:quality(70)/cloudfront-us-east-1.images.arcpublishing.com/adn/SD567BNORJH55HT5ITWVJKNXZQ.jpg)
If I’d read Jenna Kunze’s article on satellite internet a few months ago, it probably would have given me a warm and optimistic feeling: “A college degree, a grandson’s expression over FaceTime, immediate world news, the ease of e-filing taxes, and a how-to video for four-wheeler hub removal: That’s what Starlink, a satellite internet service that delivers cheaper and faster internet to places harder to reach with physical infrastructure, has brought to some of the last connected people in Alaska.”
But when I read that sentence now, I have a far more complicated reaction.
Reliable and consistent internet access is so important to rural Alaska. It’s key to opportunity and probably key to a sustainable future for many communities. Knowledge is power, connection is one of the best parts of life, and the internet is access to knowledge and connection.
But Kunze doesn’t mention the environmental and safety risks of satellite internet, which is on the rise not just in Alaska, but globally.
The number of satellites in low Earth orbit increased by 127 times in five years, and in 2023, 70% of all satellite launches were for Starlink, a subsidiary of SpaceX. The new space race is ramping up quickly: companies have proposed adding another half a million satellites to the mega-constellations that power the internet, and the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has granted Starlink more than 30,000 satellite licenses already.
The problem? The FCC does not currently require environmental impact studies prior to satellite licensure, and while we don’t know the precise extent of the environmental harm of launching and burning up so many satellites, we know it can’t be good.
Starlink satellites are designed to last only five years. At peak deployment of these disposable satellites, 29 tons of metal will re-enter our atmosphere per day. Earlier this year, a 5,000 pound satellite landed in the Pacific ocean between Alaska and Hawaii and in May, space debris landed in a farmer’s field in Saskatchewan province, Canada. Satellite companies and the FCC must take this risk seriously, especially given the possibility of space debris hitting a more populated area.
The rocket launches to send the proposed satellites into orbit would release toxic pollution each year equivalent to seven million diesel dump trucks. The metals from satellites and soot from increased rocket launches puts our health, climate and ozone at risk—especially in Alaska. Additionally, our metals are precious and finite– treating them as garbage that will rain down on us is irresponsible and unsustainable.
Mega-constellations of satellites will also permanently affect our view of the night sky. The International Astronomical Union has raised urgent concerns on the impact of light pollution from tens of thousands of additional satellites. At peak deployment, one in 15 stars we see would be a satellite, moving throughout the night sky.
Where does this leave us? We should balance the use of space with the potential environmental harms. The FCC should conduct an environmental impact review of all proposed mega-constellations and satellite companies should have to justify their plans with regard to the public interest. Reliable internet access is incredibly important for rural Alaska, but disposable satellites mega-constellations aren’t the only option.
As my colleague Lucas Gutterman, author of a new report on this issue called WasteX, has said, “We’re in the short window of time when we can prevent making a mess of space and our atmosphere rather than spending decades cleaning it up.”
It is prudent to investigate and understand the long-term consequences of this new space race before committing to an unsustainable and irreversible choice.
Dyani Chapman is the state director of Alaska Environment, a statewide nonprofit environmental organization. She lives in Anchorage.
The views expressed here are the writer’s and are not necessarily endorsed by the Anchorage Daily News, which welcomes a broad range of viewpoints. To submit a piece for consideration, email commentary(at)adn.com. Send submissions shorter than 200 words to letters@adn.com or click here to submit via any web browser. Read our full guidelines for letters and commentaries here.