Partially nonstupid editorial in Wall Street Journal on an environmental issue

Yeah, it surprised me too, but the Jan. 25th print version had an editorial by Bruce Berkowitz that said something reasonable about the environmental problem of space junk (no mention of the global warming connection, though). Berkowitz argues the US should involve China in an international convention to control debris. A nonwrong opinion in the Journal!

Of course, it was part of an otherwise wrong article saying China's antisatellite test was no big deal, and it incorrectly stated that China has "as much interest as the U.S. to limit debris" (as a minor player in space, most of the external costs of China's debris gets imposed on the big player, the U.S.). And, it's a guest column, not something written by the insane editors of the Journal. But still.

Global warming's effects on the space program

Global warming is good for space program because it thins the outer atmosphere, says the usually-reliable Planetary Society blog. Thinning the outer atmosphere reduces the drag it has on orbiting satellites, which means they need to use less fuel to prolong their lifespan.

Global warming is bad for space program because it thins the outer atmosphere, says a Reuters report on the same study referenced by the Planetary Society. Thinning the outer atmosphere reduces the drag it has on orbiting space junk, meaning the junk will stay in space longer, threatening satellites and astronauts, before burning up (they do note the positive benefits on satellites).

Neither of these two sources tries to weigh the positive against the negative, but my guess is like most aspects of climate change, the negative outweighs the positive. The solution to atmospheric drag on satellites is to provide more fuel. It has a cost, but no comparable solution presents itself to the problem of space junk, a problem that's expected to get signficantly worse.