Redirecting Resources: Climate Change or the Milky Way?

Edel Lee ’26 Assistant Op/Ed Editor

Two months ago, India’s Chandrayaan-3 made history as the first spacecraft to land on the southern polar
region of the Moon.

Two months ago, India’s Chandrayaan-3 made history as the first spacecraft to land on the southern polar
region of the Moon. The fourth country to reach this celestial body, India was praised by representatives of Russia, South Africa, and Nepal as well as the European Space Agency (ESA) and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA).

Right behind India, the United States is determined to have astronauts back on the Moon by 2025. NASA’s $8.1 billion Artemis Program involves not only returning to the Moon but also the construction of a moonbase that will enable future exploration progresses beyond the Moon, space colonization will also become a viable possibility — with Mars the likely first target.

After the first two moon landings, the 1979 Moon Agreement was introduced as a precaution against commercialization of lunar resources. Unfortunately, only one signatory of this treaty has actually reached the Moon: India. The United States not only declined to sign the agreement but, under the Trump administration, formed the Artemis Accords, an international agreement that aims to open the Moon to mining. With this exploitative mindset, are we ready to assume the responsibility of another planet like Mars? The data doesn’t

lie — in our short existence, we’ve done more to destroy the planet than any other species has in 4.5 billion years. Humans have only been on Earth for less than 0.1% of its lifetime; yet, as we approach the mid-century, we are fielding predictions of more severe weather patterns, wildfires, hurricanes, drought, flooding, and an iceless Arctic Ocean — all due to human interruption. We are parasites searching for a new host. But, if we can change, promise that Mars will be different, why not take responsibility for Earth first?

Unfortunately, serious government funding and public attention continues to focus on the stars, instead of staying here at home. As part of the President’s 2024 budget, the government will grant NASA $27.2 billion
while providing the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) with about $12 billion. This distribution in funding inaccurately reflects the urgency of climate change. The impending catastrophe of higher temperatures and raging natural disasters means that it is the federal government’s absolute responsibility to prioritize support to the EPA. The United States, despite leading in space exploration, has the second largest carbon footprint of any country in the world. Why should a nation be idolized for shooting rockets into space if its efforts to restore

the planet are half-hearted in comparison?According to Global Giving, it would take between $300 billion to $50 trillion to completely reverse global warming over the next twenty years. These numbers will only increase as things get worse. Taking into account the money needed, to propose more funding for NASA than the EPA is bewildering. The government’s preference only demonstrates a lack of commitment to restoring the Earth.

And the situation isn’t getting better. NASA itself predicts that the Earth is only going to get warmer: in other words, the climate will only grow more unpredictable, more dangerous, and more destructive if we continue down the path we are on now. We need drastic change, and right now our elected officials are neglecting their duty to preserve planet Earth. Ultimately, it is our generation who will inherit this increasingly unstable world,
and our generation who will be burdened with this crisis. Instead of working wholeheartedly to prevent catastrophe, our government has been leaving it to us instead.

Back

online edition

The Student Newspaper of Hopkins School

Redirecting Resources: Climate Change or the Milky Way?