Many left angry by skies awash with light pollution

14 April 2010

Eight out of ten people (83 per cent) taking part in a new survey by the Campaign to Protect Rural England (CPRE) published today (Thursday) have their view of the night sky affected by light pollution. Of those affected, almost half (50 per cent) said their sleep had been disrupted by excess artificial lighting. CPRE and the British Astronomical Association's Campaign for Dark Skies (CfDS) are calling on councils, businesses and individuals to take steps to cut their light pollution. We also reiterate our call for the government to introduce long awaited planning guidance to control lighting.

In recent years light pollution has become a growing problem with more and more of the UK left without a clear view of the night sky. From 1993 to 2000 light pollution in England increased by a quarter (26 per cent) and the amount of light-saturated night sky rose to 7 per cent. Councils spend a collective £532 million on street lighting each year and the lights can account for around 5-10 per cent of a council's carbon emissions.

Emma Marrington, rural policy campaigner at CPRE, said: "Light pollution is an unnecessary waste and detracts from the natural beauty of the night sky, it's understandable that it makes people angry. Comments from those who took part in our survey ranged from sadness and regret to frustration and fury.

"The costs of not acting are clear: unnecessarily high energy bills for councils, and therefore for local taxpayers, more carbon emissions, disrupted sleeping patterns for people, disturbance to wildlife, and a night sky bereft of the majesty of the Milky Way.

"The benefits of better planning to restrict unnecessary lighting and to use the right lighting for the task would be lower energy costs, reduced carbon emissions and an improvement to everyone's experience of their local environment.

"Solving this should be a no brainer. Government needs to stop dragging its feet and take action to curb the spread of light pollution, before many of us lose our experience of dark nights for good."

When asked what sources of light they thought were the most responsible for light pollution, respondents put roads at the top of the list (89 per cent), with security lights (79 per cent), sports grounds (53 per cent) and supermarkets (41 per cent) following as the next major offenders. Three quarters of people (77 per cent) also blamed older street lighting for being responsible for the ‘ugly orange glow' in the sky.

The issue sparked high levels of feeling - here are just a few comments received:

"I feel it is out of control. Lights on all night are unnecessary, a waste of public money, and contribute to global warming." Roger, Bradford

"I'm angry that we are no longer able to enjoy a dark garden or clearly see the night sky. It's like having to inhale a smoker's cigarette smoke." Maggie, Sutton Dover, Kent

"This problem could have been avoided if lighting had to be included at the planning stage and correct fittings had been installed." Marguerite, Morecambe, Lincolnshire

"How can it be socially acceptable to deliberately shine 1000's of watts into the sky? … After all we don't all turn the heating up because we can't be bothered to close the windows in winter." Tony, Surrey

The full CPRE report into light pollution is available on request from the CPRE press office.

---

Press releases, papers and documents published on this page are the intellectual property of an organisation unrelated to Central Lobby. We promote their parliamentary and political campaigning activities as they are subscribers to the Central Lobby service.

As such, Central Lobby does not edit, endorse, or attempt to balance the opinions expressed on this page. The content of press releases and other such types of content are the responsibility of the originating organisation.