Reply from DE Rossa camp on Light Pollution

Here is the reply I got from my email.

From: DE ROSSA Proinsias
To: Carl O'Beirnes
Sent: Monday, October 01, 2007 4:30 PM
Subject: RE: Light pollution


Dear Mr O'Beirnes,

Thank you for your email. Yes we received the invitation from Albert White this morning.

Unfortunately due to already arranged commitments, Mr De Rossa is unable to attend.

We would welcome any conclusions/recommendations that emerge from the meeting.

I'm attaching for your information, the European Commission's answer to a PQ which Proinsias tabled in the EP in 2005 on the EU's 'Green Light' initiative.

With best wishes,

Yours sincerely,


Ger Gibbons,

On behalf of Proinsias De Rossa MEP

Here is the 'Green Light' initiative.



WRITTEN QUESTION E-0362/05 by Proinsias De Rossa (PSE) to the Commission

Subject: Light Pollution - Follow-up to the Green Light Programme

The Green Light Programme was launched by the Commission in February 2000 as a voluntary pollution prevention initiative, encouraging non-residential electricity consumers to utilise energy-efficient lighting technologies with the aim of reducing indoor and outdoor lighting, thus reducing polluting emissions, limiting global warming and improving the quality of visual conditions. What lessons have been learnt from this Programme? What follow-up is the Commission considering, with particular regard to tackling the problem of light pollution in urban areas?

E-0362/05EN Answer given by Mr Piebalgs on behalf of the Commission (22 March 2005)

The Commission launched the European GreenLight programme in 2000 to stimulate private and public organisations to adopt efficient lighting and thus to achieve long lasting market transformation. GreenLight is an on-going voluntary programme where the Partners (private and public organisations) commit themselves to adopting energy-efficient lighting measures when the cost of these measures is repaid by the associated savings and lighting quality is maintained or improved. They also report annually on their achievements.

The scheme has been run by energy agencies (and similar organizations) in 26 European countries, assisted by the Commission. So far over 200 public and private partners have joined the GreenLight programme. These partners have upgraded over 1000 buildings and other lighting installations. A number of Energy Service Companies (ESCOs) are helping Partners to implement projects, financed by the future energy savings. These projects offer a very large set of examples of efficient lighting solutions in different sectors (schools, offices, airports, hospitals, supermarkets, street lighting, etc.). To date GreenLight Partners have saved over 100 Gigawatt hours (GWh).

The GreenLight programme is intended to promote energy efficiency, and is not primarily concerned with light pollution. However, it has included a number of street lighting projects. New and efficient luminaries have been installed, which direct the lamp light to the street/pavement, thus avoiding light pollution caused by old and inefficient luminaries.

The lesson learned from GreenLight in the sector of street lighting and other outdoor lighting (e.g. airport flood lights) include:
– the use of flux reduction (dimming) devices to reduce light output during the night hours when there is less traffic;
– the use of high efficacy lamps to replace old mercury vapours lamps; and
– the installations of new luminaries which do not allow light to escape upwards;
– that the energy savings are normally large enough to finance the lighting upgrade.

It can be concluded that the GreenLight Programme stimulates efficient lighting practices, which will also reduce lighting pollution.

Here is the reply I got from my email.

Thanks Carl! I got an almost Identical reply from Mr. de Rossa.

The GreenLight Program is interesting but its still a voluntary program, not a law or even a guideline. The lessons learned are good, but we could have told them that in 2000! I'll forward the response to the european light pollution folks to ensure they are aware of the answer given to Mr. deRossa.

I wish that "intelligent" people would stop using the "excuse" that "people" are responsible for global warming aka.

thus reducing polluting emissions, limiting global warming and improving the quality of visual conditions.

Light pollution should not be draggged into the bogus debate over who is responsible for global warming. Certainly we contribute to the effect, albeit it miniscually. But GW has been happening for centuries. A simple investigation on the Internet linking solar activity, CO2 emmisions, and temperature change over the last 400 years will show dramatic proof that 'Humans' are not significantly linked to the current global warming crises - it's just what nature does, and has been doing for millenia. In fact CO2 increases lag about 50 years behind global warming (i.e. after the fact).

Global Warming is fast becoming an area where if you want a scientific grant for anything link it to global warming and no politician (if he wants to get re-elected) can deny you. This is BOGUS and bad for science in the long term. If this continues science will get a BAD name that it may never recover from.

We do have a small part to play in global warming and I am not disputing the fact that we should all be more responsible with our use of this planet and it's resources, however, please do not dress it up as it is currently presented - that humankind is totally responsible for all this. That would be total conceit.

GET REAL people! The major source of influence on this small planet of ours is the SUN, and despite what the "experts" have been saying recently about the sun not having any determining factor over global warming - I Ask - how can we possibly believe that given a modicum of common sense. The Sun was - is - and always will be the determining cause of all weather phenomonon on this insignificant planet full of stupid humans. COP ON!!!

GW is being blown out of all propotions by bogus scientists to get grant aid for science (that is probably worth doing) that they couldn't otherwise get grant aid for. And every politicician is jumping on the band wagon. It's like a nightmare version of the "Kings new clothes" and everyone is afraid to say "hang on he's in the nip!" Well I'm blowing the whistle. STOP and think for your selves!!!!

Sorry for dumping it in here, but it needs to be said! Light pollution reduction, will not benefit from being dragged into the GW debate.

I wish that "intelligent" people would stop using the "excuse" that "people" are responsible for global warming aka.

thus reducing polluting emissions, limiting global warming and improving the quality of visual conditions.

Light pollution should not be draggged into the bogus debate over who is responsible for global warming. Certainly we contribute to the effect, albeit it miniscually. But GW has been happening for centuries. A simple investigation on the Internet linking solar activity, CO2 emmisions, and temperature change over the last 400 years will show dramatic proof that 'Humans' are not significantly linked to the current global warming crises - it's just what nature does, and has been doing for millenia. In fact CO2 increases lag about 50 years behind global warming (i.e. after the fact).

Global Warming is fast becoming an area where if you want a scientific grant for anything link it to global warming and no politician (if he wants to get re-elected) can deny you. This is BOGUS and bad for science in the long term. If this continues science will get a BAD name that it may never recover from.

We do have a small part to play in global warming and I am not disputing the fact that we should all be more responsible with our use of this planet and it's resources, however, please do not dress it up as it is currently presented - that humankind is totally responsible for all this. That would be total conceit.

GET REAL people! The major source of influence on this small planet of ours is the SUN, and despite what the "experts" have been saying recently about the sun not having any determining factor over global warming - I Ask - how can we possibly believe that given a modicum of common sense. The Sun was - is - and always will be the determining cause of all weather phenomonon on this insignificant planet full of stupid humans. COP ON!!!

GW is being blown out of all propotions by bogus scientists to get grant aid for science (that is probably worth doing) that they couldn't otherwise get grant aid for. And every politicician is jumping on the band wagon. It's like a nightmare version of the "Kings new clothes" and everyone is afraid to say "hang on he's in the nip!" Well I'm blowing the whistle. STOP and think for your selves!!!!

Sorry for dumping it in here, but it needs to be said! Light pollution reduction, will not benefit from being dragged into the GW debate.

I'm really not sure this is the place for the big global warming debate. Please start a new thread and then I can argue against your 'logic'.