Re: And not a WORD about fighting light pollution in this....
- From: brian@xxxxxxx (Brian Tung)
- Date: Fri, 30 Jun 2006 09:37:25 -0700 (PDT)
Doug Kniffen wrote:
Not catalytic converters, fuel efficiency.
That doesn't follow, either. People are driving SUVs more than they
used to; that obviously has nothing to do with their fuel efficiency.
There are more cars on the road because there are more people to drive
them; that's the first order explanation. Everything else is just
gravy. Driving demand is remarkably inelastic.
Of course, but it's hard to argue that more light for the same cost
won't simply result in more light.
But I don't have to argue that. It's a definite effect you're
claiming, so the burden is on you to demonstrate that there's a cause
and effect relation there, not on me to demonstrate there isn't. I'm
simply pointing out that your proffered argument is a post hoc ergo
propter hoc fallacy.
Moreover, the effect of the efficiency isn't just to reduce cost. As
far as I can tell, full cutoff lights cost somewhat less than ordinary
lights, but they send far less of their light upward than ordinary
lights. So even if people buy more lights because they cost less, the
overall amount of light being sent up should decrease, not increase.
Glare may increase, but it's easier to move away from glare than it is
from diffuse light pollution.
There are signs that the trend is reversing somewhat, but it will likely
never return to a state that we're happy with.
Haven't seen any reversal around here.
Too bad. Around here, people are using more shielded lights and the
effect as seen from a plane is quite obvious. The glow from the ground
is less than it was just 10 years ago.
Frankly, I don't see how public recognition of that will help.
Because it affects our senses, light is like sound. Brighter lights are
like louder noises, you can not ignore either. It is widely recognized
that people shouldn't disturb others aurally, visual disturbances are
no different. The problem just hasn't been around as long.
I think light and sound are just qualitatively different. As long as
the light isn't so bright that you can't get away from it when you enter
your home (where most people will probably have their own lights on), it
just isn't the same as being around a lot of (say) traffic noise or
construction noise.
There
are ways to attract equal attention that are more efficient than what's
being done now.
Like?
Like illuminating billboards from above, rather than from below. It's
just harder than doing it from below.
--
Brian Tung <brian@xxxxxxx>
The Astronomy Corner at http://astro.isi.edu/
Unofficial C5+ Home Page at http://astro.isi.edu/c5plus/
The PleiadAtlas Home Page at http://astro.isi.edu/pleiadatlas/
My Own Personal FAQ (SAA) at http://astro.isi.edu/reference/faq.html
.
- Follow-Ups:
- References:
- Prev by Date: Re: Magnification needed to split tight doubles
- Next by Date: Re: Coloured objects list?
- Previous by thread: Re: And not a WORD about fighting light pollution in this....
- Next by thread: Re: And not a WORD about fighting light pollution in this....
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
