosystem that is often perceived as opaque or threatening. By betting on ethical, explainable and sustainable AI, Europe would not be giving up global competition, but it would be redefining the rules of the game. More than ever, it must give priority to clarity, stringency and rigor. Only then will AI cease to be a technological equation to be solved and become a genuine project at the service of our society, consistent with our democratic and ecological imperatives. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. AI & environment: breaking through the information fog – Sopra Steria 2. “The 100 Most Influential People in AI 2024”, Time Magazine 3. ADEME – Arcep study on the environmental footprint of digital technology in 2020, 2030 and 2025 4. https://www.politico.eu/article/dutch-asml-invests-in-french-mistral-in-huge-european-ai-team-up/

CLIMATEWIRE | A once-outlandish idea for reversing global warming took a major step toward reality Friday when Israeli-U.S. startup Stardust Solutions announced the largest-ever fundraising round for any company that aims to cool the Earth by spraying particles into the atmosphere. Its plan to limit the sun’s heat raised $60 million from a broad coalition of investors that included Silicon Valley luminaries and the Agnelli family, an Italian industrial dynasty. The disclosure, critics said, raises questions about involvement of venture capital firms in driving forward a largely untested, thinly researched and mostly unregulated technology that could disrupt global weather patterns and trigger geopolitical conflict. The investors were “putting their trust in the concept of, we need a safe and responsible and controlled option for sunlight reflection, which for me is [a] very important step forward in the evolution of this field,” Stardust CEO Yanai Yedvab said during an interview this week in POLITICO’s London office. He and co-founder Amyad Spector, who also flew in for the interview, are both nuclear physicists who formerly worked for the Israeli government. The startup’s fundraising haul was led by Lowercarbon Capital, a Wyoming-based climate technology-focused firm co-founded by billionaire investor Chris Sacca. It was also backed by the Agnellis’ firm Exor, a Dutch holding company that is the largest shareholder of Chrysler parent company Stellantis, luxury sports car manufacturer Ferrari and Italy’s Juventus Football Club. Ten other firms — hailing from San Francisco to Berlin — and one individual, former Facebook executive Matt Cohler, also joined Stardust’s fundraising round, its second since being founded two years ago. The firm has now raised a total of $75 million. It is registered in the U.S. state of Delaware and headquartered outside Tel Aviv but is not affiliated with the state of Israel. The surge of investor enthusiasm for Stardust comes amid stalled political efforts in Washington and other capitals to reduce the use of oil, gas and coal — the main drivers of climate change. Meanwhile, global temperatures continue to climb to new heights, worsening wildfires, floods, droughts and other natural disasters that some U.S. policymakers have baselessly blamed on solar geoengineering. The new influx of cash is four times the size of the startup’s initial fundraising round and, Yedvab argued, represents a major vote of confidence in Stardust and its strategy to land government contracts for deploying its technology at a global scale. It also shows that a growing pool of investors are willing to bet on solar geoengineering — a technology that some scientists still consider too dangerous to even study. Even advocates of researching solar geoengineering question the wisdom of pursuing it via a for-profit company like Stardust. “They have convinced Silicon Valley [venture capitalists] to give them a lot of money, and I would say that they shouldn’t have,” said Gernot Wagner, a climate economist at Columbia Business School and author of the book “Geoengineering: The Gamble.” “I don’t think it is a reasonable path to suggest that there’s going to be somebody — the U.S. government, another government, whoever — who buys Stardust, buys the [intellectual property] for a billion bucks [and] makes the VC investors gazillions. I don’t think that is, at all, reasonable.” Lowercarbon Capital did not respond to emailed questions. Stardust claims to have created a particle that would reflect sunlight in the same way debris from volcanic eruptions can temporarily cool the planet. The company says its powder is inert, wouldn’t accumulate in humans or ecosystems, and can’t harm the ozone layer or create acid rain like the sulfur-rich particles from volcanoes. It plans to seek government contracts to manufacture, disperse and monitor the particles in the stratosphere. The company is in the process of securing patents and preparing academic papers on its integrated solar geoengineering system. The startup would use the money it has raised to begin “controlled outdoor experiments” as soon as April, Yedvab told POLITICO. Those tests would release the company’s reflective particles inside a modified plane flying about 11 miles (18 kilometers) above sea level. The idea, Yedvab explained, is that “instead of displacing the particles out to the stratosphere and start following them, to do the other way around — to suck air from the stratosphere and to conduct in situ experiments, without dispersing essentially.” He said the company could have raised more money but only sought the funding it believes is necessary for the initial stratospheric testing. Stardust only took cash from investors who are aligned with the company’s cautious approach, he added. The fundraising round wasn’t conducted “from a point of view of, let’s get as much money as we can, but rather to say, this is what we need” to advance the technology, Yedvab said. Stardust’s new investors include the U.S. firms Future Ventures, Never Lift Ventures, Starlight Ventures, Nebular and Lauder Partners, as well as the British groups Attestor, Kindred Capital and Orion Global Advisors. Future Positive Capital of Paris and Berlin’s Earth.now also joined the fundraising round. Corbin Hiar reported from Washington. Karl Mathiesen reported from London.

LONDON — For years, Labour didn’t want to talk about Brexit. It’s changed its mind. As the 10th anniversary looms of Britain’s vote to the leave the European Union, senior ministers in the ruling center-left Labour Party are going studs up — daring to pin the U.K.’s sluggish economic performance on its departure from the trading bloc. “There is no doubting that the impact of Brexit is severe and long-lasting,” Chancellor Rachel Reeves said in an interview broadcast on Wednesday. “I’m glad that Brexit is a problem whose name we now dare speak,” Health Secretary Wes Streeting, another staunch ally of Keir Starmer, told a well-heeled literary festival audience in the leafy county of Berkshire on Monday. Senior government officials insist the reason for this week’s interventions is simple — rolling the pitch for bad news in Reeves’ Nov. 26 budget. Britain’s productivity over the last 15 years is expected to be downgraded in a review by the Office for Budget Responsibility watchdog. Officials expect it to say explicitly that Brexit had a larger impact than first thought — leaving Reeves with no choice but to talk about the issue. Others in Starmer’s government, though, also spy a link to the prime minister’s wider strategy to challenge Reform UK leader Nigel Farage in a more muscular way. Labour ministers are seeking to paint Tory leaders and Farage — one of Brexit’s biggest champions — as politicians who took Britain out of the EU without answers, contrasted with the (still-limited) deal that Labour secured with Brussels in May. But these strategies, and particularly the way they are voiced, create a tension within government. Some aides and MPs fear they will be perceived to blame Brexit voters, reopening the bitter politics that followed the 2016 vote and driving them further toward Farage. This risk rises, argued one Labour official, when the government line strays beyond a narrow one of attacking the implementation or Farage and into the consequences of Brexit itself. The official added: “You can’t just go around blaming Brexit, because it’s saying voters are wrong.” LAYING THE GROUND Reeves’ intervention this week did not come out of the blue. “I’m glad that Brexit is a problem whose name we now dare speak,” said Health Secretary Wes Streeting, another staunch ally of Keir Starmer. | Dan Kitwood/Getty Images Nick Thomas-Symonds, Starmer’s minister negotiating post-Brexit trading rules with the EU, pointedly turned up at the Spectator — a magazine once edited by Boris Johnson — in August to make his pitch for a new relationship. Armed with statistics about the Brexit hit to exports, he said: “Behind every number and statistic is a British business, a British entrepreneur, a British start-up paying the price.” Starmer (who campaigned for a second referendum in 2019) is said to have liked what he heard. In his party conference speech in September the PM went a step further, attacking politicians “who lied to this country, unleashed chaos, and walked away after Brexit,” while also hitting out at those responsible for the “Brexit lies on the side of that bus.” The shift in No. 10 over recent months has been informed by focus groups and polls that show many Britons think Brexit was implemented badly, said one minister. “I think it’s very risky,” the minister added. “But it’s a gamble they’ve decided to take because they can see which way the wind is blowing.” It has also been encouraged by some campaign groups and think tanks. The Labour-friendly Good Growth Foundation shared a report with the government in May saying 75 percent of Labour-to-Reform switchers (out of a sample of 222) would support co-operation with the EU on trade and the economy. One Labour MP added: “It’s totally the right strategy. Just look at the maths. It’s, like, 70-30 for people saying Brexit was a bad idea. It’s just where people are.” (A July poll by More in Common found 29 percent would vote to leave and 52 percent to remain if the 2016 referendum was today. The rest would not vote or did not know.) Supporters of Starmer’s strategy believe the May deal — which will ease some trade barriers and sand off the hardest edges of Boris Johnson’s Brexit — allows the government to sound more positive. The government is “in a really confident position on this” and “actively negotiating” solutions, a second minister argued. Labour officials also believe they can hammer Farage as a man without the answers to complex problems such as returning migrants to Europe. One argued the Reform leader promised to leave the EU for stronger borders and a better NHS, but did not “do the work” to show how it would happen. Labour aides also note that Farage did not mention Brexit directly in his recent conference speech — instead focusing on issues such as net zero, government waste and immigration. (Challenged on this criticism, a Reform spokesperson texted a statement with the party’s nickname for Reeves: “Labour can try any excuse they like, but they can’t escape the reality that Rachel from accounts has the U.K. economy flatlining.”) PITCH TO THE LEFT One group that will lap up any anti-Brexit noise is Starmer’s own party. The first minister quoted above said the pivot had gone down well with their local Labour members, many of whom have long viewed Brexit as a mistake. “There’s been a feeling in the party and in government that we have been alienating our own members a bit by trying to appeal to Reform voters,” the minister said. “It’s not gone unnoticed by our faithful — it’s been seen as something finally for them.” Anti-Brexit activist Steve Bray holds a ‘Stop the Brexit mess’ placard during a protest in Parliament Square calling on the government to rejoin the European Union. | Vuk Valcic/SOPA Images/LightRocket via Getty Images Some in Labour also believe that talking about the harms of Brexit could slow a drift of left-wing voters towards the Green Party and Liberal Democrats. The minister added: “If you are looking at younger voters, the polls are saying we’re losing them in their droves to more progressive parties.” But worried Labour strategists want to keep the messaging tight and nuanced, not drift back into a pro-EU comfort zone. This means keeping the focus on jobs, the cost of living and borders — bread-and-butter issues touched by Brexit. “Nobody is suggesting we relitigate 2016,” said the second minister quoted above. This is especially true now that Labour has implemented policies that could not have been done inside the EU, such as economic deals with the U.S. and India — and even the controversial 20 percent Value Added Tax on private school fees. A second Labour MP said: “We’re not going to rejoin, but we can at least say that it went badly and has harmed the economy.” A third Labour MP added: “I think now it’s happened, we can discuss if it was done well. It’s certainly felt like an elephant in the room while there was a general consensus that our economy was amorphously fucked. There is always a danger — but this pretence it was without impact was treating the public like fools.” Nuance can become lost in a world of partisan social media, though. One person who speaks regularly to No. 10 said: “I was surprised that they took that on as a new narrative … it is a risky strategy. You’ve got to be careful about how you frame that — to blame what people voted for, not them.” Farage could also try to turn Labour’s strategy on its head. Luke Tryl, Executive Director of the More in Common think tank, said Brexit voters in focus groups often believe it has gone badly — but tend to blame politicians “rather than saying it could never have worked.” This exposes a flaw in Labour’s policy of attacking Farage, Tryl argued: “It leaves Farage able to say ‘if I am in charge, I will do a proper Brexit and get the benefits.’” OUR FRIENDS IN EUROPE Labour’s stance may, at least, go down well in Brussels. Many in the EU (naturally) also think Brexit has gone badly, and showing a willingness to open up about problems might help Thomas-Symonds — who is in the process of negotiating a deal to smooth the trade of food, animals and plant products across the channel by aligning with EU rules, the boldest step back into Brussels’ orbit yet. Anand Menon, director of the UK in a Changing Europe think tank, said: “[U.K. ministers] are ramping up the rhetoric, saying we’ve got this, we need to implement it fast … There’s a lot of deadlines coming up, and they want movement, and they want to show a sense of enthusiasm.” But Menon was skeptical about whether it will make any difference. He added: “For all this newfound enthusiasm, actually, the EU aren’t going to let them get much closer. “So it’s probably a doomed strategy anyway.” Bethany Dawson and Jon Stone contributed reporting.

Mario Draghi has a message to the EU’s leaders: I did my bit, now you do yours. Member countries had praised his proposals for fixing the bloc’s sagging economy when he delivered them. One year on, they’re still dragging their feet on actually following the advice — and Draghi is taking on the role of agitator. Europe has introduced few of the recommendations from his European Commission-backed plan to boost competitiveness, which includes continental-scale investments in infrastructure, a revamped energy grid providing affordable power to industry, coordinated military procurement to wean the bloc off of U.S. arms, and a unified financial sector that can pour capital into EU tech startups. Only last month, Draghi warned that governments must make “the massive investments needed in the future,” and “must do it not when circumstances have become unsustainable, but now, when we still have the power to shape our future.” DRAGGING IT OUT   It’s not the first time that the ex-European Central Bank chief has issued dire warnings on Europe’s dimming prospects. When he first presented his report in Brussels, Draghi spoke of the “slow agony” of decline. At the time, EU leaders across the political spectrum heaped praise on the MIT-trained economist’s reforming vision.  French President Emmanuel Macron said that Europe needed to “rush” to deliver the Draghi agenda. Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez threw his weight behind the reforms to avoid what he called the risk of falling behind in the most “cutting-edge technological sectors.” Even Germany’s Friedrich Merz, who disagrees with Draghi on the key issue of joint EU debt, parroted the economist when he said that Germany would “do whatever it takes” to shore up its defense sector — a reference to Draghi’s now-famous dictum on the eurozone crisis. But while leaders say they agree on the need for a more cohesive EU, behind the scenes the reform agenda is stalling. “The Draghi report has become the economic doctrine of the EU, and everything we’ve proposed since has been aligned with it,” Stéphane Séjourné, the Commission executive vice president charged with industrial strategy, told POLITICO. Still, he admitted that the “’Draghi effect’ too often fades when legislative texts are discussed by member states.”    A report by the European Policy Innovation Council think tank found that only 11 percent of the Draghi report had been acted on. In the field of energy, no actions have been completed at all. “It’s national interests, it’s national policies, sometimes it’s party political,” said MEP Anna Stürgkh, who recently authored a European Parliament study on the electricity grid. Speaking at an event about the Draghi report one year on, the Austrian Renew Europe lawmaker explained that it often came down to individual countries not wanting to share cheap energy with their neighbors.  In the field of energy, no actions have been completed at all. | Hannibal Hanschke/EPA “If they interconnect with countries that have higher energy prices, their prices will go up,” she said. “That is a fact.”  “It’s not the Commission which is not doing the banking union,” Spanish economist and former MEP Luis Garicano said at the same event, referencing the push to break down the thicket of national rules and vested interests that keeps the banking sector fragmented and country-specific. “It’s the governments that don’t actually want to allow the capital to flow from one country to the next.”  That same parochialism comes up again and again, from common debt — vetoed by so-called frugal countries like Germany and the Netherlands — to defense or to financial sector integration. It doesn’t help that countries are tightening their belts after the Covid-era spending splurge, leaving little money to pursue strategic aims. THE BULLY PULPIT    Draghi is a man used to wielding power directly, having injected hundreds of billions of euros into the eurozone economy during his tenure as ECB president. Earlier this decade he served over a year and a half as the prime minister of Italy.  In his latest incarnation as Europe’s Jiminy Cricket — the unheeded moral advisor — Draghi only has persuasion at his disposal. If on the one hand the frantic pace of events has drawn attention and bureaucratic resources away from the reform program, it’s also served as a powerful validation of his thesis. Draghi has long been a proponent of pooled sovereignty — which is to say that the EU’s member countries are more powerful when they act as a bloc, even if they lose some freedom at the national level. The problem is that it’s up to governments to decide to act. By February, Draghi was already chiding governments for putting the brakes on meaningful change during an appearance in front of the European Parliament. “You say no to public debt, you say no to the single market, you say no to create the capital market union. You can’t say no to everybody [and] everything,” he said. Now, as an intransigent U.S. embarrasses Europe on the world stage, Draghi has warned the window for change may be closing. The way that President Donald Trump got the better of EU negotiators, who were under pressure from capitals to come to a deal, was a case in point.  This was a “very brutal wake-up call,” Draghi warned at a meeting in the Italian seaside town of Rimini last month.  “We had to resign ourselves to tariffs imposed by our largest trading partner and long-standing ally, the United States,” he said. “We have been pushed by the same ally to increase military spending, a decision we might have had to make anyway — but in ways that probably do not reflect Europe’s interests.” The Secretariat-General, which reports to President Ursula von der Leyen, has set up a special unit to work on it. | Jessica Lee/EPA EYES ON BRUSSELS If Draghi is the brain that dreamed up the EU’s economic reform program, then the Commission’s bureaucrats are the hands charged with implementing it. The Secretariat-General, which reports to President Ursula von der Leyen, has set up a special unit to work on it. It’s headed by Heinz Jansen, a German official previously in the Economic Affairs Directorate, and eight staff in total. Critics argue this is a paltry number of staff to be attached to the task force, and that the EU executive could have set up a dedicated directorate. “The president attaches great importance to the implementation of the Competitiveness Compass,” a Commission spokesperson told POLITICO, referring to the EU executive’s plans to implement Draghi’s recommendations. According to officials who spoke with POLITICO, the task force mainly works on delivering wins on the ground, pooling funds and channeling them into a handful of core projects that might give Europe a shot at competing with the U.S. and China technologically. The Commission merged several programs into a new €410 billion fund to finance common industrial aims in its budget proposal, and is issuing a recommendation to governments to coordinate their investments this fall. But here, too, that will inevitably trigger tensions. “Can you really imagine a big EU country funding an industrial plant in Slovenia with its own taxpayers’ money?” asked one EU official. “There is a lack of ambition … the EU executive is taken hostage by some big countries.” “For years, the European Union believed that its economic size, with 450 million consumers, brought with it geopolitical power and influence in international trade relations,” Draghi said. “This year will be remembered as the year in which this illusion evaporated.” Jacopo Barigazzi and Nicholas Vinocur contributed reporting to the article.