As artificial intelligence increasingly consumes land and energy, a new wave of tech companies is suggesting that solutions to Earth’s problems might lie in outer space. Rather than struggling to accommodate data centers on Earth, why not position them in orbit? And since energy demand peaks in the evening, why not deploy thousands of mirrors in space to reflect sunlight and power solar farms after dark?
Though these concepts may appear speculative, they are actual proposals put forward by Elon Musk, Jeff Bezos, and various space industry start-ups. With private companies spearheading the new “space race,” launching more rockets than nations, even space is beginning to feel congested. The increase in “space junk” raises concerns about potential collisions, which could create hazardous debris fields for new launches. Recently, a piece of a discarded SpaceX rocket inadvertently crashed into the moon at 5,400 miles per hour, creating a new crater.
As SpaceX, Blue Origin, and other companies extend their reach into space, they risk exacerbating Earth’s issues, including air pollution, climate change, and light pollution. This tendency to downplay negative effects while promoting space operations as beneficial to Earth has been labeled “starwashing,” a term popularized by space researcher Melissa E. Yingling in an article for The Conversation.
“Starwashing” is analogous to “greenwashing,” where companies emphasize minor sustainable initiatives to distract from their environmental impact. According to Yingling, space companies are capitalizing on “cosmic wonder” and pledging to aid humanity while showcasing their environmental credentials.
Blue Origin, for example, claims its mission is “to restore and sustain Earth,” promoting reusable rockets, cleaner fuels, and carbon-neutral technologies as it launches rockets and lunar landers. Reflect Orbital, a California start-up aiming to send 50,000 space mirrors into orbit, promises “abundant energy” and “a healthier planet.”
However, Gregers Andersen, a postdoctoral researcher at the University of Southern Denmark, warns that the focus on technological advancement detracts from addressing the climate crisis. He argues that this diverts attention from solving Earth’s existing problems, encapsulated by the term “starwashing.”
Experts caution that even if “starwashing” doesn’t gain traction, the optimistic marketing from these companies obscures genuine environmental risks. Magali Delmas, a professor at UCLA’s Institute of the Environment and Sustainability, compares the space industry’s expansion to the Gold Rush, where people overlooked the environmental damage caused by mining. She notes that optimism about space neglects significant challenges.
The space industry’s growth could lead to atmospheric pollution in ways scientists are still exploring, potentially altering Earth’s climate. Rocket engines emit soot into the stratosphere, damaging the ozone layer. They also release water vapor, which traps Earth’s heat and intensifies the warming effect of greenhouse gases. Studies indicate that disintegrating satellites release aluminum oxide dust, which may contribute to warming and affect atmospheric circulation.
In addition to atmospheric changes, space expansion impacts the environment by reducing dark skies due to satellite reflections and harming wildlife habitats near launch sites. The significant greenhouse gas emissions from building and launching satellites are also concerning.
Delmas acknowledges that some company promises hold value and cannot be easily dismissed as greenwashing or starwashing: “Some of it’s actually true — these new technologies can be quite astonishing.” Space exploration has yielded environmental benefits, such as methane-detecting satellites that have exposed significant leaks from oil and gas operations, aiding efforts to curtail emissions of this potent greenhouse gas. The view of Earth’s fragile atmosphere from space has also transformed many astronauts into climate advocates.
Andersen cautions against being swayed by tech leaders’ narratives of “progress.” He believes they aim to foster public optimism about the future, even as scientific evidence points toward a hotter, more disaster-prone world. Andersen envisions “progress” not as establishing space colonies with limited living conditions but as ensuring long-term human flourishing on Earth.
“I think the common human project should be to create a sustainable civilization within the planetary boundaries,” Andersen expressed. “And I think the narratives they are presenting are just basically derailing us from that mission.”
