- This topic has 3 replies, 3 voices, and was last updated 22 hours, 53 minutes ago by
.
-
Posts
-
J. Br. Astron. Assoc., 134(5), 2024 – Commission for Dark Skies (349)
I fear the CfDS committee’s aims of forming a coalition to campaign together with other groups against the harm that excessive artificial light causes will achieve little other than for the media to lump us in with climate activists. Probably not to be recommended since action that could be deemed to have a negative economic impact carries a longer prison sentence than GBH.
My understanding is that the House of Lords Science and Technology Committee have actively investigated the impacts of artificial light and noise on human health and heard from all interested groups:From the recommendations, the areas I see that the CfDS committee could try to influence are:
• Defra should establish a standard methodology for tracking, monitoring and reporting on light pollution.
• The government should issue a light policy statement for England which details the government’s policy on minimising light pollution and the roles it expects different departments to play.
• The light policy statement and planning guidance should incorporate up-to-date guidance from the Society of Light and Lighting, the Institution of Lighting Professionals and the Chartered Institution of Building Services Engineers on best practice for lighting.
• DLUHC should set out what resources local authorities should have to respond adequately to light and noise pollution policies.
Perhaps CfDS committee members could enquire about joining the Society of Light and Lighting (SLL) although I suspect they would cringe at the thought of a ‘Creative Lighting Design Festival’ or ‘Light Night Leeds’. The future is literally Bright.
J. Br. Astron. Assoc., 134(5), 2024 – Commission for Dark Skies (349)
I fear the CfDS committee’s aims of forming a coalition to campaign together with other groups against the harm that excessive artificial light causes will achieve little other than for the media to lump us in with climate activists. Probably not to be recommended since action that could be deemed to have a negative economic impact carries a longer prison sentence than GBH.
I really don’t see why that would be the case. This has little to do with climate activism. Also nobody is talking about breaking the law, so I don’t see the relevance of prison sentences.
The argument that the BAA’s CfDS should co-operate with others who are campaigning to reduce artificial lighting from different perspectives seems a sound one to me. The CfDS would not lose its independence, however, nor its ability to speak on behalf of astronomers. In my experience most non-astronomers actually can understand, and do sympathise with (to some extent), the astronomical argument for limiting light pollution. They’d like it for them and their children be able to see the stars better. Combining that with arguments about protecting wildlife, preserving natural environments, and improving human health just makes it all the more powerful.
Yes, we need the government to adopt a clear policy on this. The last government had either no policy, or rather a pro-lighting one, to judge from their responses to the Lords committee report. I have no evidence whether or not the current government will take any more interest.
The CfDS recently has concentrated on trying to influence local government leaders and staff, which I think is actually the most effective use of limited campaigning resources, as those people have the ability to positively influence what actually happens on the ground even without better national policy direction.
Thank you for your response David.
I don’t imagine BAA members would knowingly break the law but can you speak for the actions of all those that would be part of the coalition? To me climate activism encompasses protecting wildlife and preserving natural environments. Can we really say once we become part of a coalition that we are only interested in the artificial light aspect of preserving natural environments? Surely we adopt the wider views of the coalition.
I’m not opposed to groups or individuals that do break the law because of their strong beliefs. History has shown that is often necessary to do so to achieve change.
As for the current government, they have a policy of ‘Back the builders not the blockers’. I don’t imagine the building of new towns will do much for preserving natural environments.
I wholeheartedly support the CfDs in trying to influence local government.
That is my rant over. It would be interesting to hear other members’ views.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.