Curbing pollution by controlling light

Saturday's front page of The Times was dominated by two reports concerning the same issue, namely excessive pollution emitted by our power stations. While in the near future the use of a lower sulphur content fuel is envisaged also for the Marsa power station, this is not considered enough to mitigate the excess of sulphur dioxide and nitrogen oxide emissions. The EU is threatening Malta with a fine if the level of emissions is not reduced.

The air pollution with harmful chemicals is directly related to the type of fuel in use, air filters as well as to the amount of fuel burnt.

The government tried to reduce the consumption of energy by raising water and electricity rates, by encouraging the use of solar and photovoltaic panels, the installation of double-glazing and the use of energy-saving lamps. However, the reduction of electricity by these measures alone did not prove to be enough to reduce the consumption to the desired levels. While households did reduce their consumption as they were directly affected by the rise in rates, most private enterprises passed on the increase to the consumer with little effort to control consumption. Therefore, any future hikes in electricity rates would have little effect from the point of view of consumption. Energy conservation must be addressed otherwise. It is estimated that in the United States over-illumination is responsible for approximately two million barrels of oil per day in energy wasted. In Australia, public lighting is the single largest source of local government's greenhouse gas emissions, typically accounting for 30 to 50 per cent of their emissions.

The government must bring a change in mentality and address the habits in the use of lighting. Most of the outdoor lighting use in Malta is highly inefficient. If one tries to look up to the skies on a clear evening after sunset, one would hardly see any of the magnificent stars and planets orbiting around our globe due to the light pollution.

The use of full cut-off fixtures may allow for lower wattage lamps to be used in the fixtures, producing the same or sometimes a better effect, due to being more carefully controlled. Photo pollution comes both from government sources such as street lighting as well as from commercial enterprises such as hotels, outdoor restaurants, advertisements and other open-air activities. Managers of such enterprises should be trained in the efficient use of lighting such as the use of the correct fixtures and light bulbs.

While lighting is a commodity that we cannot do without to lengthen our day and provide security, excessive lighting that is directed upwards is just a waste of energy and money, so is lighting use in areas at times when lighting is not needed. Light levels can be quantified by field measurement. Controlling excessive light pollution means controlling air pollution. What is also worthy of note is that medical research has indicated that light pollution has a variety of adverse human health effects. Photo pollution also disrupts the ecosystem and poses a serious threat to wildlife, having negative impacts on plant and animal physiology. Excessive luminosity may also present a hazard in the aviation environment if aviation safety lighting must compete for pilot attention with non-relevant lighting.

This excessive lighting can be considered an environmental externality and therefore the polluter-pays-principle should apply. The government should first lead by example in the use of lighting that is downward directed and if private enterprise would not follow suit, then it should pay for infringements and, if necessary, the withholding of licences to operate the enterprise. Such measures would send a clear message to Brussels that the government means business in its endeavour to reduce pollution.