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.