As a tax payer, to my local municipality, I wish they would spend my taxes more wisely. Can a taxer get tax breaks? Tax breaks for initial cost does sound pretty sound though. I talked to my city manager, seemed problem was that they had non lighting engineers deciding on what fixtures to buy, cities need to be educated. They look at initial cost only. They should look at operating costs and how much longer the more efficient fixtures last. Money is saved in much lower energy cost and the less fixture replacement.I did manage to get them to shield lights I could see. The US manufacturers are like Detroit, way old school with no thought of energy conservation. I have noticed, that on nights during power failures I do sleep much better (until the hospital called my cell phone at least). Health concerns aside, the money savings should be plenty of motivation for more efficient lighting. Tax payers should be demanding it, they also need to be educated. Erik --- josephmbauman@yahoo.com wrote: From: Joe Bauman <josephmbauman@yahoo.com> To: Utah Astronomy <utah-astronomy@mailman.xmission.com> Subject: Re: [Utah-astronomy] Light Pollution in S L Tribune Date: Tue, 2 Dec 2008 10:24:33 -0800 (PST) To add another of my 2 cents worth (make it 4 cents!! total, close to my limit): a good approach may be to push legislation to give some kind of tax break to people and municipalities toward the purchase of light shielding. -- thanks, Joe --- On Tue, 12/2/08, Patrick Wiggins <paw@wirelessbeehive.com> wrote: From: Patrick Wiggins <paw@wirelessbeehive.com> Subject: Re: [Utah-astronomy] Light Pollution in S L Tribune To: "Utah Astronomy" <utah-astronomy@mailman.xmission.com> Date: Tuesday, December 2, 2008, 12:57 AM During interviews, lectures or conversations I always put economic cost of wasted energy, increased air pollution caused by the unnecessary burning of fossil fuels to generate the wasted energy and threats to animal and human health ahead of the need to preserve the night sky. It is nice, BTW, to see the positive effects of Tooele County's light pollution ordinance. Lights on billboards built before the law shine up while he new ones shine down. The strip mall built at the north end of Stansbury Park before the law has awful lights on the back walls of the buildings (though the parking lots lights are ok) while the strip mall at the south end built after the law has shielded lights. That last BTW, is due to a few of us politely complaining to the county during construction which resulted in the lights being modified. Slowly but surely I really do think that many people (except maybe those at YESCO that make money off of light pollution) are beginning to see the light (or is that dark?). patrick On 01 Dec 2008, at 11:21, Robert Taylor wrote:
What are the thoughts about arguing from a health standpoint vs. loosing the night sky. I really don't think politicians care one wit about loss of the night sky but I think they would be more responsive to some of the new studies that are pointing to excessive and non-stop lighting as a cause of Breast Cancer and now colon cancer as well as disruptions to wildlife? We are creatures that evolved with a dark nighttime and darkness serves a purpose.
Robert Taylor
_______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://gallery.utahastronomy.com Visit the Wiki: http://www.utahastronomy.com _______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://gallery.utahastronomy.com Visit the Wiki: http://www.utahastronomy.com