> instead of shutting down agriculture in the only marginal spot on the west coast you can grow food.

Not an expert, but I would think greenhouse light pollution is not necessary for agriculture? It seems like obvious waste (money spent generating light that isn't going to photosynthesis), but I assume it's cheaper not to shield the lights than to shield them, so it's a matter of ROI and requiring people take care of their externalities.

Is there an economic argument that light shields will make agriculture in that area too expensive?

This is not only about being able to see a nice night sky (although I admit I love seeing one), it's a very much more fundamental issue.

Light pollution has dramatic negative consequences for wildlife and thereby our ecosystem we so heavily depend upon.

I can't just casually hop up to the Yukon for an evening of astronomy. It's about a thirty hour drive. Even relatively small towns have exurbs now because of our terrible city planning, so light pollution extends shockingly far. Alberta's probably the worst, almost the entire province (about the same land area as Texas) has light pollution.

> instead of shutting down agriculture in the only marginal spot on the west coast you can grow food.

The Okanagan will be shocked to hear they can't do agriculture! Perhaps we could just turn off the greenhouse lights for a couple hours, or install retractable shields/mirorrs on top of the greenhouses.

The entire world’s agriculture “shut down” at night before we decided we want every crop to be available everywhere year-round.

Just install light shields.

or you know, just adjust the lights a little

[flagged]