Not to ask the dumb question, but what's the tangible environmental impact of having satellites visible at certain during the night in an unpolluted sky that in-theory burn up when they're decommissioned much like any meteor might?

I don't mean the impact to human projects e.g. astronomy or even to human culture. I mean to the actual environment itself and the life surrounding us, since the argument seems to make the claim that there's a detrimental environmental impact.

> In its reasoning for its categorical exclusion, the FCC states that its actions “have no significant effect on the quality of the human environment and are categorically excluded from environmental processing.” Ryan says that the FCC may have been wrong in this assessment, however. “The FCC has never performed a study showing why commercial satellites deserved to be classified as categorically excluded from review,” he says. “And the evidence shows that these satellites are having an environmental impact. If the FCC were sued over its noncompliance with NEPA, it would likely lose.”

For instance, the obvious environmental impact of this case cited in the article:

> National Institutes of Health [was] defeated by environmental groups on the question of the lawfulness of the agency’s approval of genetically modified bacteria for crops without proper review

because of the unknown risks of engineered genes leaking into the gene pools of their respective organisms and potentially drastically impacting life.

> U.S. Army Corps of Engineers lost a case in which it had approved licenses for gambling barges in Mississippi without proper NEPA review.

Seems easy, substantially increased traffic to the boats has a tangible environmental impact e.g. pollution, littering, etc.

But I fail to see the same argument here... and I do desire to be enlightened. There's probably something extremely simple that's just whooshing over my head.