Beware Of Space Junk: Global Warming Isn't the Only Major Environmental Problem

Beware Of Space Junk: Global Warming Isn't the Only Major Environmental Problem

December 20, 2009 Opinion, Our Policy Voice

Originally published in on December 17, 2009 (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 and 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.

[1] See generally James E. Dunstan & Bob Werb, Legal and Economic Implications of Orbital Debris Removal: A Free Market Approach, Space Frontier Foundation presentation to International Conference on Orbital Debris Removal, December 8-10, 2009, Reston, VA.


  • canadaguy says:

    Okay, I agree space junk is a definite problem, but seriously, global warming is orders of magnitude more urgent. If we can decrease or get rid of space junk, fine, but I think it's a bit more urgent to focus on reducing emissions right now.

    • Stowell P. Robertson says:

      A solution or plan to mitigate this problem has been sent to NASA and the UN committee, Space Debris Mitigation Guidelines in June 2009. The paper is titled, “The Consideration and Long Term Mitigation of Space Junk in Orbit Around the Earth 2009, by Stowell P. Robertson.


      • Berin Szoka says:

        Thanks, Stowell. I assume this is the plan to which you're referring. We are not calling for any specific technological solution, but rather for creating the environment in which technological solutions can compete in terms of cost-effectiveness., To do that, we need to remove certain legal obstacles and also create incentives that rewards entrepreneurs with creative technical solutions for effectively removing debris.

  • Here here! This is a real issue. Practical steps need to be taken to prevent this from getting out of hand.

  • Berin Szoka says:

    If we were talking about just another subscription video service like satellite and telco fiber, the demise of cable as a unique "bottleneck" for programming might not be so obvious to the layperson (although MVPD competition is quite stunning, and means that "subscription service freedom is just a phone call or click away"). But in the case of Internet video, the programming is à la carte by show and often free (i.e., ad-supported), so consumers have a huge incentive to switch or can simply "put their toe in the water" before finally taking the plunge altogether. As Bilton notes, he's saving a fortune ($1,600/year):

    Although the initial investment was costly, totaling $550, it took only a few months to recoup the money. Back in the olden days of cable we were forced to shell out a relatively standard $140 a month, for television service alone. This cost gave us access to a digital video recorder and hundreds of unwatched TV channels.

    Contrast this with today, where our only expense is $9 a month to stream Netflix videos from the Web and the $30 a month that we always spent on an Internet connection. O.K., maybe that’s not completely accurate. When the wireless keyboard died a few weeks ago I was forced to spend another $4 for two new AA batteries. We’ve not yet recovered from that financial loss…

    Tunes can get expensive. If you watch premium-cable television shows, you can pay more than $40 for the season of a single show. But even that is less than one month of cable. Since there are so many other entertainment options online, we just skip “Dexter” and “Weeds.” Trust me, there is a lot of great free or ad-supported content out there.

  • […] Promoting market mechanisms for incentivizing orbital debris cleanup […]

  • […] simply collect it and decide later? All interesting questions indeed.Lance WinslowRelated blog postsBeware Of Space Junk: Global Warming Isn't the Only Major …Space Garbage | Unreasonable FaithBeware of Falling Space Junk and Space Debris – […]