The space industry is embarking on a new era of 'starwashing', a term I've coined to describe the deceptive marketing tactics employed by space companies to paint their activities as environmentally beneficial. This phenomenon mirrors the well-known concept of greenwashing, where companies exaggerate their environmental credentials. However, starwashing takes it a step further, leveraging our cosmic curiosity and sense of wonder to mask potentially harmful practices.
In the context of a booming space economy, projected to reach a staggering $1.8 trillion by 2035, companies are selling the idea of space exploration as a noble endeavor, often overlooking the environmental consequences on Earth and in space. This narrative is particularly appealing to those who care about environmental sustainability, but it's a double-edged sword.
Take Blue Origin, for instance. Its mission statement includes the noble goal of 'restoring and sustaining Earth' while also colonizing space. However, the company's founder, Jeff Bezos, also owns Amazon, which has a substantial carbon footprint. The idea of moving Amazon's operations into space to reduce its environmental impact might seem appealing, but it's a mere distraction from the immediate environmental crises we face, such as wildfires and climate change.
Blue Origin's claims about its rocket fuel being environmentally friendly are also misleading. While it's true that the combustion process produces water vapor, this vapor can amplify the greenhouse effect, contributing to global warming. This is a classic example of starwashing, where a company downplays the environmental impact of its activities while emphasizing the benefits.
The race to mine the Moon is another area of concern. Companies are eager to extract resources, promising to reduce trips to and from the Moon. However, this will lead to more frequent rocket launches, requiring additional launch sites and potentially impacting coastal lands and ocean waters. The lunar environment is not infinite, and prime landing locations are also valuable scientific sites that could be endangered by human activity.
The use of celebrities in starwashing campaigns is also noteworthy. SpaceX and Blue Origin have both utilized famous figures to promote their space ventures, creating a sense of glamour and excitement. For instance, Blue Origin turned celebrities into space tourists, with pop star Katy Perry promoting her tour during a suborbital flight. This is a clever strategy to garner public support and distract from the environmental implications of their activities.
The Outer Space Treaty of 1967, which obligates nations to explore space for the benefit of all mankind, is often cited by companies like SpaceX to justify their activities. However, these companies often overlook immediate environmental crises on Earth, focusing instead on distant threats like asteroid impacts. As space companies receive billions in taxpayer-funded contracts, the question arises: are these ventures truly benefiting all humankind, or are they just another form of starwashing?
The iconic 'Earthrise' photograph, taken by the Apollo 8 crew in 1968, inspired the environmental movement of the last century. Now, with the recent 'Earthset' image captured by the Artemis II crew, we are presented with a new perspective. Will this image spark a movement to hold space companies accountable for their starwashing practices? Only time will tell. Personally, I believe that as the space industry continues to grow, we must remain vigilant and critical of these companies' marketing narratives. While space exploration is an exciting prospect, we cannot afford to be starstruck at the expense of our planet's health.
