I get where you are coming from but the guys at the top are the ones that deserve some skepticism. Reports like the one Bill linked to are prepared by long term grunts who do the hard science at EPA. And for stuff like this, their findings are probably not twisted by upper management for anything other than sound bites. We rail against the bureaucracy but the bureaucracy tends to act as a stabilizing force when the political winds blow in extreme directions.

 

If anyone thinks the EPA report is wrong, please post the alternative theories of the sources of CO2 gas.

 

I'm not trying to defend him, but wish to point out that the cost of doing nothing that he was citing came from the IPCC report.

 

No I didn't think you put it out there as anything other than an effort to present both sides of the issue. And I admit the only part I read was the part you included in your post. WSJ is behind a paywall for me.

 

Forgive me for straying from the immediate subject in hand, but I couldn't resist responding to this. Light pollution is probably the form of pollution that is the easiest to reduce or eliminate. I live in the near western suburbs of Chicago, and there is arguably no place in the country where the light pollution is worse. Being "vintage owners", I would guess that most of you have seen the Milky Way at night, either recently or when you were younger and light pollution was less pervasive than it is now. Many young people have never truly seen the night sky - the Milky Way - and don't know what they're missing. I'm lucky enough to frequently get away from the city lights at night and take in the splendors of the heavens firsthand. If you're fortunate enough to live where the skies are dark, look upward on the next clear night, and consider that most people in the U.S. don't have the opportunity to see what you're seeing!

As far as LED lights are concerned, they do consume less electricity, but due to the wavelengths of light that they emit (more in the blue end of the spectrum) they actually do little to reduce light pollution...in fact, they make it worse. So if you want to reduce the light pollution in your neighborhood or town, turn off the lights, or when that isn't an option, such as for security reasons, install shielded lights which direct the light downwards, rather than omnidirectional lighting which sends light all directions, including up. Encourage your local governments to do the same.

 

Part of the reason they make it worse is because they are more efficient.
Municipalities no feel free to put up more of them for the same power budget.

 

https://www.s2ki.com/forums/politics.../#post24520592
following the rules.

 

I just remember a recent trip on I90 out of Chicago nearing the Wisconsin state line where they re-did the highway and put a light post about every 200 ft for what seemed like 20 miles. This was in the middle of next to nowhere.

 

I can't access that page, but take it to mean that the discussion is taking place in politics. Too bad. That usually becomes a finger pointing exercise rather than the hard look at ourselves that is truly needed.

 

I used to have a Newtonian Reflector telescope and was always in the hunt for dark skies. I live in the foothills east of Sacramento; we built in a rural area. The Milky Way stood out. If I got up in the middle of the night I was always struck how beautiful the sky was. Notice the "was".
Over a quarter of a century light pollution as described above in the quote, has eroded the view. Constellations are easy to see but the Milky Way is barely visible. So sad.

I might add Dante's Peak in Death Valley is one of the darkest places in North American. Remarkable drive at dusk. One of the most beautiful overlooks and sky I have ever seen in my 62 years around the world.