Light pollution is key 'bringer of insect apocalypse'
theguardian.com
theguardian.com
Why I am skeptical: There are many places where there is no light, especially in the countryside or in the forest. Lights have been with us 60+ years, and the insect apocalypse has only been observed in past 20. There is also apocalypse of other species, such as earthworms, also caused by lights?
Well it would be a "key factor" among 5 of them at least, according to the authors.
There are fewer places than you think with no light. I remember watching many moth's flying around street lights and my porch light. Haven't seen that for years now.
I live about 10-15 miles from the nearest decent-sized town, and I've seen this change. Tons of people moving into these areas, and the first thing they do is install (or pay the electric coop to install) outdoor lighting. As per one of the other posters, it's almost always that obnoxious 6000K+ color lighting that's blue-white enough to hurt your eyes. And I used to whine about the sodium lamps...
My state has light pollution laws under the Dark Skies Act. Good luck getting it enforced since most of the astronomers who lived here have either moved or died.
Bright outdoor lights used to be expensive, and installing/running them unnecessarily would have a significant impact on power bills. Not any more.
(That said, the "insect apocalypse" began long before LEDs were a thing...)
This is exactly it. Leaving half a dozen LEDs on all night long is far cheaper than doing the same with traditional lighting. Then you have those stupid strings of warm white LEDs that I assume are intended to look like candles and are apparently all the rage right now. To say nothing of the couple of houses across the valley that have motion lights--at the end of their driveway--activated either by a brisk breeze or errant skunk.
What worries me isn't so much whether light pollution is contributing to mass insect deaths (that seems debatable); it's that light pollution is getting so much worse that appreciating the night sky is going to become increasingly harder for more and more of the population.
GP has a good point, insect can evolve very quickly. And it is probably much easier evolutionary to adapt to light pollution (it's a software change, after all) than to insecticide (which affects cell chemistry) or complete change in habitat due to its destruction or climate change.
Less light might be more accurate. Even out in the middle of nowhere the horizon can be quite noticeably illuminated by far-off settlements. And the countryside itself can be just as bad for light pollution. It's kind of funny, I was just having a conversation about the local grain elevator's excessive use of lights. It is in the countryside, but appears as bright as a small city.
Speaking of grain elevators, agricultural cropping is often blamed for insect decline. I see several comments stating that even within this discussion. Yet only 10% of the earth is arable. 90% of the earth is untouched in that way. I'm not entirely sure that "the insects can thrive somewhere else" is a tenable argument.
I don’t know the numbers but my guess that 90% is mostly unsuitable to insects in the first place. Also the problem is that in a lot of western countries the countryside that could host insects is mostly agricultural land. Try looking at the number of wild flowers you see in the country (spoiler: it’s depressing, because wild prairies are becoming very rare).
Although I'm not sure I entirely agree with your premise. As a Canadian, the lands on the Canadian Shield (a rock formation that spans across most of Canada's north) are famous for their dense insect population. The rock does not make agriculture viable there at all, but it is a great place to be an insect.
The nearest place on land where darksitefinder[1] shows grey (not even black) is across the continent from me, >1000 kilometers in any direction. There are some blue (medium) spots in France and northern Germany (320km in opposing directions) but that's it. I've visited the one in mid-France once and had the fortune of having a clear sky. My lifetime falling star count went from zero to "I lost count at some point" in about an hour and a half. The milky way looks absolutely amazing from there. On the horizon, lights were still visible from a nearby town though. I don't think I've ever seen real darkness outside.
Whenever I go on holiday, I'm actively looking for ways to get back to a blue spot, let alone a grey one. Maybe I should rent a seaworthy boat at some point and go overnight (not sure how much preparation that would take, I've only heard of sea dangers from fiction, no clue if an inexperienced person can just do that with a decent rental boat these days).
Anyway, the point of the reply: I'm not sure that the darkness required for insect life is the same as "I can't see a bright, direct light source right now".
[1] http://darksitefinder.com/maps/world.html#6/48.487/9.646
From my experience living in the Caribbeans, you shouldn't do that alone or inexperienced to begin with, I'd recommend hiring a skipper to take you and a few friends for a couple days, and mention you want to ride by night to see the stars. Prefer a moonless night, or close enough.
I truly realized what the galaxy was, sailing at night. It's a sight that you never forget indeed. Whenever I think of times before the modern era, when everyone could see that at night... so many stars, such wonder just above... kinda makes you glimpse at a very different perspective. Maybe more 'magical', less about us people and animals and more about the cosmos in its entirety... I don't know. It's humbling and inspiring. These glorious first sights of our galaxy stayed with me to this day, some 25 years later.
> The nearest place on land where darksitefinder shows grey (not even black) is across the continent from me, >1000 kilometers in any direction.
The only places in the universe where there really is no light may be the interiors of planets/asteroids.
+ Street lights used to be low power sodium, and 2 in 3 were turned off around midnight (in a major city). Villages might get 4 or 5 street lights only, near junctions, again often only on partial duty. There might be one or two running 24/7 by the village green, junction and bus stop. Being deep amber, and pretty dim, they kept your vision in night mode pretty effectively than the current crop of daylight lamps -- no idea if insects would get the same effect from lamp colour.
+ After 3 or 4 rounds of lighting upgrades my semi-rural residential street now has street lighting more suited to a major highway. I'm not joking. In 1980 on a taller pole, they'd have suited the M1. No lights are turned off any more, ever. The major highways used to only illuminate the congested bits and around complex junctions. Unlit sections have become more and more uncommon - they used to be the vast majority of motorway miles.
+ Many retailers, business parks, car parks, warehouse and whatnot have floodlighting permanently in the hours of darkness, whether in working hours or not. Most businesses have illuminated signs and gimmicks running 24/7. In 1980 a flat painted or printed sign, with a light or three for when the street lights turned on was most common. Turned off when the business closes for the day, maybe leave a dim bulb in the window or in premises for visual and security.
+ None of the 500w halogen PIR floodlights (and LED equivalents) common in many drives and garages try to limit spread, or upward light pollution. In 1980 you used the headlights to put the car in the garage, then turned on a 40 or 60w lamp if need be to open the house door. No one had two dozen gimmicky super-bright solar LEDs scattered around the lawn and drive.
+ Buildings wouldn't include lighting as part of the design, or use floodlighting unless a major national monument or of great historical significance. Now every ratty lawyer office, takeaway and hotel wants to light up their building through the night. New buildings come with LED colours as a bloody feature.
If you want actual darkness (that few actually experience any more), or need of taking a torch walking the dog, or see stars properly, you need to get miles away from the nearest road and human.
Are there any interesting innovations out there addressing this? Like motion strengthened* street lights? I would be tickled pink to have a Navi-esque drone lighting up my way when I need it rather than having everything lit all the time.
*edited from "activated"
The innovation is living in the countryside on your own land or vacationing in those areas. Being away from people and their lights is a privilege, especially when lights improve safety.
Selective darkness is certainly a luxury, but there's no reason we can't innovate away our currently clumsy solutions.
I would think, that as a species we'd all recognize the color temperature of a nice campfire to be comforting and likeable, but I'm honestly surprised some people like these 6000K+ LEDs.
You also need to consider outdoor lighting such as sodium vapor lamps have much lower colour temperatures of around 1700K, where as off-the-shelf LED bulbs only go as low as 2500K.
I adore sodium vapor lamps. I realize they aren't as "bright" at night, and some people prefer that (largely for safety), but the old lights aren't just romantic - they're less offensive to our senses. They aren't nearly as distracting or, quite frankly, ugly. I feel like modern LED lights are ruining entire cities with their blue glow.
My dream would be to have some type of consumer version of them, I would love to put them in my exterior lights, but that doesn't really seem to be a thing....
There are reasons to use low temperature lamps, but aesthetics is not one of them.
I remember one evening where friends didn't get the point of f.lux, until we switched it off as a demonstration, and they went "aargh, put it back! Put it back!"
Not having it on my phone actually led me to buying $1 orange goggles, and eventually a newer phone with a real blue light filter.
Also, do you find sunsets aesthetic? Twilight is the natural blue light filter.
LED and CFL screw-in bulbs for household lighting come in a variety of color temperatures, but people usually go for 2700K-3000K. It does seem to me that people prefer warmer light for many applications.
My preference for always-on outdoor lighting is none, followed by dim, warm, and shrouded.
Maybe it's cultural but I generally like those sort of lights at night. If it bothers me at home, I just close the curtains.
I have to assume I'm in the minority though, as nowhere I've lived has moved to reduce street lighting. I know a couple places that have; the town my mother lives in has banned most always-on outdoor lighting, and another relative's town has removed street lights from some neighborhoods. I think both towns have considerably above-average rates of environmental activism.
If, however it's just a few people an hour, perhaps they should bring flashlights.
But I reckon having it be full moon all the time would cause problems of its own. I have difficulty sleeping when the moon is full, I'm full of energy.
I read this is because of an energy boost (moon and mania share the same root) for hunting, that humans used to hunt in the moonlight.
As far as I know, it's now one of the darkest places of Paris, I hope it's on purpose.
One way to ensure security for pedestrians with lowest consumption, is the “light carpet”. Only the feet are enlighted, with low spotlights. Consumes little, lets you see where you walk, but in case of theft, doesn’t allow you to see the criminal’s face. I don’t know whether this is what they chose for Place de la Nation.
That's highly debatable (sure, it may feel safer): https://www.darksky.org/light-pollution/lighting-crime-and-s...
In any case, I don't there is much point in keeping the lights on throughout the entire night, but it might be beneficial to (especially during winter months at higher latitudes) light busy areas in cities for part of the evening.
His window just happened to be at the darkest part on the street where shady business could be done in the shadows. Drug deals, prostitution, etc. He'd overhear all of it because of the lack of light on the street by his window.
I don't remember exactly what the solution was but it involved getting the area lighted somehow.
Surely it didn't prevent the crimes from happening, just relocating it elsewhere.
But that's the point. As long as the paths people stick to at night are well-lit, they can avoid the dark shadows where crime is more likely occurring. If you leave entire blocks darkened, you make those blocks less safe. Stumbling upon a crime in-progress is a good way to get killed just for being a witness.
Crime is a problem indeed, but I still feel like adding more lighting in hopes of solving this is not really the solution, and like you say, just moving the problem around.
I think lighting very busy areas (think railway stations, main streets in cities) is a good idea in general, but how many areas are really busy at night? And most people aren't outside in the middle of the night or early morning, so most lights could probably be shutdown after the evening is over?
Source: http://darksitefinder.com/maps/world.html#6/48.093/6.416 (Paris/London/etc. has the white level; other cities like Brussels, The Hague or Milan only get to grey).
I spend october-april in a city. I very rarely see any animals at all here, including insects. (Sometimes we get confused rabbits here.)
I spend april-october in a house in the countryside. There's so little light-pollution that I've considered buying one of those fancy motorized telescopes.
I get lots of insects there, including lots of beautiful butterflies.
To completely change the subject: With very dark skies, a non-motorize dobsonian would be a better choice. For the price, you'll get a larger aperture scope which will provide better views. And the dark skies make it easy to star hop to find what you want to see.
From my house near Louisville, KY, it's too difficult to see a lot of stars, making a "goto" scope much more useful. I simply can't find the stars to hop to visually even though I have a really good idea where they are.
Which industry does have an immense and known responsibility for insect deaths? Maybe the industry producing insecticides that are hugely profitable but at risk of global bans?
I'd not at all be surprised if this is an elaborate way to sow legal doubt on the anti-insecticide / organic agriculture efforts.
A thought experiment (since we lack hard data) Step A) eliminate all neonicotinoid and systemic plant pesticides
Step B) eliminate all light pollution
What happens to insect populations with either step?
I'd bet that A would do much more to restore the populations.
Any other bets, or better yet, some hard data?
Can they? Most white LEDs emit blue light into a phosphor. You are always going to end up with a definite blue spike in the spectrum.
Good luck finding them in products though.