Policies to protect dark skies

How can responsible light use be put into practice? Chris Smith spoke with Martin Morgan-Taylor, associate law professor at De Montfort University and expert on light pollution legislation...

Martin - Well, this is a good one. Really what we need to do is we need to make sure that people, ordinary members of the public, can see that there is a problem that affects them in their day-to-day life, something that matters to them. And also, that we can see that regulators can see that it's an issue that's actually worth regulating. And the two are intertwined because regulators won't act if they believe that the public don't see it as something that's a vote winner. So really what you've been showing here is great because you've been showing that light pollution is not just about the loss of the night sky, and that's how it's traditionally been couched in terms. Really what we're seeing is it's something that can harm human health, it's something that can harm animal health, it can also even disturb plant life, but it can also amount to a waste of electricity. And the waste of electricity is produced from fossil fuels, which is a waste of carbon emissions. And really what we could do with is further research that really pinpoints where lighting really makes a difference? Now there's been some research that's been done, but I think what we need to do is to drill down and get this in further granularity, because today people are frightened of knife crime.

Chris - You are a legal expert, do we have a sort of threshold or are we at risk here because we have no case or it's hard to build a case because we're saying, well, we don't know where the line is. What's light pollution? How bright does something have to be before we consider it is causing light pollution? Or is it just a subjective thing where a person says, well, that's disrupting my sleep? Is that not part of the difficulty here that we haven't got a set of standards that people agree on what is light pollution. That's not, that's not all right, that is.

Martin - Yeah. I'd certainly say that light pollution is the sum of all of the negative effects that can be caused by light at night. Now you're right because there's several ways that you can go about this. Really it's a combination of all of what I'm about to say which I think would actually work quite nicely. We need to be proactive and preventative. We need to try and stop as much of the problem arising in the first place. So in other words, stopping the sales of a great amount of poor lighting or lighting that's often misused. So very bright consumer domestic flood lighting, so-called security lighting, is a good example because there's no research study that says that it actually deters criminals. So all people are probably doing is wasting their own electricity bill and potentially disturbing the sleep of neighbours or the ecology or the loss of the night sky. So trying to stop things in the first place is a good place to begin. And then if you're trying to deal with a problem once it's arisen, really you need enforcement bodies to see that light pollution is something that's genuine. And if you've got a set of metrics, in other words, a table that says this amount of light is okay, but that isn't, now there are some guidance documents here that will give tables for lighting. So again, that helps. But really what we need is public understanding. Light, yes, it can be a great help for us. But really the more the light, the better is a bit of a myth. Lighting to a level is helpful rather than lighting over and above that. And it's also making sure that the light goes where it's needed, where it's intended. So if we've got regulation to make sure that light is shielded to stop it from shining into the night sky, it's like having half of your radiators sticking out of your windows when you're trying to keep your house warm in winter?

Chris - Martin, can I ask you, are there any countries which are doing this particularly well or better than we are so that we can look at what they're doing and what seems to work? Is it just down to public policy and what the public think and making a health issue to get people interested? Or are there other ways to make this happen?

Martin - France is a really good example. They've had some fresh legislation that just came in a few years ago, and really it's couched in terms of trying to save energy and also to help the environment. But certainly to actually help people with the money in their pockets. So what we have got is curfews. So this is really simple and straightforward to enforce. Lights need to go off after a certain time at night. So this is internal as well as external lights, because so many times we see skyscrapers, we see office blocks with all of the lights on all night long. And you think, I mean, really why? So what you have got is a rule that certain lighting, most lights, need to go off after a certain time. And then we've got controls over blue lighting, which is trying to limit the problem of blue light at night. We've also got controls of sky beams, bright advertising lights and things of this nature. So if you've got a regulatory system that's trying to stop bad lighting going up in the first place, to have relatively straightforward principles such as curfews - the light is on or it's off, it's pretty straightforward, you don't need a light metre to see whether or not it's over and above the level of light that's permitted - but then there are other countries such as Korea, which have got metrics where you've got a table that really is where you are allowed this much light, but you're not allowed more than that.. You do need a light metre, but then that's trying to limit things to particular set standards. Whatever method you use, you're going to need the buy-in of the members of the public and also the enforcement bodies.

Chris - Will market forces to an extent ride to our rescue on this one because I think with the cost of living crisis, there's a big drive now to endow houses with smart metering. People are very energy conscious about the climate as well at the moment. Will all this perhaps come together and motivate people to think, well hang on, that's energy. If I cut those lights down, this will help. Because we've got an enormous housing stock with lots of old fashioned architecture and old fashioned specifications and we are in the dark ages with our insulation and so on. It's going to take years for all that to catch up. Are we not at risk if we start saying, well, we'll legislate, but it doesn't apply to older properties? It's going to take a hundred years before we're up to date.

Martin - Yeah, it's a difficult one. Certainly your first point there about market forces, if you actually get your customers, your public, your business to recognise that overlighting is just a waste of energy, it's a waste of carbon emissions, it's bad for the environment, it's bad for everything, then you're going to end up with a reduced demand for that particular type of lighting. So that's good, but yet you still then will have the existing lighting stock that's in place. But I think it's probably going to be unfortunately necessary that people are allowed to phase out old light types. We need consumers to realise that lighting and energy saving is all part of the same thing and external lighting is still part of this energy saving.