Light Polution e-petition

[Tummy]

What a car crash of a thread

I like looking at the sky at night, so I'm all for a reduction in light pollution ha

I walk out of the city every few nights and spend a while looking at the stars and space It's not far, it's a nice bike ride / walk and usually quite good fun if you take the right company.

 

[bitslice]

Because having lights on the motorway increases the distance that you can see ahead?

I can see a cars brake lights about two miles away across the valley, my braking distance is 100m, what do I need road lighting for?

In fact when the usual BMW tailgates me with it's HID lights I could probably read a map inside the car.

 

[One]

The night sky has inspired humanity for thousands of years. Our myths are built on it.

PETITION DENIED.

 

[NeilF]

So why isn't the petition about energy reduction, then?

Alas, I have no idea why the petition isn't called "Let's make our streetlighting more energy efficient and also in doing so reduce light polution so we can see more of the nightsky."

But I do know:-
a) I'd like to be able see more of the night sky. The number of times I've missed meteor showers and aura borealis simply due to too much light polution is very frustrating!
b) If is achieves (a) by a "major energy efficiency strategy," then surely we all win

We can either sit on our hands, or possibly save energy and reduce light polution while still having the same safetly and securty - What's the problem?

 

[Castiel]

No idea... But worth considering surely?



You're unfairly belittling the matter a little? "Billions just so a handful of people can look through their telescopes?"

Another thread on this forum (you may be familiar with) is the solar power thread, where clearly some individuals are getting a huge rebate (guaranteed for 25yrs), but many argue this is necessary (worthwhile) to improve the technology necessary for helping our (long term) power usage.

As such, could it not be argued that some investigation and investment into possibly reducing our night time energy consumption, is worthwhile?

I don't know whether Solar is worthwhile or not, it isn't why I paid £12k for them or why EON pay me the tariff they do, but I do know that the Taxpayer is not funding it, so the comparison doesn't fly.

If you find a way to privately fund the changes you want then I'll support it, but until then it is a trivial issue to be spending significant taxpayer money on at a time when there are more important and more efficient ways of spending the money.

There is already investment and programs within local authorities that are looking at and trialling some systems that cut the amount of energy and light usage, I see no reason therefore to sign a petition that asks for something that is already in action.

Remember that large parts of the country are simply not greatly affected by light pollution...I only have to walk 1/2 a mile and my only light is moonlight/starlight or the torch I have to carry to see where I'm going.

 

[PermaBanned]

I don't know whether Solar is worthwhile or not, it isn't why I paid £12k for them or why EON pay me the tariff they do, but I do know that the Taxpayer is not funding it, so the comparison doesn't fly.

If you find a way to privately fund the changes you want then I'll support it, but until then it is a trivial issue to be spending significant taxpayer money on at a time when there are more important and more efficient ways of spending the money.

You keep saying this. It's a worthless statement without reputable figures to back it up. You're the only one dealing in absolutes.

There is already investment and programs within local authorities that are looking at and trialling some systems that cut the amount of energy and light usage, I see no reason therefore to sign a petition that asks for something that is already in action.

Small test studies which are conducted by certain councils in random places dotted around the country. Not a country-wide agreement that the petition is asking for.

Remember that large parts of the country are simply not greatly affected by light pollution...I only have to walk 1/2 a mile and my only light is moonlight/starlight or the torch I have to carry to see where I'm going.

Simply not true. The number of places completely unaffected by light pollution throughout the whole of the UK could be counted on one hand. It's not about whether there are lights right next to you, it's about the lights that are there shining into the atmosphere and diffusing for miles around. If you go to the link i posted earlier there is a map showing you roughly how of an effect this has on different places:

http://www.need-less.org.uk/

 

[Castiel]

You keep saying this. It's a worthless statement without reputable figures to back it up. You're the only one dealing in absolutes.

it isn't a worthless statement, mainly because you do not know eactly how much this will cost or the actual benefit of it....whereas it will cost money and money that the local authorities who are responsible for this can ill afford......compared to other cut backs in social cate, housing, public transport and so on, further spending on street lighting is simply not a priority.

Small test studies which are conducted by certain councils in random places dotted around the country. Not a country-wide agreement that the petition is asking for.

Until the failure or success of those trials are known and the inherent savings or expenditure of them, then it would be foolish to initiate large scale programs nationwide.

Simply not true. The number of places completely unaffected by light pollution throughout the whole of the UK could be counted on one hand. It's not about whether there are lights right next to you, it's about the lights that are there shining into the atmosphere and diffusing for miles around. If you go to the link i posted earlier there is a map showing you roughly how of an effect this has on different places:

http://www.need-less.org.uk/

Sorry but it simply is not an important issue......certainly not one to spend significant resourses on at this time. And if you want a totally unaffected countryside you better close all the roads, enact curfews, force household to switch off all lighting after dusk......good luck with that.

The actual reality is that the vast rural areas of the country simply are unaffected to any discernable degree by this and if it is as you point put simply to stop all light pollution then it is a waste of time and money.

Light pollution is simply not an important issue to most people, and quite rightly so. Change the lighting as it goes out of service by all means, but don't waste money by removing servicable streetlighting just to reduce light-pollution, there are more efficent and effective ways to spend taxpayers money.

 

[PermaBanned]

it isn't a worthless statement, mainly because you do not know eactly how much this will cost or the actual benefit of it....whereas it will cost money and money that the local authorities who are responsible for this can ill afford......compared to other cut backs in social cate, housing, public transport and so on, further spending on street lighting is simply not a priority.

Some methods of reducing light pollution would cost money. All of them would save money.

 

[Castiel]

Some methods of reducing light pollution would cost money. All of them would save money.

But would the savings justify the initial huge investment needed, and who will foot that initial bill.......you will find that increased council taxes, increased criminality, increased incidence of accidents and less percieved personal security will outweigh any arguement about astronomy or co2 emissions among the local communities affected directly by the potential (and in some cases proven) outcomes when some of these so called cost-effective or cost-saving programs have been trialled.

Far better to simply upgrade the lighting as and when it naturally needs replacing, either as it becomes unservicable or at the end of its service life.

That way the initial costs are spread over a long term, are also mitigated by the necessity to replace or repair existing installations and the potential savings and benefits will eventually be accessible without the huge capital investment that your idea will require.

 

[PermaBanned]

That way the initial costs are spread over a long term, are also mitigated by the necessity to replace or repair existing installations and the potential savings and benefits will eventually be accessible without the huge capital investment that your idea will require.

Excuse me? What's 'my idea' exactly? I support the idea behind the petition, which really is that we shouldn't let the situation continue as it is. There are many possible solutions, and yes that includes scrapping everything and starting again. But why you assume that that is the one that i or anyone else support is beyond me...

 

[NeilF]

I don't know whether Solar is worthwhile or not, it isn't why I paid £12k for them or why EON pay me the tariff they do, but I do know that the Taxpayer is not funding it, so the comparison doesn't fly.

Sorry, but who IS paying the individuals in question tens of thousands of pounds (in profit)? It's other people in the country. It may not be a tax, but for all intents and purposes it is one.

If you find a way to privately fund the changes you want then I'll support it, but until then it is a trivial issue to be spending significant taxpayer money on at a time when there are more important and more efficient ways of spending the money.

Can you tell me how much this investigation will cost to action? ie: How much it will cost to investigate any potential energy savings/pollution cutting?

Can you tell me how much money might be saved per annum from said saving?

You don't know? But you use terms such as "trivial" and "significant"? Hmmm...

There is already investment and programs within local authorities that are looking at and trialling some systems that cut the amount of energy and light usage, I see no reason therefore to sign a petition that asks for something that is already in action.

Why then? What's the harm? If it's a good thing why not support it?

Remember that large parts of the country are simply not greatly affected by light pollution...I only have to walk 1/2 a mile and my only light is moonlight/starlight or the torch I have to carry to see where I'm going.

Regarding light polution - Most people live in/near towns/villages/cities. I'd suggest most people cannot even easily drive to an area with low light polution, yet alone walk there. I'm high up in a reasonably small village and I know I suffer from light polution.
Energy saving - Ignoring all the the points, it doesn't matter where you walk, the same amount of energy is being squandered with ill conceived lighting systems. Why not improve them if it can be investigated and proved worth while/cost effective?

 

[starbug]

Signed!

I wouldn't normally post but after reading the replies Neil was getting I weep for the future of scientific study in this country if this thread is anything to go by.

If you agree with the petition then sign it otherwise don't post that it doesn't matter or is not an important issue because to those who do astronomy is obviously is. (and that’s not to mention encouraging future generations)

 

[Castiel]

Sorry, but who IS paying the individuals in question tens of thousands of pounds (in profit)? It's other people in the country. It may not be a tax, but for all intents and purposes it is one.

Fact: unit costs for electricity are currently statitic or falling. Fact: The funding is a statutory one regardless of whether the tariff was in place or not, it is part of the obligation the energy companies have toward sustainable energy programs...so the money would have been spent regardless.

Can you tell me how much this investigation will cost to action? ie: How much it will cost to investigate any potential energy savings/pollution cutting?

Can you tell me how much money might be saved per annum from said saving?

You don't know? But you use terms such as "trivial" and "significant"? Hmmm...

Why then? What's the harm? If it's a good thing why not support it?

Can you tell me how much this will cost?, how much my council taxes will rise to fund such a largescale capital program?, what the costs will be toward increased policing, a&e, car insurance, and the myriad of other increases we would expect if the results of many of these programs have so far illustrated?

No?

Then the benefit is therefore trivial until you can prove it otherwise.

I will not support it because the evidence simply is not available to put into practice a nationwide capital scheme until the full impact of the current local ones are fully known.

Regarding light polution - Most people live in/near towns/villages/cities. I'd suggest most people cannot even easily drive to an area with low light polution, yet alone walk there. I'm high up in a reasonably small village and I know I suffer from light polution.
Energy saving - Ignoring all the the points, it doesn't matter where you walk, the same amount of energy is being squandered with ill conceived lighting systems. Why not improve them if it can be investigated and proved worth while/cost effective?

Improve it as it becomes necessary to replace or repair it, do not waste money on a capital investment that has little or no evidence of significant benefit.

 

[Castiel]

Excuse me? What's 'my idea' exactly? I support the idea behind the petition, which really is that we shouldn't let the situation continue as it is. There are many possible solutions, and yes that includes scrapping everything and starting again. But why you assume that that is the one that i or anyone else support is beyond me...

There are already programs in place that are looking at possible solutions therefore the petition is not necessary.

 

[kibblerok]

Signed.

Nobody is banning lamp posts or suggesting turning them off, the petition is to consider light pollution in the way street lighting is implemented.

Much can be changed such as the spacing, type of bulb, temperature and direction of light and taking into account surroundings.

The density of lighting where I live has remained the same, technology has moved on yet old lamp posts were recently replaced like for like in number, this has simply over illuminated the area and using the same layout as when they were first put up in the 70s when light pollution nor energy costs were considered.

If something can be redesigned and made better due to our better understanding and use of technology then it should be considered. In any case, there is evidence that points to street crime falling with street lights being cut.

http://www.thisisbristol.co.uk/Burg...istol-street/story-13952633-detail/story.html

http://www.southendstandard.co.uk/archive/2011/06/25/Southend+News+(southend_news)/9105825.print/

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2003/nov/21/ukcrime.immigrationpolicy

 

[NeilF]

Fact: unit costs for electricity are currently statitic or falling. Fact: The funding is a statutory one regardless of whether the tariff was in place or not, it is part of the obligation the energy companies have toward sustainable energy programs...so the money would have been spent regardless.

Fact: My electricity bill has drastically increased over the past few years, while my usage has dropped. Is there any reason this trend should not continue for the forseeable future?
Fact: The scheme in question has been so well through out, it makes more financial sense for the individuals in question to NOT use the (clean solar) electricity they are generating, but instead use the electricity at night generated by power stations. They are financially rewarded for this behaviour.
Fact: These individuals are being given tens of thousands of pounds, guaranteed over the next 25 years. This money is being funded by the majority of people in the country (who have no choice but to pay the increased premium of their energy prices) for the benefit of a minority, with questionable benefit at the moment to the power grid.

So you support that scheme, but the suggestion of simply investigating if a better and more economical use of night time lighting is possible is a step too far? Given you in fact don't know how much it would cost, what might come out of the investigation, and how much it could therefore save?

Can you tell me how much this will cost?, how much my council taxes will rise to fund such a largescale capital program?, what the costs will be toward increased policing, a&e, car insurance, and the myriad of other increases we would expect if the results of many of these programs have so far illustrated?

I've already said I can't. But I've signed the petition to show my interest in such an investigation being carried out. So what have I done wrong?

I've admitted I don't know what the possibilities and expenses might be. I'm not privy to enough information or knowledge in the appropriate areas. However, as you have repeatedly attested to it being too expensive to consider, you seemingly can provide the financials... Feel free to do so...

Improve it as it becomes necessary to replace or repair it, do not waste money on a capital investment that has little or no evidence of significant benefit.

And if no investigation has been done to an overall approach to said replacements and repairs, knowing what is possible, and what we should be heading towards, what will we achieve?


You can't even agree that it's at least a good idea to see how much energy we can save via different methods/approaches? The outcome might be that little can be done efficiently. But the outcome might be there's huge saving to be made easily over relatively short time scales?

 

[Liquidfox]

I see a lot of arguing, so I'll skip all that and put in my thoughts:

I have to travel around 20 miles or so to get to a place with low light pollution, Kielder is the nearest place where pollution is at a minimum, heading up there on a clear moonless night is absolutely amazing! Me and my Dad went up there a couple of weeks ago and just stood there for about an hour staring up at the sky. It was amazing, I'd love to be able to do that without having to spend 45 mins to an hour travelling and spending a lot of fuel just to look up and see something.

 

[Castiel]

Fact: My electricity bill has drastically increased over the past few years, while my usage has dropped. Is there any reason this trend should not continue for the forseeable future?
Fact: The scheme in question has been so well through out, it makes more financial sense for the individuals in question to NOT use the (clean solar) electricity they are generating, but instead use the electricity at night generated by power stations. They are financially rewarded for this behaviour.
Fact: These individuals are being given tens of thousands of pounds, guaranteed over the next 25 years. This money is being funded by the majority of people in the country (who have no choice but to pay the increased premium of their energy prices) for the benefit of a minority, with questionable benefit at the moment to the power grid.

So you support that scheme, but the suggestion of simply investigating if a better and more economical use of night time lighting is possible is a step too far? Given you in fact don't know how much it would cost, what might come out of the investigation, and how much it could therefore save?

you have some misconceptions on how the scheme works....it is not cost effective to generate and not use what you are generating, basically you would be worse off because you get 3p for each unit sold to the supplier, yet it costs 14p to buy it back....far better to use electricity in the day, swapping out nighttime/evening tasks such as washing etc and doing them during th day etc...

You will have to prove the association between increaed fuel costs (which are related directly to generation and resource costs btw) and the FIT tariff....otherwise you are simply arguing a bias and not a fact.

I've already said I can't. But I've signed the petition to show my interest in such an investigation being carried out. So what have I done wrong?

you haven't done anything wrong, I simply do not think that the project is currently financially viable as it would be directly funded by local authorities who are severely underfunded at the moment.

For this reason I didn't sign....

I've admitted I don't know what the possibilities and expenses might be. I'm not privy to enough information or knowledge in the appropriate areas. However, as you have repeatedly attested to it being too expensive to consider, you seemingly can provide the financials... Feel free to do so...

i was going by information from within my own community, where some programs, as I explained earlier, have been in place for some time.....this has generally been shown to be counterproductive as the cost savings were largely offset by the increase in low-level criminality and accidents....not to mention the added human cost involved in that.

Also any large national scale capital project would require significant funding, which is why I support a more long term stepped solution as I have explained.

And if no investigation has been done to an overall approach to said replacements and repairs, knowing what is possible, and what we should be heading towards, what will we achieve?

again, you are operating under the misconception that nothing is being investigated or trialled.....it is, just not on a national scale..and at this point it is not necessary or cost effective to expand local trials to a national capital project...in time, when the evidence and information is collated and we have some idea of what we can do then the wider national picture can be assessed.

You can't even agree that it's at least a good idea to see how much energy we can save via different methods/approaches? The outcome might be that little can be done efficiently. But the outcome might be there's huge saving to be made easily over relatively short time scales?

I agree that it is a good idea, in fact many small scale trials and short-term local
Inktiatives are already in place....I simply think it is more practical, effective and efficent to see the outcomes of those before we make large investments in capital infrastructure and wholesale changes until we have more information on the potential efficacy of the trials and initiatives already in place.

We simply disagree on implementation, not on whether it is a good idea or not.

 

[asim18]

Just read that petition. Sorry but I'm not signing that.

There is no way to "reconfigure light". It's effectively calling for public lighting to be switched off, and I, and several million others, simply cannot function without it in today's society.

EDIT: just read the thread, All the street lamps around here are already "Down firing". They have sensors on the top side and bulbs on the bottom side. I thought all street lamps were like that?