[DEFEATED] Reducing Light Pollution

[Frisbeeteria]

Helloooo, noticed we didn't have a resolution on light pollution so I drafted one myself ^-^ feedback always appreciated.

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:

1. Creates, within WASP, the Department of Illumination Management (DIM), and tasks DIM with certifying outdoor artificial lights that:
   
   1. 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);
   2. 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;
   3. 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;
   4. 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
   5. are only as bright as necessary.
2. 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,
3. 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,
4. 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),
5. Further tasks DIM with creating dark sky reserves, that shall be as free from light pollution as plausible (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,
   
   1. Defines, for Section 5, a "dark sky reserve" as land possessing a distinguished, high quality of starry nights and nocturnal environment 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 proposed dark sky reserve collectively.
6. Directs member states to educate their populaces on light pollution, including the causes, effects, and solutions to light pollution,
7. 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
8. Strongly encourages individuals to do what they can to limit their energy consumption.

[Tinhampton]

OOC: Roughly what proportion of lights that you know about would be LIGHTPOLE non-compliant? And if it is substantial, why are you potentially requiring even highly developed member states to uproot and reinstall so many lights?

[Minskiev]

OOC: Roughly what proportion of lights that you know about would be LIGHTPOLE non-compliant? And if it is substantial, why are you potentially requiring even highly developed member states to uproot and reinstall so many lights?

...or simply change the bulbs and put a cone on top of them?

[Wallenburg]

"Among other things, this bans most or all holiday lighting, stage lighting, searchlights, lighthouses, signal lamps, flashlights, electric street signs, lamps, sconces, chandeliers, and lanterns from non-personal use."

[Minskiev]

"Among other things, this bans most or all holiday lighting, stage lighting, searchlights, lighthouses, signal lamps, flashlights, electric street signs, lamps, sconces, chandeliers, and lanterns from non-personal use."

Only when outdoors and not up to reasonable, real-world standards, yes. Why?

I may also preclude lights of a low-enough power.

[Wallenburg]

"Among other things, this bans most or all holiday lighting, stage lighting, searchlights, lighthouses, signal lamps, flashlights, electric street signs, lamps, sconces, chandeliers, and lanterns from non-personal use."

Only when outdoors and not up to reasonable, real-world standards, yes. Why?

I may also preclude lights of a low-enough power.

"The mandate applies to all lighting, not just outdoor lighting, and it does not concern itself with any 'reasonable, real-world standards', whatever the fuck you mean by that. Many member states make use of lights in functions beyond painting their streets a blood-red hue with hooded lamps on automatic timers. Light is actually a rather versatile tool when its use is not banned."

[Ent The Offle]

With the growing energy demands of today's society, it is import that we make an attempt to reduce the amount of unsustainable energy being used. However, lighting big cities and streets is essential for businesses and people's general safety. A solution to reduce these negative environmental impacts could be to implement more solar powered light sources and buildings.

[Free Syria]

The delegation of the People's Republic of Free Syria notes the issue of light pollution in developed nations. However, this resolution adversely affects developing nations, including our tiny population of 8 million, at the cost of imposing such regulations on developed nations.

Simply put, Clause 1 ascribes necessary technological advancements, including high-tech motion sensing technology and specialized bulbs or peripherals, which are currently unattainable for many developing nations. Additionally, such impositions stifle local industry and small businesses which may not have the capacity to retrofit their existent lighting infrastructure in the same way as larger firms.

Clause 2 is similarly objectionable to our delegation in this manner.

Clause 3 is objectionable as currently written; our delegation takes no issue with the imposition of mandatory light pollution assessments for companies seeking to develop lighted infrastructure. However, any standards involved in such an assessment should be defined in their entirety. \

Clause 4 is unobjectionable to our delegation.

Clause 5 is objectionable in its non-specificity. We do not intend such a clause to be extended to industry or private citizenry. We may accede to this clause provided it pertains exclusively to government-maintained infrastructure, but our objections in this manner are similar to our objections regarding Clause 1, insofar as developing governments often do not have the capacity to retrofit their lighting infrastructure in a manner deemed acceptable by this Draft Resolution.

Clause 6 is unobjectionable.

[Imperium Anglorum]

So how about the eternal flame of Vesta? Or illumination for various monuments or government buildings? Or will you tell us that less night lighting reduces crime (if only because nobody goes outside)?

[Minskiev]

So how about the eternal flame of Vesta? Or illumination for various monuments or government buildings? Or will you tell us that less night lighting reduces crime (if only because nobody goes outside)?

Since removing the definition, I broadened what this covered. This is only about artificial lighting, so the "eternal" flame of Vesta is safe. Other illumination? If it causes light pollution, it causes light pollution. I see no reason why it should be exempted. You do realize that 3000 K is just a yellow, right? DIM lights are perfectly capable of lighting monuments.

I don't know how you could induce the crime argument from my proposal.

[Wallenburg]

Since removing the definition, I broadened what this covered. This is only about artificial lighting, so the "eternal" flame of Vesta is safe.

"The language of section 2 disagrees. Now all non-artificial lighting is prohibited from government and business use. That includes sun and moonlight. Member states are now required to obscure the sky over most or all of their territory in order to prevent use of these non-artificial light sources.

"I also rather doubt that this flame of Vesta is natural. 'Eternal flames' in most cultures are artificial fires carefully tended to by an authority."

[Apatosaurus]

Mandates that governments of member states and companies use only DIM-certified artificial lighting,and strongly recommends that individuals use only DIM-certified lighting, Why include it if it does nothing? Make it binding or cut it. The same goes with Section 7.

[Minskiev]

Since removing the definition, I broadened what this covered. This is only about artificial lighting, so the "eternal" flame of Vesta is safe.

"The language of section 2 disagrees. Now all non-artificial lighting is prohibited from government and business use. That includes sun and moonlight. Member states are now required to obscure the sky over most or all of their territory in order to prevent use of these non-artificial light sources.

"I also rather doubt that this flame of Vesta is natural. 'Eternal flames' in most cultures are artificial fires carefully tended to by an authority."

OOC: bleh language is annoying lol, fixed

I would argue that fire is non-artificial.

[Wallenburg]

"The language of section 2 disagrees. Now all non-artificial lighting is prohibited from government and business use. That includes sun and moonlight. Member states are now required to obscure the sky over most or all of their territory in order to prevent use of these non-artificial light sources.

"I also rather doubt that this flame of Vesta is natural. 'Eternal flames' in most cultures are artificial fires carefully tended to by an authority."

OOC: bleh language is annoying lol, fixed

I would argue that fire is non-artificial.

You would argue wrong. As to your changes, the sun is legal now but the restrictions remain ludicrous and dangerous to the public.

[Minskiev]

OOC: bleh language is annoying lol, fixed

I would argue that fire is non-artificial.

You would argue wrong. As to your changes, the sun is legal now but the restrictions remain ludicrous and dangerous to the public.

Okay, I de-toothed the resolution a little more than I would have liked but I don't see a better way. Cut down on excessive or otherwise pollutant outdoor artificial lighting --> Cut down on outdoor artificial lighting that pollutes excessively, difference between excessive or pollutant vs. pollutes excessively

[Minskiev]

bump, might be submitted in like 2 weeks?

[Apatosaurus]

"So, if a member state government has a christmas tree with blue lights outdoors they are now violating international law? Opposed."

[Minskiev]

"So, if a member state government has a christmas tree with blue lights outdoors they are now violating international law? Opposed."

"Not arf all, Arfbarfssarfdarf. Arf arf arf Section 3 arf "excessively". Arf arf arf subjective? Marfbe. Arf arf arf arf the best arfption, though."

[Apatosaurus]

"So, if a member state government has a christmas tree with blue lights outdoors they are now violating international law? Opposed."

"Not arf all, Arfbarfssarfdarf. Arf arf arf Section 3 arf "excessively". Arf arf arf subjective? Marfbe. Arf arf arf arf the best arfption, though."

"We are referring to Section 2, which "Mandates that governments and companies of member states use only DIM-certified artificial lighting". Since it must "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" to be certified, blue christmas lights cannot be certified by DIM. So, a government having a christmas tree with blue lights outdoors is illegal."

[Minskiev]

"Not arf all, Arfbarfssarfdarf. Arf arf arf Section 3 arf "excessively". Arf arf arf subjective? Marfbe. Arf arf arf arf the best arfption, though."

"We are referring to Section 2, which "Mandates that governments and companies of member states use only DIM-certified artificial lighting". Since it must "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" to be certified, blue christmas lights cannot be certified by DIM. So, a government having a christmas tree with blue lights outdoors is illegal."

OOC: you reminded me, I wanted to make exclusions for lights under a certain level

[Maowi]

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;

OOC: I was wondering what your reasoning is for the 3000K-cutoff? Lights with a colour temperature below 3000K seem to generally be ambient lights most commonly used indoors so this would really be quite a restrictive mandate.

[Desmosthenes and Burke]

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;

OOC: I was wondering what your reasoning is for the 3000K-cutoff? Lights with a colour temperature below 3000K seem to generally be ambient lights most commonly used indoors so this would really be quite a restrictive mandate.

As you increase the temperature above 3000K the amount of blue light increases rapidly. As a fact of nature, the earth's atmosphere scatters that light more readily than reds and yellows, so blue lights cause, comparatively, more sky-glow and other forms of light pollution.

That said, still opposed. This is a local matter for which local solutions and tradeoffs as to the amount of pollution that is acceptable should occur.

[Minskiev]

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;

OOC: I was wondering what your reasoning is for the 3000K-cutoff? Lights with a colour temperature below 3000K seem to generally be ambient lights most commonly used indoors so this would really be quite a restrictive mandate.

IRL precedent, see here: https://www.darksky.org/our-work/lighti ... tizens/3k/

[Free Algerstonia]

ADTA

[Maowi]

As you increase the temperature above 3000K the amount of blue light increases rapidly. As a fact of nature, the earth's atmosphere scatters that light more readily than reds and yellows, so blue lights cause, comparatively, more sky-glow and other forms of light pollution.

IRL precedent, see here: https://www.darksky.org/our-work/lighti ... tizens/3k/

Thanks for the explanations :> that seems more reasonable to me now.