Policies for incentivizing orbital debris assessment and remediation

Abstract

Space debris threatens to destroy valuable space infrastructure, but damages from debris are not an inevitability. The scientific community has ideas for how to prevent the creation of new debris and limit the impact of pre-existing debris, but it will take government action to see that vision through. This essay unpacks how we know what we know, in service of ultimately discussing how policy-makers can use predictions of the long-term risks posed by satellites and debris on the orbital environment to more effectively prescribe behavior for operators. Financial incentives for sustainability, including taxation and cap-and-trade systems, have the potential to greatly benefit the safety and reliability of space missions, but they carry a variety of political and economic challenges, particularly at the international level. Now is a critical time to determine a policy strategy for debris management, because negotiations in the near-term may set valuable precedents for controlling the next century of debris proliferation.

The Lockean Proviso and Orbital Sustainability—An Anthropological View

“…Oz states that the legal regime for the exploitation of riparian basins, a common local resource, currently regulated in such a way that it does not jeopardize the interest of future generations, be adapted and applied to the orbital environment-a common global resource [7]. Alternatively, Bullock and Johanson advocate for the management of environmental risks assumed by the trade exploitation of the orbit through the financial stimulation of private operators to invest in sustainability [8].…”

“…Given the current rate of proliferation of orbital debris, future generations' access to the orbit's benefits could suffer. Although the development of an operational strategy for orbital waste management faces serious international economic and political dissensions, amid a resurgence of the arms race, innovative, creative and anticipatory policies are absolutely necessary to encourage the sustainable use of orbital space [8].…”

“…He states that there should be no legal difference between the river basins operation regime, which is regulated in such a way as not to jeopardize the access of future generations to a common national resource, and the Earth's orbit as a common resource for all mankind [7]. In the same vein, Bullock and Johanson argue that providing financial incentives for investment in sustainability as well as taxation associated with environmental risks can improve the security of the terrestrial environment and increase the security of space launches [8].…”

Addressing disaster and health risks for sustainable outer space

“…For instance, provisions dealing with risks during training, preparation, launches, flights, and returns to earth are well developed and applied (Pelton et al, 2020). Risks of increasing space debris, from operators creating and failing to remove it, are recognized, albeit DRR/R measures are less developed or forthcoming (Lewis & Marsh, 2021; Madi & Sokolova, 2021) and are “likely insufficient to ensure safe scientific and commercial activity in space” (Bullock & Johanson, 2021, p. 8).…”

“…Recent debates over digital platform regulation (van Dijck, 2020), as epitomized by the Digital Platforms Inquiry launched by the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (Flew & Wilding, 2021), may be indicative of the challenges that could exist in a legal “gray zone” such as space, if the current “permissive” regulatory structure persists amidst rapidly increasing commercialization, marketization, and competition (Crowell, 2020; Hampson, 2017). As noted by Bullock and Johanson (2021), efforts to regulate outer space could benefit from the lessons of existing strategies for managing, for instance, large forests and fisheries. The case of Antarctica and its critiqued but enduring treaty offers additional insights that may be relevant for sustainable space (Lord, 2020).…”