Yes, I do think it’s a silly proposition.
Open up Google Earth and look at all the undeveloped countryside. It’s ridiculous to think that the relative area of a city and its necessary lighting has any real effect on the worldwide ecosystem.
Insects are possibly the most successful division of animal in terms of reproduction and adaptability. When I install a light outdoors, I can come back the next day and indeed, there are lots of dead moths on the lens and on the ground near the fixture. I can clean them up and come back the next day, and there they are again. It never stops.
In the southern US, we actually install misting systems that create a perimeter around an area. These systems emit a pyrethrin fog periodically, in order to suppress the insect population- otherwise being outdoors would be unbearable. I wish lights were as effective as pyrethrin at killing mosquitoes, because business would be even better.
Your debate tactic is a losing one here. If you want to criticise lighting, do it from an energy use standpoint, or from a bad design standpoint. The insect angle is absurd.
Google Earth does not show you the extent of light pollution, and as such is totally inappropriate for assessing its environmental impact. To evaluate its true impact I suggest you look at satellites images of the Earth at night. Then you will see that most of eastern North America, Europe, the Middle East, India, and the Far East are lit up. The effect of an illuminated city extends well beyond its borders. For example, the glow of Dublin can be detected from North Wales.
I’m not denying some lighting in cities is necessary, but the technology is available to mitigate its adverse effects. This technology has been around for at least twenty years, so there is no excuse not to have implemented it.
“When I install a light outdoors, I can come back the next day and indeed, there are lots of dead moths on the lens and on the ground near the fixture. I can clean them up and come back the next day, and there they are again. It never stops.”
Well, you’ve just proved my point, haven’t you? So your light is sucking up the insects in your neighbourhood, along with those of everyone else who has a light and leaves it on all night. This and along with all the other lighting in a city will have a significant effect over decades of time. And this is exactly what has been seen. Many species have shown significant declines with concomitant effects on higher order consumers that can’t be denied. And you cannot blame it all on habit destruction or pesticides.
If you are leaving your light on all night, then you’re part of the problem. Get it motion operated. Then your light comes on only when needed, and it won’t do any harm, and you won’t be wasting energy either. The energy wastage I have seen caused by people leaving outside lights on all night (and during the day for that matter), is appalling, especially as motion operated lighting is, and has been readily available for years. Failure to apply it just demonstrates ignorance on the part of some householders and the retailers who provide lighting. For my part I don’t have any outside lights, nor do I see the need.
Why the need for pyrethrins? You won’t just be killing mosquitoes. A simple mosquito repellent would be better. If they are a problem inside the house, sleep under a net. I do.
“Your debate tactic is a losing one here. If you want to criticise lighting, do it from an energy use standpoint, or from a bad design standpoint. The insect angle is absurd.”
No it’s not. And I have been criticising badly designed and unnecessary lighting. I will give no quarter there. Outdoor lighting should only be used sparingly, on a needs must basis, when needed, where needed, and in the correct amounts.