Hacker News Reader

Why make it sound like cutting down light pollution by a whopping 15% is somehow not significant. If anything, this article explains that there's an obvious and simple way to reduce light pollution by quite a bit.

It doesn't ever require passing any legislation for heaven's sake, it's just a Thursday afternoon municipal planning decision with roll-out spread over a four year period or something to keep costs trivially manageable.

View on HN

Here's why from later down: “Light-pollution activists and governments have been very focused on street lighting, and that makes sense because it’s probably the biggest single source and the government has direct control over it,” Kyba said. “But my worry is that most of the growth in light is coming from other applications. If we want to reduce the environmental impact of outdoor lighting, it’s not good enough to change to LED streetlights and then stop. We need to think critically about all the different types of light sources there are.”

Right, but that's still a weird way to focus on it. Of course it's not enough, but it's a fantastic easy step in a multi-step solution.

Who said it's not significant?

They're just saying it might not be significant enough to drastically affect the type of lights used, as GP comment implied.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com