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:
American fathers love EVs, support clean energy, and are trying to eat more plants.

Picture a stereotypical American father.
He’s tending to his grill on a hot summer day, grinning as he flips a burger, stabs at a hot dog sizzling on the rack. He’s a bit doughy from decades of drinking beer (he’s a Coors man, like his dad) and of sitting at a desk, comfortably trapped in middle management. He tells a joke, and you feign a laugh, realizing that it probably seemed funnier, and more acceptable, to him back when he was young. He’d voted for Obama in 2008 — simpler times, he shrugs — but now leans conservative. It’s 10 degrees warmer in his mosquito-filled backyard than it should be at this time of year, but he doesn’t want to hear about climate change. In fact, he rolls his eyes when he mentions the couple down the street — the ones with the Ioniq and the panels on their roof.
This cartoon of an American dad who scoffs about climate change is easy to conjure, abetted by a Republican campaign to make environmentalism seem the province of liberal elites. “People when they start talking about things like global warming,” Ron DeSantis, the Republican governor of Florida and likely presidential candidate, said in December, “they typically use that as a pretext to do a bunch of left-wing things.” Things, of course, that would be anathema to such Coors-drinking, meat-stabbing Weber dads.
Yet the results of the inaugural Heatmap Climate Poll, conducted in late February by Benenson Strategy Group, contradict such facile assumptions. Although recent surveys have shown that men across all ideological lines are less concerned about climate change than women, having children seems to sharpen their focus. I spoke with Peter Olivier, the head of new markets for the carbon-removal company UNDO — and a self-proclaimed “climate dad” — about the phenomenon. “You have a young kid, you look at them, you think, oh my God, this kid’s gonna grow up and ask me what I did [about climate change] or what I didn’t do,” he said. “And I’m going to have to answer them.”
On a number of critical issues, those answers may indeed be coming from America’s dads. From EV adoption to beef consumption, fathers are helping lead the country towards a more sustainable future — or a least they say they are. Their answers were so strikingly climate-friendly that one wonders if they were trying to make the moms, and everybody else, look bad in comparison. (Knowing dads, it wouldn't be the first time.)
When it comes to vehicles, America’s fathers are on the forefront of decarbonization. Twenty-one percent of dads say they currently drive an electric vehicle, and 48% would like to in the future; those numbers dip to 12% and 43% for all men, 8% and 44% for moms, and to 8% and 39% for all respondents. They’re also more likely to say they currently or would like to ride an e-bike, ride a regular bicycle, or take public transportation. Everyone was about equally likely to say they currently walk instead of drive, but dads were more eager to do it in the future.
As to their homes, the trends were similar, albeit in a somewhat baffling way. Twenty-six percent of fathers, compared with 22% of all men, 17% of mothers, and 19% of all respondents, say they use heat pumps to warm and cool their houses. Thirty-seven percent of dads hope to switch to heat pumps in the future, 14 points higher than all men. Twenty-six percent of fathers say they currently power their homes with solar panels — compared to 19% of all men, 13% of all respondents, and, bizarrely, just 8% of moms — and compost at greater rates than the other demographics. Dads were also more willing than the other demographics to say they’d be willing to downsize their home.
While some of these results could be influenced by economic factors — it’s not cheap to install solar panels or buy an electric car, and there is a wide gender gap in American pay — the same cannot be said for the matter of diet. Sixteen percent of fathers say they currently do not eat meat (compared to 10% of all men, 8% of mothers, and 10% of all respondents), and 29% of dads want to do so in the future (that number drops by about 10 percentage points for the other demographics).
While fathers lag mothers and all respondents in currently limiting their beef intake, 34% of dads want to eat less red meat in the future — compared to 23% of all men, 17% of moms, and 21% of all respondents. Fathers were also more likely than all men, mothers and all respondents to say they limit their consumption of all animal products, by a slim margin in the present (25% to 21%, 23%, and 21%) and a wider one in the future (33% to 23%, 26%, and 22%).
And when it comes to cooking that meat — or its plant protein-based facsimile — 29% of dads would like to use an electric stove instead of gas, compared to 25% of all men, 18% of moms, and 20% of all respondents; the four groups currently eschew gas in roughly equal numbers.
Fathers were also far more supportive of wind, nuclear, and geothermal energy than the other demographics (though the four groups were broadly in favor of solar panels). Eighty-one percent of fathers said they’d welcome wind turbines in their communities, compared to 70% of all men, 72% of all respondents, and 73% of mothers. Forty-six percent of dads would be similarly welcoming to nuclear power; that number dropped to 42% of all men, 32% of all respondents, and just 16% of moms. A whopping 83% of fathers would also welcome a geothermal station, far more than the 59% of all men, 62% of all respondents, and 47% of moms who said the same.
Fathers were also about twice as likely as the other demographics to say that renewable energy should be rolled out as quickly as possible, even if comes at the expense of natural land. They were also more likely than the other groups to be supportive of spraying chemicals in the atmosphere to counter the effects of climate change.
Some results did track more closely to what one might expect from American fathers — compared to mothers, they worry less about the effects of climate change on their homes (71% to 85%), their children (67% to 82%), and their own lives (59% to 80%). Elon Musk has made dads more, not less, likely to want to drive a Tesla, and they want to have fewer, or no, children in the future — ostensibly to combat climate change, but possibly also to be able to go fishing more often with their friends.
Despite the latter results, the broader picture makes it clear that American fathers are more engaged with battling climate change than the stereotype allows. “Dads are funny and strange and less ideological and pedantic and all these regular dad things too,” says Olivier. “And they don’t stop being that way when they get focused on climate. So they do funny stuff like talk obsessively about heat pumps and try to calculate their solar gains … just all kind of normal dad stuff.” In other words, fathers are beginning to shift their essential dad-ness to the crisis at hand, in their lovably corny way.
So the next time you’re in that sweltering, mosquito-filled backyard, take a good look at what that fictional father is cooking on his grill — those might just be Impossible Burgers he’s tending to.
The Heatmap Climate Poll of 1,000 American adults was conducted by Benenson Strategy Group via online panels 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 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