On the subject of energy poverty and darkness there’s one more issue we want to address here, because of a National Geographic promotion of “The Best Dark Sky Destinations in Europe for Stargazing”. And no, it’s not the hypocrisy of publications that alternate warnings that fossil fuels must go with invitations for us to go somewhere marvellous by airplane. Rather, it’s that “light pollution” actually is a thing, unlike “carbon pollution”. And while we do not doubt that “From the Canaries to the Scottish Borders, Europe is dotted with remote landscapes where exceptionally dark skies make stargazing an unforgettable part of the journey”, and we ourselves would happily go to the Canaries or the Scottish Borders if only we really had all the money as the alarmists claim, we think that if less time, effort and folly were expended on fixing the weather, something could be done about the wretched urban planning that forces Europeans to flee the continent or nearly so to see the sky.
We speak in this regard as Canadians who have the good fortune to inhabit a vast and sparsely inhabited land, itself occupying nearly half a continent, and to grow up with the archetypal Canadian “cottage” at which you could in fact see the night sky. Roughly three hours from any major city, and six miles from the nearest road, it was nature as nature intended in many key ways including that you could go out at night and actually see the “Milky Way”. Obviously Europe is more crowded, which is why those locales they choose are in places like “Syrjävaara, Finland” where “The remote and dramatic landscapes of Finnish Lapland lend themselves perfectly to a dark sky break.”
Of course the modern environmentalist being a largely urban creature, they also promise “typical Finnish sauna and other wilderness experiences.” Whereas we could once have offered “typical Canadian outhouse built by university professor with salvaged wood and other wilderness experiences” that were genuinely wild. But we digress.
Or not, because among the hypocritical tourism-promoting items we get from anti-hydrocarbon publications was, from the Toronto Star:
“Why Japan’s northernmost island is a surprising culinary destination, from lavish buffets to fine dining in the woods”.
And again, our idea of “fine dining in the woods” was a marshmallow on a stick over a fire you had made yourself. And the buffet might include a fish you had caught yourself not:
“table after table lined with fresh cherry salmon, amberjack and trout sashimi; tuna, scallop and sardine sushi; the most delicate tempura; roast pork and grilled beef and chicken.”
OK. Maybe a tinned sardine was available with the charred marshmallow.
Don’t even get us started on Bloomberg’s “The Ultimate Luxury Travel Flex Is Doing Something No One Has Done Before” including a guy who “helicoptered from his yacht to camp on the edge of a remote volcano” spewing CO2.
For our money, or lack of it, forget some expedition company’s “Power Trips, uniquely concentrated adventures for ‘those who refuse to waste a moment.’” Other people have lain on beaches, jumped off a cliff into a lake, or gazed at the night sky, “wasting” hours in the process, and we’re keen to do the same. But we could also note with a sneer Scientific American, as carbon-obsessed as the Star or anyone else, having the gall to offer:
“Now Booking for 2027! We’re thrilled to announce 6 incredible new trips from Scientific American Travel. These unique experiences range from taking a private wildlife expedition in Yellowstone to watching a kaleidoscope of butterflies take flight in Mexico to touring the famed gardens of Keukenhof in the Netherlands.”
Instead we will use it to make a point that has often struck us when offered some river cruise or another, that in addition to some beautiful old buildings they invariably offer natural vistas not hideous modern cement architecture in a megalopolis with uncounted acres of underground parking lots. So if we really like nature, why don’t we spend more time protecting and restoring it instead of trying to suck so much CO2 out of the air that it all dies?
Which brings us to another Star article hyping:
“At this Bahamas mega-resort for vacation-maxxing, expect gigantic slides, luxury boutiques and a daily parade of flamingos”
Which suggests that they are unclear on the concept of “unspoiled wilderness” of the lie-on-sand, swim-with-fish, eat-in-hut variety. And also muddled on why, when warmth is bad:
“Especially come winter, when a Canadian’s basic objective tends to be rocketing oneself to the nearest glorious (and non-American) body of water, Nassau emerges a winner.”
Because there’s a waterpark beside the ocean, and the latter is a boring place full of fish, sand, and coral. Easily fixed. As is the night sky.
Hence another of the National Geographic destinations, “Roque de los Muchachos, Canary Islands, Spain” is actually so far from Europe that it’s south of Morocco. And the others were in remote bits of the British Isles, to the extent that in modernity such things exist. But why?
Why can’t some kid in Belgium look up and see the Big Dipper? (Or whatever they call it there; in the UK it’s “The Plough” and apparently in France the “Saucepan” and in Germany the “Chariot”.) Why, indeed, are the places where we grew up now very much contaminated by light in the night sky? What exactly is the point of all this light spilling out?
Well, it seemed like a good idea at the time. It would now be possible to fix, perhaps even easy, including redesigning street lights so they shone only down, not out sideways. But we’re too busy getting rid of plant food to save nature to give it any thought.
P.S. This file also contained an item from Phys.Org on “Why earwigs infected by parasitic worms head towards water”. And while in a battle between earwigs and parasitic worms we are cheering for both sides to lose, we confess that it’s a fascinating question. Unlike, say, “Coast redwoods struggle to photosynthesize when their leaves get too hot” that also warns that “These forests hold enormous amounts of carbon, so a slowdown in how trees take in carbon could affect both forest health and carbon storage” so apparently carbon pollution and lack of it are both bad for trees or at least for journalism.
