Since the invention of the light bulb by Thomas Edison, humanity has progressed in a way history had never recorded before. Thanks to the light bulb, productivity during nighttime is made possible, bringing positive results to the economy and society. It makes life easier for all people, especially when they can replace candles with something more efficient. However, after centuries of wide application, people begin to notice the downside of electrical lights: light pollution. The excessive amount of lights take away the beauty of nature, such as night stars, or wildlife. Light pollution is becoming more of a danger to animals and even humans than just a concern, and that is why governments and communities need to take the initiative in combating against light pollution, starting by considering the financial impact, the safety of the citizen, and the environmental benefits.

When governments or communities think about making major changes, the first thing that come across their minds should always be the cost of such changes, or the improvement in finance of such changes. Researches and observations across many coutries have pointed out that people are wasting lots of energy, and along with that, money for excessive and unnecessary lighting. The number may be small and unnoticable for one household, but when combined together on a city-scale or national scale, it becomes a very concerning waste. In Quebec, Canada, for example, "the cost of 'lighting the sky' is estimated at 50 million dollars per year" (Source A). Such a big number should make people start questioning about the effectiveness of lighting, and wondering if, even just a portion of that cost, could be regulated to other plans that actually have a great impact on people's life and the environment, like funding public schools or healthcare. State or federal governments should take actions to fight against the waste of lighting and use that money to directly improve the life quality of their citizens. A map published by the National Conference of State Legislatures highlighted states that have laws to reduce light pollution in the United States (Source B). A lot of progressive states, or states with strong economy are implementing laws to reduce excessive artificial lighting. Their regulations mean more than just reducing wasteful lighting. They have strong economies that "50 million dollars per year" might not be a lot for them, but they save it anyway. It is not because they have a tight budget, but rather because they know how to put the money into good uses, which should be the quality of life of their citizens. Fighting against light pollution is not just about allowing people to see the stars at night, it is also about the responsibility of a government to do what they should do to improve the life of the people.

Another factor that governments and communities should take into account is the safety of the citizens. Lighting, as people always understand, helps expose the danger in the dark and improves the safety of a community. Researches have been conducted to give people a sense of how safe they are when there is lighting. For an instance, in Japan, "following the provision of lighting, there was a 43% reduction in night-time accidents" (Source C). And their claim makes sense. Think about it, better lighting means better view for drivers, and better view for drivers means less chance of getting into a collision. Likewise, a research in California revealed that "with improved visibility, potential offenders are more exposed and less likely to commit crimes" (Source D). The statistics are in favor of people who want more lighting in order to feel safe, or to be actually safe, because, simply, crime rate goes down as lighting goes up. But this contradicts with the goal of reducing excessive lighting. Governments are in a hard position right now. But a survey reveals that people do not actually notice a decrease in criminal activity where the lights were upgraded to brighter bulbs, with 53% of the takers answered "no" (Source D). The best thing governments should do at the moment, is to have regulations to limit the excessive lighting coming from personal use, which could be from vehicles or from rooms that people forget to turn off the lights, while leaving the street lamps untouched.

Last but not least, environmental concerns should be one of the main factors governments and communities should take actions against light pollution. Excessive lighting is actually harmful to many species, and this observation is backed by years of studies and researches. Take a look at leatherback turtles for example, "'artificial lighting of the nesting beaches is the biggest threat to survival of hatchlings and a major factor in decline leatherback turtle population'" (Source F). If humans dismiss this danger to turtles, eventually the threat will become bigger and more direct to the existence of the human race. Not just turtles, light pollution has a greater impact on the ecosystems. Like the butterfly effect, humans' carelessness for excessive lighting can cause "an increase in bacterial activity" that "leads to oxygen depletion," and this directly affects the survival of many species and humans themselves (Source A). Environmental concerns should not be something governments should exclude from their global decisions. In the recent years, governments or organizations are working hard toward protecting the environment with concerns about air or water pollution, and perhaps light pollution should also be considered.

To conclude, governments should consider the cost of their changes to lighting and how it helps the people, the safety of their citizens so that they know where and how to balance between safety and money, and environmental concerns that are becoming more and more of a global issue affecting the generational future.