Do you have a right to a clear, dark, night-time sky? If you are an American, you have a constitutional right to many things, not the least of which is the "pursuit of happiness." If your idea of happiness is to be able to view, unhindered, the majesty of the heavens, is it "right" that you cannot do this because of a new shopping center has popped up across the street? At one urban wildlife park I have often lectured at, pretty much exactly this has happened. What was once a fairly dark sight is now awash in the glow of parking lots and signs.
Where you could once see the ghostly Milky Way, now you’re lucky to make out third magnitude stars. [From a very dark location, most people with normal eyesight should be able to see stars at least 16 times dimmer.]
The real questions are, "Whose rights are more important?" "Is it the best use of the land for a developer to build a commercial venture to make money, or are the needs of the people (and the environment) served better in other ways?" "Is your right to what you consider a better quality of life more important, or are the rights of the developer and shopper, whose values likely are different from yours, more important?" I know where I stand.
This has been covered on Earth & Sky before, and I don’t want to get too preachy. It is not an issue of importance to many, or maybe I should say that most people don’t know that it is important to them. But in the long run, I think it is very important. Leave Las Vegas in Las Vegas. Most places don’t need its glare and glitter.
A 2005 UNESCO conference in Paris declared 2009 as the International Year of Astronomy, and a conference in April of this year made a declaration of "…IN DEFENCE OF THE NIGHT SKY AND THE RIGHT TO STARLIGHT". It is a worthwhile read for anyone interested in astronomy and the quality of life. There is also the International Dark Sky Association, whose efforts have helped reduce unnecessary and wasteful lighting in many areas.
Ask yourself, when was the last time you saw the Milky Way from any urban location? How dark is the sky where you live? Have things changed in your lifetime or at least in the time frame you can accurately remember?
In the same way that humankind has encroached on the wilderness, it is encroaching on the sky. What are you going to do?
Milky Way image courtesy of www.freestockphotos.com
I love looking at the night sky and find living in an urban area very limiting. What if municipalities regulated the type of lighting used and the direction of the beam of light? I miss seeing my favorite night sky objects and this issue is important to me. But I feel in the big scheme of things that it will be placed lower on the wish list of many. It’s a shame, for I find skywatching far more interesting than TV and a great experience to share with others.
Thanks for the reminder, Larry! I’ll renew my membership to the International Dark-Sky Association as soon as I finish my reply.
The singer-songwriter Carol King once said, “At night, the stars put on a show for free.” Alas, that’s not the case anymore, for excessive and misdirected lighting is drawing the curtains over this free nighttime attraction. A firsthand view of the star-studded heavens, I hasten to add, provides much more than mere entertainment. The night sky is humanity’s priceless heritage, and the age-old constellations are well worth preserving for posterity. We impoverish ourselves when we allow the night sky - the world’s oldest and most enduring astronomy book - to be removed from the public domain!
It’s sometimes said that we can have security or the stars - but not both. Nothing could be further from the truth. Good lighting not only preserves the grandeur of the night, but it provides safer and more efficient lighting as well.
Springfield Prison in Springfield, Vermont, provides one of the best examples of the highest-quality, lowest-impact lighting in the world. Springfield hosts the annual Stellaphane Convention - perhaps the largest gathering of amateur astronomers in the world. The outdoor lighting at nearby Springfield Prison doesn’t trespass on the stargazing, however, because the state-of-the-art lighting directs light to where it is needed and prevents it from spilling over to where it’s not.
I believe the night sky should be everyone’s birthright, and Springfield provides the shining example on how to recover this invaluable visual treasure. Let’s do what we can to give all present and future citizens in the international community a lifetime ticket of admission to the nighttime theater, a cultural and educational resource that elevates our thoughts and expands our vision.
Bruce McClure
Gretchie and Bruce,
Reducing the amount of light polluting the sky is relatively easy by installing shields to redirect the light, changing the source and so on, and of course proper planning in the first place. This is a main emphasis on the International Darksky Association.
I’ll go out on a limb here and say that I think much of the problem of light pollution can be traced to World War II and the Cold War. During WWII, people were often deprived of things, so in the period shortly thereafter there was a kind of backlash and everything was wasted, lighting and energy included. Since this coincided with a time of great growth and affluence, it became ingrained in our society. You know, we’ve got “money to burn,” so why not burn it? People still think that if they can afford it, the can afford to waste it, as evidenced in gas-guzzling cars. There is some arrogance involved here. Many people leave lights on, and waste gas and other forms of energy because they think it is their “right.” Since the 60s, millions of kids have grown up, in my opinion, with an inflated idea of their “rights” and “personal freedom” to do whatever that want, and too little emphasis on personal and societal responsibility. A common phrase among young people today — which I just despise — is “because I can,” implying, it seems, that they have the right to do whatever they want without consequence.
Of course there also was an element of safety — or perceived safety — involved in the increasing use of light in the 50s, 60s and beyond. The more light, the safer you were, they thought. While there is a grain of truth in that, I think people took it — and still take it– to an extreme.
But I think we need to re-emphasize the economics of this strongly. Those of us, like myself, whose parents lived through the Depression, may well remember constant nagging to “turn off the light when you leave the room.” That was because the electricity cost money, not for any environmental concern. Some people still say that to their kids today (thankfully) for whatever reason. But now with environmental concerns increasing the cost of energy, it should become a strong economic concern again.
It boils down to what will *we* do? Writing or calling city councils and other government officials, supporting environmental causes, teaching our children and talking to everyone we can are all good things. The key is to get people to realize that waste and pollution, even with light, is bad for the environment and bad for the wallet.
Light pollution is as much a nuisance as noise. We can go to our elected municipal officials and inform them of the dark sky initiatives. We have to stay in touch with them. Local officials are much easier to reach, and the constituents who wear them down get action. It’s important always to keep it on a polite footing, however, to avoid creating backlash and being considered a crackpot.
I’m all in favour of cutting down the light from towns and cities that pollute the sky, but is there any real way in which we can have security/safety lighting without its glow reflecting upwards and polluting the sky? Has any research been carried out on this?
Hi, George. There are studies and other information on the International Dark Sky Association resources page:
http://www.darksky.org/resources/
I think there are now and always will be issues of safety whether it be in skiing the black diamond runs, picnicing in the park or just crossing the street. To me, the important question is what can we do to minimize the risk without losing a major part of our connection to the natural world. No doubt there are many more things we can do, coupled with a strong dose of personal responsibility, that will increase our safety in this and other situations, but we always run the risk of being afraid of our own shadows to the point that living in the light is living in fear.
light pollution is only half of the problem. if you take a plane ride over any medium sized city during the day you will notice a murky yellowish brown haze, from car exhaust. this lingers even in the evening hours and distorts the air above you in an urban area. but if you drive out into the rural country you will find it better viewing, but not great.
Sam, that’s the infamous “brown cloud” that so plagues Los Angeles and part of the year (especially winter) here in Denver. In part, light pollution would not be nearly as big a problem without this kind of pollution, which is partly particulates (small particles that reflect light) as well as carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxides, sulfur compounds and more. There now appears to be an enormous, semi-permanent “Asian brown cloud” enveloping almost all of southeast Asia and obscuring about 15 percent of the sunlight. There are concerns that this is affecting worldwide climate.
i am speaking of taking a small plane ride above lake city fla. you can see from 3000 ft that gainsville and jacksonville have a brown or yellowish browwn cloud whereas the rest of penisular fl is clear. that is early in the morning.and as i go into the forest at night to look thru my telescope i find that as long as we stick to the national forest we have clear viewing but if we try this from the back yard the light pollution is overwhelming.but. playing the devils advocate i cant rule out thousands of streetlights. common sense tells me its light reflected from particulate matter in the atmosphere above heavy co2 producers.i wish the world were as it should be and not how it is.
I think a lot of people would say that it is our responsibility to do whatever we can about it. What amazes me are companies that even in the guise of environmental awareness do everything they can to increase profit. I just heard that Honda (I think) is scrapping one of its hybrid cars because it isn’t selling well enough, and they will replace it with a “cleaner” diesel car! Give me a break. That’s a bit like advertising a “safe” cigarette! And then there are countries that try to get around environmental considerations by any means possible. Of course, the US is high on that list I am sad to say, but we also have others such as Japan and their obscene whale “research” program. Just yesterday I heard the China is going to reverse their ban on endangered Tiger parts (used for “medicinal purposes”) because they claim that making it legal again will squash the black market for the illegal trade. All I can say to that is horse hockey.
OK, excuse me a moment while I get down off my soapbox. I’m just saying that we — you, I and everyone else — have to do something because companies and governments are looking only to the present, whether it be for profit or re-election. We have to look to the future, and we have to shape it by cutting back on driving, wasting materials, and the other things that contribute to the problem. It’s a corny old cliche — but true — that if you aren’t part of the solution, you’re part of the problem.
So Sam, old pal, we may never get it to where it should be, but maybe we can get it heading in the right direction. To do that, we have to look in our own neighborhoods, our own backyards, and our own garages.
DISCLOSURE: I don’t want to seem a hypocrite, as I am not the greatest environmentalist who ever lived. But most of my efforts have been for many years, not just since the current “green” phase began in the US and elsewhere. I have tried to cut back on a lot of things. For one thing, we do not have an air conditioner, even though sometimes in the summer it gets close to 100 degrees F. We have a evaporative “swamp” cooler that uses much less electricity instead. In recent years I have cut back as much as possible in driving. And when a light rail line became available late last year, I started taking the train downtown when I had to go. I still drive on these days about a mile to the “Park-N-Ride,” but that is nowhere near the distance to downtown. And as far as possible I avoid any other unnecessary driving. But when I do drive, I drive a minivan (;^{ . That may seem incongruous or bad, but 1) it was basically given to me and I don’t want to trade it in to go to someone else who would drive it more or be scrapped and largely wasted; and 2) I don’t want to buy a new car (until I have to) until the car companies truly get serious about the environment and not just their own profit.
LS
i really really want to try and get it headed in the right direction thru word and deed. i know i fail most of the time but if i can only get 1 other to say, this moron is trying why cant i do 1 thing then there are 2 of us that did something today. then i feel better at least tonight.thank goodness there are a few others with the same idealist fervor