Can we explore space without colonising the Earth?

What does space sustainability actually mean, and why does it matter for the Arctic? In this episode of The Circumpolar, Serafima sits down with Tom Gabriel Royer, PhD candidate in space law at the University of Lapland, co-lead of Working Group 5 on COST Action FOGOS, and Visiting Researcher at the Arctic Centre, to talk through what's happening in the space sector right now and where the real tensions lie.

Tom walks through the new EU Space Act proposal, the global push to attract space operators, and what scholars call the space sustainability paradox: we need space to monitor climate change on Earth, but to get there we build infrastructure that disrupts ecosystems on the ground. Launch-related pollution, he argues, is the missing piece in regulation. Even reusable rockets pollute. Reusability solves hardware waste, but it does not eliminate the environmental impact of launch operations.

The conversation also turns to Tom's own work on immaterial extractivism around Arctic spaceports like Esrange, where the soundscape, the peacefulness and the emptiness of the land are extracted in the name of science, defence and economic growth. From the 1972 Liability Convention to indigenous perspectives on going to the Moon, Tom asks who actually benefits when we say space is the province of all humanity, and what it would take to do this thoughtfully.

Transcript

SPEAKER_00 0:01

Hello and welcome back to the Circumpolar Podcast. My name is Serafim Andreva. I'm your host, and today we will be covering a topic which is surprisingly heavily related to the Arctic, which is space sustainability. We have uh Tom Royer, PhD candidate in law, space law, from the University of Lapland, also involved with the FOGOS project, working on environmental integrity. Tom, it's fantastic to have you.

SPEAKER_01 0:30

Thank you so much for welcoming me here. I'm so happy to be talking about space and the Arctic today.

SPEAKER_00 0:36

So, what is happening in space or in the space sector right now that people should be paying more attention to?

SPEAKER_01 0:43

Well, first, I think you can't have missed the Artemis 2 mission, which shows that everybody wants to go back to the moon. And it's fantastic to see humans so far away from the Earth. And I think we should focus on how it highlights our humanity. However, we should not forget about the land below. So we should go back to the earth also in our minds and to understand how we can have a healthier relationship with the earth while trying to explore space. And in that regard, we can see that there are many legislative initiatives going on, for example, in licensing. And a very relevant example is the new EU Space Act proposal. So recently, actually last month, there was a new draft report by the rapporteur Elena Donazen on the 3rd of March 2026. And she really pushed for simplification for harmonization of authorization practices so that when a space operator is authorized by an EU member state, it is authorized also by automatically the 26 others. So this could simplify enormously the authorization processes. This, of course, is not without counting also the EU's need to emphasize space sustainability and notably with regards to light pollution. However, if we look at other countries like Japan and the US, for example, they are really trying to also boost competitiveness in their own space sectors. Japan is the best in this area if we look from the operators' perspective because it has put in place an indemnification exemption for all the operators. I don't know the details of it, but basically it will allow the operators to not worry as much as other operators about liability issues. And the US is trying to balance also the growing commercial space sector with defense considerations. But if we go back to the European Union, we can see that there is a boost in licensing and there is also, of course, a reform in indemnification in the EU with a shortening of procedures. So a lot of different um a lot of different spacefaring nations and spacefaring organizations are trying to attract operators and to be the most secure and accessible market for them. Another topic, of course, I've mentioned defense. Well, a lot of people are saying that there is a war in space and that defense is important, and it's true, because we can see an increased use of dual use assets, space assets, by Russia, China, the US, and India. And Europe is not completely forgetting about this, even though some people say that it's lagging behind. But it's in transition. Last November we have seen that the ISA expanded its mandate to develop a military-grade reconnaissance satellite network. And within five years, we can expect that the EU will launch IRS II, a secure communication system. And I'm citing the parliament magazine here, Paula Solar. We can also mention, of course, the HANSA Agreement, because it's not only about multilateral agreements within international organizations or domestic legislation, but we also see some bilateral agreements. The HANSA Agreement of February 2026 was signed between Norway and Germany, and it covers five key areas, including space-based surveillance, maritime security, land operation, rapid reinforcement capabilities, and defense industry cooperation.

SPEAKER_00 4:17

Thank you so much for for that. But when we look at space and sustainability efforts in space specifically, how are they governed? And uh who are the key actors that are shaping the rules in how they are governed?

SPEAKER_01 4:34

That's a great question. And several actors are trying to enforce sustainability rules. We can see, for example, that the EU is trying to enforce rules about light pollution. We can see also that it is not out of the blue. It's the result of a lot of activism from the International Astronomy Union, which over the years have put this topic forward into the agenda at the higher levels. And this is recognized more and more, for example, if we think about the environmental impact of launches. And we could see very recently that R.T. Holamey, who is the director of the United Nations Office for Outer Space Affairs, UNUSA, said that we have to consider the environmental impact of space launches when we conduct space activities. So we have to be more responsible in that. However, it's not high enough on the agenda. And maybe I'm anticipating a little bit a question that you are going to ask. But launch-related pollution is the missing piece in regulation. So it's present in this course a lot, but there is a lack of collective vision on this, and there is a lack of political incentive to do this. So all the actors, the European Union, the European Space Agency, and all the domestic actors, the UN, they are trying to say in their speeches that this is important and that we should consider it. But there is no legislative initiative having a holistic vision despite repeated calls for that in discourses. However, we have seen in some regional legislation like the 2022 Scottish space sustainability roadmap pushed by the industry, that Scotland, for example, wants to make sure that the impact of space activities, of space launches, is not impacting the Earth too much. So there are some initiatives about that, but lack of holistic vision.

SPEAKER_00 6:31

But just one question then about the initiatives. You mentioned, because you mentioned private actors a lot and then a little bit state actors. But who is the most innovative when it comes to sustainability? Like who is the most green?

SPEAKER_01 6:43

I would say that it's both. It really depends on the company. If we look, for example, at SpaceX or Blue Origin, especially concerning the impact of launches on the ground, they are not green at all. Even though they use reusable rockets, they don't really consider the impact of repeated launches. Because even though reusable rockets can avoid some hardware pollution, it also creates some pollution by launching. However, if we look at other companies, like Aurora Propulsion Technologies or Maya Space, to speak about French company, they are more green. It's still about reusability, which is quite paradoxical and counterintuitive. States are trying to push things forward, of course. I think the most innovative would be the Scottish space sustainability roadmap, because it comes directly from the industry, and it's a set of non-binding rules, of course. But it shows that the industry is willing to move forward with this. I could also quote, of course, the French initiative recently to have a greener space sector. But I wouldn't say it's that innovative, and it's still a lot about the possibility of reusability, and they're not seeking to be more responsible, but just to mitigate risk.

SPEAKER_00 8:06

It sounds uh sounds like many, many other types of green initiatives that we also can see in other fields. But if we look at also your work specifically in your PhD on Earth's space sustainability and also spaceports, so you work on something called immaterial extractivism. What does this mean? And how is this relevant?

SPEAKER_01 8:30

Of course. So maybe extractivism nerds are familiar with the formula of Jennifer Wenzel when she says that fossil fuel is not so much invisible as it is unseen. And it is the same for a lot of things. When something pollutes, when something emits noise and disrupts the environment around it, like a spaceport, it is not invisible. A lot of people can see it, hear it, smell it, including reindeer. And this is not invisible. However, this is pushed aside and this is mitigated because in the name of science, in the name of defense, in the name of economic growth, we have to make progress and we have to launch. For the moment, in Esrange, one of my main case studies, this is not a huge problem because the frequency of launches is not the same as in Boca Chica, for example, with SpaceX. However, starting this year, they are aiming at 20 launches per year, which is a significant increase. And most of all, it's orbital launches. Before it used to be suborbital for the past 60 years, because it started in the 1960s, in 1966, more specifically. And what is being extracted here? Because when we speak about extractivism, we think about fossil fuel, we think about diamonds and gold and you know everything nice. However, we can also see that the soundscape is extracted. The peacefulness of the land, the emptiness. And it's not new. Salin in 1998 has already emphasized that emptiness was a resource around S-range. And it doesn't seem like that, because you would think that a resource is something material that you can touch. However, the emptiness is everywhere. But the land is not really empty. This emptiness is constructed. So immaterial extractivism is an extractivism of something that you can touch. It is intangible. However, it is constructed because it doesn't really exist. This land has been a grazing area for centuries for Sami people. And since the 1700s, Sami people have been expropriated. They have been forced to choose a certain identity between the Norwegian-Danish kingdom and the Swedish kingdom. And it has continued all the way up to today. So what is extracted here is it's a certain value, cultural value of the land and the relationship that Sami people have. Therefore, what is extracted is intangible, but it has material consequences. For example, in terms of feeding of reindeer, in terms of reproduction of reindeer, in terms of economic outcomes for Sami people and loss of this special relationship with the land.

SPEAKER_00 11:20

You mentioned Sami people, reindeer, it's it's it's the Arctic. We're talking about the Arctic, right? What is the relationship, you would say, between the Arctic and space infrastructure in terms of sustainability? Like where are the main tension points and what do you think that you can see for for the future, things that will emerge maybe as issues?

SPEAKER_01 11:44

So a main point is that the Arctic is framed as a global common good. In 2026, at the Arctic Frontiers 2026 in Tromsa, Aya Kallas framed the Arctic as a global common good, and specifically when it's prosperous and sustainable. So we can see that the Arctic is in the EU, in the EU's imaginary, it's a frontier to sustainability. It's also a gateway to space. So the Arctic is a place that the EU can use to enforce sustainability. And it also says that we have to use space in order to observe the Arctic. Something that we have to note, and that is very important, and maybe I should have started with that because it's very crucial, is that the Arctic is very essential for polar orbiting satellites. And polar orbits are incredible and very useful for Earth observation, and specifically to observe and monitor changes due to climate change. So there is a tension here, a space sustainability paradox to take the formula of Wilson and Vasily. I was already using this formula to describe this tension between space being used to enforce sustainability on Earth, but at the same time, by using Earth as a gateway to space, we are polluting the Earth. We are disrupting ecosystems. So there is a tension, a very huge tension point between, yeah, we need space for sustainability and we need to build infrastructure to go to space and to launch polar satellites, but we also need to protect the earth while doing so. So in the future, I think it's going to be extremely relevant, especially since the EU Space Act is supposed to enter into force in 2030 with a transition period of two years, of course. But it's very soon, if we think about it. And it also coincides with, of course, the development goals. Everything is coming into place to define sustainability for maybe the next 50 years, because that's the aim of also it's linked to the Arctic policy. The EU Space Act does not mention the EU Arctic policy, but in the way it is framed, the way it is emphasized and advertised into discourse, we can see that it is aimed at strengthening space capabilities and to have a secure and reliable space infrastructure to serve and to support the Arctic policy of the EU.

SPEAKER_00 14:08

How do you think that questions of liability, you've been kind of mentioning it and going around the topic loosely, but how do questions of liability work when we're talking about environmental damage from space activities? Either it's in orbit or Earth?

SPEAKER_01 14:25

Shortly put, doesn't really work. Especially if we look, of course, at the most famous international act about liability, the 1972 Liability Convention, which has never been totally used. The dispute between Canada and the USSR in 1977 about the Cosmos 954 accident when a USSR satellite crashed into Canadian territory, it's quite controversial, and there are still some blurred lines around this accident specifically. I've read a lot of articles on that topic, and it seems like people can't really agree on whether the USSR offered to clean up the area or refused to do so. And when trying to when trying to see whether it did that, I think the most important point that we're missing is that the Canada is that Canada and the USSR tried diplomatic channels, but not really using the Liability Convention, which was supposed to be made for that. Some people say, of course, that it could be, it would be inconsiderate to completely ignore treaty interpretation and the potential of treaty interpretation. And we could say, okay, maybe in a few years some state is going to file a claim against another one using that convention and going to interpret the convention as covering environmental damage. But the reality is that the probability for a state to file a claim under that convention is very low and even lower for environmental damage. Especially since it's an interstate convention. So when it comes, for example, to environmental damage caused around the area of a spaceport on the same territory as the launching state, it causes a lot of issues. Let's imagine a reindeer harder who wants to file a claim for damage to their environment. They can't attack their own country. They can't file a claim against their own country. So they have to go through domestic tort law. And we have seen repeatedly since the 90s that when Semi people try to file claims under domestic tort law, it leads to enormous costs for them. And usually the outcome is not satisfactory for them. So there is no mechanism to protect against the impact of environmental damage and to try to enforce liability against a launching state when it comes to environmental damage caused by space activities.

SPEAKER_00 16:54

I mean, going a little bit further from this, I mean, space is often framed as this frontier for all of humanity, right? Very idealistic in a very idealistic way. But the way that you approach this question, it's from this decolonial perspective, essentially, right? So what does that critique look like? What lies within the decolonial perspective of approaching space and space law and space sustainability?

SPEAKER_01 17:21

Thank you for that question. I think it ties directly to the previous one, where we can see that there are experiences of disruption in indigenous lands around spaceports, and indigenous peoples are disproportionately represented when it comes to launching areas. There are very few spaceports that are not built on indigenous land. Even if we look at Boca Chica in Texas, or if we look at Andoya in Norway or S. Range in Sweden, most of spaceports curu in French Guyana, so how could I forget it when Sami people are the only formally recognized indigenous people within EU land, but there are many indigenous people also in French Guyana who are completely ignored for the needs of the spaceports. This question is central to space activities. How can we claim that we benefit all of humanity with space activities when we are building on indigenous lands and we are expropriating them and we are disrupting their living environment? So the decolonial perspective is about that, but there is also a nuance because everything is about nuance and experiences of disruption and benefits are not mutually exclusive. If we look at Andoya, for example, people could benefit from the spaceport, and some of them are really happy about this new economic dynamism introduced by the spaceport. To quote the leader of the Andoya Fishermen Association, fishers also want development to happen in Andoya municipality, but not at the expense of already existing industries. So they welcome this development, but they don't want their traditional livelihoods to be disrupted, like fishing. So it's not only about indigenous peoples, and it's not only about disruption. Sometimes people benefit from the spaceport, but we should also see that this relationship and this balance is healthy and is not disproportionate in favor of capitalist exploitation of the land. To speak about decolonial perspectives, I think it's really important to quote indigenous scholars about that topic. So I'm going to quote Hilding Nielsen, who is a Mi'kmaq astronomer. He said, we have to ask who benefits, and that benefit has to also in some way protect space. So going from the earth now to space, we are thinking about indigenous perspectives about space exploration. And there again, there is not one simple answer. Some indigenous peoples will want not to have anything to do with space. I mean, like some indigenous peoples will want space activities to stop, some others will want to go to the moon because they have a special relationship with it, and this is an opportunity to make something more out of the moon and to increase our relationship with the moon. But once again, to quote Hilding Nielsen, he said the point is not to stop and not to send anything to the moon. It's about doing so thoughtfully and about erasing our traces when we don't need it anymore, and when we want to end that relationship. So we can go to space, according to some, and we can't go according to some others. But I think the point is we have to listen to indigenous perspectives. And of course, I am not indigenous myself, so I cannot speak on behalf of indigenous peoples, but I can quote them and quote notably Semi-People in Kirona who say that they have been seen as a problem rather than partners. And this is the main point here. It's always about relationality. It's always about this. When I was speaking about extractivism, extractivism is a critique, it's a series of actions validated by an ideology, but mostly it's a relationship and an unhealthy relationship. To quote once again another indigenous scholar, all of this is deja vu for indigenous people, Kyle Polis White. It's this continuation of a historical pattern of extractivism imposed and learned throughout history. And now that we are speaking about the province of all humanity, we have to consider all of humanity, because if we say all humanity, we have to include indigenous peoples.

SPEAKER_00 21:33

I think it's so strong that just said that it's the deja vu. It's the same. It's the rebranded, you could say colonialism, imperialism, capitalism is the same patterns, just another domain. And this is nothing new for us. But then let's look at solutions because I think that scholars are very often good at pinpointing problems and what is going wrong, but then we are very rarely encouraged to actually say, but what can we do about it? It and we are in a place right now in the world where we need to do something about it, right? So let's say if you can change, you have all the power you want in the you could say world either of private companies or over state actors, and you can change one, let's say maybe two things even about how space activities are governed today. What would you do? What would you change?

SPEAKER_01 22:21

Two things. Because I have a list of a hundred things I would like to do about the way space activities are governed right now. But I would say the main thing is to consider launch-related pollution because regulators have focused a lot on orbital sustainability, and of course it's very important. But we can't ignore the Earth-side environmental impacts of launches. And some people say that launch-related pollution is becoming unavoidable. I think it's already unavoidable. The space treaties right now, as they are, well, they are not outdated, but they were built in a world where the number of launches was not as big as today. Maybe there were 10 to 15 launches a year. Now there are hundreds. And soon people like Elon Musk want to launch millions of satellites around the Earth. And of course, it's very important to consider orbital sustainability. But what is important is that we don't forget about the Earth while doing so, about the impact. And even reusable rockets pollutes. As I said, reusability solves hardware waste, but it does not eliminate, um, it does not eliminate the environmental impact of launch operations. And this high cadence reusable systems can increase certain impacts because they fly more often. So solving launch-related pollution is very important. And inside of that, um I'm extending my stay here perhaps with this answer. But inside of that, I think we really have to have a holistic approach. We have to consider circular economy principles, including the end of life of ground infrastructures. Because we think about the end of life of satellites, but what about the end of life of satellite antennas, of radar systems, of launch bases, even the environmental impact of clear space, for example? This mission aimed at grabbing a satellite into orbit and yeeting it back to the Earth, the environmental impact of the launch of that mission has not been evaluated yet. And my information is very fresh because I asked Andrei Vina from the ISA about it recently. So, what Neta Balkowitz has asked, and she's the chief legal at Dawn Aerospace, she asked, is it allowed? If yes, do we want any way to be doing that? And this is something that lawyers around the world have to be asking when we have to give advice to a client. Sometimes we can tell them, yeah, it's legal, but I wouldn't do that if I were you, because it's not ethical, it's not moral. There are going to be impacts. And we have to consider that because of course we are not like psychologists and we have not sworn an oath to do no harm, but we still have to follow some ethical principles. And I think it would be amazing if lawyers around the world, I speak about a lawyer here, could follow environmental ethical principles when giving advice on industrial endeavors to clients.

SPEAKER_00 25:18

Wouldn't it be fantastic if his money advisors and lawyers is possible were primarily driven by ethical advisors as well? It would be great. No, but Tom, thank you. It's been fantastic to listen to you, and also fantastic to hear how interdisciplinary space law is. It's because this field is developing so much, maybe it's that's why it has to be interdisciplinary. So I've learned a lot at least. So thank you so much for being a guest here.

SPEAKER_01 25:48

Thanks so much for being a host.

SPEAKER_00 25:50

I've been uh for those who have been listening, thank you for listening.