I do not think we need a strong global agreement to reduce light pollution, at least for now. Light pollution is an important issue, but its causes and conditions differ by country depending on urban …Read MoreI do not think we need a strong global agreement to reduce light pollution, at least for now. Light pollution is an important issue, but its causes and conditions differ by country depending on urban density, industrial structure, and energy usage. Some countries rely heavily on nighttime economic activity, while others already regulate lighting as part of environmental policy. Because of these differences, creating a unified global standard is unrealistic. However, it is still meaningful to share information and promote voluntary cooperation, since excessive lighting harms ecosystems and limits scientific observation. In that sense, broad international guidelines could be helpful, but strict global rules would not fit the diverse conditions of each country.Read Less
I would like there to be a global agreement on reducing light pollution to preserve night skies because that is something that humanity is missing out on as the years go on. But that may be hard as …Read MoreI would like there to be a global agreement on reducing light pollution to preserve night skies because that is something that humanity is missing out on as the years go on. But that may be hard as not all countries will be able to abide to the same guidelines like those that have a lot of tourism or heavy industrial activity.Read Less
No. From practical standpoint, the very premise of threatinglight pollution as a global enviromental crisis is questionable. Artificial lighting in densely populated urban areas in not an aviodable …Read MoreNo. From practical standpoint, the very premise of threatinglight pollution as a global enviromental crisis is questionable. Artificial lighting in densely populated urban areas in not an aviodable externality but a direct consequence of essential social and economic needs, in other words, nighttime commerce, transportation, public safety and 24-hour infrastructure operations. In morden cities, large populations engage in evening activities, shift work, and night- time mobility, all of which require stable and reliable illumination. Excepting governments to significantly limit urban lighting overlooks the realities of crime prevention, emergency response, and economic productivity. Furthermore, a global treaty aimed at reducing light pollution would impose standards that are fundamentally incompatuable with the operational demands of high-density urban regions. CIties cannot feasibly dim or restrict lighting without comproming safety and disrupting essential services. The problem is therefore not one of international coordination but one of urban design trade-offs the very widely among cities, cultures, and economic conditions. Local governments are already in the best position to calibrate lighting levels according to their public safety needs, climate, and energy resources. International oversight would add little value while potentially creating unrealistic expectations and compliance burdens. For these reasons, pursuing a glaobal argeement on light pollution does not align with the practical needs of modern societies and overlooks the essential role that nigttime lighting plays in maintaining urban functionality and public security.Read Less
I believe reducing light pollution could be a useful and effective way to increase well-being in densely populated areas. Many areas with intense light pollution do not allow people to view the stars …Read MoreI believe reducing light pollution could be a useful and effective way to increase well-being in densely populated areas. Many areas with intense light pollution do not allow people to view the stars and night sky, although this is understandable when looking at places like Manhattan or Chicago that require light for everyday functions of citizens. Regardless of this, other cities like Tucson, for example, have light pollution laws because of observatories in the area, allowing people to regularly view the stars. I think it is beneficial for people to see the stars and the vastness of the night sky, especially in dense cities, because it disconnects people from their everyday life and forces them to reckon with the reality of life on Earth. This precedent, which could increase social harmony and well-being, has not been extensively studied, although there is a BBC study correlating viewing the night sky to increased mental health outcomes amongst people. While I do not think cities that need expansive light fixture systems should drastically change, especially through legislation, I believe that if more people could regularly view stars, just like spending time in nature, there would be significant social and mental health benefits.Read Less
I do not think we need a strong global agreement to reduce light pollution, at least for now. Light pollution is an important issue, but its causes and conditions differ by country depending on urban …Read MoreI do not think we need a strong global agreement to reduce light pollution, at least for now. Light pollution is an important issue, but its causes and conditions differ by country depending on urban density, industrial structure, and energy usage. Some countries rely heavily on nighttime economic activity, while others already regulate lighting as part of environmental policy. Because of these differences, creating a unified global standard is unrealistic. However, it is still meaningful to share information and promote voluntary cooperation, since excessive lighting harms ecosystems and limits scientific observation. In that sense, broad international guidelines could be helpful, but strict global rules would not fit the diverse conditions of each country. Read Less
I would like there to be a global agreement on reducing light pollution to preserve night skies because that is something that humanity is missing out on as the years go on. But that may be hard as …Read MoreI would like there to be a global agreement on reducing light pollution to preserve night skies because that is something that humanity is missing out on as the years go on. But that may be hard as not all countries will be able to abide to the same guidelines like those that have a lot of tourism or heavy industrial activity. Read Less
No. From practical standpoint, the very premise of threatinglight pollution as a global enviromental crisis is questionable. Artificial lighting in densely populated urban areas in not an aviodable …Read MoreNo. From practical standpoint, the very premise of threatinglight pollution as a global enviromental crisis is questionable. Artificial lighting in densely populated urban areas in not an aviodable externality but a direct consequence of essential social and economic needs, in other words, nighttime commerce, transportation, public safety and 24-hour infrastructure operations. In morden cities, large populations engage in evening activities, shift work, and night- time mobility, all of which require stable and reliable illumination. Excepting governments to significantly limit urban lighting overlooks the realities of crime prevention, emergency response, and economic productivity.
Furthermore, a global treaty aimed at reducing light pollution would impose standards that are fundamentally incompatuable with the operational demands of high-density urban regions. CIties cannot feasibly dim or restrict lighting without comproming safety and disrupting essential services. The problem is therefore not one of international coordination but one of urban design trade-offs the very widely among cities, cultures, and economic conditions. Local governments are already in the best position to calibrate lighting levels according to their public safety needs, climate, and energy resources. International oversight would add little value while potentially creating unrealistic expectations and compliance burdens.
For these reasons, pursuing a glaobal argeement on light pollution does not align with the practical needs of modern societies and overlooks the essential role that nigttime lighting plays in maintaining urban functionality and public security. Read Less
I believe reducing light pollution could be a useful and effective way to increase well-being in densely populated areas. Many areas with intense light pollution do not allow people to view the stars …Read MoreI believe reducing light pollution could be a useful and effective way to increase well-being in densely populated areas. Many areas with intense light pollution do not allow people to view the stars and night sky, although this is understandable when looking at places like Manhattan or Chicago that require light for everyday functions of citizens. Regardless of this, other cities like Tucson, for example, have light pollution laws because of observatories in the area, allowing people to regularly view the stars. I think it is beneficial for people to see the stars and the vastness of the night sky, especially in dense cities, because it disconnects people from their everyday life and forces them to reckon with the reality of life on Earth. This precedent, which could increase social harmony and well-being, has not been extensively studied, although there is a BBC study correlating viewing the night sky to increased mental health outcomes amongst people. While I do not think cities that need expansive light fixture systems should drastically change, especially through legislation, I believe that if more people could regularly view stars, just like spending time in nature, there would be significant social and mental health benefits. Read Less