IN five days, the COP caravan will roll into Glasgow. Anxiety is high. Will this galaxy of big shots come bearing commitments big enough to save the planet? The bars and break-out rooms will be buzzing with talk of hydrogen, heat pumps and hybrid vehicles. The full panoply of necessary, down to earth, solutions.

The chances are there will be less talk about what contribution the heavens can make to tackling the climate emergency. In the words of Prince William: “We need some of the world’s greatest brains and minds fixed on trying to repair this planet, not trying to find the next place to go and live”.

The prince’s idealism and commitment can’t be faulted. Nonetheless, his comments are surprising. They appear to betray a lack of curiosity and a poverty of ambition. Who knows what secrets the universe might yield to help us better understand and manage our own planet? One wonders what William’s great-great-great grandfather, Prince Albert – original royal patron of science and technical innovation – would have made of them.

The voyage of scientific discovery is powered by an insatiable appetite to know more. And the progress of civilisation is an unbroken story of how, in searching for answers to one problem, solutions to others are found.

READ MORE: Coronavirus overshadows all as more restrictions loom

When President Kennedy decided in 1962 to send a man to the moon, many questioned his priorities. His response was: “We choose to go to the moon in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard; because that goal will serve to organise and measure the best of our energies and skills”.

He was right. By testing our engineering capabilities in the harshest environments, and pushing the boundaries of technological possibility, we’re better placed to tackle the toughest challenges here on Earth. There are a myriad of innovations, which owe something to mankind’s investment in space. Would today’s solar panels, for example, be as efficient and viable without NASA, who needed them to provide power and life support for their spacecraft?

Elon Musk may be on a mission to create a permanent, habitable, base on Mars. Yet in the process, his SpaceX became the first private company to perfect re-usable launch vehicles, helping to transform the economics of putting satellites and other payloads into space.

So support for tackling the climate emergency or investment in space shouldn’t be regarded as alternatives. Investing in space is essential for protecting life on Earth. And just as we laud today the pioneers of the Industrial Revolution, which raised living standards for millions of people, we should also recognise the value of today’s Space Revolutionaries.

READ MORE: Kevin McKenna: Why we should have binned COP26

One of them is Will Whitehorn. A Scot, whose grandfather patented the first petrol electric car in the 1920s. Whitehorn was the man who persuaded Richard Branson to invest in rail and space. He was chair of Clyde Space – a Scottish space company success story. He is also the current President of UK Space. And he leads the world’s first quoted company established specifically to invest in space tech businesses. Had he been alive 200 years ago, he would have been standing alongside Stephenson on the Rocket’s footplate or rustling up finance for Darwin’s voyage on the Beagle. A polymathic joiner up of dots. A cause promoter of evangelical fervour.

He’s also the newly installed Chancellor of Edinburgh Napier University. He used his inaugural lecture to warn that even if all the COP26 commitments materialise, they may still be insufficient to enable Earth to support a global population heading for well in excess of 11 billion by the end of the century. He urged policymakers to think “outside the box” – and the Earth’s atmosphere.

Yes, he has a vested interest; he also has a point. More effective earth observation and GPS, brought about by advances in satellite technology, have already made a significant contribution to sustainable development. More precise weather forecasting, helping to improve crop yields. Better tracking of food shipments, reducing the number of perishable cargoes delayed or damaged in transit. Whitehorn believes such contributions are merely the tip of the melting iceberg.

The digital economy, powered by energy-intensive data centres, is now responsible for over 2 per cent of global greenhouse gas emissions and growing fast. Outstripping the adverse impact of all pre-Covid air travel. Why couldn’t these data centres be put in space, he asks. Solar power available 24 hours a day. No clouds to interfere with efficiency. A readily available cooling system – the freezing temperatures of space.

And he foresees a future where technology – 3D printing, robotics, AI – makes it possible to manufacture products in space, including pharmaceuticals. Or to harness in space solar power to provide a more abundant and efficient renewable energy source on Earth. All alleviating climate pressure.

He’s not shy of difficulties. Putting more in space means more debris. He sees this as an opportunity, rather than a hurdle, creating the need for new businesses expert in debris clearance. They already exist and people are investing in their development. And of course, the more we rely on systems in space, the more we need to be able to guarantee their security. A UK Space Command isn’t science fiction; it’s happening right now.

Whitehorn believes the UK can be a world leader in space, with Scotland in the vanguard. One thing about which the UK and Scottish Governments agree.

Scotland’s universities are at the cutting edge of space technologies. Glasgow manufactures more satellites than anywhere else in Europe. Edinburgh is home to Skyrora, Scotland’s very own rocket manufacturer. And Saxa Vord spaceport on Unst in Shetland is vying to win the race to host next year the first ever vertical space launch from the UK.

As President Kennedy might have put it – ask not what on earth we’re doing in space, ask what space can be doing for Earth.

Our columns are a platform for writers to express their opinions. They do not necessarily represent the views of The Herald.