shadows quasi geiogen

Regarding energy consumption, the past five or six years have seen a slow transformation from garish, peach-colored, high-pressure sodium vapor streetlights — which have long been recognized to be energy-inefficient — to light-emitting diode (LED) streetlights, which use solid-state technology to convert electricity into light.  This comes with a rather unique set of challenges, because what is polluting for one person can be acceptable or even desirable lighting for another. There are uses of light that are necessary at night, especially in cities; no ‘dark sky advocate’ would deny that. And there are obvious instances of excessive brightness and poorly designed lighting, which most reasonable people would agree is unnecessary and wasteful. But, there will also be instances that fall somewhere in an intermediary, gray area. These could be instances where the lighting does not obviously fall into one of the sub-categories of light pollution, or does not relate directly to one of the identified effects of light pollution, or is contested as a good by some stakeholders and a nuisance or excess by others. Or, it could be a new technological innovation that reduces energy consumption but will potentially increase skyglow—an emerging issue connected to LEDs (Morgan-Taylor, 2014 Morgan-Taylor, M. (2014). Regulating light pollution in Europe: Legal challenges and ways forward. In J. Meier, U. Hasenöhrl, K. Krause, & M. Pottharst (Eds.), Urban lighting, light pollution and society (pp. 159–176). New York, NY: Taylor & Francis. [Google Scholar]). In these instances, we will see the weighing of benefits versus negative effects by regulatory decision-makers. It is unclear how the current conception of light pollution can be used to resolve such conflicts, without drawing upon a larger moral framework—for example, a formulation of the precautionary principle, a definition of sustainable development, or perhaps an explicit focus on minimizing energy usage—that helps to elucidate exactly what an acceptable level of pollution is. And, different approaches may rely on rights-based or consequentialist moral frameworks. These may, in turn, offer different boundary conditions for what qualifies as acceptable levels of light pollution. For example, in 2007, a group of astronomers published the Starlight Declaration, asserting that access to the night sky should be an ‘inalienable right of humankind’ (Starlight Initiative, 2007 Starlight Initiative. (2007). Declaration in defence of the night sky and the right to starlight. La Palma: La Palma Biosphere Reserve. Retrieved 14 January, 2015, from https://www.starlight2007.net/ [Google Scholar], p. 3). Adopting such a rights-based approach would likely yield different conclusions than, say, a cost-benefit analysis. We would then need to ask if light pollution is, or should be, beholden to one broader moral framework, or how different manifestations can be reconciled. If we recall the discussion of defining problems within policy as a means to guide action (Stone, 2002 Stone, D. (2002). Policy paradox: The art of political decision making. New York, NY: W. W. Norton & Company Inc. [Google Scholar]), the concept of light pollution therefore requires further parameters beyond the causes and effects listed above. The relationship between safety and lighting at night is complex at best, and often controversial. Historical surveys into the origins of public nighttime lighting (e.g. Ekirch, 2005 Ekirch, R. A. (2005). At day’s close: Night in times past. New York, NY: W. W. Norton & Company Inc. [Google Scholar]) describe the storied relationship between the value of safety and lighting efforts. Lighting served the practical function of making nighttime travel safer, but also the symbolic function of protection from the evils of the night (spirits, demons, etc.). In contemporary discourse, the exact relationship between safety and security and nighttime lighting remains contentious, with various studies proving or disproving a correlation (Pottharst & Könecke, 2013 Pottharst, M., & Könecke, B. (2013). The night and its Loss. In Space-time design of the public city, urban and landscape perspectives (Vol. 15, pp. 37–48). Dordrecht: Springer.10.1007/978-94-007-6425-5[Crossref] [Google Scholar]). It is outside the scope of this paper to comment on these studies in detail, but it is important to note that advocates for mitigating light pollution often cite the possibility that less (or more wisely designed) lighting may improve safety and reduce crime (e.g. Bogard, 2013 Bogard, P. (2013). The end of night: Searching for natural darkness in an age of artificial light. New York, NY: Back Bay Books. [Google Scholar]; Henderson, 2010 Henderson, D. (2010). Valuing the stars: On the economics of light pollution. Environmental Philosophy, 7, 17–26.10.5840/envirophil2010712[Crossref] [Google Scholar]). Street light replacement project – We’re investing in a £25 million capital project to update and replace thousands of street lights across the town. The purpose of this paper is to elucidate light pollution as a normative concept, and focus specifically on its increasing role in shaping, or framing, future regulatory efforts, and decision-making processes. The goal is not to condemn or approve of the use of light pollution from an ethical perspective, nor is it to arrive at definitive answers for the ambiguities inherent in the concept. Rather, I begin by accepting the term as the dominant concept for describing a novel environmental problem, and critically reflect on its ethical significance and potential limitations. While the implications of light pollution are far-reaching, here I will focus specifically on light pollution as it relates to urban nighttime lighting. Such an analysis can be seen as an example of an issue discussed within this journal by Elliott (2009 Elliott, K. (2009). The ethical significance of language in the environmental sciences: Case studies from pollution research. Ethics, Place & Environment, 12, 157–173.10.1080/13668790902863382[Taylor & Francis Online] [Google Scholar]), namely the ethical significance of language and terminology choices for framing environmental policy decisions and debates. While Elliott discusses very different types of pollution, the themes highlighted are quite relevant for an examination of light pollution. Elliott—who draws from a more pragmatic branch of environmental ethics that I adopt here—describes the usefulness of practical ethics for policy discussions. Philosophers can help to create and define the moral space within which policy decisions will be made, and so can contribute to upstream policy decisions. Elliot (2009 Elliott, K. (2009). The ethical significance of language in the environmental sciences: Case studies from pollution research. Ethics, Place & Environment, 12, 157–173.10.1080/13668790902863382[Taylor & Francis Online] [Google Scholar], p. 170) explains that, Use the street light outage application to report street light outages. The application allows you to select a street light on a map to report lights out, lights flickering, and lights that are burning during the day. Dear sir, Good evening i want to know where the backlight settings that will make the key pad light to show on my Techno phone?. We began with a problem (we have too much light at night) and a related question (how much artificial light at night is appropriate?). We now have the origins, context, and detailed definition in hand for the concept of light pollution. With this, we can return to the question of framing outlined in Section 2, and scrutinize the ethical significance of increasingly relying on light pollution for policy decision-making; we can assess the answer light pollution provides for our question. Increased regulation and alternative design approaches will be necessary to address the myriad of undesired effects uncovered in contemporary research. And, light pollution offers a framing to orient responses. Furthermore, in it’s broad understanding of causes and effects, light pollution accommodates a variety of interpretations, allowing for a multiplicity of regulatory and technical solutions. Dark sky ordinances and new laws already exist, which often include detailed technical specifications.99. Morgan-Taylor (2014 Morgan-Taylor, M. (2014). Regulating light pollution in Europe: Legal challenges and ways forward. In J. Meier, U. Hasenöhrl, K. Krause, & M. Pottharst (Eds.), Urban lighting, light pollution and society (pp. 159–176). New York, NY: Taylor & Francis. [Google Scholar]) provides a brief analysis of current regulatory efforts in Europe. France is cited as having perhaps the strongest law to date, which requires non-residential buildings to switch off exterior lights and window displays between 1am and 7am. Other examples cited include regions of Italy that have taken a technical approach, prohibited lights above a specific brightness to project above the horizontal. Additionally, an online appendix to the article by Kyba et al. (2014 Kyba, C., Hänel, A., & Hölker, F. (2014). Redefining efficiency for outdoor lighting. Energy & Environmental Science, 7, 1806–1809.10.1039/C4EE00566J[Crossref], [Web of Science ®] [Google Scholar]) lists all known regulations and ordinances that are currently in place, as well as their motivations and targets.View all notes However, it is pertinent to reflect on the framework in which these decisions were made, and to consider how light pollution will shape future initiatives. Eron Plus Steroïden eracto mochoman VigRX Plus BeMass power up premium BioBelt Atlant Gel VigRX Plus

kalwi

Helooo