What we can learn from space trash

October 19, 2021

October 19, 2021


Today's guest blog is authored by Lauren Phipps of GreenBiz. The original posting can be found here.


About once every year, the International Space Station has to alter its course, ever so slightly, to avoid a potentially mission-critical collision with a piece of space trash. These unwanted flying objects — more formally known as orbital debris — are human-made items that no longer serve any useful purpose, both intentionally and unintentionally left to orbit in perpetuity. 


Derelict spacecrafts and satellites, payload carriers, motor effluents, bolts and fragments of paint chips: Orbital debris runs the gamut from more substantial litter — about 23,000 pieces larger than 10 cm — to smaller debris — about 500,000 items between 1 and 10 cm in diameter — to the infinitesimally tiny — over 100 million particles larger than 1 mm. So next time you look up at the night sky and consider your place in the universe, consider that 8,000 metric tons of junk are swirling around above you. 


It’s a tale as old as time. As the space race evolves and explodes with the rise of "mega-constellations" and a surfeit of satellites are being deployed, the lower Earth orbit is being quickly cluttered with space trash. The tragedy of the commons here on Earth is playing out with a predictable similarity in Earth’s orbit. (Did "WALL-E" teach us nothing?!) 


Unlike our waste management woes on Earth, debris begets more debris in space. As the density of space junk increases, so too does the number of debris-creating collisions, in a cascade effect known as the Kessler syndrome. And while spacecrafts are designed to sustain the impact of micro-debris, the stakes are higher with larger pieces of defunct equipment. The space junk created by just two events — an accidental collision between operational American communications satellite Iridium-33 and retired Russian spacecraft Cosmos-2251 in 2009, and the intentional destruction of the Fengyun-1C weather satellite by China in 2007 — represents one-third of all catalogued orbital debris, according to NASA.


To avoid a similar fate in space as we face on earth, a slew of solutions have been proposed including nets, lasers, harpoons, sails and slingshots. Just this year, the Japanese satellite services company Astroscale launched the world’s first commercial mission for debris management, a demonstration mission intended to prove out the core technologies needed for debris docking and removal.


Another familiar tale of tackling human-created pollution with more, sometimes counterproductive, technological solutions. While the world’s leading space agencies have formed the Inter-Agency Space Debris Coordination Committee to address this growing issue, participating countries only have voluntary protocols in place and no global treaty regulates waste in space. 


I became curious about space trash not because it’s the biggest environmental impact to worry about when it comes to space exploration, but because of the psychology behind it. It’s easier to grasp why someone could see a vast swath of land or an expansive, open ocean as a dumping ground without a sense of scale. It’s unending! My impact is but a drop in the ocean! The same perception appears to be true in the Earth’s orbit, although our sense of scale has never been greater. 


Policy development and market-based solutions may be necessary to mitigate a potential materials management crisis before it becomes an even bigger challenge. But we’ve seen this movie before. "The most important action currently is to prevent the unnecessary creation of additional orbital debris," according to NASA. So why not use our planetary perspective to avoid an interplanetary problem?


Disclaimer: Guest blogs represent the opinion of the writers and may not reflect the policy or position of the Northeast Recycling Council, Inc.

Share Post

By Antoinette Smith | Resource Recycling March 6, 2026
Fourth-quarter MRF commodity values in the Northeast reached five-year lows, as they continued to drop but at a decelerating pace, according to Northeast Recycling Council survey data released this week. The average value for all commodities fell to $68.41/ton without residuals, lower by 8.96% on the quarter. This level marks the lowest point since Q4 2020, when the grade hit $60.46. The report includes responses from 18 MRFs representing 12 states: Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont and Virginia. With residuals, average values were at $52.49/ton with residuals, lower by 12.75% – the lowest point since Q3 2020, when the grade reached $40.19. The report also detailed the change in Q4 average values, with For PET, PP and mixed plastics (#3-7), as well as steel cans, the rate of decrease slowed in the quarter, while OCC, aluminum cans and mixed paper continued falling at the same pace as the previous quarter. Average pricing for both natural and color HDPE bales, brown glass containers and all other paper rose in Q4. However, clear glass, green glass and 3-mix glass containers, along with bulky rigids, fell during the period, after rising in Q3. The report points out that recovered glass often is marketed but at a negative value, meaning recipients are paid to take it away. Single stream decreased by 7.87% without residuals and by 9.82% with residuals, while dual stream/source separated materials fell by 10.57% without residuals, and by 18.98% with residuals. Although dual-stream MRFs did not decelerate as much as their single-stream counterparts, they did see a higher average commodity price compared to single stream for both with and without residuals. Residual material cannot be sold and is landfilled. The report also showed the 2024 share of each material at 18 MRFs, with OCC and mixed paper representing nearly one half of incoming volumes. Of the included states, five have deposit return systems for beverage containers, which results in fewer glass bottles, PET bottles and aluminum cans winding up in MRFs there. In addition, MRFs in those states typically generate less revenue from those recyclables, the report said. The report also showed the 2024 share of each material at 18 MRFs, with OCC and mixed paper representing nearly one half of incoming volumes. Of the included states, five have deposit return systems for beverage containers, which results in fewer glass bottles, PET bottles and aluminum cans winding up in MRFs there. In addition, MRFs in those states typically generate less revenue from those recyclables, the report said. Of the three approaches reflected in the report – single stream, dual stream and source separation – single stream is the most common. Read the article on Resource Recycling's website.
March 6, 2026
Northeast recycled commodity values hit 5-year lows Fourth-quarter MRF commodity values in the Northeast reached five-year lows, as they continued to drop but at a decelerating pace, according to Northeast Recycling Council survey data released this week. The average value for all commodities fell to $68.41/ton without residuals, lower by 8.96% on the quarter. This level marks the lowest point since Q4 2020, when the grade hit $60.46. The report includes responses from 18 MRFs representing 12 states: Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont and Virginia. With residuals, average values were at $52.49/ton with residuals, lower by 12.75% – the lowest point since Q3 2020, when the grade reached $40.19. The report also detailed the change in Q4 average values, with For PET, PP and mixed plastics (#3-7), as well as steel cans, the rate of decrease slowed in the quarter, while OCC, aluminum cans and mixed paper continued falling at the same pace as the previous quarter. Average pricing for both natural and color HDPE bales, brown glass containers and all other paper rose in Q4. However, clear glass, green glass and 3-mix glass containers, along with bulky rigids, fell during the period, after rising in Q3. The report points out that recovered glass often is marketed but at a negative value, meaning recipients are paid to take it away. Single stream decreased by 7.87% without residuals and by 9.82% with residuals, while dual stream/source separated materials fell by 10.57% without residuals, and by 18.98% with residuals. Although dual-stream MRFs did not decelerate as much as their single-stream counterparts, they did see a higher average commodity price compared to single stream for both with and without residuals. Residual material cannot be sold and is landfilled. The report also showed the 2024 share of each material at 18 MRFs, with OCC and mixed paper representing nearly one half of incoming volumes. Of the included states, five have deposit return systems for beverage containers, which results in fewer glass bottles, PET bottles and aluminum cans winding up in MRFs there. In addition, MRFs in those states typically generate less revenue from those recyclables, the report said. The report also showed the 2024 share of each material at 18 MRFs, with OCC and mixed paper representing nearly one half of incoming volumes. Of the included states, five have deposit return systems for beverage containers, which results in fewer glass bottles, PET bottles and aluminum cans winding up in MRFs there. In addition, MRFs in those states typically generate less revenue from those recyclables, the report said. Of the three approaches reflected in the report – single stream, dual stream and source separation – single stream is the most common. Read report on CRA's website.
By Megan Fontes March 5, 2026
NERC’s Material Recovery Facilities (MRF) Commodity Values Survey Report for the period October - December 2025 showed a deceleration in the continued decline in the average commodity prices. The average value of all commodities decreased by 8.96% without residuals to $68.41 and by 12.75% with residuals to $52.49 as compared to last quarter. Single stream decreased by 7.87% without residuals and 9.82% with residuals, while dual stream / source separated decreased by 10.57% without residuals and 18.98% with residuals compared to last quarter. Dual stream MRFs did not decelerate as much as single stream MRFs but did see a higher average commodity price compared to single stream for both with and without residuals. The decrease seen in Steel cans, PET, Polypropylene, and Mixed plastics (#3-7) slowed as compared to last quarter, while the decrease remained consistent in OCC, Aluminum cans, Mixed paper, and Residue. Notably, average values for Natural HDPE, Colored HDPE, All other paper, and Brown glass containers reversed direction from last quarter (where they dropped in value) and saw an increase in value this quarter as compared to last quarter. Clear glass, Green glass, and 3-Mix glass containers, as well as Bulky rigids, reversed direction from last quarter (where they increased in value) and saw a decrease in value this quarter as compared to last quarter.