EDITORIAL: SPACE SUSTAINABILITY IN AN UNSUSTAINABLEWORLD

L. RAPP

Corresponding Author: Prof. Lucien Rapp, Scientific Director of the SIRIUS Chair

The following is a selection of the papers presented at the SIRIUS Space Talks 2024, held in Toulouse.
Since its creation in 2013 (and even much earlier, with the active support of the Occitanie Region), the SIRIUS Chair has organized an international event every year, bringing together a cohort of world experts on a topical subject related to space activities. In keeping with its DNA, the SIRIUS Chair generally anticipates current events and proposes a cutting-edge topic for discussion. For example, it discussed NewSpace before the term became common parlance, looked at the production line for mini-satellites before the first constellations were deployed, wondered about financing and insurance mechanisms before the first space PPPs were set up, and posed the few questions linked to the evolution of the space ecosystem towards service activities, before the value chain extended to downstream activities. It raised the now major issues of space debris accumulation and eventual disposal, safety in space, the commercial exploitation of space resources, and the regime of in-orbit services, even though these were not yet subjects of reflection for many experts in the space sector.
For the 2024 edition of its Space Talks, the SIRIUS Chair has decided to depart from its usual practice in two ways: firstly, by addressing one of the issues of the moment, which has been the subject of so many colloquia, conferences and seminars that it now seems difficult to innovate in academic thinking and in the solutions likely to feed into public policy or corporate strategies; and secondly, by deciding to welcome as speakers, not established experts, but young experts, some of them still doctoral students or fresh PhDs from a European or non-European university. 18 of them were selected based on their paper proposals, in response to the call for papers that had been issued, notably via UNIVERSEH, the European Space University. The idea was not only to listen to them, but even more, to observe them and by observing them, to understand what a young generation can expect from a world whose main challenge is climate change, with a vital prognosis for it.
There is no longer any need to make this observation. It has been made. And if we, collectively, do not follow it up with actions that are both decisive in their objectives and determined in their implementation, there will soon be nothing left of the human, animal and plant species that populate the earth and make it habitable. This long road to Hell will have been preceded by a series of disasters, which the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)’s annual reports describe and track year after year. Their list, halfway through the 21st century and even more so by the end of it, is a veritable litany:

Water shortages: 350 million additional inhabitants will be exposed to water shortages at +1.5°C
Extreme heatwaves: 420 million more people will be at risk at +2°C;
Hunger: Up to 80 million people will go hungry by 2050, in addition to the 166 million who already need food assistance because of climate-related disasters
Submergence: In coastal cities, “on the front line” of global warming, hundreds of millions of inhabitants will be at risk by 2050, due to rising sea levels (+ 60 cm by the end of the century at + 2°C).
Disasters: Almost all coastal areas and several regions of the world are at risk of simultaneous weather catastrophes (heatwave, drought, cyclones, fires, floods, etc.).
Migration: Up to 143 million displaced people by 2050 in sub-Saharan Africa, South Asia, and Latin America due to water shortages, rising sea levels and pressure on agriculture.
Species: Above +2°C, up to 54% of terrestrial and marine species could be threatened with extinction by the end of the century.

We are beginning to see the first tangible consequences in the form of climate change and its effects. We know the cause: the release of excessive quantities of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, starting with CO2 generated by the unlimited consumption of fossil fuels and anthropogenic methane. These releases cause abnormal heating of the ozone layer, triggering the warming process we are currently observing. The combined effects of these two phenomena have begun to modify living conditions on Earth to the point of making them impossible in the not-too-distant future if nothing is done. To slow the pace of global warming, we need to help the most emissions-intensive industries to reduce their carbon footprint.
But how? What kind of measures are needed to achieve this result with a minimum of certainty? Have the European Union and its member states given themselves the means? And are the directions taken, the texts adopted and their initial effects moving in the right direction? What about space activities? Where do they fit in? How do they contribute, or can they contribute, to improving the current climate situation? In outer-space? From outer-space? For a better development of space activities, i.e. a development more in line with the economic, social and environmental interests of the human community? What are the expected benefits for terrestrial activities, and what disadvantages can be identified?
A study conducted by the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (1) on the effects of 1,500 climate policies implemented in 41 countries between 1998 and 2022, and published in the journal Science on August 22, 2024, reveals a few key conclusions. They are edifying and rich in information for the future of these policies. Only 63 of the 1,500 measures studied were effective, reducing emissions by between 4.5% and 13%. And even more surprisingly, these 63 measures owed their effectiveness to the fact that they were part of actions combining constraint and incentive, planning and market, public subsidies and private financing, political determination and social acceptability, control of deficits and respect for freedoms…
In line with the United Nations General Assembly resolution of September 25, 2015, setting 17 Sustainable Development Goals and 169 action targets for the next 15 years, and the Paris Agreement concluded at COP21, on December 19, 2019 (2), the European Union set itself an agenda and the means to achieve it: on January1, 2050, it will be climate neutral.
Achieving this goal will require the implementation of an ambitious plan, the Green Plan for Europe, currently underway, and the mobilization of substantial resources. This plan uses finance as an instrument for greening the most emissions-intensive activities. This is the purpose of an initial set of European regulations aimed at the transparency of financial products and the development of the sustainable finance market (3). As of January1, 2025, companies that have been required to disclose non-financial information every year since 2013 will also be required to report on their efforts to reduce their environmental footprint (4). The list is open-ended, and the number of companies subject to this new obligation- including some space companies – will continue to grow over the years.
To steer the European economy towards virtuous activities, the EU has decided to develop a reliable and operational instrument for classification, measurement, and comparison: the European Green Taxonomy (5).
This legal edifice was recently completed by the adoption on May 24 2024 and publication on June 13 of the so-called “CS3D” (Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive) (6). This directive requires companies with more than 1,000 employees and sales more than €450 million to ensure that their commitments to respecting human rights, as well as protecting the environment, are upheld throughout the production chain for goods and services, from design to distribution, transport, and storage. This new obligation is accompanied by penalties, including full compensation for any damage caused, which are sufficiently dissuasive to encourage the companies concerned to implement preventive measures designed to prevent, mitigate, reduce, or eliminate the risks inherent in their activities, those of their subsidiaries, but also those of their commercial partners throughout the production chain.
But we need to go further, and ask THE question that remains unanswered to this day: what is the environmental impact of the development of space activities? It would be a mistake to take comfort in the relatively low environmental impact of space activities: 0.5%, it is claimed, of that of global activity (7). This indication means little or nothing. Precise measurement of the environmental impact of space activities depends on the type, size, altitude, weight, technical capacity, and mission of each satellite, and more generally on the scope of space activities in general: Launchers, satellites, ground segments, space stations, earth observation, exploration of the universe, planetary exploitation… Nor do the measurements taken take into account the effects of the development – already very significant over the last decade – of NewSpace, those that can be expected from the deployment of constellations of thousands or tens of thousands of small satellites (8), space transportation or even activities deployed in orbit, today only emerging.
Measuring the environmental impact of space activities is certainly no easy task. But we need to be able to do so to reduce the risk of preconceived ideas or erroneous assessments, or even falsified information, intentionally disseminated to undermine their development.
Like many other economic activities, space activities undoubtedly contribute to greenhouse gas emissions, particularly CO2. But is their environmental impact limited to these emissions? Should we not consider the effects of volatile pollutants due to the combustion of launch vehicle propellants, the contamination of soil, air or water, and the effects of the nominal or accidental fallout of space objects on marine ecosystems?
Space activities affect every layer of the atmosphere. Can the assessment of their environmental impact be limited to a purely terrestrial approach to this footprint? Should not all inputs, including those from outside the atmosphere, also be considered? Can the environmental impact of space missions be assessed in the same way as for other industrial activities, given that the functional units of each mission are neither similar nor equivalent?
Space activities also make a positive contribution, through Earth observation, telecommunications, geolocation, exploration, or research, to monitoring climate change, understanding its evolution, identifying its causes, and assessing its effects, as well as implementing corrective actions and anticipating the growing number of crisis situations. Without their help, these increasingly frequent crisis situations could have even more damaging consequences than the already worrying ones we’re seeing in many parts of the world, including Europe. Should not the environmental impact of space activities be offset by the benefits, in terms of general interest and public good, of a better understanding and greater control of the effects of climate change (9)?
The scope of space activities (launcher, satellite, ground segment, space station, Earth observation, exploration of the universe, planetary exploitation, etc.) is so broad, and the life phases of the object in question so intertwined and complex, that estimating their environmental impact is extremely tricky. Added to this is the fact that both the methodological aspects and the available databases suffer from a definite lack of maturity and standardization.
Assessing the environmental impact of a space activity, taking all considerations into account (climate change, consumption of fossil fuels, mineral, metal, and water resources, as well as ecotoxicity and damage to human health), must be carried out throughout the product or service value chain. All phases – development (upstream and detailed engineering, manufacturing, testing, launch), operation and retirement – must be considered. For certain space applications (e.g. navigation, television), if the environmental impact of the “upstream” part of the mission (development, in-orbit operation and decommissioning) can be quantified, the environmental impact of the “downstream” part (end-user utilization) must also be taken into account. However, by its very nature, this is particularly difficult to assess (10).
How can we assess the environmental impact of space activities in the economy that is taking shape on the borders of the two transitions that dominate it today and for many years to come?

the digital transition, profoundly altered by advances in generative artificial intelligence and the abundant production of space-based data, and
the energy transition, which space activities could in turn transform, if we ever manage to produce energy from space or using the resources we might find there?

Assuming that it is possible, comparisons of the environmental impact of space missions can only be made with great caution, given how different they are.
The sheer number of parties involved in each mission raises the question of how to attribute part of the environmental impact to each of them, and consequently, how to choose a distribution key. But establishing this allocation key itself depends on

the type of mission (single satellite, satellite constellation, etc.) ;
the size of the objects to be developed.
the type of partnership and location of stakeholders.
the sharing of responsibilities between players.
development and operating times.
commuting and business travel.

Assessing the environmental impact of a space mission, or element of a mission, can be particularly difficult, given that on the scale of a single mission, the impact may be small, whereas on a large scale, it may be very significant.
This list of difficulties should not be discouraging. They do, however, demonstrate the urgent need for an objective and, if possible, exhaustive assessment of the environmental impact of space activities, and consequently of their sustainability. The space industry has nothing to fear from such an assessment. On the contrary, they have many benefits to draw from it, by demonstrating to all and sundry their ability to align the most emissive activities with European environmental objectives, as implemented with the help of the European Green Taxonomy.
The developments that follow address these and many other questions raised by the subject of sustainability “in”, “through” and “for” space. As you read them, you take in a “breath of fresh air”, that of youth with its enthusiasm, its often very new and highly relevant ideas, but also its share of naivety. Alongside classic questions, but with a renewed approach (the obligation of insurance, the role of taxation, the organization of Space Traffic Management, the international regime of the Moon, liability for assembly operations in space, subcontracting, the accumulation of debris, the inadequacies of international governance), there are some magnificent developments on the equitable sharing of the benefits of a commercial exploitation of space or the impact of the deployment of constellations in low orbit on ancestral cultures. How will indigenous peoples, who find their bearings by moonlight or the march of the stars, be able to continue their wanderings and teach their customs to future generations if satellites multiply in near space, darkening the sky? In the last century, the founders of space law were concerned with future generations, seeking to protect them from the risk of sovereignty claims by a few spacefaring nations with the means to explore and use it. They were concerned with immediate history and believed that the status of “province” of all humankind would suffice. Their successors in this XXIst century more readily place themselves in the History of the World. Step by step, as shown in the following communications, they are seeking their path, compassionate to the fate of those who began it!

References

Annika Stechemesser, Nicolas Koch, Ebba Mark, Elina Dilger, Patrick Klösel, Laura Menicacci, Daniel Nachtigall, Felix Pretis, Nolan Ritter, Moritz Schwarz, Helena Vossen, Anna Wenzel (2024): Climate policies that achieved major emission reductions: Global evidence from two decades. Science. [DOI: 10.1126/science.adl6547]
Communication from the European Commission on the Green Pact for Europe, December 11, 2019. (“Green Pact for Europe”).
Regulation (EU) 2019/2088 of the European Parliament and of the Council of November 27, 2019 on sustainability disclosure in the financial services sector. (“SFDR”Regulation).
Directive (EU) 2022/2464 of the European Parliament and of the Council of December 14, 2022 amending Regulation (EU) No 537/2014 and Directives 2004/109/EC, 2006/43/EC and 2013/34/EU as regards the publication of sustainability information by companies. (“CSRDDirective”).
Regulation (EU) 2020/852 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 June 2020 on the establishment of a framework to promote sustainable investment and amending Regulation (EU) 2019/2088 (“Taxonomy Regulation”).
Directive (EU) 2024/1760 of the European Parliament and of the Council of June 13, 2024 on corporate sustainability due diligence and amending Directive (EU) 2019/1937 and Regulation (EU) 2023/2559 (“CS3D Directive”).
Information communicated on the occasion of a day organized on November 21, 2023 by ARCEP, ADEME and CNES, accessible on the ARCEP website. The French Ministry of Higher Education and Research website states that “the pollution in CO2 equivalent for 5 Ariane 5 launches is equivalent to a round trip from Paris to Cayenne in a Boeing 747”.
Lucien Rapp and Maria Topka, Small Satellite Constellations, Infrastructure Shift and Space Market Regulation, in Annette Froehlish editor, Legal Aspects around Satellite Constellations, Vol.2, Studies in Space Policies (2021).
Andrew Ross Wilson and Massimiliano Vasile, The Space Sustainability Paradox, 423 Journal of Cleaner Production 138869, 2023.
This approach is in line with comments made by Lieutenant-General John Shaw, Deputy Commander of the US Space Command, on August 9, 2021, during a speech at the 35th Small Satellite Conference: “Satellite developers and owners should think beyond end-of-life disposal. Satellites must be designed not to collapse as they age or when events occur on board (…) Overall, the entire satellite lifecycle must be designed with a focus on sustainability.”