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 [1]. Of those affected, almost half (50 per cent) said their sleep had been disrupted by excess artificial lighting [1]. 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 [2].
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 [3]. 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 [4][5].
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, Lancashire
“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.
Notes to Editors
1. Survey carried out using survey monkey between 11 December 2009 and 21 February 2010. The total number of respondents was 1745 although average response to any given question was 1027. Participants were sourced by voluntary referral and no subsequent demographic balancing has taken place. The full CPRE report on this survey and light pollution can be found at www.cpre.org.uk
2. In December, 2003 the Government said it would produce guidance on light pollution and planning in its response to a report on light pollution by the House of Commons Select Committee on Science and Technology published earlier that year. Full report: http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200304/cmselect/cmsctech/127/127.pdf A report published by the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution in December 2009 also recommended in section 6.7 ‘that there should be explicit consideration of light in planning policy.’ Full report: http://www.rcep.org.uk/reports/sr-2009-light/documents/RCEP_artificiallight.pdf
3. CPRE light pollution maps using US Air force satellite data, CPRE website, 2003 (at this stage, we do not have more up to date information for the period since 2000, although we hope to commission maps to fill this gap later in the year). To create our maps, we divided the pixels among five colour bands according to their brightness value. In the darkest blue band (below the value of 2), which covers the sea and the most thinly populated, remote parts of the country, the analysis is picking up virtually no artificial lights at night. In the bright red band (above 240), which overlies large parts of all of the larger towns and cities, the satellite detector is near or at the point of saturation. Although some pixels within the red area may be much brighter than others, they are all too bright for any differentiation.
4. Department of Communities and Local Government, Local Authority Revenue Expenditure and Financing England 2009-10 Budget (Revised), 22 December 2009
5. Energy Savings trust, www.energysavingtrust.org.uk, 09 April 2010
• CPRE, the Campaign to Protect Rural England, is a charity which promotes the beauty, tranquillity and diversity of rural England. We advocate positive solutions for the long-term future of the countryside. Founded in 1926, we have 60,000 supporters and a branch in every county. President: Bill Bryson. Patron: Her Majesty The Queen. www.cpre.org.uk
• The British Astronomical Association is Britain’s largest astronomical organisation, with thousands of members nation-wide. Its Campaign for Dark Skies was founded in 1989, and aims to ensure quality lighting in the UK. A well-lit environment below and a view of the starry sky above are not incompatible.
