> It increases light pollution
Not the conventional definition of light pollution. The conventional definintion of light pollution is sky glow, which is not caused by satellites.
Further, the satellites are around 6th magnitude, which is below human eye visible, but certainly still problematic to astronomers.
> which is a disaster for astronomers.
A "disaster" is overstating it. Take a look at this study for example https://www.caltech.edu/about/news/palomar-survey-instrument...
> "There is a small chance that we would miss an asteroid or another event hidden behind a satellite streak, but compared to the impact of weather, such as a cloudy sky, these are rather small effects for ZTF."
.
> Moreover, sending satellites to space is really inefficient. It wastes a lot of energy and pollutes a lot.
Space launch is a miniscule portion of global emissions and there is no reasonable way it would seriously contribute to global emissions going forward. Further, as the fuel costs are such a small portion of launch costs, it would be easy enough to produce the fuel via direct carbon capture and have it still be economic, which is a path forward in the future.
> To increase coverage, the amount of satellite they'll need will be more and more.
The goal is never to serve high density areas. It's to serve areas that are functionally impossible to serve any other way without massive government subsidy.
> And the skies will become more and more full of space junk (each satellite lives for 7 years).
You've misheard. Those satellites don't stay in orbit very long as their orbits are so low. They'll deorbit within a few years, even if completely lost, but normally they'll de-orbit automatically at the end of life, producing no debris.