You’re out of free articles.
Log in
To continue reading, log in to your account.
Create a Free Account
To unlock more free articles, please create a free account.
Sign In or Create an Account.
By continuing, you agree to the Terms of Service and acknowledge our Privacy Policy
Welcome to Heatmap
Thank you for registering with Heatmap. Climate change is one of the greatest challenges of our lives, a force reshaping our economy, our politics, and our culture. We hope to be your trusted, friendly, and insightful guide to that transformation. Please enjoy your free articles. You can check your profile here .
subscribe to get Unlimited access
Offer for a Heatmap News Unlimited Access subscription; please note that your subscription will renew automatically unless you cancel prior to renewal. Cancellation takes effect at the end of your current billing period. We will let you know in advance of any price changes. Taxes may apply. Offer terms are subject to change.
Subscribe to get unlimited Access
Hey, you are out of free articles but you are only a few clicks away from full access. Subscribe below and take advantage of our introductory offer.
subscribe to get Unlimited access
Offer for a Heatmap News Unlimited Access subscription; please note that your subscription will renew automatically unless you cancel prior to renewal. Cancellation takes effect at the end of your current billing period. We will let you know in advance of any price changes. Taxes may apply. Offer terms are subject to change.
Create Your Account
Please Enter Your Password
Forgot your password?
Please enter the email address you use for your account so we can send you a link to reset your password:
Seventy-eight percent of Americans say they would pay more to buy a U.S.-made EV over a similar Chinese model. Here's why that's significant for Biden's climate law.
Consider for a moment that you are deciding between two electric cars for purchase.
The first is a name-brand American-made EV.
The second is almost identical — same range, same features, same reviews — but it is $5,000 cheaper than the first vehicle, and it is made in China.
Which would you choose?
When asked a nearly identical version of this question last month, nearly four out of every five Americans — some 78% of adults — said that they would buy the more expensive, U.S.-made car, new results from the Heatmap Climate Poll have found. Only 22% of adults said that they would choose the less expensive Chinese vehicle.
The results, which arrive as the Biden administration is finalizing rules that will govern new electric-car subsidies, suggest that many Americans are willing to support costly measures to boost a home-grown EV industry. And it offers some of the first evidence that Americans — who have long told pollsters that they want to buy U.S.-made products, but that they won’t pay extra for them — may be changing their views and buying habits in light of geopolitics.
The result “highlights the opportunity under the [Inflation Reduction Act] that not only Biden has, but the broader U.S. automotive sector has,” Corey Cantor, a senior associate for electric vehicles at BloombergNEF, a clean-energy analysis group, told me. The Inflation Reduction Act, which Congress passed last year, contains what analysts have estimated at hundreds of billions of dollars in tax breaks for companies that manufacture EVs or their batteries in the United States.
The poll adds ballast to one of the law’s central ideas: that Americans would support policy to boost U.S. domestic industry as much — or more — than they would back a more straightforward decarbonization measure. “It sounds like the IRA’s theory — or Joe Manchin’s theory, or Biden’s theory — is really well supported by the American public,” Cantor said, referencing the two Democrats most often credited with the bill’s design.
The EV question united Americans across party, gender, race, age, and ideological lines. Among people who voted for Trump in 2020, 83% said that they would choose the American car; 76% of Biden voters agreed. More than 80% of white, Black, and Asian Americans each picked the domestic model. So did similar majorities of older and younger Americans, men and women, Democrats and Republicans, and college graduates and those without a college degree.
Even among prospective EV buyers — presumably the most cost-sensitive cohort — 75% said that they would choose the pricier, U.S.-made car. The Heatmap Climate Poll, a scientific survey of 1,000 American adults in all 50 states and the District of Columbia, was conducted by the Benenson Strategy Group and Heatmap News during a five-day period last month.
An opinion poll is not a guarantee of consumer behavior. But in the past, Americans have generally said they would choose U.S.-made products only if they cost about as much as foreign-made goods. In 2016, an Associated Press-GFK poll found that while about 75% of Americans wanted to buy U.S.-made products, only about 30% were willing to pay more for them. According to a Boston Consulting Group analysis, Americans tend to be willing to pay about 5% more for a domestic-made product, The Washington Post has reported. With the average price of a new car approaching $50,000, Americans now seem to say that they will pay more than double that to avoid a Chinese-made electric vehicle.
For now, that preference probably has bigger political implications than consumer ones. Although China makes more EVs than any other country and dominates global market share, relatively few Chinese-made vehicles make their way to the United States. The American government has imposed high tariffs on Chinese-made EVs and EV parts — including key minerals used in electronics such as lithium, cobalt, and cadmium — since 2018.
Probably the highest-profile Chinese-made EV now sold in the United States is the Polestar 2, a well-reviewed, roughly $50,000 sedan that gets 300 miles of range. Although Polestar is headquartered in Sweden and associated with Volvo, it is controlled by Li Shufu, a Chinese billionaire and the founder of the Zhejiang Geely Holding Group, China’s seventh-largest carmaker. Geely also owns Volvo, so some of Volvo’s electric cars — such as the XC40 Recharge, a small SUV — use the same underlying “platform,” or shared set of design and engineering components, as Geely’s cars.
But aspects of this arrangement are changing. Polestar has said that its next car, the Polestar 3 — an $83,000 SUV due to go on sale later this year — will be made in Ridgeville, South Carolina.
Chinese-made EVs have been welcomed more warmly elsewhere in the world. The five most popular EVs in Australia are all made in China. BYD, a Chinese firm that is by some measures already the world’s largest EV maker, sells cars there and across northern Europe; it plans to expand to the U.K., Japan, and Mexico this year. So do Geely and Nio, another Chinese automaker. And some American firms are deepening their China ties: Tesla’s Shanghai plant is the company’s largest factory worldwide.
“European consumers have been fairly favorable” to Chinese EVs, Cantor said. “The response has been more like, This is a cool car, they’re a cool company. There’s a more complicated geopolitical relationship for any Chinese company to come into the American market.”
Dan Wang, a technology analyst at Gavekal Dragonomics, an economic-research firm based in Beijing, said that Americans may not be ready for how different these Made-in-China EVs will initially feel. “It’s not clear that the mindset [that Chinese automakers] bring from the Chinese market — featuring greater phone connectivity and a richer infotainment experience for the rider — meets the taste of Americans,” he told me.
That said, the poll question may be unrealistic about China’s ability to make cost-efficient EVs in the American market. In addition to the high tariffs, the federal government will soon provide subsidies of up to $7,500 to EVs that meet strict U.S.-made standards; it is due to announce that program’s details later this week.
Even beyond EVs, a large majority of Americans seemed to back the IRA’s broad, industry-forward approach when it was described to them in neutral terms, the poll found. Asked to choose from a list of pro-climate policies, just under half of Americans said that they would support a carbon tax. But 69% said that they wanted the government to invest “in technologies that greatly reduce greenhouse-gas emissions,” such as renewables or carbon removal. Essentially the same share said they supported requiring businesses to buy a certain share of their energy from renewable or zero-carbon sources.
Perhaps above all, the poll hints at Americans’ deepening skepticism of what was once one of the central bargains in its global trade agreements: that the U.S. should accept less domestic manufacturing in exchange for cheaper consumer prices. Americans — at least when asked hypothetically and about their own pocketbooks — don’t seem as willing to make that exchange anymore. Will they make the same decision at the dealership? The answer will matter to more than just the auto industry.
The Heatmap Climate Poll of 1,000 American adults was conducted via online panels by Benenson Strategy Group from Feb. 15 to 20, 2023. The survey included interviews with Americans in all 50 states and Washington, D.C. The margin of sampling error is plus or minus 3.02 percentage points. You can read more about the topline results here.
Log in
To continue reading, log in to your account.
Create a Free Account
To unlock more free articles, please create a free account.
Deciding what counts as a heat death is more difficult than it sounds.
Just last month, a heat wave killed an estimated 2,700 people in France. Think about that for a second: 2,700 people. That’s equivalent to the mortality of two Hurricane Katrinas or 10 Hurricane Sandys. In France, where there were roughly 970 murders in 2024, the heat wave killed more people in two weeks than almost three years’ worth of homicides.
But unlike floods, hurricanes, tornadoes, or murders, heat doesn’t leave behind much of a crime scene. Although heat kills people in obvious, direct ways like heat stroke, it also puts enormous strain on our hearts and kidneys as our bodies work to keep our internal temperature at 98.6 degrees Fahrenheit. Heart attacks spike during heat waves because vasodilation diverts blood to the skin’s surface to cool it down, in the process lowering blood pressure and forcing the heart to work harder and faster to circulate oxygen. Deaths from renal diseases also jump during periods of high temperatures due to severe dehydration and restricted blood flow to the kidneys.
“Let’s say you have two people with underlying heart disease; somebody has a heart attack versus somebody has a heart attack because it’s too hot,” Kristie Ebi, an epidemiologist at the University of Washington and an expert on heat-related mortality, explained to me. “Will the second one be recorded as a heat death or will it just be recorded as a heart attack? Frankly, when both go into the emergency department, the number one goal is to save a life — it’s not necessarily to record whether it was because of temperature.”
But if physicians don’t code the second heart attack as a heat death— a procedure designed for insurance and billing rather than getting to the root of underlying environmental conditions — then the headline number of heat wave-related deaths will almost certainly be an undercount. In Washington during the 2021 heat dome, for example, the state health department initially reported that 129 people died from the temperatures. But later analyses compared the overall number of people who died that week in the state to the average number of people who died during the same week from 2013-2019 and concluded that there were 485 “additional” deaths compared to what would have been expected during normal early summer conditions.
Those 485 deaths are called “excess deaths,” and the number offers a broader picture of who actually dies from a heat wave. The tally captures not only those heart attacks that are coded by physicians and medical examiners as caused by the heat, but also the ones the state may have overlooked or discounted. Air pollution deaths, homicides, drownings, and accidents, for example — all of which also spike in relation to heat waves — show up. As one epidemiologist explained it to the Seattle-area NPR affiliate KUOW, a boating death might count as an excess heat death, too, because while “not directly attributable to heat in the sense of heat stroke … it arguably is attributable to heat in the sense that had it not been hot, they would not have gone out.”
Excess death analyses are also methodical in what they don’t count. “After a heat wave, there’s a deficit in the number of deaths, which means that the heat wave brought forward deaths that would have occurred anyway,” Ebi told me. The analyses also take those into account to model only the “true” excess events. This, at least, is relatively simple in scope: The advantage of heat waves for mortality accounting is that they don’t have the long tails associated with hurricanes and other weather-related tragedies. “Deaths occur over a few days of a heat wave, and then it’s over,” Ebi added.
But the calculation, while relatively straightforward, has its critics, too. “The limitation of that approach is that it doesn’t actually quantitatively attribute that excess mortality to the heat,” Christopher Callahan, a climate scientist and assistant professor at Indiana University Bloomington, told me. Take the boating accident example: Maybe if it’d been a regular summer day, the enthusiast still would have taken his pontoon out and had all those beers. Maybe during the heat wave it was also smoky, and that caused some of the excess deaths. There’s also the possibility that the baseline number of deaths already includes some baked-in heat-related deaths, obscuring the cumulative total.
A third approach, favored by academics — and recently employed by Callahan to estimate the 2,700 heat-related deaths in France last month — involves using long-term data on both temperatures and mortality for a given location and then fitting a statistical model that relates the two. This method has the advantage of generating a U-shaped relationship that shows how mortality rates change once temperatures exceed a certain threshold (or drop below it, in the case of cold-weather-related deaths, hence the “U”). Like an excess death analysis, this method “has the benefit of, again, not having to rely on individual diagnoses,” Callahan said. “It has the drawback that there is no one right statistical model. Different people have different philosophies about how to fit those models.”
The other drawback is that creating such a model and subjecting it to the rigor of peer review is time-consuming — by the time you’re able to publish a death toll, the news cycle has probably moved on. Callahan got lucky: He had already created such a model for France to study the 2003 heat wave, which killed an estimated 15,000 in the country in a couple of weeks. The model relies on a historical understanding of the relationship between temperature and mortality in France — “not a crazy assumption, but an assumption,” he admitted to me — and he published the findings in Carbon Brief earlier this month. (Callahan also estimated that 20,000 people died continent-wide in Europe during the June 2026 heat wave — a number that circulated widely, but that he told me he’s now working to revise downward.)
Notably, the number Callahan arrived at for France does not represent “real” people or “real” deaths, at least as linked to death certificates. There are no biographical or even demographic numbers attached to it. (That said, you can create models of the same U-shaped relationship for anything: temperature and age, income, race.) More mind-bending, though, is that because of this, Callahan’s model can also be used to predict. Had there been a way to know the exact temperatures before the European heat wave, he could have told you how many people would likely die before they actually did.
In the case of France, the simple excess death count put the toll at 2,025, though officials say they expect the number to rise. While Callahan’s number and the official tally from France differ by what seemed to me to be a lot — 675 deaths — Callahan told me he’s actually encouraged by how close his model came to the government’s empirical count, given that the two use completely different methodologies.
After all, heat death counts can vary by orders of magnitude, including within a single government. Before 2020, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reported that only about 700 Americans died each year from heat, relying primarily on physician diagnostic codes. After moving in recent years to better incorporate underlying and contributing causes of death, the CDC adjusted its estimate upward to about 2,000 heat-related deaths per year in the United States. Still, the government’s numbers remain extremely conservative; independent researchers studying heat mortality say the figure is likely closer to 12,000.
But even more holistic heat-related mortality numbers have their critics. For example, models don’t work as well for many lower-income countries, where mortality may be reported monthly, thereby making day- or week-level heat attribution impossible.
Granularity presents its own set of problems. Excess deaths and modeling analyses both have to define the first “heat day” of an event. You can do that by setting a fixed threshold — say, anything above 90 degrees Fahrenheit counts as “high heat” — but Ebi told me there is little value in analyses or policies that take that approach. That’s because heat is contextual: “My standard joke is, if we had the temperatures here in Seattle that they have in Phoenix, we basically all die, because we don’t have the infrastructure and we’re not acclimatized,” she said.
A slightly better metric might be a relative threshold — say, temperatures above the 95th percentile of historical temperatures for a specific location count as “extreme heat.” The problem there, though, is that it may need to be stratified further by vulnerable populations that feel the effects much sooner, like adults over the age of 65, pregnant women, outdoor workers, or people with certain medical conditions. While that approach might seem overly complicated, parts of Asia already use nuanced thresholds to warn older adults to take precautions. “It’s going to be more challenging to communicate, I grant you that,” Ebi told me of such an approach — much less to try to model. “But it’s also going to be more useful.”
Even so, a larger problem remains: The multiple systems for calculating heat deaths are honed to address different questions, which makes them impossible to compare. The Federation of American Scientists has pushed for the CDC to upgrade and standardize its heat-mortality tracking. “We’ve thought about if it’s possible to ever set a goal of bringing heat-related deaths down by 50%, or something like that,” Grace Wickerson, the senior manager of climate and health at FAS, told me. “But we don’t even have a baseline number or a way to say, ‘This is the starting point for this goal or strategy.’”
Wickerson also suggested, though, that there might be things we lose in trying to nail down the most correct heat-related mortality number. “I’m almost a bit weary of the pursuit of large numbers,” she said. “At least to me, what feels more important is why people are suffering and dying, what types of people they are, and what stories, messages, and stakeholders we need to engage and target to actually build meaningful policy strategies.”
Despite being deeply engrossed in the calculations, Callahan stressed that he wants readers to have a similar takeaway from his own research. Improved “healthcare access and access to cooling, shade, and shelter” — or in the case of heat-related mortality from climate change, “reducing greenhouse gas emissions” — lead to fewer heat deaths, meaning the vast majority are preventable.
“The relationship between environmental conditions and a person’s mortality is not fixed or necessary,” he told me. “It can be stopped.”
Current conditions: Canadian wildfires smoke has returned to the Northeast United States, worsening air quality across the region • Catastrophic 1-in-1,000-year floods devastated Missouri’s Black River region, right as intense rainfall is headed for Texas • Temperatures in Beijing are set to drop by nearly 10 degrees Fahrenheit after roasting at nearly 100 degrees yesterday.
PJM Interconnection just released the results of its latest capacity auction for 2028 to 2029, and the nation’s largest grid system maxed out its prices yet again. The clearing price hit its cap of $325 per megawatt-day, all while PJM failed to line up enough supply to meet its incoming demand with a sufficient margin of safety. “These auction results show that demand for electricity continues to grow faster than electricity supply,” PJM CEO David Mills said in a statement. “At the same time, PJM recognizes how this supply-and-demand imbalance impacts the reliability of the system and costs for consumers. We are working with government and industry leaders on multiple fronts to restore that balance by bringing on new generation as fast as possible and managing the growth of new load on the grid.” But Julia Kortrey, the director of strategic initiatives for state-level programs at the climate advocacy group Evergreen, said PJM had just “delivered more bad news for people already struggling with higher energy bills,” and accused the grid operator of slow-walking “cheap, clean energy that could lower bills.”

Back in April, I told you about Clean Core Thorium Energy. The Chicago-based startup is dusting off a decades-old dream of harnessing abundant thorium as a fuel for nuclear reactors to replace uranium, which is rarer and produces more long-lived radioactive waste. In the spring, the firm inked a handful of deals to begin manufacturing its first fuel assemblies using thorium. Now, I can report exclusively, Clean Core has surpassed a technical milestone for its fuel with the publication of a comprehensive peer-reviewed engineering assessment in the journal Nuclear Engineering and Design. The paper comes after the company completed a multi-year campaign of irradiating the fuel at the Idaho National Laboratory’s Advanced Test Reactor. The results showed that the fuel can be used in an existing pressurized heavy water reactor, like those that make up the bulk of the Canadian and Indian fleets, and achieve a high “burnup” of the material. “Milestones in this industry are earned in reactors, not in renderings,” Mehul Shah, Clean Core’s chief executive and founder, told me in a statement. “The analyses underpinning the fuel’s design have now withstood the scrutiny of peer review in one of the field's leading journals.”
Google has agreed to buy the entire initial output of a sweeping solar project in Arkansas in a bid to offset its fossil fuel emissions. On Tuesday, the Financial Times reported that the tech giant would purchase the full 1.6 gigawatts of solar power and 2 gigawatt-hours of battery storage from the first phase of construction on the Steel River Energy Center, set to be complete in 2029. The second phase will up the output to 2.5 gigawatts of solar and 2.9 gigawatt-hours of storage. The panels will all come from First Solar, the U.S. manufacturer that boasts a 100% domestic supply chain. None of Google’s data centers will use the electricity, but the power will serve as an offset to gas-fueled operations elsewhere.
It’s hardly the only bullish sign for solar. In June, Europe generated a quarter of its power from photovoltaics for the first time, according to an analysis by the renewables-focused think tank Ember. “Solar’s rise has been truly stratospheric, beating prediction after prediction,” Chris Rosslowe, a senior energy analyst at Ember, said in a statement. “In just a few years solar has gone from a small player to an essential part of Europe’s power system, as governments and citizens look for low-cost, quick-to-install domestic power sources.”
Sign up to receive Heatmap AM in your inbox every morning:
You can’t make it here, but you can — at least, for now — make it anywhere else. New York Governor Kathy Hochul signed an executive order Tuesday enacting the nation’s first state-level moratorium on building large-scale data centers. The one-year pause “will ensure New Yorkers are not paying for transmission and infrastructure build outs” and will give Albany time to create a statewide investment framework to direct more benefits from projects to local communities, the governor’s office said in a press release. “New York will lead the way in creating the strongest standards in the nation for data center development, ensuring that when companies succeed because of New York, New Yorkers succeed too,” Hochul said in a statement. She also vowed to press the legislature to pass a bill to repeal sales tax exemptions from large data center projects.
It’s no surprise. At least seven in 10 Americans oppose data centers built near their homes, Heatmap Pro polling showed last month. That’s at least partly driven by the perception that data centers are driving up electricity costs. Utilities requested $18.6 billion in electric and gas increases in the first six months of this year, according to a new report from the grid-focused nonprofit PowerLines. More than $9 billion of those requests were filed in the second quarter of this year alone, surpassing the total for the same period in 2025 — which was itself a record — by 26%. “Summer is when Americans pay attention to what electricity costs because their utility bills are often higher,” Charles Hua, PowerLines’ founder and executive director, said in a statement. “The amount of utility rate increase requests in these filings shows the pressure on household energy bills isn’t easing.”
Realta Fusion, a magnetic mirror fusion startup, announced plans Wednesday to convert an iconic former Oscar Mayer plant in Wisconsin into its corporate headquarters and research hub. As part of the deal, the state and its capital city of Madison will contribute $55 million to support the conversion. The facility will employ more than 600 people in technical and non-technical roles. “We spent the better part of the past two years searching across the country to find the most favorable business environment and the most attractive site to build our R&D facility, and we found it in our own backyard,” Realta CEO Kieran Furlong said in a statement. “The state of Wisconsin and the city of Madison have made it clear they understand the promise of fusion energy and share our vision for the future, and now they’ve thrown their lot in together to make that vision a reality.” It’s yet another sign, as my colleague Katie Brigham put it in 2024, that fusion is “finally, possibly, almost” here.
Meanwhile, some fission news: Remember when I told you last month about why I try to cover all the major milestones in China’s nuclear construction projects? Well, I have another update: China General Nuclear, one of the country’s two main state-owned nuclear companies, just installed the reactor pressure vessel for unit 1 of the Lufeng nuclear plant in Guangdong province. In a statement to World Nuclear News, CGN, as the company is known, said the latest item off the construction checklist marks “the beginning of the peak period for the installation of main system equipment in the nuclear island of unit 1 and lays a solid foundation for the orderly progress of subsequent key processes such as the installation of main pipelines.”
There are thousands of ways to pull a climate or energy angle out of Russia’s ongoing war in Ukraine. Here’s one: Tajikistan isn’t receiving as much Russian oil and gas as before, given Ukraine’s campaign of drone attacks on key pipeline and refinery infrastructure, so it’s looking to ramp up its own drilling operations again. On Monday, the Times of Central Asia reported that Tajik Energy Minister Daler Juma said the country had only enough fuel to last about two months.
Rob sits down for a conversation with Stardust Solutions CEO Yanai Yedvab.
For more than 30 years, a heterodox group of scientists have proposed injecting sulfate aerosols into the stratosphere to reflect sunlight away from Earth, thereby cooling the atmosphere and reversing climate change.
But actual research into the idea has remained taboo, or at least the province of university and government labs. Then, last year, Heatmap broke the story of an Israeli-American company named Stardust Solutions that had raised $60 million to develop a new solar geoengineering technology. This system would be easier to control and track than the traditional approach to geoengineering, it claims.
On this episode of Shift Key, Rob is joined by Yanai Yedvab, the cofounder and CEO of Stardust. They discuss why Stardust is researching geoengineering now, whether a for-profit company belongs in the space, why Yanai believes Stardust’s particles are superior to sulfate aerosols, and whether Stardust has or will ever conduct outdoor experiments.
Shift Key is hosted by Robinson Meyer, the founding executive editor of Heatmap News.
Subscribe to “Shift Key” and find this episode on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, Amazon, or wherever you get your podcasts.
You can also add the show’s RSS feed to your podcast app to follow us directly.
Here is an excerpt from their conversation:
Robinson Meyer: It’s an inert particle — or it dissolves, right? If it dissolves and breaks down in water, is it really inert? Because on the one hand, we’re saying, oh it’s inert when it’s sprayed in the atmosphere, and on the other hand, oh but it dissolves in water. But a particle that dissolves doesn’t seem to me to be a particle that could be inert, so ... And then if it’s inert then it would bioaccumulate, right, because that’s, you know, plastic, for instance is inert and what we’ve learned is that plastic is bioaccumulating in tissue.
So walk through, how can it be inert and also dissolve in water and break down through a number of natural processes that exist in the Earth system already?
Yanai Yedvab: It sounds like a paradox, right? And the short answer is the difference between the air atmosphere, the stratosphere, where we need these particles to be inert, which is very, very dry, contains primarily sulfates and a few other trace gases. But much, much cleaner and drier than the atmosphere. And yes, you’re right. In that environment, the particle is inert. And once it falls on the ground, where you have enormous amount of water and vapor and all the other components, these components are able to dissolve it.
But I think that I would say the more fundamental point that you’ve been making in your question is that essentially you need to meet a very strict set of requirements. Part of it has to do with the stratosphere. Part of it has to do with the atmosphere. And to your question, why do we believe that the right way to do it is to actually develop the technology? It’s because in the end of the day, only when you’re walking through these problems and you are able to do, for example, I would say, micromanagement of the surface properties of the particle and make sure exactly, as you were saying, that it will be inert when it’s up there in the sky but once it falls, it will dissolve, is when you have a potential to come up with a solution that works.
So yeah, it looks like a paradox but the bottom line is that we were able to demonstrate that we can do both. That we can make sure that it’s inert up there but it dissolves when it falls on the ground.
You can find a full transcript of the episode here.
Mentioned:
Rob’s initial story on Stardust: Stardust Solutions, a Geoengineering Startup, Raises $60 Million to Build a Solar-Reflecting System by 2030
Stardust’s new governance commitments
What we know about Stardust’s tiny spheres
This episode of Shift Key is sponsored by ...
Tandem PV is the leader in perovskite solar technology. We’re building the most efficient and durable perovskite solar panels on the market at our factory in Freemont, California. Learn how we're restoring U.S. leadership for the next era of solar manufacturing at tandempv.com.
Music for Shift Key is by Adam Kromelow