Petition to regulate light pollution

[Physopto]

Signatures 6117 so up 94 on yesterday.

Views of the advert on Astro buy and sell 990 up 18.

 

35 days left only we need an average of 111 signatures per day minimum to reach the 10,000.

Derek

[mapstar]

I've been watching the petition this aft and for 3 hours the number hasn't changed? Is the site down? 

[Physopto]

Don't think so. I have been off and on all day. It just does this sometimes. Test is to get someone you know who has not signed to do so and see.

Unfortunately I don't know of any more people now.

 

[Physopto]

Have  a read of this:

http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2013/07/let-there-be-darkness-5-surprising-ways-curtail-light-pollution

So here we have Sadiq Khan trying to have 17 bridges illuminated to compete with or beat Paris????

Light pollution, CO2 emissions, damage  to health  amongst other things.....

[mapstar]

An older article but the story is exactly the same. 

Unrelated but one of the guys at work was talking about how hedgehogs are disappearing from urban areas as more and more concrete, flag, gravel and astro turf their gardens.

 

[mapstar]

Petition is moving again.

[brantuk]

I don't know how many folks did what I did - but in addition to signing the petition I also wrote the following email to my local MP Edward Agar. The post afterwards is the reply which I finally received earlier this week and have posted up for everyone's information. Please forgive any typos but he wrote me an actual letter which I had to type in:

Hi Ed

I have today signed the above government website petition to regulate light pollution.

I’m hoping this gets parliamentary attention because we as a nation spend far too much on needless lighting consuming energy unnecessarily and ultimately costing us money which could be better spent elsewhere.

I’m fine with essential lighting but there’s way too much indiscriminate lighting these days.

It also interferes with my astronomy hobby and spoils the natural feel of night time that a lot of wildlife depend on.

I do hope you will represent these feelings strongly in any way you can at a parliamentary level – especially if the petition reaches the required criteria for parliamentary debate.

Regards

Kim

[brantuk]

And his reply:

Dear Kim
Re: Light Pollution - Your correspondence.
Thank you for your correspondence which I read with care and agree with you that light can obscure the natural beauty of the night sky, as well as proving costly, so I am pleased to tell you that the Government has committed to work with industry and other bodies to reduce the negative impacts of artificial light and protect dark areas.

Ministers have continued to promote dark skies within National Parks and Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB's). The Government Circular on English National Parks and Broads encouraged their protection and restoration, and the reduction or elimination of unneccessary artificial light within parks.

On the broader point you raise, I believe there is a balance to be struck between sufficient street lighting to ensure that our roads and towns are safe for people to get aroound when it is dark, but that they are not so excessively lit as to be brightly lit when there are not so many people around. As you may be aware Leicester County Council has in recent years put in place a new policy which sees a large number of street lights switched off during certain periods of the night when they assess that very few people are out and about.

I know a large number of other councils are looking at similar approaches including, "Smart-Lights" which allow councils to turn up or down the light intensity depending on the time of night, whether people are out and about, and to vary it depending on the area. All of these approaches help to save energy and money, and to reduce light pollution. I believe there are other things that are also important, such as pressing businesses in urban areas not to leave their office blocks lit up all night.

I hope that the above is both useful to you and reassures you as to my position on this matter. Should the petition trigger a parliamentary debate, I will endeavour to attend and speak.
Thank you again for taking the time to contact me.
Edward Agar MP
(Charnwood and Leicester West).

[Physopto]

Signatures 6168 so up 51 on yesterday.

Views of the advert on Astro buy and sell 1005 up 15.

Looks like we are really slowing down now. 34 days left, so still hoping!

I sent a message to the Women's Institute yesterday but no reply as yet.

Derek

[Stu]

20 minutes ago, Physopto said:

Signatures 6168 so up 51 on yesterday.

Views of the advert on Astro buy and sell 1005 up 15.

Looks like we are really slowing down now. 34 days left, so still hoping!

I sent a message to the Women's Institute yesterday but no reply as yet.

Derek

Looks like we will need a one day cricket style slog at the end to get over the line! Fingers crossed...

[Physopto]

Signatures 6269 so up 101 on yesterday.

Views of the advert on Astro buy and sell 1011 up by 6 only?

No email replies to anything!

Derek

[Galactic Wanderer]

Nice work Ian @psamathe

http://www.skyatnightmagazine.com/forum/uk-light-pollution-petition-t128854.html

seb

[John]

I've been reading about the fate of another petition recently that managed to get 120,000 signatures. They got a stock reply from the relevent government department but did not get a debate in the HoC. Apparently it's not guaranteed 

I sometimes wonder if this mechanism was put there to let folks "let off steam" rather without any real intention that it would shape policy making

I'm wondering if there is a better way to raise the profile of the issue. Tim Peake returns from space tomorrow and will be in hot demand from the media for a while. It would be great if he could give a brief mention to the issue, relating it to public awareness of space perhaps ?, when he is interviewed.

Too much to hope for perhaps ?

[scarp15]

Good suggestion, lest hope so, Tim Peake would be the best spokesperson in terms of attracting public attention in the role of messenger with regard to this issue, would perhaps be to much to reckon that he becomes an activist in the campaign.

[gls]

apparently I've already signed it... I've posted it on facebook so hopefully I'll get a few people to sign it from there.

[Physopto]

There are so many different uncoordinated initiatives about, that very few are really listened to. They are rarely put into the public domain by the media. We are seen as "nutters" or some other derisory term. If it does not cause cancer (proven in the public eye), or something equally bad, it is of no interest. Now having said that if it was announced that each household had to pay an extra £200-300  a year to support the cost of street lighting! Then there would be some interest taken very quickly.

It does happen but is hidden in every ones normal Poll Tax and PAYE deductions. It is just not publicly put up in BRIGHT LIGHTS.

From my perspective we will have tried to inform and illuminate this issue. These petitions are looked at by governmental bodies so it may just help in the future. If you do not try then you deserve nothing.

From what I have seen on the governments web site most answers are one short sentence, nothing more. But you never know what is going on behind the scenes.

Anyway just sent off an email to Greenpeace

Derek

[Galactic Wanderer]

1 hour ago, John said:

They got a stock reply from the relevent government department but did not get a debate in the HoC. Apparently it's not guaranteed 

At 100,000 signatures, this petition will be considered for debate in Parliament

[Stub Mandrel]

1 hour ago, Galatic Wanderer said:

At 100,000 signatures, this petition will be considered for debate in Parliament

Fair enough, really - we could have ended up with a sober debate on Boaty MacBoatface... a topic of far greater concern to the man in the street!

[Stu]

Maybe if we had called it StarryMcStarSky or similar it would have got more interest.

I'm sorry to be a kill joy, but I don't think the efforts which are being put in will make any difference, even if it does reach 10,000 signatures. There are just too many other issues of more immediate importance for it to get any government time.

I'm as disappointed as anyone that it hasn't got any traction, I'm really surprised but that's the way it is. Economic arguments such as the cost savings to be made by switching off lights after midnight are more likely to have an impact I'm afraid.

[Scosmico]

2 minutes ago, Stu said:

Maybe if we had called it StarryMcStarSky or similar it would have got more interest.

I'm sorry to be a kill joy, but I don't think the efforts which are being put in will make any difference, even if it does reach 10,000 signatures. There are just too many other issues of more immediate importance for it to get any government time.

I'm as disappointed as anyone that it hasn't got any traction, I'm really surprised but that's the way it is. Economic arguments such as the cost savings to be made by switching off lights after midnight are more likely to have an impact I'm afraid.

At work, I had a chance to bring awareness to my colleagues. Wider society consciousness is reached little by little, and I am happy with all the effort so far. For sure, more people is aware to this issue now than when the petition began. 

[mapstar]

It may fall on deaf ears but it is something to refer to like all the other data that is out there. It takes a populous quite a while to realise something is amiss. A new nuclear power station on your doorstep will focus the mind better than saying those lights could be detrimental to the environment, health and the view of the heavens. But as known big things start with acorns and now other areas of the country (E.g. Lake District, North Yorkshire moors, South downs) are beginning to value the skies then things will change and this petition is just a small piece of what amateurs can contribute.

See here for more details of the work done by others and know they too are fighting our corner

http://www.nationalparks.gov.uk/visiting/enjoying-outdoors/dark-skies

[mapstar]

Here is the link to the CPRE (Campaign to Protect Rural England) maps. It encompasses the whole of England and Scotland and is the most up to date data.

http://nightblight.cpre.org.uk/maps/

[psamathe]

58 minutes ago, Stu said:

...

I'm sorry to be a kill joy, but I don't think the efforts which are being put in will make any difference, even if it does reach 10,000 signatures. There are just too many other issues of more immediate importance for it to get any government time.

...

The thresholds are 10,000 for a response, 100,000 for being considered for debate.  And any 10,000 response will be along the lines of "The Government is concerned about all forms of pollution and the impacts on life and health.  The Government monitors the situation with a view to maintaining a balance between different needs of different sectors of the community. ...".

But to me a dismissive response does not mean nothing has been achieved.  It highlights the issue as having enough concerned people to hit a threshold, it raises the issue in the minds of those tasked with responding, etc.  So next time there will be more of a "people really are concerned" and the time after that "maybe we should start listening" and eventually "ok, this is not going away and has a lot of interest so time to act".

It is a long ongoing issue.  We are never going to get a "ok, turn off all outdoor lights after 22:00".  But we might gradually get politicians erring to less lighting, turning existing lighting off sooner, looking more closely at lighting for new developments (our eyes are more than adequate to manage with far less light than we seem to flood out towns and cities with), etc.

Small steps in the right direction.  But do nothing and we risk having big steps in the wrong direction.

Ian

[Stu]

21 minutes ago, psamathe said:

The thresholds are 10,000 for a response, 100,000 for being considered for debate.  And any 10,000 response will be along the lines of "The Government is concerned about all forms of pollution and the impacts on life and health.  The Government monitors the situation with a view to maintaining a balance between different needs of different sectors of the community. ...".

But to me a dismissive response does not mean nothing has been achieved.  It highlights the issue as having enough concerned people to hit a threshold, it raises the issue in the minds of those tasked with responding, etc.  So next time there will be more of a "people really are concerned" and the time after that "maybe we should start listening" and eventually "ok, this is not going away and has a lot of interest so time to act".

It is a long ongoing issue.  We are never going to get a "ok, turn off all outdoor lights after 22:00".  But we might gradually get politicians erring to less lighting, turning existing lighting off sooner, looking more closely at lighting for new developments (our eyes are more than adequate to manage with far less light than we seem to flood out towns and cities with), etc.

Small steps in the right direction.  But do nothing and we risk having big steps in the wrong direction.

Ian

Ian, I totally agree. My comments were aimed at this particular petition, not the overall objective.

What is frustrating to me is that most people I speak to have an appreciation of the wonders of a dark sky, and I'm sure would be sympathetic to this type of petition. Either it is phrased in an unappealing way, or is not reaching sufficient numbers although I find that hard to believe given everyone's efforts ie I'm sure we have reached more than 10,000 people.

There is also possibly petition fatigue, there are so many issues taking up people's attention that it may just get lost in the noise.

Building public awareness in a slow but positive manner is, as you say, the best route to success I think. Perhaps when this one is done, we can all take stock and ask a few questions of people we know to see what would make them respond?

[psamathe]

12 minutes ago, Stu said:

Ian, I totally agree. My comments were aimed at this particular petition, not the overall objective.

What is frustrating to me is that most people I speak to have an appreciation of the wonders of a dark sky, and I'm sure would be sympathetic to this type of petition. Either it is phrased in an unappealing way, or is not reaching sufficient numbers although I find that hard to believe given everyone's efforts ie I'm sure we have reached more than 10,000 people.

There is also possibly petition fatigue, there are so many issues taking up people's attention that it may just get lost in the noise.

Building public awareness in a slow but positive manner is, as you say, the best route to success I think. Perhaps when this one is done, we can all take stock and ask a few questions of people we know to see what would make them respond?

From that a thought is that collaborative efforts are often far better than one person pursuing their own priorities.  So maybe once this petition has completed and after the summer this forum could collaboratively come up with wording for a new petition for the autumn.  Not only focusing on seeing the night sky, but also e.g. the cost of street lighting, the damage to wildlife, the damage to health, etc. (i.e. broadened).  I recon for most astronomers, mention light pollution is enough - no need to start describing the impacts on loss of night sky.  It's everybody else (most of whom are not concerned about e.g. the Milky Way but are about other aspects) that we'd need to appeal to.

And maybe before submitting it, send drafts to various interested organisations (CPRE, Campaign for Dark Skies, Conservation groups, etc.) to get the wording such that they feel they could actively pursue the petition.

Just a thought and need to recognise that no wording would be be 100% for everybody.  But maybe getting the interested organisations involved before submitting the petition would make it easier for them to help more ?

And to get wording sorted, to do the research (e.g. to get the facts on e.g. health impacts sorted) would take time, particularly as most here would be focusing on "seeing the night sky" but to get broader audiences we'd need to focus on cost, health, etc.

Ian