Gunn High School's Student Newspaper
Environment blinded by complacency
Published on September 14, 2009 in Volume 46, Issue 1


Credit: Andrew Lee

In this age of “going green” and fighting pollution, the problem of light pollution is often overlooked in lieu of fuel-guzzling cars and deforestation. Light pollution, by definition, is “the adverse effects of artificial light.” Seemingly inconsequential due to its intangibility, light pollution has detrimental effects on both humanity and the natural environment.

Lighting constitutes 25 percent of energy usage worldwide. Extra lighting in places such as public buildings is simply unnecessary, resulting in the waste of large quantities of energy and contributing to the excessive amount of greenhouse gases emitted each day. For example, in Australia, public lighting is the largest source of greenhouse gas emissions, making up 30 to 50 percent of the total emissions daily.

Large amounts of artificial lighting also have negative effects on human health. These drawbacks include headaches, stress, anxiety and fatigue. All of these symptoms have also been shown to increase the chance of heart disease. Several studies have also speculated on the possible increase in breast cancer risk due to less melatonin, a sleep-produced hormone that acts as an antioxidant and plays an important role in both the immune system and sleeping-waking cycle. Light pollution also decreases the amount of contrast in a nighttime setting, resulting in poor nocturnal vision.

Additionally, animals’ life cycles depend on the natural pattern of day and night. Disturbing this pattern results in behavioral changes and confusion. For example, migratory birds can become disoriented by lights, resulting in skewed navigation and even death, usually caused by crashing into skyscrapers and other large buildings. Even baby sea turtles are impacted by light pollution—they become confused by the excessive glare at night and are unable to find their way to the ocean.

Besides the direct health and environmental impacts, the problem of light pollution must be remedied simply for the fact that it eliminates one of nature’s greatest beauties: the night sky. If one tries to look up at the night sky in the middle of a city, it is impossible to experience the soulful sense of loneliness that comes with being faced with an endless starry darkness. To be overcome by the sensation that one is so small in the vastness of the universe is poetic and inspiring. It is a wondrously liberating feeling that none should be deprived of. In most large cities, artificial lighting’s encroachment upon the night sky has already taken its toll—the stars are virtually invisible amidst the glare of gaudy neon and fluorescent lights.

The International Dark Sky Association, an organization that advocates the elimination of light pollution, has proposed multiple solutions to remedy the problems caused by light pollution. These include using timers and sensors on public buildings to reduce unnecessary light usage and changing the manner in which lighting is directed so that the rays are less intrusive.

The government should not allow light pollution’s impalpability to mask the glaring consequences excessive artificial lighting has. In the same way the problems of smog-emitting cars and industrial smokestacks have been addressed, light pollution must be brought to the forefront of the government’s efforts to go green.


Discussion
 Post your own thoughts and comments.
True but trivial

I agree with you that light pollution is annoying and seeing the Milky Way is awe-inspiring, but light pollution does not have "glaring consequences" and you must choose your battles.
Energy companies produce the same amount of energy night and day, so until that wasteful system changes, reducing light pollution will not curb greenhouse gas emissions. Our health is effected as much from eating a hamburger as from months of light pollution, neither of which are particularly healthy but both are reasonable in moderation. If light pollution seems like this much of an issue, move to the countryside.
Light pollution should not "be brought to the forefront of the government's efforts to go green," but what should be is our food systems (which account for at least a third of all greenhouse gas emissions).


Add to the discussion
Your name
Email (not displayed)
Subject

Note: Comments will be reviewed before appearing on the site.