Flamm et al. on De-orbiting and the Environment and Arnaud on Degrowth and Low Earth Orbit

I recently read Flamm et al.’s paper, “Space sustainability through atmosphere pollution? De-orbiting atmosphere-blindness and planetary environmental justice” (The Anthropocene Review, 2024). There are some important points worth highlighting. I have been monitoring regional and localized light pollution ordinances and some legislation for a while. What I can say is that light pollution is a local issue just as much as it is a planetary issue. Yann Arnaud states in “Toward the degrowth of the economics of orbital space and space debris: A preliminary theoretical application in low-Earth orbit,” (Degrowth Journal, 2023) that “[d]espite emerging risks awareness, little technical or centralized cooperation has yet emerged in this global common-pool resource” (10). We can all easily understand it as a everybody problem, but I think many would be surprised at how localized in various places it is being discussed by communities, city councils, and sometimes even leading to localized legislation. And then, of course, there are the satellites.

In addition to space safety, space debris has negative impacts on ground-based astronomy (Barentine et al, 2023). This light pollution is caused by sunlight reflected from orbital objects, and amounts to around 10% of the natural sky brightness (Kocifaj et al., 2021). Space debris, or space junk, is a salient example for an Anthropocene problem: human-made, of planetary scale, and with non-linear and unforeseeable risks. (Flamm et al., 2)

I try to tell others that light pollution is a local issue, but of course, it is Earth-wide and what is clear is that it is adjacent to environmental issues as well. Considering that there are already 9,000 satellites in orbit and with a projection of 100,000 being places in orbit over the coming 10 years, the environmental threat is even more salient (Flamm et al., 2). Flamm et al. continue,

The problem is that satellite deorbiting may have polluting effects on the middle atmosphere. There is very little data on the environmental impact of deorbiting on atmospheric chemistry and in-situ data collection is practically impossible. The few existing studies agree that while the current impact of deorbiting is likely negligible, the projected exponential growth of satellites in LEO (Ciocca et al., 2021) and the ensuing need to deorbit these objects could exacerbate the risks of damaging the ozone layer (Pultarova, 2021), as well as lead to a runaway, uncontrolled solar radiation management experiment on a planetary scale (Boley and Byers, 2021). (Flamm et al., 2)

There is a question of various odd-nitrogens that may have an impact within the ozone to say nothing of the question of those items intended to burn in the atmosphere, but drift throughout Earth’s protective spheres. This article states very clearly, “Many of the highly non-linear processes in the middle atmosphere are not or not as well-known as in the troposphere and stratosphere” (Flamm et al., 3). Compared to the 2005 projects, by 2020 the space industry overall grew to a 176% increase of $447 billion (Arnaud 2). From Flamm et al.’s article we see that the ESA has put much more effort into investigating this than NASA has. At least, that is my takeaway.

When a spacecraft re-enters Earth’s atmosphere, it breaks up and burns up completely or to a large degree with possible toxic, ozone-depleting and radiative forcing impacts (ESA, 2022). (Flamm et al., 3)

Additionally, there is an age-old element of global injustice concerning this issue:

De-orbital pollution will be the first anthropogenic material injection of significant scale into the middle atmosphere (Schulz and Glassmeier, 2021). While this layer of the atmosphere has been free from human interference for most of human history, this has changed in the planetary age of spaceflight. Crucially, however, it is not humanity as a whole that is responsible for the space debris problem and for de-orbital pollution but rather a small set of early space powers, consisting of developed industrial nations exclusively from the Global North. (Flamm et al., 4)

These injustices on a global scale are part of every element of productivity and are inescapable. The only way to set humanity’s course towards a more fruitful course is to address injustice first, the rest will follow in due time.

There are many unknowns about the precise environmental risks of de-orbiting pollution. The environmental and health impacts of a deterioration of the ozone layer for Earth’s biosphere are well known, as is its unequal impact on human and animal populations living in Southern hemisphere, and an uncontrolled solar geoengineering scenario would dramatically affect the living conditions of future generations. (Flamm et al., 4)

Framm et al. make clear that we do not know the full extent of what we are so fanatically pursuing. This is a common story. It seems the beginnings of many historical tragedies began this way.

Today, LEO is where most of our satellites and space debris are located, making it a true economy that I called Economics of Orbital Space and Space Debris (EOSSD). Conforming to Samuelson’s taxonomy of goods, LEO (and space in general) is a common-pool resource (Samuelson, 1954). In fact, no actor can be excluded from consuming this good (principle of non-excludability) and one cannot use an orbital ray in LEO that is already being used byanother nation or organization (principle of rivalry). (Arnaud, 3-4)

This is one more reason for individual cities and towns to fight light pollution, for citizen scientists to bring up these concerns, and for us to be watchful. As Framm et al. announce from the start of the paper, it is “crucially important to undertake more interdisciplinary research on the issue of de-orbiting, as it is not merely a technical environmental problem to be fixed but also an inherently political matter of planetary scale environmental justice” (Flamm et al., 1).

Yann Arnuad seeks to incorporate a degrowth model into the growing space sector. In later third of 2021, $10 billion was invested into commercial enterprise in space venture, which is clear from the fact that 92% of launches in 2020 were commercial (Arnuad, 2).  

Degrowth is a current born in the 1970s and refers initially to the Meadows report (Meadow et al., 1972) and the writings of Nicholas Georgescu-Roegen et al. (1995). Later, Serge Latouche (2006) defined degrowth as “a societal project of frugal abundance” (author’s translation) allowing a return to a standard of living compatible with the reproduction of ecosystems. The unlimited production of wealth is measured by non-rigorous indicators and has led to (i) inequality, (ii) illusory well-being, and (iii) individualism. In this sense, this movement aims at redefining prosperity by integrating more physical and natural laws into economic models and breaking out of the “iron cage of consumerism” (Jackson, 2010) in which irresponsible capitalism has trapped itself. Laurent Lieven’s (2015) degrowth map, Fabrice Flipo’s (2017) five sources of degrowth, Giorgos Kallis’s (2018) nine principles, and Yves-Marie Abraham’s (2019) three principles showed that there have been some improvements at theorizing degrowth. (Arnuad, 4-5)

Arnuad argues for a “more pragmatic and holistic approach is required as the multidisciplinary nature of space debris does not allow to bring monocausal explanations (Lambach & Wesel, 2021)” (6). Arnuad is seeking, collectively with leading launching nations and organizational players and commercial players, to prioritize several specific concerns when addressing the ramifications of LEOs: environmental, safety, research and development, economic, communication/observational, and geopolitical (7). As Flamm et al., pointed out, there is inequality in how space debris is evened out (Flamm et al.,4; Arnuad, 7).

What Arnuad sees as “the degrowth of the EOSSD, of which one of the concrete applications is LEO, would allow the reduction of space debris, which was the main objective” is no different from the holistic and vast applications of the varied degrowth models in our everyday lives (10). Through degrowth we can learn and care from and for each other and maintain a limitation of excess and waste, care for the environment, and more importantly, care for ourselves. Degrowth is not the Austerity Monster that so many detractors spread annalistic fear-mongering concerning its basic virtues. It is about having just enough. To be satisfied with just enough. To do no harm in our daily lives, our personal projects, our selfcare, and even, our space programs.