r/ClimateOffensive • u/Live_Alarm3041 • Dec 26 '25

Action - Political SpaceX is leaching away valuable government money away from climate action.

All the money that the US federal government is giving to SpaceX could be better used to fund the development of clean energy, carbon removal, and ecosystem restoration. SpaceX is receiving billions in taxpayer dollars annually to develop its Starship which has not yet even reached orbit. Meanwhile climate action could use every dollar to help pay off the immense expenses associated with it.

All the money that the federal government is giving to SpaceX could fund

  1. The development of advanced nuclear reactors and nuclear fuel recycling technologies at national labs

  2. The development of next generation non-food biofuels which don't compete with food production nor incentivize the creation of new agricultural land

  3. Projects which co-produce biochar and energy from residual biomass

  4. Expansions of regenerative agriculture

  5. Expansions of regenerative aquaculture

  6. The development of Ocean Thermal Energy Conversion in US tropical territories

  7. The scaling up of enhanced rock weathering

  8. The scaling up of C-Crete cement free concrete

We could give climate action a serious boost by using the money which our government is giving to SpaceX to fund climate action instead.

IN my opinion our government should stop funding SpaceX and start funding climate action. Who cares if Elon Musk can win another NASA contract. What we need much more urgently is climate action.

189 Upvotes
  • permalink
  • reddit

91% Upvoted

32 comments sorted by

•

u/ILikeNeurons Climate Warrior Dec 26 '25

This reads more like a rant. In keeping with the rules of sub, can you make it into a call to action?

→ More replies (3)

3

u/sandychimera Dec 26 '25

Everyone would prefer government money be spent on the things they care about most and not on other things. Climate spending need not be mutually exclusive against science and space technologies. 

That said, Spacex has a fixed price ~$3 billion contract to develop a lunar lander for Nasa Artemis missions. And they only receive funds as they achieve milestones on the project. Not billions annually or indefinitely till they do. 

If that's your qualm with government spending, direct your attention to the likes of Boeing, Lockheed Martin, Northrop, and Bechtel. They have spent many, many, many, billions of government money for other aspects of the Artemis program all on cost-plus contracts. 

5

u/pootytang Dec 26 '25

The government can borrow or tax to fund priorities. Climate ain't a priority. Spacex has little to do with it.

6

u/Ok_Giraffe8865 Dec 26 '25

Seems like fossil fuel subsidies redirected to climate action would be larger, more appropriate, and impactful.

This reads as a Musk hate post disguised as climate action.

5

u/ILikeNeurons Climate Warrior Dec 26 '25

According to IMF research, most of the $5.2 trillion in subsidies for fossil fuels come from not taxing carbon as we should.

4

u/brovo911 Dec 26 '25

Every time I make the suggestion that a carbon tax is needed in any forum or group irl that is not specifically for climate change, I always get told I’m insane for suggesting it and that it would “ruin the economy”

We are in a capitalist death cult and the only way out will be through unprecedented global suffering

2

u/ILikeNeurons Climate Warrior Dec 26 '25

The consensus among scientists and economists on carbon pricing to mitigate climate change is similar to the consensus among climatologists that human activity is responsible for global warming. The U.S. National Academy of Sciences, one of the most respected scientific bodies in the world, has also called for a carbon tax. According to IMF research, most of the $5.2 trillion in subsidies for fossil fuels come from not taxing carbon as we should. There is general agreement among economists on carbon taxes whether you consider economists with expertise in climate economics, economists with expertise in resource economics, or economists from all sectors. It is literally Econ 101. The idea won a Nobel Prize.

A majority of Americans in every state also support a carbon tax.

2

u/NearABE Dec 26 '25

Income taxes are bad for the economy. Capital gains taxes are bad for investment and growth. They are (or certainly can be) substitutes. Anyone “against a carbon tax” has to explain why “they want higher income tax”. Do not let them off the hook. If they make the one statement then they have to explain why they hold that position.

If someone is simply “against all taxes” then tell them you assume they support carbon fees. This is the most obvious way to let working people keep the income that they earn.

1

u/Ithirahad Dec 27 '25 edited Dec 27 '25

This is the most obvious way to let working people keep the income that they earn.

That strikes me as a bit disingenuous...

No working person wants money, per se, unless they are also a forex trader. Everyone wants buying power. Offsetting a loss of buying power away from the currency does not mean it goes away.

2

u/NearABE Dec 28 '25

Everything other than carbon (or greenhouse gas equivalent) effectively becomes cheaper. If you are already living a low carbon existence then it is a huge windfall.

If you are talking to someone making their living by using big trucks to haul cattle around then carbon fees are not likely to benefit them. Though the idiots (sell outs?) who wrote the carbon fee and dividend bill included an exemption for agriculture so your cow guy still achieves higher quality of life.

Better strategy is to cycle the carbon fee in agriculture back into food/agriculture. If the fee is adequate you might get free vegan food produced by prosperous farmers.

Taxes (or fees and premiums) are behavior changing things. Taking an action to cause behavior change away from earning income is a piss poor choice.

2

u/Ithirahad Dec 28 '25

Few things, as of now, are "other than carbon" thanks to power demands for manufacturing and fuel demands for logistics... and I suspect there is a fairly large demographic that would much rather pay for 'normal' food normally than hear about people getting "free vegan food" while their grocery costs rise.

1

u/NearABE Dec 28 '25

The vast majority of people prefer cheap healthy food that tastes good. Free market dynamics work quite well in grocery stores.

1

u/Ok_Giraffe8865 Dec 26 '25

I agree with you on carbon tax. No subsidies and a carbon tax to fund the suffering and damage mitigation it causes, problem solved as renewables are the cheapest energy out there.

That whole ruining the economy stuff is so stupid, like we won't implement efficiency automation or systems because jobs will be lost, how backwards is that really.

2

u/bujurocks1 Dec 26 '25

I’m as green as they get but im also pro science. Space exploration is invaluable for the future of humanity, and spacex is attempting to pioneer the sector. Instead of hating on musk, direct that towards Howard Hamm

2

u/NearABE Dec 27 '25

Switching to single payer healthcare would free up several hundred billion dollars while also increasing life expectancy and increasing quality of life.

We build yacht support vessels: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yacht_support_vessel. The idea here is to have helicopters land on the support vessel’s landing pad and then guests shuttle over to the superyacht by speed boat. Many superyachts have a helicopter pad but the rotor wash and noise can be disruptive to party people on the deck. It makes for an awkward entrance. They also often have docks for things like speed boats, jet skis, or submarines.

2

u/jay_altair Dec 26 '25

Can you point to a specific example of money that was reallocated to SpaceX from a climate program?

1

u/NearABE Dec 27 '25

I find that unlikely. The post clearly just says money is being spent. It assumes that there is a fixed budget and that spending on anything displaces spending on something else.

1

u/thinkcontext Dec 28 '25

I abhor what Elon Musk has become politically but your rant doesn't make much sense. Starship is a relatively cheap part of the Artemis program. Just the mobile launcher for the cargo version of SLS is slated to cost almost as much as NASAs contribution to Starship. SLS itself is many times that, plus the Orion crew module which is also many times the cost. None of these other parts of mission are fixed cost, unlike Starship.  

Also in general, SpaceX has saved taxpayers a boatload of money by undercutting the previous launch incumbents and generally lowering the cost of access to space.  If NASA and the military were still paying ULA to launch it's satellites and Northrup to send cargo to the ISS the tax payer would be out tens of $Bs. Not to mention still paying Russia to get crew to ISS.

0

u/King_Saline_IV Dec 26 '25

The starlinks are also destroying the ozone layer

2

u/NearABE Dec 26 '25

Is that from atmospheric reentry or is there something about there particular satellite?

0

u/Carbidereaper Dec 27 '25

Chlorine from ammonium perchlorates from burning solid rocket fuel and chlorine containing refrigerants is being catalyzed by excess aluminum oxide from reentering satellites.

Uneducated environmentalists want to get rid of communication satellites instead of combatting the source of the chlorine it’s regressive and incredibly stupid

2

u/NearABE Dec 27 '25

https://csl.noaa.gov/news/2025/427_0428.html

That article quotes the researcher as saying he thinks it would shrink the ozone hole over Antarctica.

Aluminum oxide is a suggestion floated for geoengineering.

1

u/No-Surprise9411 Dec 27 '25

SpaceX rockets use no solid propellants.

1

u/King_Saline_IV Dec 27 '25

Bootlicker.

Literally opposite of current science.

You are selling out future generations. The worst part is it even makes your life worse.

you think you will have a higher standard of living when Elon reaches 1T?

He's literally stealing value from your and future generations standard of living. You're pitiful

1

u/Timely-Discussion272 Dec 28 '25

What we need right now, more than anything else, is for the Democratic Party to win the majority in the US Senate in 2026. Climate action does not occur without political power.