News
European Investment Bank set to vote on a major fossil fuel lending policy
The European Investment Bank (EIB), the world’s largest international public lending institution, will meet on October 15 to determine whether or not they should continue to fund oil and gas companies with billions of dollars. A potential cut in funding would mean a huge victory for eco-friendly groups, as it would bring an end to direct financial support from the EIB to the main contributors to the climate crisis: oil and gas companies.
European countries and citizens have made it clear that they understand the severity and urgency of climate-based issues, with eight countries in the EU already proposing bills and laws that would begin the phase-out of petrol-powered vehicles. The sale of these cars influences a negative environmental response in a direct manner, as emissions from internal combustion engines hurt the overall quality of the environment. As protests and marches that bring to light the issues of climate change have become more popular and frequent, citizens are doing their part as human beings to increase awareness of the ever-growing issues that fossil fuels provide to the Earth.
In Europe, EIB holds the key to beginning a new era of eco-friendly investing. Bill McKibben, an author, and Schumann Distinguished Scholar in environmental studies at Middlebury College, Vermont, stated that on October 15, the EIB will meet to discuss whether they will continue to fund projects that assist in the growth of the fossil-fuel industry. This meeting could be Europe’s next big step in the war against fossil-fuels.
In 2018, the bank supplied companies in the gas and oil sector with €2.4 billion for projects. If the EIB decides to begin pulling funding from petroleum-based projects, it could pave the way for eco-friendly options to receive financial backing. The EIB’s staff has proposed an end to providing gas and oil companies with funding, a project that would go into effect in 2020. However, resistance is expected to be encountered by governments who still believe in the use of fossil fuels: Germany and Italy to name a couple.
Climate activists know that the first steps in beginning the phase-out period for the use of pollution-inducing petroleum projects is to cut funding. Without money, projects cannot flourish. A key factor in fighting the fossil-fuel sector is to stop funding projects that do not help our environment. With ocean levels rising and global temperatures reaching all-time highs, the time to act is now.
In the U.S., the climate movement is alive and well, but the issue is navigating the government away from projects that involve gas and oil companies. With the country’s current political climate, there seems to be little hope that climate activists will be able to make any significant changes before the 2020 election. But that doesn’t mean that companies and organizations are not making efforts to initiate a “greener” future. In September 2019, the University of California scrapped an $80 billion endowment for stocks that would support fossil fuels.
Whether looking at the world from a transportation or energy stance, it is clear that the future is electric. Oil and gas are becoming less and less convenient, especially for 800,000 homeowners in California’s Bay Area after Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E) shut off power in an attempt to reduce the possibility of forest fires at the beginning of the windy Autumn season. Tesla CEO Elon Musk made every attempt to help alleviate some of the inconveniences for those who are still without power by offering a discount on the installation of solar and battery systems for residences. In addition, Musk announced that Tesla owners would be able to charge their vehicles with the help of Tesla Powerpacks that will be installed to Supercharger stations within the affected region.
The next few years will be a crucial time for the Earth, as scientists have suggested that a significant amount of effort is needed to fight the global climate crisis. The United Nations’ leading climate scientists have warned that we have 12 years to begin fighting climate issues seriously, or there could be major consequences. Generations to come will have an unlimited amount of issues to fight, such as water and food shortages if action is not taken soon. But the question that remains is this: Can we afford to test this theory? Scientists could be wrong in the estimations, but can humans take the chance?
Elon Musk
ARK’s SpaceX IPO Guide makes a compelling case on why $1.75T may not be the ceiling
ARK Invest breaks down six reasons SpaceX’s $1.75 trillion IPO valuation may be justified.
ARK Invest, which holds SpaceX as its largest Venture Fund position at 17% of net assets, has published a detailed investor guide to why a SpaceX IPO may be grounded in a $1.75 trillion target valuation.
The financial case starts with Starlink, SpaceX’s satellite internet constellation, which has surpassed 10 million active subscribers globally as of early 2026, with 2026 revenue projected to exceed $20 billion. ARK’s research puts the total satellite connectivity market opportunity at roughly $160 billion annually at scale, and Starlink is adding customers faster than any telecom network in history. That growth alone would justify a substantial valuation.
Additionally, ARK notes that SpaceX has reduced the cost per kilogram to orbit from roughly $15,600 in 2008 to under $1,000 today through reusable Falcon 9 hardware. A fully operational Starship targeting sub-$100 per kilogram would represent a significant cost decline and open markets that do not currently exist. SpaceX executed a staggering 165 missions in 2025 and now accounts for approximately 85% of all global orbital launches. That infrastructure position took decades to build and would be nearly impossible to replicate at comparable cost.
SpaceX officially acquires xAI, merging rockets with AI expertise
The February 2026 merger with xAI added a layer to the valuation that straightforward financial models struggle to capture. ARK argues that at sub-$100 launch costs, orbital data centers could deliver compute roughly 25% cheaper than ground-based alternatives, without power grid delays, permitting friction, or land constraints. Musk has stated a goal of deploying 100 gigawatts of AI computing capacity per year from orbit.
The $1.75 trillion figure itself is not a conventional earnings multiple. At roughly 95x trailing revenue, it prices in Starlink’s adoption curve, Starship’s cost trajectory, and the orbital compute thesis together. The public S-1 prospectus, due at least 15 days before the June roadshow, will give investors their first complete look at the financials to test those assumptions. ARK’s position is that the track record earns the benefit of the doubt. Fully reusable rockets were considered unrealistic for years. Starlink was considered financially unviable. Both happened on timelines that surprised skeptics.
Elon Musk
Ford CEO Farley says Tesla is not who to look at for EV expertise
Interestingly, Farley has been one of the most hellbent CEOs in terms of a legacy automaker standpoint to push the EV effort. It did not go according to plan, as Ford took a $19.5 billion charge and retreated from its EV push in late 2025.
Ford CEO Jim Farley said in a recent podcast interview that Tesla is not who Americans should look at to beat Chinese carmakers.
The comments have sparked quite a bit of outrage from Tesla fans on X, the social media platform owned by Elon Musk.
Farley said that Chinese automakers are better examples of how to beat competitors. He said (via the Rapid Response Podcast):
“If you’re an American and you want us to beat the Chinese in the car business, you’re all going to want to pay attention, not necessarily to Tesla. Nothing against Tesla—they’ve been doing great—but they really don’t have an updated vehicle. The best in the business for us, cost-wise and competition-wise, supply chain, manufacturing expertise, and the I.P. in the vehicle, was really BYD. In this next cycle of EV customers in the U.S., they want pickups and utilities and all these different body styles. But they want them at $30,000, not $50,000. Like the first inning, they want them affordably.”
Despite Farley’s synopsis, it is worth mentioning that Tesla had the best-selling passenger vehicle in the world last year, and in China in March, as the Model Y continued its global dominance over other vehicles.
Musk responded to Farley’s comments by stating:
“This is before Supervised FSD is approved in China. Limiting factor is production output in Shanghai.”
This is before supervised FSD is approved in China. Limiting factor is production output in Shanghai.
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) April 19, 2026
Interestingly, Farley has been one of the most hellbent CEOs in terms of a legacy automaker standpoint to push the EV effort. It did not go according to plan, as Ford took a $19.5 billion charge and retreated from its EV push in late 2025.
Ford cancels all-electric F-150 Lightning, announces $19.5 billion in charges
Instead, Ford is “doubling down on its affordable” EVs and said it would pivot from its previous plans.
Reaction from Tesla fans was pretty much how you would expect. Many said they have lost a lot of respect for Farley after his comments; others believe he is the last CEO anyone should be taking advice on EVs from.
Nevertheless, Farley’s plans are bold and brash; many consider Tesla the most ideal company to replicate EV efforts from. It will be interesting to see if Ford can rebound from this big adjustment, and hopefully, Farley’s plans to replicate efforts from BYD work out the way he hopes.
Elon Musk
SpaceX wins its first MARS contract but it comes with a catch
NASA awarded SpaceX a $175 million Mars rover contract while the White House proposes cutting the mission.
NASA just signed a $175.7 million contract with SpaceX to launch a Mars rover that the White House is simultaneously trying to defund. The contract, awarded on April 16, 2026, tasks SpaceX’s Falcon Heavy with launching the European Space Agency’s (ESA) Rosalind Franklin rover from Kennedy Space Center in Florida, no earlier than late 2028. It would mark the first time SpaceX has ever sent a payload to Mars.
Under NASA’s Rosalind Franklin Support and Augmentation project, known as ROSA, the agency is providing braking engines for the rover’s descent stage, radioisotope heater units that use decaying plutonium to keep the rover warm on the Martian surface, additional electronics, and a mass spectrometer instrument, as noted by SpaceNews.
Those nuclear heating units are the reason an American rocket was required at all. U.S. export controls on radioisotope technology mean any payload carrying them must launch on a domestic vehicle, which narrowed the field to SpaceX and United Launch Alliance. Falcon Heavy’s pricing made it the practical choice.
SpaceX is quietly becoming the U.S. Military’s only reliable rocket
Falcon Heavy debuted in February 2018 and has 11 launches to its record. The rocket has not flown since October 2024, when it sent NASA’s Europa Clipper toward Jupiter. The three-core design, built from modified Falcon 9 first stages, gives it the lift capacity needed for deep space planetary missions that a single Falcon 9 cannot reach.
The Rosalind Franklin rover has been sitting in storage in Europe for years. It was originally due to launch in 2022 as a joint mission with Russia, but Russia’s invasion of Ukraine ended that partnership, leaving the rover built but stranded without a launch vehicle or landing hardware. NASA stepped back in through a 2024 agreement with ESA to rescue the mission. The rover is designed to drill up to two meters below the Martian surface in search of evidence of past life, a science objective no previous mission has attempted at that depth.
The contradiction at the center of this story is hard to ignore. The White House’s fiscal year 2027 budget proposal included no funding for ROSA and did not mention the mission at all in the detailed congressional justification document released April 3.
Musk has long argued that reaching Mars is not optional. “We don’t want to be one of those single planet species, we want to be a multi-planet species.” Whether this particular mission survives Washington’s budget fight, the Falcon Heavy contract means SpaceX is now formally on record as the rocket that could get humanity’s next Mars science mission off the ground.
The timing of this contract carries extra weight given that SpaceX filed confidentially with the SEC in early April and is targeting an IPO roadshow in the week of June 8. It would be the largest public offering in history.
ARK’s SpaceX IPO Guide makes a compelling case on why $1.75T may not be the ceiling
Ford CEO Farley says Tesla is not who to look at for EV expertise
