I get where you’re coming from, but that’s a pretty capitalist approach to it. Broken down it’s similar to “As long as they can pay for it, we’ll allow them to destroy the environment”. A destroyed environment can not be replaced with money. Granted, it might work for problems that have an effect with a slow build-up, eventually hopefully replacing it with something that avoids that before its irreversible by pricing the harmful practice out.
But if the effect is close to destroying an important part of the environment, then we should outright forbid it.
Edit: Okay, I also just realized that it does not seem as easy in this case, as single countries can’t forbid it, as this is about space, but then again, the world came together to ban the production and use of CFCs, so a similar approach seems possible
I’d still say that the situation is similar enough to CFCs. If the USA would not have forbidden CFCs, there also wouldn’t really have been much other countries can do, as it’s in the atmosphere. From that political perspective it’s pretty comparable.
As for having a replacement available, there are some technologies that just aren’t worth it, when compared to the damage they do. We do have a replacement, which would be wired internet. Or heck, even cellular networks. For those rare remote locations it might have a higher upfront cost, but from a perspective of necessity, I’d say that a working ozone layer is even more important to those remote locations than high-speed internet.
That doesn’t go against anything you said, on a factual level I agree with your statements - I’m well aware that that’s not how the world works. I’m just annoyed by this being used as arguments in discussions about the environment. Of course the USA or even Europe would hesitate to do something that would eat into the profit margins of companies. That doesn’t mean that we immediately have to take over these talking points. The world shouldn’t be about profit over everything else. But that’s just my little utopia.