February 22, 2008

Our initial relationship with lighting was monogomous--all we had was the sun. As man evolved and technologies were developed it became possible to have light 24 hours a day. But just because we now can have light 24 hours a day and in all places, do we really need it? To answer this question it is important to understand the history, progression, and current use of outdoor lighting in our society. This is especially true as we are facing an increasingly real threat from global warming.

Outdoor lighting as we know it today is believed to have first been utilized by King Louis the XIV of France (coincidentally known as the Sun King) in the year 1700. The introduction of outdoor lighting was a byproduct of his urban renewal project where he installed elaborate boulevards, landscaping and parks in and around Paris. Unfortunately, King Louis's beautification projects became a popular target for vandals. In response to this vandalism the King implemented an extensive security program which included the installation of nearly 7,000 street lamps. See, e.g., Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design. Thus, the first reported use of outdoor lighting was solely to prevent property damage. At this time in history people generally went to bed (or at least stayed at home) when the sun went down and woke up with the sun. King Louis' introduction of the outdoor light had the unintended effect of creating a nighttime environment in the city that was more attractive to people. The creation of a welcoming nighttime environment allowed the development of entirely new industries and sub-cultures in the great cities of the world.

A discussion and analysis of the progression and further effects of the introduction of the outdoor light is beyond the scope of this article. The point of presenting this brief history of the outdoor light is that it is deeply routed in our society. So much of what we do involves (and requires) the use of outdoor lighting. I am sure that the argument that outdoor lighting is an unnecessary waste of energy could be made convincingly. However, when considering the steps that we can take to reduce the impact we have on our environment we also have to be realistic. In the case of outdoor lighting, it is not realistic to attempt to encourage people to stop doing something that has been done for over 300 years and is the center piece of a large portion of our culture. It's not this isn't an option or that I believe it would have dire consequences; rather, in many cases it is better to consider alternatives that will achieve the desired result with a path of less resistance.

Trying to convince our society to eliminate outdoor lighting would be tough and it may be that the effects of this would be equally as detrimental to the environment. But if there are environmentally friendly or neutral alternatives for outdoor lighting why even try to eliminate or minimize outdoor lighting if no one is likely to join the movement. LED outdoor lighting is an excellent compromise. LED lamps are 50% or more efficient than alternative incandescent outdoor lighting options. Using 50% less electricity is wonderful, but the significantly reduced power consumption also makes alternative and renewable power sources for outdoor lighting such as solar and wind more feasible. The end result may be that our society can continue to enjoy outdoor lighting and its benefits without compromising the environment.

Extreme solution aren't always the answer. And in most cases they will fail. As the movement to build a sustainable world community grows it is important that we not be blinded by our ideals and seek achievable solutions to common sources of environmental pollution.