Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by kneebonian 1051 days ago
I'm imaging the rationale is probably that the amount of space junk ending up in the ocean is far far far less than the amount of terrestrial junk ending up in the ocean.

EDIT:

Not defending the reasoning just saying it's probably what they used.

1 comments

Just because most of the windows are smashed, doesn’t mean it’s okay to smash a few more.

Even if it were offset by other marine environment investment. Hell, create a trust and drop a 10th of the recover cost in each time so that when recovery is cheaper in the future, it could be funded by all the compounded money.