Science and technology

Babbage

Meeting of the American Geophysical Union

Noxious night lights

Dec 21st 2010, 9:50 by The Economist online | SAN FRANCISCO

THE term “light pollution” is not, it seems, a metaphor. The light that emanates from cities all over the world not only deprives their citizens of the pleasure of seeing the Milky Way on a moonless night, it also diminishes the freshness of the air they breathe at dawn. It interferes, says Harald Stark of American’s National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), with the chemicals that mop up nasty molecules that are the raw materials of smog.

At the Autumn Meeting of the American Geophysical Union, in San Francisco, Dr Stark presented his conclusions from detailed measurements of the composition of the air over Los Angeles and its surroundings. On four days and nights a NOAA plane crisscrossed the metropolis. During the nights, not only were the concentrations of ozone, nitrogen oxides and other gases measured by this plane, but also, almost as an afterthought, the intensity of the light from below.

That there is too much of this is well known to astronomers—it is reflected back down from dust in the atmosphere and, as a result, many stars are drowned in the glow. It also makes for spectacular photographs of the Earth at night, showing clearly where people prefer to live. But even the brightest city in America, Las Vegas, emits only about a ten-thousandth as much light as the sun shines upon the same area. Inconsequential, surely, as far as the goings-on in the atmosphere are concerned?

Not at all, says Dr Stark. To provide another perspective, Los Angeles seen from above is 25 times brighter than the full moon. And the city's lights come on at a time that the atmosphere could very well do without them: when it is cleansing itself of the pollution of the day.

At night ozone, a molecule composed of three oxygen atoms, reacts with oxides of nitrogen. An especially happy outcome is when a molecule of nitrogen dioxide (one nitrogen and two oxygens) and one of ozone—both constituents of daytime smog—turn into molecule of regular oxygen (the sort that has two atoms per molecule) and nitrogen trioxide. The oxygen will bother no one, and the nitrogen trioxide soon meets its end destroying one of a range of volatile organic compounds that are another constituent of daytime smog.

The size and electrical properties of nitrogen trioxide, though, are such that it is easily broken up by light into nitrogen and ozone. That is why, by day, ozone is hard to get rid of. By night, however, there should be no stopping nitrogen trioxide. The chemical processes in which it is involved should work without hindrance, and ozone levels will drop.  

That is why shining a light into the night sky is not such a good idea. In the case of Los Angeles Dr Stark estimates that, by dawn, the amount of pollutants left over to make smog is about 5% higher than it otherwise would have been. Not huge, but still significant. Yet another reason, then, to switch that light off.

You must be logged in to post a comment.
Please login or sign up for a free account.
1-6 of 6
lao shi wrote:
Dec 21st 2010 1:45 GMT

The Czech Republic has statutes to limit the amount of light pollution. See http://www.space.com/spacewatch/skies_czech_020318.html. You wouldn't think a law was necessary, since a reflector above the lamp is not costly, when designed into the original fitting, increases the light in the place where it's wanted, decreases the light pollution and allows a lower energy consumption for the same amount of useful illumination.

Campanile wrote:
Dec 21st 2010 9:34 GMT

Editor: AGU is the American Geophysical Union, not _Geological_.

D. Sherman wrote:
Dec 21st 2010 10:34 GMT

Well, good. Maybe we can use that to convince the greenies that rather than convincing their cities to switch to solar-powered LED streetlights, they should simply remove most of the streetlights completely. Drive around any American city at light and you'll see several megawatts of electricity illuminating places where no one is; empty parking lots, deserted streets, empty office buildings, and so on. Even during daylight hours it's not uncommon to see streetlights on and near-empty office buildings illuminated.

As far as I'm aware, every automobile these days comes from the factory equipped with good quality headlights. Even with ubiquitous high-powered lighting, there are very few pedestrians at night on most of the brilliantly-illuminated streets. The only explanation I can think of for why we're all so insanely addicted to bright light everywhere all the time is that we're afraid of the dark, and electricity is still cheap.

I propose that rather than devising ever more intricate technological solutions, we learn to stop being afraid of the dark. On the rare occasion that a person actually wants to walk in a dark place, flashlights and LED headlamps are really cheap and easy to find these days.

bampbs wrote:
Dec 22nd 2010 3:36 GMT

Light is one of modern civilization's greatest gifts.

There are many far less wonderful and far more damaging things to worry about.

D. Sherman wrote:
Dec 22nd 2010 9:41 GMT

Light is one of civilization's greatest gifts in the same way that cheap high-calorie food is one of civilizations greatest gifts. Nowadays, even the poorest Americans can afford to be morbidly obese. If we had simply taken advantage of cheap food to allow ourselves to work less and still consume the same number of calories, we'd be healthy, but instead we eat all the food we can, and die of the side effects of over-eating. Likewise, if we had simply replaced oil lamps with electric lamps, we'd be saving not only the whales but lots of money as well. Instead, we've taken advantage of cheap lighting to morbidly over-illuminate everything.

I agree that there are far more damaging things to worry about, at least until we run out of the fossil fuels needed to power the lamps. Nonetheless, like cheap food, cheap lighting not an unmixed blessing.

Dec 22nd 2010 10:42 GMT

@Campanile

Whoops. Well spotted. This has now been corrected. Thanks,

Editor

1-6 of 6

About Babbage

In this blog, our correspondents report on the intersections between science, technology, culture and policy.

Follow Babbage on Twitter »

Advertisement

Advertisement

Products & events
Stay informed today and every day

Subscribe to The Economist's free e-mail newsletters and alerts.


Subscribe to The Economist's latest article postings on Twitter


See a selection of The Economist's articles, events, topical videos and debates on Facebook.

Advertisement