
New documentary shines a light on the environmental damage caused by Elon Musk's tech ambitions
In the broiling shadow of rocket flames and broadband dreams, the inconvenient truths of Elon Musk's techno-utopia are being tidily shuffled out of frame.
Canadian director Julien Elie's haunting new black-and-white documentary film, Shifting Baselines, does not shout its message. It doesn't need to.
The scorched landscapes of Boca Chica, Texas, where Elon Musk's SpaceX has set up shop, speak for themselves. They whisper of seabirds gone silent, of beaches turned to junkyards, and of a natural world redrawn by a billionaire's imagination.
Back in South Africa, the airwaves have been thick with chatter about Musk's Starlink satellite network finally getting a potential regulatory green light to operate here after sustained pressure from Musk himself and the Trump administration.
Some have hailed the prospect of Musk's high-speed internet in rural areas as a form of digital salvation for South Africans marooned, in a communications sense, in the hinterland. That there could be benefits, in particular, for rural schools and rural police stations seems clear.
It has also been notable how many voices have been happy to overlook the reality that there already exist alternatives, some of which have been pioneered by local businesses at considerable expense; and that the projected costs of a Starlink terminal (around R6,000) and the monthly fee (at least two or three times the average internet contract) will put it far beyond fantasy for the vast majority of South Africa's rural citizens.
But amid the enthusiastic flag-waving for this latest piece of technological deliverance, there has been an even more deafening silence about its environmental cost.
Starlink junk burning up ozone layer
Shifting Baselines' title refers to a concept coined by the marine biologist Daniel Pauly, who explains how each generation accepts the ecological degradation of its lifetime as its new normal. Over time, we forget what the planet of our ancestors once looked like, smelled like, sounded like. It is a quiet kind of erasure.
The documentary shows us the once-thriving ecosystems around Musk's rocket launch sites reduced to industrial debris, and the community of Boca Chica transformed into a workers' colony for Musk's Starbase operation. The birds are dwindling in numbers. The fish are tiny. And the sky, once a canvas for stars, is now obscured by satellites and space junk.
SpaceX's satellite constellation, Starlink, makes up more than 60% of all satellites orbiting Earth. According to the UK-based space firm Space Forge, about 40% of the material now burning up in Earth's atmosphere comes from Starlink satellites, which are designed to last only five years and disintegrate on entry. That translates to at least 500kg of incinerated hardware every day.
Harvard astrophysicist Jonathan McDowell told Space.com in October 2024 that there is now a Starlink satellite re-entry almost every day. Some days see multiple burn-ups. These are not elegant, imperceptible disappearances. They contribute to atmospheric pollution in ways that are only just beginning to be studied.
An October 2024 letter to the US Federal Communications Commission, signed by more than 100 top space scientists, warned urgently that the effects of these satellites have yet to be adequately researched. Their concerns were unequivocal: the pace of satellite deployment has vastly outstripped the regulatory frameworks meant to assess their environmental impact.
'Over just five years, Starlink has launched more than 6,000 units and now make up more than 60% of all satellites. The new space race took off faster than governments were able to act. Regulatory agencies review individual licences and lack the policies in place to assess the total effects of all proposed mega-constellations,' they wrote.
'Until national and international environmental reviews can be completed, we should stop launching further low Earth orbit satellites as part of constellations that provide consumer internet connectivity.'
Meanwhile, light pollution from the Starlink array is already interfering with astronomers' work. It affects projects like South Africa's own Salt telescope, a major scientific facility — and genuine national treasure — whose vision of the stars is now often smeared by the unintended signatures of broadband ambition.
If Starlink comes to South Africa, the astronomer Federico di Vruno told Reuters this week, 'it will be like shining a spotlight into someone's eyes, blinding us to the faint radio signals from celestial bodies'.
Tech-optimism is eclipsing climate change realities
Elie's film returns often to scenes of spectators in lawn chairs, watching Musk's rocket launches with misty eyes. Most are Boomers clearly nostalgic about the Space Race of their youth. Some describe the spectacle of a SpaceX launch as their 'Apollo moment'. SpaceX employees scrawl 'We are explorers' on bollards.
But the documentary carefully strips away the romance to reveal a more uncomfortable truth. The rockets and satellites rise and return from land and skies now scarred by the vehicles of Musk's monomaniacal, megalomaniacal ambition.
This is the paradox at the heart of the Musk myth. His obsession with space colonisation is sold as a response to climate collapse on Earth. Yet in pursuing that dream, he accelerates the very forces he claims to resist. The rockets that might someday touch down on Mars are poisoning the skies of Earth today. Each new satellite that promises to bridge digital divides also quietly widens the environmental ones.
All the while, climate change — once seemingly the moral rallying cry of a generation — appears to be quietly slipping off the agenda.
The inevitable reports are now emerging, a veritable flurry this past weekend alone, about the jobs that are already being lost to AI. What is virtually absent from the discourse is the ruinous environmental impact of the Large Language Models (LLMs) like ChatGPT: a November 2024 study found that just 16% of respondents were aware of the huge amount of water required to cool AI servers.
Shifting Baselines invites us to look beyond the dazzle of innovation from the tech industry with which we are all bombarded daily to the dull, persistent erosion of the real world. It asks us to consider what we are losing in our quest to win the future — as the sky fills up with ghosts. DM
here.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles

IOL News
3 hours ago
- IOL News
ANC's 'better life for all' mantra remains a pipedream
Prof. Bheki Mngomezulu On June 26, 1955, the Freedom Charter was adopted in Kliptown, Soweto in Johannesburg. This document envisioned a free South Africa post-apartheid. It gave hope of a better future where people's dignity would be restored, and racial stratification be a thing of the past. This gave hope for a better life for all South Africans. Of the ten clauses in the Freedom Charter as the focal points, a few stood out and have been ventilated over the years. The first clause stated that 'The people shall govern.' This assumed that a government of the people would be constituted, not the apartheid government which represented a white minority. The fourth promise was that 'The land shall be shared among those who work it.' Implicit in this vision was that the black majority who tilled the land would own it. The eighth clause stated that 'The doors of learning and culture shall be opened.' This brought a glimmer of hope to the students. There were other promises of the sharing of the country's wealth and assurance that all racial groups would have equal rights. The year 2025 marks 70 years since the adoption of the Freedom Charter. This happens at a time when the ANC is no longer the governing party but is part of a multiparty coalition government following its failure to obtain the required fifty-plus-one threshold in the 2024 general election. However, the ANC has led South Africa during the first six administrations since 1994. As such, it had enough time to implement the promises of the Freedom Charter. Five questions arise. The first question is 'how far have the promises of the Freedom Charter been achieved under the ANC government? Secondly, to what extent have opposition political parties held the ANC accountable so that it could deliver on the promises contained in the Freedom Charter? Thirdly, following the ANC's dismal performance in the 2024 general election, are opposition parties capitalising on the ANC's weakness or are they allowing the ANC to regain its lost ground? Fourthly, to what extent is the ANC regrouping as it prepares for the 2026 Local Government Election (LGE)? Lastly and importantly, what can we expect in the much-anticipated LGE given the current politics in the country? On the first question, it depends on who is being asked. Many South Africans believe that the ANC has reneged on its promise to implement the clauses of the Freedom Charter. They base their assessment on the condition of their lives and unfulfilled promises made by the ANC in each election. However, the ANC holds the view that of the ten clauses, only two have not been fulfilled. These are clause three which says, 'The people shall share in the country's wealth' and clause four which says, 'The land shall be shared among those who work it.' But even with these clauses, the ANC claims that it is a work in progress. ANC national chairperson Gwede Mantashe argues that the ANC has lived to the ideals of the Freedom Charter. Therefore, it is safe to say that the answers to the first question are subjective. The second question is more important. The mandate of opposition political parties (especially the main opposition) is to keep the governing party on its toes. After the 1994 general election, the National Party (NP) was pushed to the opposition benches. It failed to hold the ANC accountable. Instead, it split into two and eventually collapsed. In 1999, the Democratic Party (DP) of Tony Leon assumed the position of being the official opposition. From 2004 to 2024 the Democratic Alliance was the official opposition party. It failed to hold the ANC accountable. Despite its scathing attack on the ANC, it is now co-governing with the ANC in the multiparty coalition. The third question speaks to the current situation. The newly formed Mkhonto Wesizwe Party (MKP) is the official opposition. Together with the EFF and other smaller parties, it should be positioning itself as an alternative. However, currently, the party is unstable. This instability is exemplified by the recent swearing-in of nine new members in the National Assembly and some movements in the KwaZulu-Natal Legislature. Even in the leadership of the party outside parliament, there is instability. The recent removal of Floyd Shivambu from the position of Secretary General and his subsequent media briefing which laid bare his sour relations with the party confirm instability in the SG position. The EFF is also facing problems of its own – including a decline in its support base. The fourth question speaks directly to the ANC. The party is on record talking about the renewal agenda. However, this seems to be political rhetoric rather than something tangible. KwaZulu-Natal where the party recorded its highest loss has seen more activity. Firstly, the provincial leadership structure was reconfigured. A few days ago, the ANC's 11 regions were disbanded by the current leadership. While these might be touted as part of the renewal process, some might argue that it has the potential to further divide the party. In parliament, the ANC faced a backlash on the budget issue – especially the proposed 2% VAT hike. This happened against the backdrop of what happened in the sixth administration when the ANC used its numbers to protect President Ramaphosa after the Phala Phala saga. Even the party's working relations (or lack thereof) with the DA have drawn interest from the public. So, is the ANC really renewing itself or is the renewal agenda only existing on paper? The last question about next year's LGE touches on all political parties – both those who are in the coalition and opposition parties. The former must account to the electorate about what they have been doing since the start of the seventh administration. Opposition parties must explain to the public if they have held the coalition government accountable or if they were fixated on their internal issues. As we reflect on the Freedom Charter, objective reflections are crucial. * Prof. Bheki Mngomezulu is Director of the Centre for the Advancement of Non-Racialism and Democracy at Nelson Mandela University. ** The views expressed do not necessarily reflect the views of IOL, Independent Media or The African.


The South African
13 hours ago
- The South African
1000 Afrikaners prioritised for US refugee status
The US administration, under President Donald Trump, is expected to welcome 1000 Afrikaner 'refugees' this year as part of its resettlement programme. This comes after two groups of white South Africans were granted asylum in America over their 'fear of persecution' and claims of 'racial discrimination' in the country. Meanwhile, in a controversial move, Trump has indefinitely halted refugees from other countries earlier this year. According to the Washington Post, US authorities have pledged to resettle around 1000 Afrikaner 'refugees' in the coming months. The group will be prioritised above any other countries that have applied for the US Refugee Admissions Programme (USRAP) The resettlement process is expected to run until the end of September. According to the publication, the Trump administration will also move to block 160 refugees who were scheduled to travel to the US ahead of the February ban. Another 1200 had been vetted and had their flights booked to arrive in the US after the ban was imposed. International Refugee Assistance Project attorney Melissa Keaney said of the administration: 'It simply doesn't want to process any other refugee populations other than white Afrikaners'. More white South Africans are expected to take up Trump's refugee status. Image: Saul Loeb / AFP. While US authorities claim that refugee status is open to all 'racial minorities' in South Africa, the first two groups that have resettled abroad have been from the white population. Despite initially being targeted at Afrikaner farmers and white people, US authorities have since included coloured, Indian, and 'mixed-race' South Africans. Applicants must prove that they are 'persecuted' South Africans who are victims of 'racial discrimination'. Jaco Kleynhans, of the Solidarity Movement, stated that many Afrikaners had applied for refugee status. He told the media earlier this month: 'Several more groups will fly to the USA over the next few weeks. The US Embassy in Pretoria, in collaboration with the State Department in Washington, DC, is currently processing 8,000 applications. And we expect many more Afrikaner refugees to travel to the USA over the next few months. 'They are settling in states across the USA, but particularly southern states such as Texas, North and, South Carolina, Kansas, Oklahoma, and Nebraska.' He continued: 'Our primary focus is not refugee status for Afrikaners. But rather to find ways to ensure a free, safe, and prosperous future for Afrikaners in South Africa. We remain 100% convinced that South Africa can and must create a home for all its people.' Let us know by leaving a comment below, or send a WhatsApp to 060 011 021 1 . Subscribe to The South African website's newsletters and follow us on WhatsApp , Facebook , X, and Bluesky for the latest news.


Daily Maverick
17 hours ago
- Daily Maverick
DA withdraws from National Dialogue, will vote against budgets of ‘corruption accused' ANC ministers
The DA will oppose the budget votes of 'corruption accused ANC ministers' – including Human Settlements Minister Thembi Simelane and Higher Education Minister Nobuhle Nkabane. The DA is not leaving the Government of National Unity (GNU), but it will not participate in the looming National Dialogue, following the axing of its Deputy Minister of Trade and Industry Andrew Whitfield. 'Frankly, the President cannot even dialogue meaningfully with his own coalition partners, so there is little point in pretending there is any substance to an ANC-run National Dialogue,' DA leader John Steenhuisen said at a press conference in Cape Town on Saturday, 28 June. 'Effective immediately, the DA will therefore have no further part in this process. 'We will also actively mobilise against it to stop this obscene waste of R740-million – starting with a call on civil society to join us in demanding that the National Dialogue not proceed until President [Cyril] Ramaphosa fires ANC corruption accused and other delinquents from the executive,' Steenhuisen continued. Earlier this month, Ramaphosa announced the appointment of 31 prominent South Africans to lead the National Dialogue expected to take place on 15 August this year. The initiative – meant to tackle a wide range of South Africa's pressing issues including unemployment, poor governance and gender-based violence – was met with immediate opposition owing largely to its R740-million price tag. Steenhuisen announced the decision of the DA's Federal Executive (FedEx) after Ramaphosa removed Whitfield from his position on Wednesday, 25 June, providing no reason for his dismissal. Whitfield's removal, it later emerged, was apparently due to an 'unauthorised' trip he took to the US for the DA in February this year. On Thursday, Steenhuisen gave the president an ' ultimatum ' to clean house of the ANC ministers and deputy ministers implicated in corruption within 48 hours or face 'grave consequences'. He accused Ramaphosa of a 'flagrant double standard' and had specifically called on him to remove Human Settlements Minister Thembi Simelane, Higher Education Minister Nobuhle Nkabane and Deputy Minister of Water and Sanitation David Mahlobo from his Executive. The political developments surrounding South Africa's fragile coalition government, caused Ramaphosa to cancel his trip to Seville, Spain, on 30 June, to attend a conference on financing for development. He instead delegated International Relations Minister Ronald Lamola to attend. 'President Ramaphosa has delegated Minister Lamola as the Head of Delegation for the Summit following recent political developments that require close monitoring and management in the country,' his office said in a statement on Saturday. According to a Sunday Times report earlier on Saturday, the DA was said to be considering leaving the GNU. In response to questions from reporters on why the party has decided to remain in the coalition government, Steenhuisen said the DA did not believe that it was 'in the interest of South Africa for the current GNU to collapse'. He said that if the GNU were to break, it would cause 'significant economic damage' to the country. Steenhuisen said the country 'benefits' from having the DA in the GNU. 'A more impactful way would not have been to leave the Government of National Unity, because that would've opened South Africa up to the coalition of chaos and destruction, and would have led very clearly to more disastrous consequences for South Africa,' he said. Steenhuisen threw the ball back into Ramaphosa's court, saying it was up to the ANC whether they wanted to kick the DA out of the national coalition. 'The ball is in the President's court and the ANC's court – if they want to take a strong stance against us and want to stop us [from] standing against corruption, well, they must fire us from the Government of National Unity,' he said. DA to vote against budget votes In addition to mobilising against the National Dialogue, Steenhuisen said the DA would also be voting against the individual budget votes for Simelane and Nkabane's departments. ' A second, critically important step that the DA is taking, is to vote against upcoming departmental budget votes for the departments headed by Simelane, Nkabane, and other corruption accused ANC ministers. 'We will keep voting against those departmental votes until those ministers are removed. 'In this way, the DA will strike the appropriate balance by allowing the broader GNU budget process to proceed to ensure the stability of the country, while forcing the ANC to act against specific ministers. 'If the ANC wants our support for those departmental budgets, they must replace the incumbent ministers with alternatives that meet the very standard the President has set for himself through Whitfield's axing,' said Steenhuisen. He said that the ministers in those portfolios would need to source other ways of getting their budgets passed in Parliament. 'We won't be voting against the globular budget and, I think, that is a result of the fact that we want to ensure that delivery proceeds for the people of South Africa. But those individual budget votes where ministers are severely compromised and sitting at the top of those departments, will obviously have to find other ways to get those budgets passed,' he said. Steenhuisen added that the party's Federal Executive had also considered tabling a motion of no confidence in Ramaphosa. However, he said the DA understood the concerns of many South Africans if Ramaphosa were removed as President. 'While the FedEx decided not to table a Motion of No Confidence at this stage, it is clear that the DA is in the process of losing confidence in his ability to act as a leader not of the ANC, but of the GNU of which we are the second-largest component,' said Steenhuisen. 'If the ANC fails to course-correct, the FedEx will seriously consider exercising our constitutional prerogative by tabling a motion of no confidence.' He mentioned, on several occasions, that the GNU Statement of Intent had been undermined by Ramaphosa and the ANC. 'I think the intent of the Statement of Intent is correct, but it would be great if that was being honored. It is being repeatedly violated. It says a lot about where we're at that a year later, we still have a conflict resolution mechanism; that the Clearing House in the GNU has no terms of reference,' he said. Steenhuisen said that Ramaphosa had not afforded him the opportunity to inform Whitfield himself about what was expected to happen before he received a letter from Ramaphosa alerting him of his removal. 'That is not respectful and that is not right,' he said, suggesting that certain clauses relating to consultation and consensus in the Statement of Intent were violated. 'The Statement of Intent needs to be respected in both letter and spirit,' he said. A replacement for Whitfield Steenhuisen did not provide any names for Whitfield's replacement, saying that the decision was with the party's FedEx. 'We will be submitting a replacement name, and that will obviously be a matter for our Federal Executive to take through the process. It is a DA position, and once again, the fact that we got six ministers and six deputy ministers, is also another example of how we put South Africa first. We, proportionately, are entitled to a lot more than that, and yet it is another matter we had to swallow at that particular time to make sure we got a GNU that worked,' he said. DM