Alphageds24
Alphageds24 t1_j9thcra wrote
Reply to comment by Minionmemesaregood in What will be the environmental impact of de-orbiting 42,000 Starlink satellites every five years? (Explanation in post) by OvidPerl
MIT did a study Study: Reflecting sunlight to cool the planet will cause other global changes
But it talks about aerosols in the air. So maybe burning them up the aluminum particles would be reflective aerosols?
A satellite reflecting sun back into space is probably very small amount of change, but with 30k maybe it adds up, I don't know.
Alphageds24 t1_j9smj5v 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
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.
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.
Alphageds24 t1_j9tidor wrote
Reply to comment by Unlikely_Plankton_11 in What will be the environmental impact of de-orbiting 42,000 Starlink satellites every five years? (Explanation in post) by OvidPerl
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.