A 'new deal for the night' needed:
Increasing levels of light pollution means Earth's surface has almost no practical locations for astronomical observatories, a group of astronomers said on Monday.
Artificial light emitted from buildings, streetlights, and reflected from satellite constellations are making the night sky brighter for earth-bound skywatchers. The Milky Way was visible to pretty much everyone less than 100 years ago, but is now drowned out by human-made light to most, according to the International Dark Sky Association.
[...] "Today, due to the rise of light pollution, there are almost no more remote places available on Earth that simultaneously meet all the characteristics needed to install an observatory (namely, the absence of light pollution, a high number of clear nights, and good seeing)," a team of astronomers said in Nature Astronomy.
The authors urged astronomers, companies, politicians, and lawmakers around the world to work together to reach a global agreement to limit artificial light. Light pollution should be treated in the same way that other types of pollutants, like greenhouse gases, they argued. Governments around the world should and can tackle light pollution in the same ways they address climate change: with international treaties and goals to restrict levels of other pollutants.
[...] "As it is not too late to stop this, we as scientists and first as citizens should act to stop this attack, from above with satellites and from below with [artificial light at night], on the natural night and on the intangible cultural heritage of humankind's starry skies," they concluded.
"Now is the time to consider the prohibition of mega-constellations and to promote a significant reduction in [artificial light at night] and the consequent light pollution. Our world definitely needs a 'new deal' for the night."
Journal Reference:
Falchi, F., Bará, S., Cinzano, P. et al. A call for scientists to halt the spoiling of the night sky with artificial light and satellites [open]. Nat Astron 7, 237–239 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41550-022-01864-z
(Score: 5, Insightful) by bradley13 on Sunday March 26 2023, @05:50AM (1 child)
The solution to light pollution is relatively simple and even painless: Building regulations.
Any new or replaced light source is only allowed to illuminate its actual target.
For example, lights must shine on the street. The LEDs must not be directly visible from anywhere else. Another example: Our neighbors' new porch light - a 360 degree milky dome that lights up the world, would be illegal.
Almost zero cost. Ought to be easy, if politicians could be made to care.
Everyone is somebody else's weirdo.
(Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 27 2023, @12:36AM
Politicians just want to be reelected. You gotta make the voters care
(Score: 2, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 26 2023, @06:27AM (26 children)
Hi Musky horses, let's consider closing the barn door.
(Score: 2, Flamebait) by khallow on Sunday March 26 2023, @08:53AM (25 children)
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Ingar on Sunday March 26 2023, @10:22AM (13 children)
The night sky has inspired mankind for ages, this inspiration is being stolen from us. Not to mention the detrimental effect on the sleep-wake cycle, and the incredible waste of electricity. And while the classic light bulbs can be somewhat filtered out, LED lights have this broad spectrum making it very hard to get rid of.
Global warming is already making us permanently lose the biosphere. The adults are doing a good job.
(Score: 0, Interesting) by khallow on Sunday March 26 2023, @10:34AM (11 children)
By something far more valuable.
Consider the quote I replied to:
It's not about outdoor lighting.
Can the adults prove that is happening? My take is more biosphere was lost due to habitat destruction and the massive extinction of large animals ~10k years ago.
(Score: 3, Touché) by maxwell demon on Sunday March 26 2023, @10:50AM (10 children)
That's at least debatable.
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by khallow on Sunday March 26 2023, @11:02AM (9 children)
(Score: 4, Insightful) by maxwell demon on Sunday March 26 2023, @11:30AM (8 children)
You have maid a claim, so it is your duty to give arguments for the claim.
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
(Score: 3, Funny) by inertnet on Sunday March 26 2023, @12:22PM
His maid has other duties than arguing.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by khallow on Sunday March 26 2023, @12:27PM (6 children)
Well, let's look at my claim:
Let's consider what's up there right now. The Starlink constellation is what's driving the complaint about "mega-constellations" since it's about doubled the number of satellites in space. But it's a global internet service. That's hugely valuable right there.
And then in the future, we're expecting to have a lot more than unmanned satellites in orbit. It will all be between Earth and stars. We'd be imposing arbitrary restrictions on the future of humanity possibly for centuries merely because someone wants to see stars today.
My take is that if it's valuable to you, then you can pay for it. Want dark night skies? Then pay the cost of darkening all those satellites or even the cost of not having a global internet service. You can't afford it? Then it wasn't that valuable to you.
(Score: 3, Touché) by wArlOrd on Sunday March 26 2023, @03:06PM (3 children)
Historically, like all pollution, the cost should be paid by the victims, not the perpetrators, right?
(Score: 2, Disagree) by khallow on Sunday March 26 2023, @07:10PM (2 children)
What is the harm here? Slightly elevated effort by astronomers, amateur and professional? There's just not much cost here.
(Score: 2) by Ingar on Monday March 27 2023, @09:58AM (1 child)
On saturday, I did a 2hrs astrophotography session of 4-minute exposures. The weather has been terrible past weeks, so I was glad to had a glimpse of clear sky for a while.
If those two hours, I had to throw half the pictures because of clouds/bad seeing, one because of a plane, and two because of satellite trails. All this in a an area
about the size of the moon.
The general light pollution though, is something I can not get rid of in the final stacked image (we "stack" those exposures on top of each other with software).
It's not just the pretty sky pictures though. Anyone who ever had a street light illuminating their bedroom will know how much fun that is. Plants under those lights get confused
and grow like mad (giving me extra work because I have to prune them). Birds get confused, think the sun is rising and start singing (keeping me awake).
I've had an instance where every time I turned on the light in a particular room the neighbour's rooster stars crowing (keeping me awake).
I like walks in the dark. It clears your mind.
A split second of bright light also destroys your night vision. At takes about an hour for it to return.
I propose we drop DST for a clock where 12am is exactly midnight, then you can sleep comfortably in the sun without having to be scared of the dark.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Monday March 27 2023, @07:52PM
(Score: 2) by maxwell demon on Monday March 27 2023, @05:07PM (1 child)
But is it more valuable than the night sky? Especially given that it is not the only way to get internet service.
So you think only the wishes of the rich matter?
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Monday March 27 2023, @07:45PM
Of course it is. I'll note that I have Starlink service because it is the fastest and most reliable in my rural region - than cell phone, landline, or other satellite services. I certainly consider my internet service far more valuable than you getting a few more streak-free astronomy photos. And I'll be able to transfer that service when I move around.
You are one of the rich. Rather, I think that we need more compelling evidence of great harm to impair the wishes of other people. That's not present with satellite constellations with respect to their light pollution. We'll have to see if the Kessler effect is a different story.
(Score: 2) by ChrisMaple on Monday March 27 2023, @04:23AM
LED lamps for lighting radiate over about one octave. Incandescents cover several octaves, radiating most strongly in the infrared.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 26 2023, @11:29AM (3 children)
I'd be more concerned about this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kessler_syndrome [wikipedia.org]
If that occurs it might make certain moves to the future harder.
The astronomy stuff? It's not a big problem in the long term. If humans become a space faring species then there'd be far better places to do astronomy than on Earth. But "Kessler Syndrome" might increase the costs of becoming a space faring species.
If humans don't become a space faring species or aren't interested enough then there's no point talking about long term.
(Score: 2, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 26 2023, @12:28PM (1 child)
That's a very small price to pay for allowing one to check their social media feed anywhere in the world.
(Score: 0, Troll) by khallow on Sunday March 26 2023, @01:09PM
(Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday March 26 2023, @12:30PM
It'll happen sooner or later. Might as well get enough up there to make the effort of fixing the problem worthwhile.
Doesn't seem a problem at the moment, right?
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 26 2023, @12:26PM (6 children)
That's a pretty unjustifiably defeatist and nihilistic attitude to justify letting corporations do whatever they want to do. It isn't patronizing to think that we actually can have both nice things and a nice standard of living.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by khallow on Sunday March 26 2023, @12:35PM (5 children)
My take is seeing the night sky is at best an extremely slight improvement to humanity's standard of living. Having a future in space vastly improves that same standard of living. Thus, you're calling for a large sacrifice to future standards of living for a token benefit today.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 27 2023, @02:18AM (3 children)
(Score: 0, Redundant) by khallow on Monday March 27 2023, @03:00AM (2 children)
I suppose that could be possible. But if we stop doing stuff that isn't necessary, then we probably won't have a future, much less a future in space.
(Score: 2) by maxwell demon on Monday March 27 2023, @05:10PM (1 child)
If we can't see the night sky, we might even be less likely to eventually go there.
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Monday March 27 2023, @07:31PM
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 27 2023, @08:03AM
I think we should work on terrestrial light pollution because I think there are health benefits to having an actual dark sky at night. The kilo-constellations of satellites don't bother me, it's the generalized glow over any decent sized city.
(Score: 2) by MIRV888 on Monday March 27 2023, @01:51AM (3 children)
There is no realistic way to implement global light pollution efforts. The stars in the sky are progressively vanishing.
Imagine no stars when you look up. There will be future generations that won't have to.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 27 2023, @07:59AM (1 child)
It's not future generations. It's now, in any moderately large city.
I'm very much in favour of targeting lights better, reducing wasted energy, and reducing light pollution and having a dark night sky.
But as for the arguments about the night sky inspiring people, non-astronomers and kids will look up and see more points in the sky if there are more satellites. They'll even make a game of it. Way back in the seventies and eighties when I was a kid we would watch the night sky trying to spot satellites like Skylab and the Echo series.
(Score: 3, Touché) by Ingar on Monday March 27 2023, @10:02AM
They won't see any satellites, as the general light pollution will outshine them.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 28 2023, @02:42AM
So the cities stay "polluted" but you can still easily see stars elsewhere?