Space Economics X Science Policy

---

Please see my Federation of American Scientists (FAS) Day One Project Proposal

1. Please describe your idea in 350 words or less. Include any links to research or data that support your course of action.

Space. What is it? More importantly, who owns it?

Public support for deep space research is growing, although concerns remain about the inequality in access to space tourism. While headlines focus on the "Global Artificial Intelligence Race," questions about the economics of space and resource use are still being debated quietly in academic circles. Space sustainability, especially the issue of space junk, has become of key concern (https://www.nhm.ac.uk/discover/what-is-space-junk-and-why-is-it-a-problem.html).

Legally, the Outer Space Treaty considers space a "global commons," meaning it is shared by all nations (https://www.unoosa.org/oosa/en/ourwork/spacelaw/treaties/introouterspacetreaty.html). This treaty gives no countries ownership rights to the atmosphere and beyond. However, not all nations, including the U.S., agree with this interpretation (https://swfound.org/media/207517/swf_brief_is_space_a_global_commons_pp2301_final.pdf).

Economic and Sustainability Challenges:

In 2012, economist Kenneth Arrow and his colleagues questioned how we measure sustainable development for future generations. They pointed out that current economic models often ignore the depletion of natural resources, treating them as infinite assets (https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/environment-and-development-economics/article/abs/sustainability-and-the-measurement-of-wealth/DF1D0473AD397311143DB1033B50A7E6). 

In their follow-up paper, they noted that some models even see natural resource depletion as beneficial for institutions and future well-being (https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/environment-and-development-economics/article/abs/sustainability-and-the-measurement-of-wealth-further-reflections/9E7CD29F8E00F5CDBDD1D9D0D89D7361).

This sparked debate in ecological economics, but there has been little movement in translating these ideas into policies over the past decade.

A New Approach to Space Development:

For my Day One Project, I propose applying Arrow’s analysis to improve the process of turning research into evidence and policy for space development. The key question is: Should there be regulations to ensure that space development is balanced with responsible use of Earth’s resources? In other words, should governments or private companies be allowed to push forward with space initiatives without investing equally in preserving Earth’s environment?

2. What is the pressing issue that society is facing?

It is clear that there is a misalignment, whether it be weak or strong is up to subjective discourse, between technological ambition and local-to-global sustainability pipelining efforts. This misalignment appears both in outward-facing public news sources and inward-facing academic modalities, specifically in the pursuit of space exploration and the development of advanced technologies, which often overshadow pressing environmental concerns on Earth. While countries become increasingly enthusiastic to explore the depths of space and be the first harness artificial intelligence for innovation, there remains a critical gap in addressing how these technological advancements can coexist with sustainable practices.

3. What is your idea for solving that issue, and why is now the time for it?

This misalignment addressed above concerning the unchecked financial tradeoffs between space development and natural geocapital conservation calls for targeted policy research, crowd-sourcing, and development with the aim of nesting the former within the latter. In other words, within our turbulent political landscape, developing a preliminary template for budgetary allocation weighing the conservation of natural capital heavier than exploratory peripheral development. 

Creating this shadow-price-based economic scale model, so to say, in which total factor productivity considers the beta weight of natural capital degradation with a floor-effect limit would provide ecological economics with a better governance-driven toolbox. With this policy-to-research-to-policy pipeline precedence, policymakers may develop regulations that ensure technological advancements, such as those in space exploration and artificial intelligence, are accompanied by commitments to environmental stewardship and social equity. By establishing clear guidelines and accountability measures, we can ensure that our ambitions in technology do not compromise the health of our planet and its resources.

4. Who is the customer for this idea? What specific steps should they take to implement your solution?

I don't believe there is a true "customer" for my idea of regulatory research and development concerning a triple bottom line fiscal responsibility in space technology development. Such a proposal of required environmental stewardship efforts equivalent to or greater than the organization's and company's space technology development efforts could be considered a dampening effect to unmitigated advancement. We see the same phenomenon in the brain-computer interface (BCI) market. As an active member of the Implantable Brain Computer Interface Collaborative Community (iBCI-CC) with a focus in neuroethics and ISO requirements, I was fortunate to attend the workshop "Developing Implanted Brain-Computer Interface Clinical Outcome Assessments to Demonstrate Benefit" at the FDA.

The black-and-white difference between my two committees, "Ethics, Neural Data Privacy & Data Security" and "Modular Components, Interoperability & ISO/Other Standards", illuminated further the relationship between regulation and development perspectives. While one committee (the former) wished for a deeper epistemological investigation into informed consent, the other (the latter) wished to loosen ISO standards for quicker market access.

With this anecdote, I want to shed light on the difficult of regulatory research within a highly marketable business, such as space. Therefore, the ideal client for my idea would be the federal institutions presiding over regulatory standards for space technology development. The specific steps to take would be: [1] comprehensive literature, policy, and patent analysis to assess the current and forecasted intellectual landscape; [2] utilizing tools from crowd-sourcing and citizen science to gain a democratic perspective on space-earth resource allocation; [3] although it might lead to conflict, it would be pertinent to interview and gather intelligence from the commercial space market concerning profit projections and environmental standards, under the transparent pretense of proposed regulatory checks; [4] drafting regulatory briefs and working papers to bring to public fora, governance circles, and governmental bodies.

5. What becomes possible if your idea is successful and fully implemented?

If my idea is successful and fully implemented, we could see a transformative shift in how space development is approached in relation to Earth’s resources. This would create a framework where regulatory measures ensure that advancements in space technology are balanced with ecological preservation efforts. By prioritizing environmental stewardship alongside technological ambition, we would cultivate a more equitable and sustainable model for resource use, benefitting both current and future generations.

In practice, this would lead to clearer guidelines for both public and private entities engaged in space initiatives, ensuring they commit to specific environmental standards and financial allocations for natural resource conservation. The development of a shadow-price-based economic scale model, which factors in natural capital degradation and enforces a minimum threshold for ecological integrity, would provide policymakers with a governance toolkit in the rapidly evolving landscape of space exploration and artificial intelligence, which both, as we have recently seen, are environmentally taxing (https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2024/09/18/energy-ai-use-electricity-water-data-centers/). Moreover, such guidelines could also build better public trust in technologically ambitious entities in the space and AI markets (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10247141/).