Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Alphageds24 t1_j9sk9bq wrote

Reply to comment by bigsoftee84 in What will be the environmental impact of de-orbiting 42,000 Starlink satellites every five years? (Explanation in post) by OvidPerl

Context of global warming severity, aluminum particles are probably minor compared to a coal plant pumping CO2 or even methane from the north.

4

bigsoftee84 t1_j9skm2v wrote

There are more impacts on the environment than just climate change. Burning off tons of metal to be washed down into our water sources is probably something that should be discussed and not waved away because coal plants contribute to another problem.

6

Alphageds24 t1_j9smj5v wrote

Earth can't spread its resources to correct every little thing, we need to focus on bigger items. Aluminum oxide in our water is probably minor compared to the acidification of the oceans, also plastic pollution, mercury, etc.

Yes it might contribute but it's minor and so I'd say forget about trying to solve it, fixing it wouldn't change the course in any major way.

−6

bigsoftee84 t1_j9sn2vu wrote

This opinion shows little concern for the environment or the future impacts on the environment from new technologies. You want to ignore potential issues because there are already issues. Compounding the problem will never fix it, and adding more trash burning isn't a fix. Prevention of future pollution should be as important as stopping current pollution, otherwise what is the point?

7

calvin4224 t1_j9stugf wrote

Heavy metals in the water may be really bad for animals, e.g. the European oysters which are nearly extinct in the copper-rich (tiny particles) north Sea. We should care about everything we do to our planet. You don't have to care about everything yourself of course. But don't dismiss it as unimportant just because you don't have the energy to care.

4

[deleted] t1_j9sziq4 wrote

[deleted]

1

veerKg_CSS_Geologist t1_j9t2o22 wrote

That doesn’t answer the question of what impact if any all the satellites will have.

3

Unlikely_Plankton_11 t1_j9t6tug wrote

It’s a relevant point to make, because we still have barely started to fix the actual massive problems and people are already bored and looking for distractions in the noise.

Of the two things, coal plants are so hilariously worse and larger in scale that satellites may as well not exist at all for all the difference it makes. When you have people going “yeah yeah coal whatever, let’s look into these satellites though!” it takes up mind space, airtime, political capital, and manpower that could be used on far more impactful things.

And in this case it sure seems like the motive is “ugh corporations,” not genuine concern for the environment.

3

Alphageds24 t1_j9tidor wrote

Exactly my point, and ya totally feels like it's "ugh corporations", and targeting just starlink seems like it's an Elon attack and not at all looking at the satellite junk from many companies and governments.

1