Beware Of Space Junk: Global Warming
Isn't the Only Major Environmental Problem
Progress Snapshot
Release 5.14 December 2009
by James Dunstan & Berin Szoka*
Originally published in Forbes.com on December 17, 2009
View as PDF
As world leaders meet in Copenhagen to consider drastic
carbon emission restrictions that could require large-scale
de-industrialization, experts gathered last week just outside Washington, D.C.
to discuss another environmental problem: Space junk.[1] Unlike with climate change, there's no difference of scientific opinion about
this problem—orbital debris counts increased 13% in 2009 alone, with the
catalog of tracked objects swelling to 20,000, and estimates of over 300,000
objects in total; most too small to see and all racing around the Earth at over
17,500 miles per hour. Those are speeding bullets, some the size of school
buses, and all capable of knocking out a satellite or manned vehicle.
At stake are much more than the $200 billion a year
satellite, launch industries and jobs that depend on them. Satellites connect
the remotest locations in the world; guide us down unfamiliar roads; allow
Internet users to view their homes from space; discourage war by making it
impossible to hide armies on another country's borders; are utterly indispensable
to American troops in the field; and play a critical role in monitoring climate
change and other environmental problems. Orbital debris could block all these
benefits for centuries, and prevent us from developing clean energy sources
like space solar power satellites, exploring our Solar System and some day
making humanity a multi-planetary civilization capable of surviving true
climatic catastrophes.
The engineering wizards who have fueled the Information
Revolution through the use of satellites as communications and
information-gathering tools also overlooked the pollution they were causing.
They operated under the "Big Sky" theory: Space is so vast, you don't have to
worry about cleaning up after yourself. They were wrong. Just last February, two
satellites collided for the first time, creating over 1,500 new pieces of
junk. Many experts believe we are nearing the "tipping point" where these collisions will cascade,
making many orbits unusable.
But the problem can be solved. Thus far, governments
have simply tried to mandate "mitigation" of debris-creation. But just as some
warn about "runaway warming," we know that mitigation alone will not solve the
debris problem. The answer lies in "remediation": removing just five large
objects per year could prevent a chain reaction. If governments attempt to
clean up this mess themselves, the cost could run into the trillions—rivaling
even some proposed climate change solutions.
Instead, space-faring nations should create an Orbital
Debris Removal and Recycling Fund (ODRRF). Satellite operators would
pay relatively small fees to their governments, who would contribute the money
to the Fund. These governments already charge satellite operators large
licensing and regulatory fees. Private companies would be paid bounties out of
the Fund for successfully removing debris according to the
debris-creation-avoidance value assigned to each object. Apart from the
obvious long-term benefits of preserving the usability of the space
environment, satellite operators would benefit in the short term from reduced
insurance rates and fewer mysterious satellite outages caused by collisions we
cannot track. With the right funding mechanism, entrepreneurs can solve this
problem. Governments must encourage innovation rather than crippling industry
or creating yet another large government program to build and operate systems
when the expertise for doing so clearly resides in the private sector.
Better tracking data would be required to maximize the
effectiveness of debris removal prizes. Since much of that data is classified,
only a trusted intermediary could get American and Russian defense officials to
work together. But the largest obstacle is legal: While maritime law encourages
the cleanup of abandoned vessels as hazards to navigation, space law
discourages debris remediation by failing to recognize debris as abandoned
property, and making it difficult to transfer ownership of, and liability for,
objects in space—even junk. By adapting maritime precedents, space law could
make orbital debris removal feasible, once the right economic incentives are in
place. Entrepreneurs may even find ways to recycle and reuse on orbit the
nearly 2,000 metric tons of space debris, which includes ultra-high grade
aerospace aluminum and other precious metals.
We must solve the orbital debris problem, if only so
that satellites can continue collecting the climate data we need to make
informed decisions about carbon emissions. But how we solve this problem
should offer valuable lessons for all environmental policymaking. All this
cause needs is a champion who can rally policymakers in the U.S. and abroad,
not with scare tactics but with a relentless optimism about the power of
entrepreneurs to solve even the most difficult environmental problems through
innovation, and about the bright promise of humanity's future—on Earth and in
space.
* James
Dunstan practices space and technology law at Garvey Schubert Barer. Berin
Szoka is a Senior Fellow at The Progress & Freedom Foundation, a Director
of the Space Frontier Foundation, and member of the FAA's Commercial Space
Transportation Advisory Committee. The views expressed in this report are their
own, and are not necessarily the views of the PFF board, fellows or staff.