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.
They just want to turn off the lights in shops, offices and on buildings after 1 am.
The standard street lights remain on.
@Wamron Sorry, but it happens from time to time (even to me) to make observations with a personal telescope, making use of a privately built observatory in a suburban area and actually have some pretty interesting and useful scientific results, published as articles in major ISI journals. now, as a scientist, you should already know that… It’s not about denying your right to flood your property with lights, it is about decency. I agree that private lighting (except for commercial purpose) should not be regulated as long as it is limited to one’s property and does not affect the neighbours. Instead, the public lighting should be regulated because it is my and your money and everyone else’s money wasted there, and there really are consequences regarding the health of the environment.
Agree w/others — it would be easy just to install lights that cut off any horizontal/upward light. The overall wattage could be greatly reduced & not compromise the ground lighting, while reducing the upward light pollution. But warmers ignore simple solutions.
An OT rant — why in the heck do newer vehicles have glaring BLUE lights that destroy nite vision? Lights at nite should be RED or yellow. Duh.
Mike said “If they implement this in Canada, Suzuki will need 100′s of female bodyguards all night long.”
I hear he needs hundreds of them already.
“Where lighting curfews have been re-introduced criminality has declined by as much as fifty percent.”
Well, yeah. After you turn off the street lights, potential victims don’t risk going there any more.
The lights are only being turned off late at night when few people are out anyway. Most crime of the kind we fear occurs in daylight, ergo criminals need light. What lighting does is it encourages the criminal element to behave at night more as they would during the day. Curfews on lighting denies lighting to the criminal element beyond the hours of curfew when most people are in their homes anyway. At the same time they still provide lighting to the general community at a time when they most need it. Lighting curfews were standard practice until 1969 and no-one complained of lack of amenity before then nor were there any wide scale campaigns to keep lights on all night. All-night lighting was only applied on major thoroughfares where there was a need for it. It is not unreasonable to return to this in order to reduce wastage, save money, protect our own health and that of the environment. Motion operated bollard lighting in low density suburbs would be the ideal solution as it will provide sufficient lighting when needed but at the same time will not be intrusive, nor will it have a major impact on the environment. Smart interactive lighting on more busy roads shows some interesting possibilities.
Agree with those who want to focus lighting where it’s needed and will do good vs pissing it away into the sky and blanking out the stars. Shields focusing lighting downward, motion sensor activated lighting et. al. can get us light where we need it vs blasting garish light everywhere. Yes, I am an amateur astronomer.
I think the answer is, “Because we can”—or at least, “Because we could.” The twentieth century saw an explosion of technical progress, due almost entirely to the availability of cheap, plentiful electricity. The brilliantly-lit cities, with flamboyant signage and shining skylines reflected the exuberance of the possible, a celebration of the spectacular ascent from the dim days of flickering hearths and candles to the ability to turn the night into day. It wasn’t long ago that Popular Science and like publications were suggesting orbiting mirrors that could illuminate cities all night long.
Glorious nighttime skylines are a wonder to behold, as are teaming elevated expressways, giant malls and offices, and all the rest of the modern world it took only a century to create. But of course with youthful exuberance comes excess, and carelessness, waste, detritus, and pollution. We’ve had to retrench a little bit and clean up our air, waterways, septic systems and trash middens. It’s only common sense not to foul your nest, but sometimes common sense takes a little while to mature. And then we have to be careful not to err with an excess of caution. There are neo-Luddites who in the name of an imaginary ‘sustainability’ would have us return to campfires and whale oil—oh, but let’s not harm the whales.
The term ‘light pollution’ is almost as misleading as the factitious ‘carbon pollution’. Light is as positive as ‘carbon’ [dioxide] really is. But there can be detriments to too much light, in too many of the wrong places. What’s needed are not draconian solutions: not turning off the streelights, nor darkening the buildings, nor unenforceable curfews. What’s needed is a little Common Sense: direct the street and security lights down; use color temperatures (reddish?) that reduce dispersion and encourage normal night vision; make it easy for owners of big buildings to reduce lighting when it’s not needed (sensors, timers, dimmers, etc.), and so on.
Like many who frequent this board, I am quite sure that cheap, plentiful electricity is the key, not only to our own progress, but to the development of the so-called ‘third world’. We must be careful not to fall prey to the eco-loons who would return us to a new Dark Age. We must keep lighting up the world, but let’s do it responsibly. Not all of us are astronomers, amateurs or professionals (and by the way, amateur astronomers are credited with many important discoveries, even in the modern age), but like many, I remember lying on the lawn in the countryside outside Washington, DC, gazing up at the Milky Way, and dreaming of journeying to the nearest star. The suburbs have encrouched upon that countryside now, and a pale haze obscures the night sky. It wouldn’t hurt to help bring that back, for the next generation of dreamers.
To heck with your resume. Just tell us more about those women.
/Mr Lynn
***
TLM says:
February 5, 2013 at 2:57 am
One of the joys of going on holiday to a warmer country far from any cities is lying on my back in the pitch dark and seeing the milky way with my naked eyes – oh and browsing a few objects with a pair of powerful tripod mounted binoculars.
***
As you do that, imagine that the ground is vertical or facing downward, and you are looking into a 3-D view of the edge of a gigantic spiral galaxy….
@Wamrom
About terrace heaters. (2008)
Euro MPs will debate whether or not to phase out the use of patio heaters today.
http://www.morningadvertiser.co.uk/General-News/MEPs-debate-patio-heater-ban
Radu writes: I agree that private lighting (except for commercial purpose) should not be regulated as long as it is limited to one’s property and does not affect the neighbors.
Indeed, but that is the point, isn’t it? If you can see your neighbor’s lights, they are not limited to their property. I have a neighbor with a security light on a motion sensor. Something like a 500w halogen. Every passing cat sets it off. Businesses are even worse about this than most private people, because the cost of lighting doesn’t even make a blip on their balance sheets. Public street lighting is worse than most businesses, because people think it’s for the public good. I would happily do without the street lights on our street: the sense of security they provide is entirely false; they do more to attract unwanted visitors than to repel them.
There is a place for regulation here, and perhaps it is exactly what Radu writes: If your lighting impinges on someone else’s eyeballs, it is subject to regulation. Light pollution is really no different from noise pollution; I have no more desire to see your security light than to hear your music.
The Cheese-eating Surrender Monkeys are back!
Re Radu:
@Radu says:
February 5, 2013 at 7:07 am
“Wamron Sorry, but it happens from time to time (even to me) to make observations with a personal telescope, making use of a privately built observatory in a suburban area and actually have some pretty interesting and useful scientific results, published as articles in major ISI journals. now, as a scientist, you should already know that… It’s not about denying your right to flood your property with lights, it is about decency. I agree that private lighting (except for commercial purpose) should not be regulated as long as it is limited to one’s property and does not affect the neighbours. Instead, the public lighting should be regulated because it is my and your money and everyone else’s money wasted there, and there really are consequences regarding the health of the environment.”
First up Radu you do surely realise I was provoked by being stereotyped in such a dumbass way. Giving some of someones medicine back doesnt hurt.
I am well aware that amateur astronomers have conducted original research and indeed it was often discussed on The Sky at Night in my youth. But this discussion…if you return to the heading article…is actually not about “decency” as you say…its about imposing ideologically driven mores on an entire nation by force of the state. Where is the decency in that? You say you don’t approve that BUT, that is (in the case of France) what we are actually discussing, not decency or good practice, the imposition of state fiat.
The problem with your stance and that of other amateur astronomers who have commented here…other than the cleartly execrable AndyJ who we neednt tar other astronomers by association with…is two-fold. Firstly you declare having published research…so clearly the need to oppress others for the sake of it does not exist. Secondly it is arrogance of the highest self-cntred degree to think that millions of people should adjust their lives to accomodate the pastimes of a handful. It is inconceiveable that the merits of amateur astronomical research would ever weigh fairly in the balance with the basic safety and security needs of the general population. To claim it does literally beggars belief. I say that notwithstanding my knowledge that amateurs are part of the network alert to NEOs. There is no response to a NEO anyway so whats the point?
As for “now, as a scientist, you should already know that… ” I am left wondering what I should know as the sentence either isnt complete or its second part is non-sequiter.
I will also admit I was harsh in my early comments on this thread. But some things make me angry. If you cant amplify the debate by expressing that, without ad hominem, personal attack or abuse, online then whats the point?
…I might add, Radu, if you think this French move and its Green motivation really has anything to do with light pollution rather than the imposition of an ideology you are surely naive.
I support requiring street lights that use reflectors in “caps” to aim all the light down on streets and sidewalks where we need it for safety, instead of wasting it on the night sky (or sideways, pouring in our bedroom windows and keeping the family awake). These use less energy – especially the newest LED designs – while putting more light where we need it. Win-Win
@Lincoln Hashew:
“Curfews on lighting denies lighting to the criminal element beyond the hours of curfew when most people are in their homes ”
WHO THE HELL IS THIS GUY and who does he think he is that a nation should be subjected to a CURFEW for his benefit? His word…CURFEW! Utterly unimaginable arrogance from a fool who thinks “most people” are tucked up in bed because he is. No dear, half the working population is at work when you are in bed and they have to get to and from home like day-workers.
Legislation isn’t the only answer to light pollution problems. Brian Greer, Central Ohio representative for the Ohio Light Pollution Advisory Council, says that education is just as important, if not more so. “There are some special situations where regulation is the only fix,” he says. “But the vast majority of bad lighting is simply the result of not knowing any better.” Simple actions like replacing old bulbs and fixtures with more efficient and better-designed ones can make a big difference in preserving the night sky.
First comment is hateful stupid and should be removed.
What next a dusk curfew?
If I recall correctly if you move in France you have to report your new address to the police…
elftone says:
February 4, 2013 at 12:48 pm
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….
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
You are obviously not female. It took me years to get over the ‘Women do not go out at night unescorted” drilling from my parents. Lighted shopping areas have been a major instrument of freedom for women. Of course concealed carry also helps.
Doug Huffman says:
February 4, 2013 at 5:56 pm
I just came in from a hot tub naked-eye astronomy session, here in Lake Michigan aboard my little Island ship of state with ~400 souls this snowbird season. The sky is utterly dark and full of hard diamonds. …….Now the nights are approaching the coldest of the year and the cottage pops and groans as the deck boards freeze. The Niagara Escarpment, twenty-five feet from the window, talks too as the ice shatters rocks.
Niiiiiice! Thanks Doug!
You led me back to my youth in central Wisconsin, skating the black ice of Big Green Lake on moonless and clear, cold winters nights! The Milky Way was a dazzling reality in the heavens above us, not just an inadequately descriptive phrase from some staid and dusty astronomy tome. In the long stretches of bare, smooth ice that alternated with low running snow drifts, the overhead display was mirrored in the polished ice at our feet! It was as if we skated through the void!!!
Thanks sooo much, for the memories!
MtK
I very much enjoy stepping out my front or back door and seeing the Milky Way in all its glory, and stars… I love seeing the stars. One of the many reasons I despise the notion of living in or near a city is the lack of a night sky.
I don’t approve of the French plan, though I do sypathize with a desire to see the sky at night (and not just for astronomers).
Pm says:
February 5, 2013 at 10:30 am
We have a curious theory of moderation on this blog, preferring a lighter hand than some. It’s always a judgement call, of course. However, picking all of the spitballs off of the wall soon gets tiresome. There are millions of comments on this site …
Part of the problem is, where do you draw the line? At one extreme you could chop out everything that isn’t verifiable dispassionate scientific fact … but where’s the fun in that? People don’t want to read that. At the other extreme, no moderators, and it becomes a dog-fight two posts out of three.
Like I said, we tend to the light moderation end of things. In part, this is because one man’s ceiling is another man’s floor, one man’s joke is another man’s insult. For example, “I’m not an ‘X’ but in your case I’ll make an exception” is a stock line for comedians, with perhaps the best known example being “I never forget a face … but in your case I’ll make an exception”.
And because it is a stock comedy phrase, I am forced to the assumption that the man said it in jest. Now, I know that it’s not politically correct to joke about ethnicities, but I think that’s just lame. We all joke about each other all the time, get over it, because in fact ethnicities do have characteristics. If I want my watch fixed, I’ll damn well go to Switzerland rather than Senegal. Nothing against Senegal, I’d return there in a heartbeat, it’s a great place … but they are not globally celebrated for building precision instruments, and there’s a reason for that.
Here’s an example.
That joke is funny, specifically because of the differences in the ethnicities. It is also 100% politically incorrect, which as a 100% politically incorrect guy, meets with my 100% approval.
But I digress. My point is that what you are horrified by and find “hateful stupid”, I see as a not particularly funny or original attempt at humor, but not malicious or hateful at all, and I breeze on past it without a second thought.
And it is precisely that difference of opinion, and the inability to say that you or I are right, that leads us to moderate lightly.
And finally, in the mix, I think it’s better that 10 guilty go free than one innocent be unjustly punished … none of us at WUWT are fans of censorship, it is a harsh punishment, particularly for what may only be misplaced humor, and so we dole it out lightly.
Best regards,
w.
Patricia says:
February 5, 2013 at 9:30 am
And the beauty part is, the reflectors save the city money, because all the light is getting used, so the “invisible hand” will take care of at least part of the problem.
w.
Wamron says:
February 4, 2013 at 4:39 pm
To the whining “astronomers” on here…You are AMATEURS gettit!
And this is OPTICAL “astronomy” you are fumbling with in your backyards, in the 21st Century.
Wamron, amateur astronomers have a great advantage over professional astronomers, which is spotting supernova from their backyards with their optical telescopes, amateurs often spot comets and track asteroids and plot their orbits all from their backyard, not to mention amateurs have discovered exoplanets from their backyards. I would hazard a guess and say a large percentage of the readers of watts up with that are amateur astronomers, they are people who work in science or have a interest in the sciences, and the amateur astronomer has a niche in one of the few remaining sciences where one can be an amateur and still generate lots of new discoveries.
nc says:
February 4, 2013 at 2:57 pm
I now this is about building lights but here is an interesting read, http://www.britastro.org/dark-skies/crime.html
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
That information comes from by a group who want the lights shut off.
Here is the other view point which seems to me to be much more unbiased. Like everything else it seems to be easy to cherry pick the study that shows what you want it to show. This report looks at several different studies across the USA and also in the UK.