Faux Progressivism of California Illustrated in Light Pollution Policy

Light pollution has long been identified as a serious environmental problem. It disturbs animal migration patterns and even has an impact on human health. These issues have recently been exacerbated with the widespread adoption of LED lights for their energy-saving purposes, only for their heavy emission of blue-tinted light, which has been shown to be more harmful than warmer-tinted light sources. These impacts have been especially present in the state of California, being a large, biodiverse state on the coast where animal life in habitats from desert to marine are impacted, as well as one of the most populous in terms of the human population. That being said, California has been slow to adopt policies surrounding this issue, contradicting its image as a beacon of progressivism. While multiple states have adopted laws regarding light pollution, Governor Gavin Newsom himself recently vetoed a bill for such a law. The reasons he cited mainly focused on the cost of implementing policies regarding better lighting. This is just one issue that shows a pattern of faux-progressivism on Newson’s part. Additionally, light pollution laws, when actually passed, are done less for human and animal health and more on account of economic incentives. 

According to the National Conference on State Legislatures, the states that currently have laws on light pollution include Oregon, Nevada, Arizona, New Mexico, Texas, Wyoming, Colorado, Mississippi, Minnesota, Virginia, Maryland, Delaware, North Carolina, New York, Connecticut, Rhode Island, New Hampshire, Arkansas, Maine, and Hawaii, plus Washington DC and Puerto Rico. The exact guidelines differ by state. A curious observation is how few of these locations cite animal or human welfare as the primary reason in their introduction. For example, as per the North Carolina General Assembly, the first cited reason is electrical costs. The law by the State of Hawaii Legislature starts off by mentioning the importance of a clear night sky to astronomy with a similar law in New Mexico and the law in Virginia also focuses on areas around planetariums and telescopes specifically. Others make points about the cost of non-efficient lighting. Puerto Rico appears to be an exception to the rule by actually bringing up sea turtles. It becomes clear that the driving force between the majority of state laws relating to light pollution are not driven by a desire to protect animals or even human health, but rather by some other economic factor. Astronomy was the first that stood out in multiple pieces of legislature. It is noteworthy that DarkSky International, previously known as the International Dark-Sky Association, the group that has helped push much of the light pollution legislature in the country, was itself started by two astronomers. A look at the images below shows that there is a great deal of overlap between states with large telescopes and those with laws addressing light pollution. While this is not to say that astronomers themselves cannot or do not care about other factors relating to the impact of light pollution, it is evident that the perceived financial benefit of astronomy to the states is the more influential factor. For the government, astronomy functions less as the perception by the public as mere stargazing, but also includes satellites and surveillance. While previous claims that Republican candidates tend to support greater funding for the sciences overall turned out to be unfounded, it is true when the science in question can be applicable to defense, which astronomical technology is often utilized in. This adds another layer to this, as the support of scientific research is less about benefiting humanity or even just understanding the wonders of the universe, but rather to protect state and corporate interests.

Map of states with light pollution laws, via National Conference of State Legislatures

Map of largest telescopes in the US, via go-astronomy.com

The question arises as to why the dark sky initiative in California was vetoed. One must further examine Newsom and his veto. To outsiders, Gavin Newsom, a California governor who used to be the mayor of San Francisco, is the pinnacle of that aforementioned perceived Californian progressivism. However, when actually analyzing this man’s actions, it becomes clear that the aura of progressivism portrayed with Newsom is in fact an illusion. Despite promising to cut back on fracking while running for governor, he would only authorize more once elected. This particular veto is not his only one. Newsom also vetoed bills that would allow protections to transgender youth and to expand needle exchange programs. He vetoed the human composting bill, another environmental bill, twice before finally allowing it to pass the third time. 

Looking at these, one questions why an alleged progressive like Newsom would consistently veto bills popular in his state. At this point, it has been accepted that politicians lie and rely on optics over their genuine self, but why would he act against the desires of the people in his state. In the case of the human composting bill, we have an actual answer. The first time this bill came to Newson’s desk, it was shortly before the recall election of 2021. Political commentators stated that, at this time, he did not want to be associated with anything that could be perceived as “weird” and used against him in the media. As much as offering alternative death options may be environmentally beneficial, it is true that it is still perceived as controversial by some and it is easy to see how it could have been portrayed in a certain light by Newson’s opponents. Seeing the motivation there, it puts the other decisions into perspective. Political commentators have long said that Newsom intends to run for president someday. The way that he was thinking forward with how legalizing human composting could make him appear in the recall election, it becomes clear that the reason he vetoes certain laws, even as he is in his second term as governor, Newsom is thinking about how these will make him look when he runs for president. He appears desperate to disprove ideas about himself and California to his future national constituents. With the recent media-driven moral panic against trans people and trans youth specifically, of course he felt he needed to veto a bill protecting trans youth. Never mind that he would be protecting a vulnerable population heavily impacted by hate crimes; he could not let a future article talk about how he wanted to protect them in case people in some other state didn’t like that. Needle exchange programs save hundreds of lives every year, but he could not dare let himself be associated with protecting drug addicts. With residents of other states often complaining about California’s draconian environmental laws, such as the fees bestowed upon the owners of large vehicles, he could not allow himself to be associated with an additional environmental law, even one that exists in multiple red states. It appears that Newsom is being advised that he needs to make himself appear to be a moderate and veto as many progressive bills as he can to appeal to hypothetical future voters, even at the expense of the people and wildlife of California. If only he realized that reality does not matter to anyone who would care. As a Californian governor and former San Francisco mayor, Newsom will only be ever seen as a commie pinko degenerate to so many non-progressives. He may as well pass as many genuinely draconian environmental laws as possible and turn California into the beacon of social progress that people who do not live there think it is.