Smarter Lighting
- NORA FERRUZZA – Op-Ed
Every year, my family and I drive out to a big, open field in the Adirondacks we call the “Pixie Field.” We lay back and stare up at the sky, and every time, without a telescope, I can see the entire Milky Way. A week later, back in my Rochester backyard, I look up at a dozen faint stars through a washed-out orange glow. Where our galaxy should be, there is just a black void of darkness.
This vibrant, star-filled sky is replaced by the glare of wasted light. We have been told that constant illumination is the price of safety but I question whether it is a price worth paying or if it is even effective. Recently, right under our porch lights, my mother’s car was broken into in our own driveway. Her response was to install an even bigger, brighter light. Today, our communities are stuck in a cycle: the problem occurs despite our flawed solution, yet we add to the flaw. Rochester is lit up every night, yet our crime rates don’t reflect a city made safe by the light. Specifically, studies on this topic have found inconsistent evidence that this glaring lighting has a great effect on reducing crime.
This current approach to outdoor lighting is not only a profound policy failure, but it has a broader range of issues and hidden costs. For example, the International Dark-Sky Association estimated that at least 30% of all outdoor lighting in the U.S. is wasted, costing the country $3.3 billion and releasing 21 million tons of carbon dioxide annually. Not only is this problem an environmental drain, it causes many ecological consequences. In North America alone, studies show that artificial lights cause up to 1 billion fatal building collisions for migratory birds each year. The constant light is also a key driver of the “insect apocalypse,” disrupting pollination cycles we all depend on. The harm is also not exclusive to animals and insects, with the blue light from modern LED’s disrupting humans circadian rhythms by suppressing melatonin. Specifically the World Health Organization found that overnight shift work, with its constant light exposure, is classified as a probable carcinogen: showing how this problem is not limited to only sleep disruption.
Why do we continue to support this broken system of lighting up our beloved earth if the costs are so drastic? Firstly, many well meaning citizens and community groups advocate for more light on the sincere grounds of fear for public safety. Meanwhile, large utility companies and lighting manufacturers like Signift and Acuity Brands profit from this status quo by selling more energy and fixtures. Through lobbying efforts, these corporate interests maintain the outdated municipal codes that favor their bright ineffective products. No innovation here is rewarded, creating an injustice both socially and environmentally. Individual homeowners are encouraged to adopt ecofriendly energy practices while large commercial entities operate with impunity. Additionally, zoning laws often concentrate the worst sources of light pollution, such as highways and industrial zones, near lower-income neighborhoods, while affluent areas often get better, smarter, lighting. This places a disproportionate health and quality-of-life burden on already challenged communities.
This multifaceted problem is not unsolvable. A smarter future is achievable now without the need for any technological miracle, as we already have access to the technologies that can widely improve this issue. Our communities would have to adapt three new principles: shield all lights to direct them downward, use warmer amber-hued color temperatures, and implement smart controls like timers and motion sensors. Of course, this large scale retrofit is inevitably costly. However, the economics can be redesigned. A municipality like Rochester could partner with an illumination provider that could cover the upfront costs of installing this smart, dark-sky-friendly technology across the city. The provider could then be paid back over two decades from the share of the energy savings the new system generates. Because these technologies can reduce energy use by up to eighty percent, the project would save taxpayer money from its inception. To address the existing inequities, this rollout could be mandated to begin in neighborhoods with the oldest infrastructure and those that have historically been underserved.
The choice of this upgrade is not between safety and darkness. It is about moving beyond a forceful approach to a more intelligent and holistic one. This is about an upgrade that creates a future where our streets are safer because the light is better designed, not just brighter. To reclaim our human deserved access to the night sky is both an environmental and health imperative, but it is also a reclamation of our heritage. By implementing smarter, more equitable lighting solutions, we can create our community into a place that is more sustainable, just, and a place where any of us can walk into our own backyard, look up, and see where we are in the universe.
Nora Ferruzza is a student at the University of Rochester.