- This topic has 7 replies, 7 voices, and was last updated 4 weeks, 1 day 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.Good morning to all. Concerning the effects of light pollution, i.e. lights that make the sky bright at night, perhaps these two recent articles will be of interest.
1] Mazzoleni E. et al. Outdoor artificial light at night and risk of early-onset dementia: a case-control study in the Modena population, northern Italy. Heliyon 9, 7, luglio 2023: e17837. 2023. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2023.e17837
2] Voigt R.M. et a.l Outdoor Night time Light Exposure (Light Pollution) is Associated with Alzheimer’s Disease,.. Frontiers in Neuroscience, 18, 6 September 2024 https://doi.org/10.3389/fnins.2024.1378498
I think a coalition of organisations with a shared interest in reducing light pollution is an excellent idea. While the CfDS could campaign purely on astronomical grounds, this won’t be important to many people and politicians. Joining forces with others who see the problems of light pollution from other perspectives will strengthen the case for change.
There is no mention of involvement with ‘climate activist’ groups or anything that is likely to be picked up by media as activism. I think you would find the majority of wildlife campaign groups go about their activities in a law abiding way, trying to engage with people rather than causing confrontation. That is certainly how our local wildlife group goes about their work. In fact we had a talk on light pollution this week.A bit of background for reassurance. None of the other environmental organisations that CfDS are hoping to work would be likely to be considered controversial, other than with the extremist political fringe. Collectively they would number millions of ordinary supporters.
The reality is that getting anywhere with government requires a professional approach (know how) that the current CfDS committee lacks. Clubbing together resources (a manyfold increase) means that the money will be available to present the most compelling arguments, in the right formats, to the right people.
The previous government missed several opportunities to introduce useful anti LP rules through DEFRA. Experiences with officials there have been largely positive but they can only do the their master’s bidding. The new government has already indicated greater willingness to listen during the LGA conference last year. We are more hopeful than before.
We have worked with the ILP for decades (I was a member myself) and helped to write their guidance on LP mitigation. The last article we wrote for the ILP journal was published only a few months before Bob Mizon died. The ILP supported and took part in our aforementioned LGA event. I think CfDS committee member Kerem Asfuroglu, an award winning professional lighting designer, may be a member of the SLL.
In general we seldom worry about festivals because they are limited in duration and we don’t want to be spoil sports. Actually, they can be opportunities to address LP with the public (eg. Lewes Light Festival). Sky beams are a different matter.Giovanni,
Interesting two references you give. Thank you. The Mazzoleni et al. (2023) article I came across myself a week or so ago and the Voigt et al. (2024) is new to me. Although people have speculated about the link between light at night and neurodegenerative diseases in the past, it seems that in the last few years more significant findings have been appearing. Another angle is the importance of melatonin’s day-night cycle on the health of humans and other creatures and how higher levels of melatonin are protective. I often find it remarkable that evolution has taken advantage of the day-night cycle for the benefit of creatures. Darkness permits the triggering of hormones and other functions that cleanse the system ahead of a new day dawning. Inhibition of melatonin production by light occurs at very different light levels for different creatures. So in my mind, the health arguments are getting stronger in recent years and are much more credible than they were a decade or two ago.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.