4 ms·

People are focusing on the technical challenge, but there's a deeper issue with this idea: using mining is solving the problem "by side-effect." The way econom

People are focusing on the technical challenge, but there's a deeper issue with this idea: using mining is solving the problem "by side-effect." The way economics is supposed to solve this sort of problem is via liability (and probably insurance). This doesn't require solving the space mining problem, just an actuarial problem. But of course, the problem is that certain international actors wouldn't accept any sort of rules-based accountability for damage when it's caused by their space junk.

adolph 2y ago
> The way economics is supposed to solve this sort of problem “The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design.” ― Hayek
KennyBlanken 2y ago
Yup, just like the problem with plastics is "solved" by recycling, which only manages to handle a fraction of the plastic generated, doesn't address microplastic pollution, and the economic viability of recycling is incredibly poor, in part because the polymers break down quite a bit with use/age/reprocessing.
- trashtensor 2y ago
  Plastics, climate change, we have a number of these problems that get worse over a long enough time scales that there is no incentive for the people in charge of our economy to fundamentally change their behavior. I find "economics will solve this" arguments really dubious.
  - exe34 2y ago
    the market only really works when the perpetrators pay the cost.
- bryanlarsen 2y ago
  Recycling works great for lots of resources: lead-acid batteries, steel, aluminum, etc. Just because it doesn't work well for one resource doesn't make it non-viable.
- resoluteteeth 2y ago
  What OP is talking about is internalizing externalities. In the case of plastics this would presumably involve making companies that manufacture plastics bear the costs of disposing of them. While it's true that plastics recycling is mostly a joke, in most places, companies manufacturing plastics aren't required to bear the cost of recycling in the first place (i.e. there has been no attempt to internalize the externalities in the first place), so I'm not sure it's even possible to invoke plastics recycling as a counterexample. If there had been a push to make plastics manufacturers bear the cost of recycling, then the fact that recycling doesn't adequately cover the full externalities might be an example of the problems with this process (certainly there is an incentive for companies to try to downplay the negative externalities resulting from their products if they will be forced to bear the cost of dealing with those externalities). The real way to make this process work would probably just be to tax plastics heavily based on their negative externalities and use that money to dispose of them. However, this would likely make goods using plastics prohibitively expensive for consumers, so it might be unpopular, but it would likely cause people to use alternative materials that are more expensive than plastics are currently, which would be beneficial.
  - fshbbdssbbgdd 2y ago
    In California you pay an extra deposit when you buy a plastic bottle. I don’t know if that number is set to properly capture the externality, but it’s enough to get people wandering the streets to pick up the bottles and turn them in (they even rifle through your trash can). Also, it doesn’t apply to most forms of plastic packaging or goods.
  - schiffern 2y ago
    OP here, IMO the most feasible implementation of a tax-to-disposal scheme is probably universal plastic deposits. Deposits have historically proven to be a highly effective and efficient policy, one that Keep America Beautiful (the original polluter greenwashing[0] group!) naturally fiercely opposes. Even if they only kept up with inflation, bottle deposits would be at least 25¢ today. The federal government should treat the microplastic tsunami like it did the hazard of drunk driving: tie federal highway funding to states adoption of universal plastic deposit laws. Just my 50¢ [0] https://www.alternet.org/2005/10/the_hidden_life_of_garbage https://www.alternet.org/2005/10/the_hidden_life_of_garbage
inglor_cz 2y ago
Liability can be quite a problem when the original entity collapses or thoroughly transforms itself. A possible development for both corporations and nation states.
- dredmorbius 2y ago
  Yes, and ... This is already a major problem with long-tail risk activities (industrial plants, mines, oil wells) or those with numerous small operators (shipping, itself the origin of the modern insurance industry). Established operators sell off or otherwise divest high-risk operations, units, vessels, etc., to smaller entities which can extract remaining value then walk away from the ultimate costs. Add in to this problems of international law (and its even more problematic variants, marine and aerospace law), and you've got problems poorly addressed by market-bases solutions.

adolph 2y ago

> The way economics is supposed to solve this sort of problem “The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design.” ― Hayek

KennyBlanken 2y ago

Yup, just like the problem with plastics is "solved" by recycling, which only manages to handle a fraction of the plastic generated, doesn't address microplastic pollution, and the economic viability of recycling is incredibly poor, in part because the polymers break down quite a bit with use/age/reprocessing.

trashtensor 2y ago
Plastics, climate change, we have a number of these problems that get worse over a long enough time scales that there is no incentive for the people in charge of our economy to fundamentally change their behavior. I find "economics will solve this" arguments really dubious.
- exe34 2y ago
  the market only really works when the perpetrators pay the cost.
bryanlarsen 2y ago
Recycling works great for lots of resources: lead-acid batteries, steel, aluminum, etc. Just because it doesn't work well for one resource doesn't make it non-viable.
resoluteteeth 2y ago
What OP is talking about is internalizing externalities. In the case of plastics this would presumably involve making companies that manufacture plastics bear the costs of disposing of them. While it's true that plastics recycling is mostly a joke, in most places, companies manufacturing plastics aren't required to bear the cost of recycling in the first place (i.e. there has been no attempt to internalize the externalities in the first place), so I'm not sure it's even possible to invoke plastics recycling as a counterexample. If there had been a push to make plastics manufacturers bear the cost of recycling, then the fact that recycling doesn't adequately cover the full externalities might be an example of the problems with this process (certainly there is an incentive for companies to try to downplay the negative externalities resulting from their products if they will be forced to bear the cost of dealing with those externalities). The real way to make this process work would probably just be to tax plastics heavily based on their negative externalities and use that money to dispose of them. However, this would likely make goods using plastics prohibitively expensive for consumers, so it might be unpopular, but it would likely cause people to use alternative materials that are more expensive than plastics are currently, which would be beneficial.
- fshbbdssbbgdd 2y ago
  In California you pay an extra deposit when you buy a plastic bottle. I don’t know if that number is set to properly capture the externality, but it’s enough to get people wandering the streets to pick up the bottles and turn them in (they even rifle through your trash can). Also, it doesn’t apply to most forms of plastic packaging or goods.
- schiffern 2y ago
  OP here, IMO the most feasible implementation of a tax-to-disposal scheme is probably universal plastic deposits. Deposits have historically proven to be a highly effective and efficient policy, one that Keep America Beautiful (the original polluter greenwashing[0] group!) naturally fiercely opposes. Even if they only kept up with inflation, bottle deposits would be at least 25¢ today. The federal government should treat the microplastic tsunami like it did the hazard of drunk driving: tie federal highway funding to states adoption of universal plastic deposit laws. Just my 50¢ [0] https://www.alternet.org/2005/10/the_hidden_life_of_garbage https://www.alternet.org/2005/10/the_hidden_life_of_garbage

inglor_cz 2y ago

Liability can be quite a problem when the original entity collapses or thoroughly transforms itself. A possible development for both corporations and nation states.

dredmorbius 2y ago
Yes, and ... This is already a major problem with long-tail risk activities (industrial plants, mines, oil wells) or those with numerous small operators (shipping, itself the origin of the modern insurance industry). Established operators sell off or otherwise divest high-risk operations, units, vessels, etc., to smaller entities which can extract remaining value then walk away from the ultimate costs. Add in to this problems of international law (and its even more problematic variants, marine and aerospace law), and you've got problems poorly addressed by market-bases solutions.