In article ,
"TKM" wrote:

So, let's see if I've got this right. You are saying that we should
continue to pay taxes to waste 30% of the light and energy from our public
lighting systems (streets and parking areas) lighting up the underside of
birds and airplanes so observatory investment goes off shore and so we get
to enjoy glaring and excessive lighting.

If that is your interpretation of my words, more words are unlikely to
change your mind. I am not prepared to challenge your claim of "30%" or
even your definition of "waste". We obviously disagree.

I object mostly to the simplistic views of those that impugn that which
has served us well for ages yet, only comparatively recently, declare
that it is "bad" or "wasted" or now constitutes "pollution".

Perhaps it because I am probably older than most of the vocal
environmentalists. I remember how things were and how far we have come.
Most frustrating is the knowledge that, no matter how far we have come
or how much we do currently in the realm of environmental protection and
conservation, it isn't enough - and it will never be enough.

IOW, they would bitch if they were hung with a NEW rope.
--

JR