Carpe Diem

• Pages: 25-25

JANUARY/FEBRUARY 2022 | 25

Reprinted by permission from The Environmental Forum®, January/February 2022.

Copyright © 2022, Environmental Law Institute®, Washington, D.C. www.eli.org.

Notice & Comment

larger than a softball, any of which can

take out a prized orbital platform.

SO who would jeopardize such

a useful resource? It’s an im-

portant question, because

Low Earth Orbit is a largely

unregulated arena that is legally the

common heritage of humanity. As

such, it is suering from a tragedy of

the commons, Garrett Hardin’s locu-

tion for how a resource can disappear

without proper regulation, as users

scramble to gobble up what they can.

Even worse, global superpowers

are militarizing orbit, skirting the

sense of the 1967 Outer Space Treaty

that enjoins stationing weapons in

orbit or on bodies in the solar system.

In 2007, China demonstrated a mis-

sile that can take out a satellite, prov-

ing what it can do to enemy probes

during warfare. en last November,

Russia did the same thing. e thou-

sands of chunks blasted o by such

tests are traveling at thousands of

miles per hour, spraying Low Earth

Orbit with dangerous projectiles in

all directions.

e Liability Convention of 1972

adds to the space treaty some ground

rules on collisions between satellites,

where there is damage and fault,

but it would be dicult to apply to

the resulting pollution of space, as

stray pieces caused by crashes take

out other satellites and create more

pieces in a Kessler episode. And it

primarily enjoins nation-states, not

private actors. A possibility here is a

Superfund-like tax on all launches,

with the money collected devoted

to cleaning up space junk. Addition-

ally, we could extend environmental

impact assessment to space. Finally, a

multinational body could be created

to divide up Low Earth Orbit among

competing countries and companies

in a manner similar to how the In-

ternational Telecommmunications

Union assigns the limited slots much

higher up in geostationary orbit.

—Stephen R. Dujack

Notice & Comment is the editors’ column

and represents the signatory’s views.



through the cracks.

Ramping up efforts, Illinois and

Michigan secured funding early last

year to build a fourth barrier 10 miles

ahead of the existing ones. With a

hefty price tag of $858 million, the

project adds a slew of new tactics in

the people versus piscine war: loud

underwater sounds, air bubbles, and a



One obvious question here is:

Why not eat the carp ourselves?

“Can’t beat ‘em, eat ‘em!” says Silver-



company that promotes commercial

harvest of invasive carp.

In fact, dining halls at the Univer-

sity of Illinois partner with nearby



pounds of carp to students every

year. And researcher Mark Morgan





nutritious powder to ship to coun-

tries in need.

But the protein has yet to attract



carp is quite bony, and everyday

consumers are put off by the name.

Many perceive carp as mucky, bot-

tom feeders. In reality, the carp

species here feed on plankton, and

reportedly taste quite good.

Perhaps all invasive carp needs is



partners are working on crafting a

-

cial appeal, similar to how “Patago-

-

ean sea bass” by the U.S. National

Marine Fisheries Service.

As of press time, this rebrand is

postponed — but hopefully not for

long. Carp contains heart-healthy

elements like iron and calcium,

and omega-3 fatty acids. From the

humble opinion of one editor, house-

holds and restaurants alike would



on their menus. — Akielly Hu

 in the Midwest and

Southeast, the day is long past to

seize the carp.

Invasive carp were introduced

from Asia to the southern United

States in the 1960s and 70s as an en-

vironmentally friendly way to control

algae and aquatic weeds. The four

introduced species — grass, bighead,

silver, and black — didn’t take long

to escape and enter the Illinois and

Mississippi rivers.

Nowadays, “friendly” might be

the last word locals use to describe



bighead carp can balloon to over

100 pounds. Grass carp gobble up

to half their body weight each day.

Combined, the carp have demolished

local plankton and crowded out na-



Invasive carp also threaten the



through a river, motorboats are

greeted by a rainstorm of silver

carp that leap several feet out of the



will at times thwack humans, causing

concussions and even broken bones.

Carp now make up as many as



Mississippi rivers — and there’s no

end in sight to their feast. Policymak-



over into the Great Lakes, which are

connected to the Illinois River by

the Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal.

If introduced, invasive carp could

annihilate the lakes’ $7 billion sport





to avoid this fate. In 2009, Michigan



against Illinois to shut down the

Chicago canals, to no avail. So far, the

only solution in place is a series of

three underwater electric barriers

in the canal that send shocks to re-



to build, and maintenance clocks in

at $16 million a year, according to

CARPE DIEM