Editorial: Time to act on light pollution

It is a pattern that we see all too often: a problem is flagged; we see countries around us tackling it; we discuss best practice; we issue guidelines; we ignore them.

Over five years ago, the Environment and Resources Authority (ERA) and the Planning Authority drafted guidelines aimed at reducing light pollution, which were never implemented.

The result: Malta is now among the countries most affected by light pollution… and it is getting worse, according to astrophysicist Joseph Caruana.

While other countries are implementing policies based on hard science and research, why are we digging our head in the sand and ignoring reality?

The number of comments posted on social media about the story indicates that this is not a frivolous appeal, but one that resonates with quite a few people and entities out there.

First of all, it is not a call for a return to the past: Caruana is not calling for no lighting but for better designed lighting, which does what it is supposed to do.

And no, reducing poor lighting does not result in an increase in crime or traffic accidents.

Caruana also constructively pointed out examples of best practice: street lights that illuminate the area they are meant to; the town in Arizona where light pollution is controlled to the extent that you can see the Milky Way.

And he also explained how we can reduce light pollution, from dimming or turning off unnecessary lights (think billboards, showrooms and monuments) at night, to warmer lights instead of the prevalent blue-white ones.

He made a fairly damning statement: policymakers do not appreciate the importance of light pollution, giving examples of everything from glare to light trespassing, and from wildlife to the quality of our sleep.

Light is perhaps the least appreciated forms of pollution: there are campaigns to reduce noise and plastic, for example, but only a few voices calling out for light to be better designed.

How strange that we talk about sustainability and yet do not stop to count the cost of powering all these unnecessary lights! Do we think that investing in less energy-consuming LED lights exonerates us? Do the lower running costs mean we assume that we can light up the darkness even more?

Caruana gives many examples of its negative impact, including that on biodiversity.

However, these are very often overlooked by policymakers – unless there are aspects that could have an impact on popular support – a sad reflection on our policymakers but none the less one that is becoming more obvious with the reactions to each protest.

But what will make policymakers sit up and pay attention? They may scoff at the idea that we can no longer see the stars, but surely they have to sit up and take notice when the issue is health?

Light pollution affects the production of melatonin in the body which tells us it is time to sleep – and without good and sufficient sleep, there is a litany of repercussions, from depression and diabetes to heart disease and cancer.

The comprehensive ERA and Planning Authority consultation document states: “Properly designed lighting is not only beneficial to the community in terms of considerable savings in energy consumption and reduction in the carbon footprint but also to the benefit of human health and safety and enjoyment of the natural nightscape. Moreover, it minimises disturbances to wildlife and ecosystems.”

The document lays out all the changes that need to be made. It is time to dust it off and do something about it.