The UK is one of the most intensively illuminated countries in the world, so much so that naturally dark skies are extinct within its frontiers.

  Over the past 40 years amateur astronomy has become increasingly difficult from the UK, and astronomers are increasingly having to go abroad in order to pursue their activities.

  When they complain about light pollution, the meet with little sympathy from the general population, who view them as eccentrics whose needs merit little consideration. The UK has amongst the best astronomers in the world, and considering our foul climate and lighting conditions, the most hardy.

  Time is long overdue to redress their needs.

  Any astronomer who complains to a municipal lighting authority usually receives little sympathy. If his property is illuminated by a street-light, all the lighting authority will do is parrot out regulations about spacing, and irrelevant concerns about safety and security. At best they may pay lip-service to the astronomer by screening a light, but my experience tells me that this has little effect. The light will still pollute his property through back-scattered light off nearby buildings, etc.

  The removal of one or two street-lights from around an astronomer's property is hardly going to affect the safety and security of the general population. On a nationwide basis, this may amount to about 1,000 active astronomers. Again this will have little effect.

  The only answer is outright removal. If an astronomer demands this of a lighting authority, they are duty bound to comply, as he is a tax payer like everyone else. The aggrieved astronomer has a right not to have his property illuminated, so that he can carry out his legitimate activities.

  If light-pollution prevented people from watching Manchester United or watching Coronation Street, then I have no doubt that it would have disappeared years ago, but just because if affects a few astronomers, no-one cares.

  Legislation needs to be implemented nationwide to protect astronomical observatories from this menace. An astronomical observatory in legal terms needs to be defined as any location where astronomical observations are made on a routine basis. This will include established observatories in university departments and properties where an amateur observer may make routine observations armed with nothing more than a pair of binoculars.

  The problem of light-pollution needs to be redressed now, especially the more insidious form of light trespass which is outlined above.

  The problem of general sky-glow can be rectified by the implementation of better lighting in urban areas. Some countries have already gone down this road, recognising that there is a problem—the United States, Spain, Italy, and the Czeck Republic. Why not the UK? Safety can be maintained by using alternative methods of making roads safer, like baffles on the central reservations of rural motorways. These have the added advantage that they do not use energy, nor do they require maintenance.

  This is an environmental problem, and if rectified in the UK, will forego the emergence of yet another militant pressure group. Astronomers are getting increasingly frustrated by the inertia that exists in recognising this problem. A pro-active policy in accommodating astronomers' needs nationwide will engender a lot of good-will. We are not against lighting as such, just light-trespass, bad lighting, and irrelevant lighting such as crass floodlighting schemes (such as rural churches).

  On an additional environmental note, the installation of millions of street-lights world wide creates urban heat engines in cities that must make a significant contribution to global warming. Thousands of cities world-wide are cooking the atmosphere every night. A reduction in non-essential lighting will certainly go some way to reducing wastage of energy. In the UK the amount wasted on non-essential street-lighting could probably finance a brand-new hospital, or abolish student tuition fees, etc. If non-essential lighting can be eliminated, and essential lighting strictly controlled, the savings, and therefore the benefits to the nation will be enormous. Yet street-lighting in the UK has never experienced cut-backs, yet we hear about it every day in education and the health service.

  Light-pollution also has environmental effects on wildlife. Britain is extremely sterile with hardly any insects. I remember as a child 40 years ago that insects were abundant. Now there are hardly any. I have already pointed out elsewhere that street-lights attract and kill insects, and this has a knock on effect higher up the food chain. Higher order consumers like birds and small mammals will starve or move on if their food is no longer available. Those organisms that they feed on, that are no affected by street-lighting, such as snails, will then increase in numbers. The explosion of garden snails in recent years, in areas where they never previously existed, has been well documented.