EDITORIALS

Saving an Ink-Dark Sky

With the nearly relentlessly overcast weather we have noticed what seems to be an increase in the amount of light leaking into the night sky lately. The blanket of haze and rain has been refracting the glare from poorly designed or placed light fixtures.

Light pollution has come late to the list of environmental concerns here, but it is getting notice. Generally, the rule is that direct illumination sources such as bulb filaments should not be directly visible beyond property lines.

In East Hampton Town, offending landowners must correct the violation or face fines of up to $1,000 for the first offense. Enforcement is nearly nonexistent, however, despite improper fixtures being extremely easy to detect. The town says it has only recently assigned ordinance enforcement officers to work after dark; meanwhile, citizens who would like to file a complaint can do so by stopping by or phoning the Ordinance Enforcement Department on Pantigo Place.

The town will mark Dark Sky Week beginning Monday. A resolution making the designation calls the night sky a natural resource worth preserving, and, importantly, restoring where possible. The resolution, which carries no official authority, asks businesses and individuals to turn off nonessential outdoor lights and to reposition any that may be off target. It also suggests reducing the wattage of outdoor fixtures where possible.

East Hampton Town is in the process of rewriting its regulations on outdoor lighting to bring them in line with some of the country's most stringent ones. Low-wattage illumination will not be affected, but even some covered fixtures will have to be replaced under this excellent and aggressive proposal. The town planning board, which has tried to incorporate lighting considerations into its review of development projects, will find the expanded regulations to be a big help.

East Hampton Village may soon establish some rules on the subject, requiring that no new commercial, municipal, or residential lights "trespass" onto their neighbors' property. Unfortunately, a gradual phaseout of offending fixtures is not being considered. This means that existing lights, no matter how badly they leak into the night sky, will be grandfathered.

The village trustees should reconsider this tepid approach and enact a law more like that being considered by the town. Local government should retire, over time, all nonconforming lighting, perhaps putting a bounty on old fixtures to help defray the cost of retrofitting. The South Fork's towns and villages should demand, also, that state and county agencies comply with local standards to the greatest degree possible.

The enjoyment of an ink-dark night sky may seem trivial to some, but it is, we believe, prominent among the pleasures of living and visiting here. It is well worth preserving.

There Is Consensus On Global Warming

Few members of the scientific community were surprised by the news that the Environmental Protection Agency has omitted any significant discussion of global warming from a major report on the environment. Starting with its rejection of the international initiative known as the Kyoto Protocols, the Bush administration has compiled a lengthy record of opposition to any reasonable approach to the problem.

Acting on the White House's orders, The New York Times reported, the E.P.A. whittled down a section on the risks of rising global temperatures to a few mealy-mouthed paragraphs. Christine Todd Whitman, the agency's outgoing director, defended any White House influence, saying the lack of scientific consensus made including any definitive conclusions in the report impossible. It is hard to believe that Ms. Whitman, a sensible, moderate Republican who leaves the E.P.A. tomorrow, actually believes that. It would have been closer to the truth to acknowledge that some conservatives favor ignoring the issue to avoid having to force industry to reduce the emissions that cause global warming.

The White House, which prefers to speak of global warming as less threatening "climate change," may recently have gotten pointers on how to deal with the issue from a top Republican pollster. In a 12-page letter to conservative clients, the pollster recommended raising doubts about the scientific evidence. The White House could hardly have hoped for a better way to cast doubt on global warming than to have the national media ask the E.P.A. director why the material was omitted from her report.

The strategy finds fertile ground among a populace with a pitiable misunderstanding of science. From the fishing industry to the debate over evolution, the public tends to view the scientific process, which is one of continual analysis and adjustment as new data comes in, as suspect. Creationists are fond of pointing to the ongoing development of evolutionary theory as evidence of its weakness. "It's just a theory," they say, not understanding that in the scientific understanding of the word, a theory is the product of tested hypotheses reviewed by peers.

In an amusing response to creationists earlier this year, the National Center for Science Education distributed a statement supporting evolution signed by 220 people named Steve or Stephanie. The name was chosen to honor Stephen Jay Gould, the late Harvard zoologist who was an important contributor to the understanding of evolution, and to underscore how foolish it is to allow a handful of dissenters to derail science.

The magazine Scientific American once took a sample poll of supposed Ph.D.s in the climate sciences who signed a letter sponsored by a conservative group that questioned global warming. Few had relevant experience and many of those who did said they did not recall signing any such petition. Wholly dissenting views on global warming have instead been limited to a few zealots.

Not many real-life climate scientists doubt that Earth's atmosphere is warming and that the rate of change is speeding up due largely to pollution from automobiles and industry. The risks if this is allowed to continue are great, ranging from rising sea levels that could inundate coastal areas like the East End of Long Island to greater incidence of diseases like malaria, whose hosts thrive in warmer weather.

It is sad, but hardly surprising, that the White House would distort the scientific consensus and decline to take on the problem of global warming. In the future, going after the causes of global warming will not be an option no matter what conservative groups say now.