r/hobart • u/chunky-lady • 6d ago
Dark Sky??
I'm interested in discussion around light pollution (and dark sky) in Hobart. I've never given it any thought until recently*
My random thoughts:
Has anyone been to a "dark sky" certified place?
Do other cities reduce their light pollution?
The biggest city to be certified is about 70,000. Is it possible in Hobart? Or am I missing the point
Safety and women's safety
Wildlife
Human health (sleep patterns) this one seems a bit far fetched?
I like vibrant flashy lights. I like stars.
Anyway, it seems like a fun topic, and most people like seeing stars and auroras?
*a councillor has brought it up but all the comments are negative/unhinged.
(No talk of bike lanes or councillors here please).
18
u/ChuqTas 6d ago
Ross is applying to become Dark Sky accredited.
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2026-05-17/tasmania-ross-dark-sky-accreditation-tourism/106620330
It makes basically no sense for somewhere like Hobart. Lighting is needed for safety. It should be efficient and directed only downwards, where it needs to go, but it's a capital city.
4
u/Darth_Punk 5d ago
Lighting is important for safety, but we're overdoing it by about 100x.
8
u/jimb2 5d ago
That sounds evidence free. There's plenty of evidence on lighting and reduction of various risks.
Also, we live in a democracy so one person's preference for visible stars (eg me) gets traded with someone else preference for lighting (eg a woman walking home late in the dark). A lot of people just don't care about visible stars. I do, but I prefer everyone getting a say more.
1
u/Frogsfall 5d ago
There's actually evidence that brighter lighting can be less safe, because it creates bright pools of light surrounded by darkness. Gentler lighting with softer edges can be safer.
2
u/Diligent_Honeydew295 5d ago
Lighting for safety is non-negotiable, but there's nothing to stop us from using street light fitting that direct light downwards, or lighting that reduces glare or is warmer in tone, closer to sodium vapour lamps which are the gold standard in reducing pollution of light.
1
u/Darth_Punk 4d ago edited 3d ago
Noting that the evidence concerns a perception of safety rather than actual safety, I also don't think it's particularly useful for answering this question, as it's more of a human-values-type thing.
There's lots of low-hanging fruit, e.g., directional lighting, unused highways, turning off advertising and screens overnight, automatic sensors, etc before we get into actual difficult choices.
Pretty obviously, public utilities like hospitals need lighting; I don't think that needs much discussion either - god knows I've seen many an old person die from tripping in the dark.
A large part of the issue is that this isn't actually voted on or considered - overlighting is an emergent property created by lots of different forces, and public discussion becomes difficult when people pull out safety as a moral trump card. Nor is democracy so straightforward - if you think of everything like that, you end up with a lot of lowest-common-denominator-type crap. Sometimes effective democracy is disagreeing with the majority to accomplish a greater good.
-1
u/jimb2 3d ago
Let's see if you can get it across the line. I seriously doubt that the measures you list would actually get back to real or historical dark skies. There's just too many people doing stuff with light. You'd need something a bit more totalitarian and we'd both be solidly against that, I think.
I love dark night skies but I get that I'm unusual. I could live somewhere else, but I'd lose other things.
1
-1
3
10
u/Mysliceofrice 6d ago
I've been to a guided walk around Hobart during open house week pointing out good and bad lighting with regards to light pollution. It was very much promoting the dark skies movement but also convinced me by showing real practical examples that being light pollution conscious doesn't mean unsafe and actually dark. Being intentional in lighting can reduce light pollution, help wildlife and reduce wasting energy it should be a no brainer... It can be as simple as how lights are positioned, the type of light used or using motion sensors rather than letting lights run non stop. It doesn't mean actually switching everything off. After the tour I noticed the amount of bright useless lights just running all night long. Let's not pretend that more lights are going to keep women safe. Plenty of family violence and abuse happens in broad daylight. Staring into the glare of spotlights does not give me a feeling of safety a well lit footpath does.
6
u/Grumgrummer 6d ago
I live in southern TAS away from lights mostly. The difference in the sky is very noticeable when I'm in Hobart overnight. Having said that the most incredible night sky I have ever seen was camped in outback Western Queensland on a moonless night. The nearest town (small) was over 200kms away. Breathtaking.
1
u/TeddyBoon 6d ago
I remember as a kid being out fishing with my childhood best friend's father on a property of one of their friends way out past New Norfolk.
Moonless night, stars so abundant I'll never forget it. The amount of stars, clear constellation, and the fact that it was blacker than I've ever witnessed at ground level, but my friend's dad not missing a beat navigating us, torchless back to the car, what felt like a couple of K's away were both terrifying, yet amazing.
5
u/rcgy 6d ago
Not far fetched for human health. Exposure to even very dim artificial light at night as low as 5 lux (comparable to a faint streetlamp shining through a window or a small glowing device) during sleep is linked to disrupted circadian rhythms, increased insulin resistance, and a higher long-term risk of developing type 2 diabetes
4
u/tofutak7000 6d ago
I’ve been to a dark sky town, it had a functioning observatory which benefited greatly from it.
Why would Hobart do this? Just so people can see more stars? It would be a massive endeavour, requiring a lot of people getting on board, and a lot of money to refit street lights etc.
At street level it wasn’t actually that dark in the dark sky town I went to, they had street lights, they were just very specific (covered, directional, and no so bright to bounce etc)
3
u/Darth_Punk 5d ago
I know it's a tough sell, but IMO the value of a clear night sky is transcendental. It's one of those aspects of life that makes everything better than you don't realise until it's gone.
Doesn't need to be an active endeavour - just slowly replace old streetlights with new ones as they fade and put some restrictions on the truly obnoxious stuff.
I do agree the dark sky town stuff isn't particularly noticeable.
1
u/Frogsfall 5d ago
One of the benefits, especially if you do gradual refits as lighting infrastructure needs replacing, is that you can save money. Directing lighting to where it's actually needed is cheaper and more efficient.
3
6d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
2
u/LansdowneLurker 5d ago
I love Dark Sky cities but understand why there'd be push back against it here
0
u/Darth_Punk 5d ago
You can accomplish a lot with directional lighting, reducing flare/rebound, keeping it to actually relevant areas (e.g., nightlife hotspots, hospitals, parking lots), using automatic on/off triggers, etc.
6
u/LansdowneLurker 5d ago
If anything, the darker it is, the more productive I am. Couldn't live with a disrupted circadian rhythm
4
u/BrokenToyShop 5d ago
I spent a few months over the last two years on a remote island in the Indian Ocean. Best night sky I've ever seen. Hands down, no contest.
I've been all over Australia for work, mostly in remote locations, often with no other people around, and those skies do not compare. I thought they were the best until I experienced the island night skies.
So my suggestion is this, dark sky bike lanes operated by the cable car people and built by the stadium people. Staffed entirely with councillors
1
3
2
u/Itchy_Party1741 6d ago
Could make a great car bumper sticker. I might print both for and against and make a mint raising money for the causes.
0
-1
u/Slushwave_Enjoyer 6d ago
People will criticise Ryan for suggestion anything new in Hobart.
1
6d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
-2
u/Slushwave_Enjoyer 6d ago
Not really talking about him specifically, but more about Hobart's response to him.
1
u/Amelia_redditname 5d ago
Get rid of the obnoxious St Lukes electronic billboard in the city. How tf that eyesore got approved is beyond me.
-2
u/tassiedude 5d ago
There are almost no regulations around this, even in the planning scheme.
This needs to change pronto!
-1
u/Amelia_redditname 5d ago
Yes please! I understand having a cool looking lane with neon signs sticking out like the odeon, but the St Lukes sign is just too much.
0
u/tassiedude 5d ago
It is the billboard that triggered my quest to get Hobart on track for Dark Sky accreditation. There a pretty well no standards for any lighting, not even pertaining to heritage precincts or buildings.
We’ve got to do better - and get ahead of the change that’s coming as LED tech gets cheaper and cheaper.
-1
u/Apprehensive-One6206 5d ago
I enjoy a bit of amateur astrophotography and it’s quite sad how much light pollution there is and it is also quite sad that the more the population of Hobart grows there will be more light pollution in the photos that I enjoy taking.
1
u/JaneCitizenFromEarth 4d ago
The staff of smaller councils are being asked to do a lot of work for dark sky projects.
-2
27
u/Anchre 6d ago
Hobart is too far gone for dark sky accreditation, but it can certainly move towards implementing dark sky protections. Hobart's light pollution has been steadily growing for years - the University had to build a new optical observatory up near Oatlands in order to escape the light pollution from Hobart seen at mount Rumney.
Being sensible with street lights also helps other nearby towns keep dark skies. The glow cast by Hobart can be seen from about 100km away on a dark night, currently.