[Defeated] GA Proposal: Reducing Light Pollution

[Markanite]

Reducing Light Pollution

A resolution to increase the quality of the world's environment, at the expense of industry.

Category: Environmental

Industry Affected: All Businesses - Mild

Proposed by: Minskiev

The World Assembly,

Observing that light pollution contributes to increased energy consumption, ecosystem disruption, astronomical interference, the night sky being “washed out”, and many more negative consequences, hereby:

Creates, within WASP, the Department of Illumination Management (DIM), and tasks DIM with certifying outdoor artificial lights that:

significantly (as determined by DIM) reduce glare (scattered, bright light), sky glow (light misdirected into the sky), and light spill (light extending beyond the light beam angle);

use long-wavelength light with a color temperature at or below 3000 K instead of short-wavelength light with a color temperature above 3000 K;

use light shields or light cutoffs (so that no light extends beyond 90 degrees from the center of the light beam and the light intensity between 80 and 90 degrees from the center of the light beam is no more than 10% of the light’s intensity at the center of the light beam) to concentrate light and prevent light spill;

use systems, such as motion sensors or automatic on-off systems, that ensure that the light is only on when (generally or strictly depending on the system) necessary; and

are only as bright as necessary.

Mandates that governments and companies of member states must stop using, as soon as possible, outdoor artificial lighting that is not certified by DIM if that luminaire (lighting unit) is over 1,800 watts, and strongly recommends that individuals use DIM-certified lighting,

Instructs member states to cut down on outdoor artificial lighting that pollutes excessively (so that lights emit only as much light as necessary for the intended purpose) or develop better, more environmentally-friendly alternatives wherever plausible, including but not limited to decorations, vehicles, lighthouses, and urban areas,

Requires member states to factor in and reduce light pollution when developing land in urban or otherwise high-light-pollution areas to not produce light clutter (clustered, concentrated, and inefficient or poorly-planned outdoor lighting),

Further tasks DIM with creating dark sky reserves, that shall be as free from light pollution as possible (which will be enforced by the member state of that dark sky reserve), from land with exceptional sky quality, natural darkness, and a periphery that preserves the dark sky of the core of the dark sky reserve,

Defines, for Section 5, a "dark sky reserve" as land possessing a distinguished, high quality of a nocturnal environment and starry nights, that is specifically protected for its scientific, natural, educational, or cultural value, heritage, or public enjoyment, in the opinion of DIM and the member state of the dark sky reserve collectively.

Directs member states to educate their populaces on light pollution, including the causes, effects, and solutions to light pollution,

Allows member states to seek money from the WA General Fund only to purchase and install DIM-certified lighting, which the WAGF must give to that member state if the WAGF finds that the member state cannot afford DIM-certified lighting without severely hurting that member state's finances, and

Strongly encourages individuals to do what they can to limit their energy consumption.

This is the discussion thread. To cast your vote, go HERE

[Markanite]

This is going to vote in 9 hours!

Forum discussion: forum.nationstates.net/viewtopic.php?f=9&t=515575

[New Gothonia]

"If you have ever witnessed a clear night sky, which not many people have these days, you would know just how incredible the night sky really is. The sad reality however is that, as mentioned, the majority of people live in areas so polluted from light that experiencing a truly clear night sky is nothing but a far-away dream.

As mentioned in the resolution, light pollution contributes to increased energy consumption, ecosystem disruption, astronomical interference, the night sky being “washed out”, and many more negative consequences that we should do our best in avoiding. Sure, the economies of our nations will take a hit as reducing light pollution, and any other kind of pollution in general, isn't a cheap thing to do. Neither is it a swift action, as reducing light pollution in all different aspects of society certainly will take a long time. Include educating our populaces on light pollution as well, and any reasonable leader will understand that it will take great effort.

It is however of great importance that we go ahead with this resolution, and follow it as far as we can if passed. For what is really the most important thing to us all? Is it the social construct of money, used to purchase material things that in a lot of cases are not even necessary for our lives, or is it combating climate change and preserving this planet for any and all future generations, to explore and experience in a way that we, due to pollution, have not been able to? What really is the miniscule cost of reducing light pollution in the perspective of the future for our whole planet and all future generations? National economies will recover eventually. If we continue down the path of further pollution, the planet will not.

For this reason, it is essential that we, as members of the 10 000 Islands and the worldwide community, vote in favour for this resolution and do our best in reducing light pollution."

[Vivolkha]

Against. Unfortunately, like many proposals by this same author, this is far too rigid, restrictive, and vague.

Clause 1a tries to put out clear definitions, but starts by defining "significantly" as whatever is determined by DIM (too vague).
Clause 1b is the most worrying. A color temperature of 3000 K corresponds to RGB=(255,206,129) - an orange hue. This sweepingly bans an absolutely ridiculous number of lights and allows only for lights in the red-orange spectrum (also, it's probably irrelevant, but anything with a wavelength shorter than visible is banned for no reason too under this clause).
Clause 1e is vague and of arbitrary application.

Clause 2, again, is vague ("as soon as possible"), and adds to the disproportion and rigidity introduced by Clause 1b. Also, the suggestion on individuals is pointless.

Clauses 3 and 4 contain more vague definitions yet again ("pollutes excessively", "inefficient or poorly-planned outdoor lighting").

Clause 5 should probably be developed into an entire separate proposal and contains vague definitions ("as free from light pollution as possible", "in the opinion of DIM and the member state of the dark sky reserve collectively").

No major objections on clauses 6-8.