||| FROM JOSEPH FRANETIC |||
When I first moved to San Juan Island, most areas on the island the night skies were black and the stars were bright. Now every year I see more and more lights that burn all night, creating sky glow that dims the stars and planets.
But this time of year there is a more important reason to keep the skies dark, bird migration. Last night, over 6 million birds flew over Washington State on their fall migration. Most migrating birds fly in the night sky and are vulnerable to a host of conditions, and a big one of these is exhaustion due to disorienting light in the night sky. Birds will waste large amounts of needed energy from night lights flying around and calling out in confusion on their long journeys.
There are ways you can help birds along their migration paths. All outside lights should be motion sensor lights or on a timer, there is no reason for them to burn bright all night. Use down-shield exterior lighting to eliminate horizontal glare and pull down window shades at night. Even the town of Friday Harbor and the airport can use the new lighting technology to eliminate sky glow and keep our skies dark.
Let’s all work together to keep the island skies dark, not only to help the birds but so we can all look up at night and enjoy the twinkle of the stars, glow of the planets and streaks from meteors.
**If you are reading theOrcasonian for free, thank your fellow islanders. If you would like to support theOrcasonian CLICK HERE to set your modestly-priced, voluntary subscription. Otherwise, no worries; we’re happy to share with you.**
I could not agree more. The Eastsound Planning Review Committee has for years (since 2017 in earnest) been trying to achieve what Lopez Village did…adopt an exterior lighting plan which follows International Dark Sky Association (IDA) best practices. Various champions of IDA lighting plans have come and gone in the Department of Community Development, but, often at the last minute, someone will kibosh the initiative saying Staff must focus on something more important.
Not only does light pollution affect migratory birds negatively, it affects countless other forms of life and human beings negatively. There is an alarming trend of over-lighting properties that is getting worse, not better. Making small changes to the color, direction and intensity of lighting makes a huge impact on our health and well-being.
San Juan County needs new Dark Skies champions who will stay the course and get support the will of our communities to get updated lighting plans implemented. Nothing happens in this county until the County Council sees that their constituents really care about getting something done. If light pollution and light trespassing matters to you, too, please contact your County Council Representatives and let them know!
Well somebody dropped the ball on the ferry landing lights that were put in last year; they are AWFUL. Not necessary and way too bright and too many of them. Is there anything we can do to get them to change it??? And who do we complain to?? I hate driving through there at night when it looks like downtown NYC….egads, the poor critters and us having to deal with unwanted lights….
When I moved here ~25 years ago, I could easily see the Milky Way at night, weather permitting.
Now, it has trouble competing with the light pollution.
Totally agree, thank you Joseph!
I recently read The Darkness Manifesto: On Light Pollution, Night Ecology, and the Ancient Rhythms That Sustain Life, and it reaffirmed the importance of darkness for so many species, not just birds.
I have a friend who’s lived on one of the outer islands for most of his life (for 60+ years). He told me recently that when he got up to pee in the middle of the night, that for the first time ever, he could see his faint shadow against the wall as he walked across his bedroom in the dark. He determined that this was from the light coming from the B’ham area.
Fifty years ago I worked (as a lawyer) with an engineering firm that was looking for work in a new area: light pollution. But the needle has moved in the opposite direction because of, I think, crime and the need for people to see where they’re walking and driving. Lights are cheaper than loss by theft or tort recovery. Decisions are not made on the basis of integrating humans into nature, but on the basis of economics reflecting a concern wholly for human welfare.
There are in fact many light fixtures that minimize light pollution other than the place to be illuminated, but the thinking is, “the lights we have now work for us, how can we justify the cost of replacing them, particularly as we haven’t amortized them yet ?” Taxpayer resistance would prevent municipality replacement.
And yes, Michael, having lived on the East side of Waldron, it was pointless to look for stars due to the blast of light from the B’ham area.
“New thinking” does not do it. The numbers have to work. We do not know what we are doing to ourselves in the long run. Our grandchildren may find out. Our generation’s thinking is, “Why pay a bill when you don’t know the numbers? Wait until the bill is rendered, if it happens, and pay it then.”
Or let future generations pay it, as we are doing fir so many other things.
“Decisions are not made on the basis of integrating humans into nature, but on the basis of economics reflecting a concern wholly for human welfare.”
–Bill Appel.
Just bears repeating…And how do we change that? Thank you.
“Decisions are not made on the basis of integrating humans into nature, but on the basis of economics reflecting a concern wholly for human welfare.”
I find this quote illuminating, (pun intended). And, when speaking directly in regards to the need for lighting in the public sector, keeping in mind that there are studies that now show that light pollution does have some health concerns, it arguably, may have some merit. But on the macro scale, with all things being intertwined as they are, (more people, more crime, more lighting, more light pollution…), it becomes apparent that it is lacking in context. That is, although on the macro scale it can also be said that “decisions are not made on the basis of integrating humans into nature,” it would not be an accurate assessment to unequivocally state that decisions are made “on the basis of economics reflecting a concern wholly for human welfare. ” Only on a limited basis and in a perfect world would this be true.
No, on the macro scale decisions are made in back rooms behind closed doors by men wearing suits, businessmen who utilize a single-minded capitalistic business model that measures success solely in terms of economic growth. It is only the illusion of human welfare that provides the impetus guiding the decisions leading to their policies. In our society this is possible by governments and corporations falsely promoting, and convincing both the public and local elected officials that, 1) infinite growth (with it’s resultant over-extraction and over-consumption) is needed, 2) that this is the only way forward, and 3) that doing so (in lieu of our home planet’s finite resources), is somehow sustainable. As a result we find ourselves guided by a mind-set that has us locked into an ever-increasing, perpetual, self-reinforcing, negative feedback loop that can only sustain itself until our planet’s natural resources are depleted.
Human welfare? Hardly. It’s nothing more than a Ponzi scheme based on an unsustainable business model. Many have to date, and many will continue to suffer. Using anecdotal evidence, scientific data, and David Kobrin’s Three P’s analogy– “Is it possible?” “Is it probable?” “Is there proof?” we might reasonably conclude with some degree of accuracy that we have now passed the tipping point, and that we all may eventually die in pursuit of this folly. So much so that we even now have names for the long-planned ecological destruction that is taking place, and is leading to our extinction… we call it “ecocide,” or “omnicide.”
How do we change a political / economic system that’s based on a model totally controlled by corporate profiteers, (who are fully aware of the consequences of their actions)? That is a good question. “Can” we change it? That’s an even better one.
Correction– having just been corrected by one much smarter than myself, (I know, I know), I offer the following correction to my former comment. See correction below in caps.
Though I trust that most will have understood my intent, I should have said, “As a result we find ourselves guided by a mind-set that has us locked into an ever-increasing, perpetual, self-reinforcing, POSITIVE feedback loop that can only sustain itself until our planet’s natural resources are depleted.”
Though a bit confusing, I learned that when offering the ever-increasing, perpetual, self-reinforcing, feedback loop model while discussing areas that are relative to ecological overshoot such as climate change, global warming, over-population, over-extraction, over-consumption, etc. (with each of these hosting their own subset of related problems), using the word “positive” is a more accurate descriptor, one meaning that the feedback loop is self-amplifying, and thereby increasing the destruction.
Thank you Lin for allowing us to host such public discussions. The Orcasonian has become an invaluable source of information and communication in SJC.
Look westerly and see the glow from Victoria. North to Vancouver And follow around all points of the com[pass for more of the same
We have always had down lights outside our homes and don’t use them unless we have an activity that needs them. All lights off once we go to bed….we sleep better.
To get a little perspective:
https://www.gettyimages.com/photos/united-states-at-night-from-space