Now enviro-policy to “end light pollution” has France on track to look like North Korea at night:
From The Guardian:
Lights out – France to force shops and offices to go dark overnight
French light pollution law is expected to save 250,000 tonnes of C02 a year
The French ecology minister, Delphine Batho, said she hoped the law would change attitudes in France and help the country become a pioneer in reducing light pollution.
Full story here.
We’ve come so far to rid ourselves of the dark, only to have the lights forcibly turned off by zealots.
Luboš Motl writes about the issue
“Light pollution” is quoted as another justification. I’ve seen some movies about “light pollution” and although one could a priori think that this could be a legitimate concern, I think that all the people claiming that light pollution is a problem are Luddite lunatics, too. There’s just lots of places on Earth where light pollution is nearly non-existent. You may still go there. It’s probably not too important because not too many people are going there.
Maybe “bad astronomer” Phil Plait will move to France or North Korea now, we can only hope.
Locally, the idea of turning off lights has found favor in plans forged by the lunatic fringe that inhabits our town’s “sustainability committee”, run by Former Mayor Ann Schwab, who managed to sneak in the “climate action plan” in a meeting few attended on the night of the last election in 2012. Predictably, it was approved.
Since these folks on the council seem to worship the European way of doing things, I predict they’ll soon follow with the same edict. We have a lone volunteer staffed Chico Community Observatory in the town’s Bidwell park that they fought tooth and nail 10 years ago (I know, I was a part of it then), and they’ll now likely use it as a means to an end since, “Light pollution” was discussed at the onset.
I’m not a racist, but in the case of the French I’m prepared to make an exception.
good idea. as an amateur astronomer, I’d like to see the night skies again.
hmm, I read the French government is bankrupt so saving money by turning the lights out
Has the world gone mad? Light pollution…
Sigh – did they ever consider that well-lighted cities are safe cities, especially for women?
Well, with the rate that violent crime is declining in the US, I would expect that public safety unions will actually be supporting groups lobbying for this sort of stuff in a cynical effort to keep enough crime going to avert layoffs. Seriously. If you look at how fast the crime rate is falling in the US, it is going to be hard justifying having so many police at some point. Those unions have a lot of political clout.
Last stats I looked at showed France 75% or greater nuclear powered.(and exporting
at that). Actually, power at night comes almost entirely from baseload power generators.
Since nuclear plants are France’s (probably only) baseload generators,, then
all those night lights are producing virtually no carbon emissions. Anyone want to guess the odds that the looney French greenies know that? Now let’s do a little recalculating….
“Interactive lighting,” they call it.
Lights that only turn on, or go brighter, when people or cars pass by.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IBTx87xiscs
Luddites!
Nuclear electricity. Lots’o’greenhouse gas THERE.
Light pollution is very bad for astronomy, and it would be nice for most people, instead of just a few, to get to see the stars at night.
What is generally promoted is using reflectors on street lights so that instead of light being wasted shining up and out, it shines down and out on the ground, producing more useable light. Zealots? Really?
And what happens when the first assault happens because it was too dark to see the bad guys ….
The introduction of street lighting in London was designed to reduce crime.
I guess the eco-green is purely law-abiding himself, and his influence on his community, overpowering of lesser desires.
Yeah, like theres a sky full of “light pollution” at the top of Mauna Keay.
I bet the Hubble telescope is really hampered by “light pollution” what with all them stars and the sun in its sky.
The James Webb telescope doesnt stand a chance faced with all that “light pollution” at the far rim of the visible universe.
Pillocks.
Ummm… the vast majority of French electricity comes from nuclear power.
@Michael Hart: re: “Ummm… the vast majority of French electricity comes from nuclear power.”
maybe the french just want to see who glows in the dark?
Screw the CO2 – I can’t stand the waste (something my parents drilled into me – don’t waste anything) of poorly-designed lighting, and the fact that the sky where I live is orange. I’m sorry, Anthony, but “We’ve come so far to rid ourselves of the dark…” doesn’t ring true. Or maybe I’m one of those weirdos who doesn’t want to live in perpetual light… and I most certainly don’t want to be dictated to by AGW zealots, or by those who’d call me a Luddite. A dictator is a dictator whichever side of the fence they come from.
Yea, North Korea is a great place if you want to star gaze. But no one goes there (except Eric Schmidt), I wonder why?
While, I’m not for closing businesses and such, I am for doing what we can to reduce light pollution, I like taking pictures like this, and I need dark skys to do it.
Now the Polar Bears refuse to die out I expect a new paper any time soon, “Moths to go extinct by 2050” accompanied by a sad photo of three moths flattened against a street light, burnt to a cinder, eyes glistening as if crying.
Burglars rejoice!
Isn’t the French electric grid almost all Nuclear and Hydro? How is banning lighting “saving” any CO2? Gas lights?
As an amateur astronomer living in the south of the UK light pollution is a bane, but only for looking at deep sky objects or seeing beautiful sights like the milky way with your eyes. I can still take holidays to Wales or Cornwall to avoid light pollution, but it’s the UK ,you can’t guarantee the views unfortunately :(. I don’t want people to turn off their lights though that’s unreasonable. Most Light pollution is very easy to tackle though, you don’t need laws. You just need to sell the cost benefits of street lights that shine on the streets and not everywhere else as well. This improves efficiency and saves council tax for other things and leads to brighter streets below the light, with minimal light pollution as streets are not that reflective of light. Just with those measures I wouldn’t need to travel far outside my city for great views at a whim.
I understand though most people don’t care about this, so it’s not something I get het up about ( except when I get frustrate trying to get a decent view of Saturn from my garden!!)
“Turn out the lights, the partys over”
‘“Interactive lighting,” they call it.
Lights that only turn on, or go brighter, when people or cars pass by.’
Hrm. So, if someone is just loitering suspiciously waiting for the next passerby, the lights will helpfully go out around them?
Oh well. Maybe they’ll be temporarily blinded when the lights go up.
Hey, I’m all for businesses voluntarily reducing lighting and using motion sensors to light things up in the event of intruders…
But as soon as it’s made into a LAW my approval vanishes.
Lighting doesn’t do a very good job of deterring crime, possibly because the more light there is the easier it is for the criminals to see what they are doing and to see whether anyone is watching them. If you want security lighting, use motion sensors so that the light going on will tell you if something (or someone) is nosing around.
And light going up into the sky, the way the vast majority of streetlights are designed, is just wasted energy.
Light going sideways from those same streetlights forces the eyes of drivers to adapt to that brightness instead of to the much lower brightness of the street… thus making it harder to see rather than easier. Full cutoff fixtures (ie- pointed at the ground only) can achieve better street level visibility with less wattage.
Just think if the cavemen chose the sustainable future…. We would still be living in caves!