A life worth living

Occasionally in the rich tapestry of life we share together on planet Earth someone or something comes along to make a difference. One such person is the Swedish teenager Greta Thunberg, who spoke eloquently and with conviction to the UK Parliament this week. Her urgent words on climate breakdown were fresh, sharp and precise - a prophetic call to action that we continue to ignore at our future peril. Regular readers of So Said the Lighthouse Keeper will know her concerns have a deep resonance with the writer and so they are reproduced here in full. Please read on - it is time to reflect, consider and act.

"My name is Greta Thunberg. I am 16 years old. I come from Sweden. And I speak on behalf of future generations.

I know many of you don’t want to listen to us – you say we are just children. But we’re only repeating the message of the united climate science.

Many of you appear concerned that we are wasting valuable lesson time, but I assure you we will go back to school the moment you start listening to science and give us a future. Is that really too much to ask?

In the year 2030 I will be 26 years old. My little sister Beata will be 23. Just like many of your own children or grandchildren. That is a great age, we have been told. When you have all of your life ahead of you. But I am not so sure it will be that great for us.

I was fortunate to be born in a time and place where everyone told us to dream big; I could become whatever I wanted to. I could live wherever I wanted to. People like me had everything we needed and more. Things our grandparents could not even dream of. We had everything we could ever wish for and yet now we may have nothing.

Now we probably don’t even have a future any more.

Because that future was sold so that a small number of people could make unimaginable amounts of money. It was stolen from us every time you said that the sky was the limit, and that you only live once.

You lied to us. You gave us false hope. You told us that the future was something to look forward to. And the saddest thing is that most children are not even aware of the fate that awaits us. We will not understand it until it’s too late. And yet we are the lucky ones. Those who will be affected the hardest are already suffering the consequences. But their voices are not heard.

Is my microphone on? Can you hear me?

Around the year 2030, 10 years 252 days and 10 hours away from now, we will be in a position where we set off an irreversible chain reaction beyond human control, that will most likely lead to the end of our civilisation as we know it. That is unless in that time, permanent and unprecedented changes in all aspects of society have taken place, including a reduction of CO2 emissions by at least 50 percent.

And please note that these calculations are depending on inventions that have not yet been invented at scale, inventions that are supposed to clear the atmosphere of astronomical amounts of carbon dioxide.

Furthermore, these calculations do not include unforeseen tipping points and feedback loops like the extremely powerful methane gas escaping from rapidly thawing arctic permafrost.

Nor do these scientific calculations include already locked-in warming hidden by toxic air pollution. Nor the aspect of equity – or climate justice – clearly stated throughout the Paris agreement, which is absolutely necessary to make it work on a global scale.

We must also bear in mind that these are just calculations. Estimations. That means that these “points of no return” may occur a bit sooner or later than 2030. No one can know for sure. We can, however, be certain that they will occur approximately in these timeframes, because these calculations are not opinions or wild guesses.

These projections are backed up by scientific facts, concluded by all nations through the IPCC. Nearly every single major national scientific body around the world unreservedly supports the work and findings of the IPCC.

Did you hear what I just said? Is my English OK? Is the microphone on? Because I’m beginning to wonder.

During the last six months I have travelled around Europe for hundreds of hours in trains, electric cars and buses, repeating these life-changing words over and over again. But no one seems to be talking about it, and nothing has changed. In fact, the emissions are still rising.

When I have been travelling around to speak in different countries, I am always offered help to write about the specific climate policies in specific countries. But that is not really necessary. Because the basic problem is the same everywhere. And the basic problem is that basically nothing is being done to halt – or even slow – climate and ecological breakdown, despite all the beautiful words and promises.

The UK is, however, very special. Not only for its mind-blowing historical carbon debt, but also for its current, very creative, carbon accounting.

Since 1990 the UK has achieved a 37 percent reduction of its territorial CO2 emissions, according to the Global Carbon Project. And that does sound very impressive. But these numbers do not include emissions from aviation, shipping and those associated with imports and exports. If these numbers are included the reduction is around 10% since 1990 – or an an average of 0.4 percent a year, according to Tyndall Manchester.

And the main reason for this reduction is not a consequence of climate policies, but rather a 2001 EU directive on air quality that essentially forced the UK to close down its very old and extremely dirty coal power plants and replace them with less dirty gas power stations. And switching from one disastrous energy source to a slightly less disastrous one will of course result in a lowering of emissions.

But perhaps the most dangerous misconception about the climate crisis is that we have to “lower” our emissions. Because that is far from enough. Our emissions have to stop if we are to stay below 1.5-2C of warming. The “lowering of emissions” is of course necessary but it is only the beginning of a fast process that must lead to a stop within a couple of decades, or less. And by “stop” I mean net zero – and then quickly on to negative figures. That rules out most of today’s politics.

The fact that we are speaking of “lowering” instead of “stopping” emissions is perhaps the greatest force behind the continuing business as usual. The UK’s active current support of new exploitation of fossil fuels – for example, the UK shale gas fracking industry, the expansion of its North Sea oil and gas fields, the expansion of airports as well as the planning permission for a brand new coal mine – is beyond absurd.

This ongoing irresponsible behaviour will no doubt be remembered in history as one of the greatest failures of humankind.

People always tell me and the other millions of school strikers that we should be proud of ourselves for what we have accomplished. But the only thing that we need to look at is the emission curve. And I’m sorry, but it’s still rising. That curve is the only thing we should look at.

Every time we make a decision we should ask ourselves; how will this decision affect that curve? We should no longer measure our wealth and success in the graph that shows economic growth, but in the curve that shows the emissions of greenhouse gases. We should no longer only ask: “Have we got enough money to go through with this?” but also: “Have we got enough of the carbon budget to spare to go through with this?” That should and must become the centre of our new currency.

Many people say that we don’t have any solutions to the climate crisis. And they are right. Because how could we? How do you “solve” the greatest crisis that humanity has ever faced? How do you “solve” a war? How do you “solve” going to the moon for the first time? How do you “solve” inventing new inventions?

The climate crisis is both the easiest and the hardest issue we have ever faced. The easiest because we know what we must do. We must stop the emissions of greenhouse gases. The hardest because our current economics are still totally dependent on burning fossil fuels, and thereby destroying ecosystems in order to create everlasting economic growth.

“So, exactly how do we solve that?” you ask us – the schoolchildren striking for the climate.

And we say: “No one knows for sure. But we have to stop burning fossil fuels and restore nature and many other things that we may not have quite figured out yet.”

Then you say: “That’s not an answer!”

So we say: “We have to start treating the crisis like a crisis – and act even if we don’t have all the solutions.”

“That’s still not an answer,” you say.

Then we start talking about circular economy and rewilding nature and the need for a just transition. Then you don’t understand what we are talking about.

We say that all those solutions needed are not known to anyone and therefore we must unite behind the science and find them together along the way. But you do not listen to that. Because those answers are for solving a crisis that most of you don’t even fully understand. Or don’t want to understand.

You don’t listen to the science because you are only interested in solutions that will enable you to carry on like before. Like now. And those answers don’t exist any more. Because you did not act in time.

Avoiding climate breakdown will require cathedral thinking. We must lay the foundation while we may not know exactly how to build the ceiling.

Sometimes we just simply have to find a way. The moment we decide to fulfil something, we can do anything. And I’m sure that the moment we start behaving as if we were in an emergency, we can avoid climate and ecological catastrophe. Humans are very adaptable: we can still fix this. But the opportunity to do so will not last for long. We must start today. We have no more excuses.

We children are not sacrificing our education and our childhood for you to tell us what you consider is politically possible in the society that you have created. We have not taken to the streets for you to take selfies with us, and tell us that you really admire what we do.

We children are doing this to wake the adults up. We children are doing this for you to put your differences aside and start acting as you would in a crisis. We children are doing this because we want our hopes and dreams back.

I hope my microphone was on. I hope you could all hear me."

In space as it is on Earth

Image: James Vaughan

IN ITS relatively short, six-decade history space exploration and its commercial applications have come to be perceived as cutting-edge, inspirational and a hugely beneficial pursuit for humankind in general.

But one of the biggest challenges faced today by the global space community and its new frontier entrepreneurs is arguably one of the least glamorous. How to deal with the increasing volume of space junk and debris orbiting Earth?

The dangers stacking up in Earth orbit are largely the result of the old “use it and throw it
away” mentality prevalent throughout the early decades of space exploration, although certainly not unique to the Space Age.

Take a look at the detritus created by a modern, technologically literate human society right across our 21st century planet and you will see that such a throwaway culture seems firmly embedded in the human psyche.

But given our ever-growing reliance on orbiting technology, ensuring the lifetime safety of flight for satellites and future astronauts is now more important than ever because, if left unchecked, the dangers posed by space debris will rise exponentially.

A cascading debris event - the spontaneous timing of which is wholly unpredictable by its nature - could have a devastating effect on the space infrastructure we have come to rely on so much.

Even as we transition from ‘old space’ to ‘NewSpace’ the preponderance of space debris shows little sign of abating. Despite some welcome initiatives, practical answers are still largely in their infancy.

So, if we want to maintain a rapidly evolving space programme that is both everyday and frontier, dealing with a problem of this magnitude can no longer be just an altruistic, desirable goal to be addressed “at some point in the future”. Space is too valuable for that.

Time is short but if we establish and adhere to basic guidelines, solutions are just about achievable. The space debris problem needs a two-pronged approach - cleaning up the junk we’ve already created and establishing international agreements to prevent it getting worse.

Our technological and commercial futures are at stake and the onus is on the whole space community to ensure the mess we’ve created on Earth isn’t replicated in orbit around our planet. Ultimately, safety in space is key for all operators and so far remedial actions are not being agreed or put in place anything like as quickly as they should be.

If it can’t be re-entered at the end of its useful life the ultimate goal for anything that goes into Earth orbit is to “retain, re-use and recycle”. But, of course, it is so often a question of commercial priorities - and looking after one’s own space junk doesn’t really pay.

The special series of articles on the following pages in this issue of ROOM is a welcome addition to the space debris debate. Each article addresses a different aspect and together they highlight the problems, challenges and some of the potential solutions.

Just as it is on Earth, now it is in space. And when it comes to anthropogenic space debris the question has to be asked: are we doing too little too late?

Foreword from the Spring 2019 edition of ROOM - The Space Journal

Time to revoke Article 50

Early morning Abu Dhabi.

I've been out of the country this week, not in Europe for a change but in Abu Dhabi for a global space conference. There are plenty of Brits around and, let me assure you, the view from here of our country in crisis due to a demented prime minister is no better.

I watched her rant yesterday, dressed up as a speech, courtesy of a Sky News feed in my hotel room TV. Has anyone ever learned anything from a speech by Theresa May? I think not. Sinister, dangerous and almost entirely counterproductive is how I would describe her latest effort.

MPs - whose votes she still needs - woke up today  angrier than ever at being blamed for the failings of this reckless, deluded PM who, unforgivably, has whipped up fury against parliament and is putting party before country yet again.

The core politics of May's public statement, ‘I, the Leader, defend my people against a rotten parliament' are divisive and sinister.

Despite her protestations to the contrary, the impasse in parliament is actually all of the prime minister’s own making. She never reached out to the 48 percent, or to other parties to create a Brexit compromise. And she set down red lines from the outset on which she has proved stubbornly intransigent.

During last night’s brief appearance couched as a ‘statement to the people’ we probably saw Theresa May at her worst. An authoritarian with no authority, trying to stir up the malcontents in the country - and to what end?

She is rightly being called a genuinely ‘bad person’ (in Trumpesque-speak) for that performance, and the most divisive leader imaginable in terrible circumstances. Her contempt for parliamentary democracy and crass populism apparently knows no bounds. It is profoundly anti-democratic to blame parliament for her mistakes and incompetence.

No surprise, therefore, that people across the rest of Europe, and in the wider world from where I view this sorry state of affairs, are beginning to look at the UK as a failed state.

To avoid catastrophic implosion as a nation we are sadly now left with few realistic possibilities or options. The most pragmatic being to revoke Article 50, grow up and put this whole sorry episode behind us.

Sign petition: Revoke Article 50

Brexit's climate of change

Photo: Clive Simpson

SO FAR this year our natural world has delivered any number of examples of what future anthropogenic climate change might bring - and even now, in late September, we have recently witnessed two record-breaking hurricanes wreaking havoc on different sides of the globe.
                                   
Extremes are the story of our weather reporting and forecasting these days, yet mainstream media hardly dares make the connection that we are living through the first, potentially deadly consequences of climate change.

Global warming knocks urgently at everyone’s door but in the UK we look inward, consumed by a delusion born of self-interest. This is Brexit - and the UK’s impending annexation from Europe is the political equivalent of climate change.

To mention both climate change and Brexit in the same sentence is an interesting dichotomy in itself because it is rare to draw comparisons between such disparate things as political ideologies and what might loosely be described as a ‘force of nature’. One could argue, of course, that each is a self-inflicted catastrophe that is wholly, or at least partly, avoidable.

Another singular conclusion relating to each also encapsulates the point. Namely, it seems likely that the end results of both are going to be far worse than anyone is properly admitting, and the effects unless we change course - globally in the case of climate change - will be felt not for just a few years but for generations.

For the UK, Brexit is a fundamentally flawed exercise. It was never really about what was good for the country but what served the self-interests of vocal and fanatical political factions. At every turn, it seeks, without reason or rational argument, to undermine the values on which this country was built.

“Vanity of vanities, all is vanity,” cried King Solomon at the beginning of the book of Ecclesiastes in the Old Testament. History teaches us that it is vanity and individualism, as opposed to pursuing the greater or common good, that has mostly brought great countries to their knees and destroyed mighty civilisations.

We now know there was never to be a tangible Brexit dividend, and every day it seems clearer the country is being held ransom, not by scapegoat immigrants or even sound political thinking but by lies and untruths disguised as vacuous phrases and innocuous sound bites.

"One day Alice came to a fork in the road and saw a Cheshire cat in a tree," wrote Lewis Carrol in Alice in Wonderland. “Which road do I take?” she asked. “Where do you want to go?” was his response. “I don't know,” Alice answered. “Then,” said the cat, “it doesn't matter.”

But it does matter because without any kind of realistic, future-looking vision ‘the people perish’, to paraphrase a quotation from the book of Proverbs (29:18). 

The northern hemisphere heat extremes of summer 2018 maybe have already been largely forgotten as we go about our everyday business. We continue to ignore the big picture of climate change at our future peril. Likewise with Brexit.

Ultimately there is no third way and, despite the protestations of a prime minister and leader of the opposition both in dogmatic denial, the choice is simple - a hard, chaotic Brexit or remain a member of the EU.

Two years on from that awkward, ill-defined referendum we still wander indecisively, a country lost and disorientated in some crazy political paralysis. We do still have choices but time is running short.

As a people, a country, we can hold up the torch of enlightenment and hope - just as we once did. Or we can cower in the shadows, weakened by ignorance and fear, and retreat alone into the dark of night.

Over two long years, Theresa May and her government’s repeated attempts at 'negotiations' have utterly failed the nation. Her bid to offload responsibility to the EU is truly embarrassing, a vain effort to shift the blame for laying waste a country she purports to love.

Often in times of impasse, difficulty or strife we turn to literature for solace, advice or even prophetic wisdom. Maybe also to discover words of honesty and hope that politicians, so bound by their short-term profanity, are afraid to utter.

The great American poet Robert Frost might therefore be relied upon in this instance to sum things up nicely. My appropriately amended (with apologies) version of his poem ‘Fire and Ice’ somehow strikes a new resonance, covering as it does both natural and political boundaries in a few short lines:

“Some say our world will end in fire, some say ice. But from what I've tasted of desire I hold with those who favour fire.

“But if I had to perish twice I think I know enough of hate to say that for destruction ‘Brexit’ is also great and will surely suffice."

Lift-off for Scotland

The wild and unspoilt north of Scotland - I see no rockets!

SCOTLAND'S A’Mhoine peninsular is one of the most beautiful and remote spots left in the UK. It’s in Sutherland at the very top of mainland Scotland and you’ll be forgiven if you’ve never heard of it.

I visited the area one Easter. It was some long drive from ‘civilisation’ along deserted and desolate minor roads skirted by the most breath-taking mountain and coastal scenery imaginable.

More than 100 miles north of Inverness, we pitched a couple of tents for the night on a pristine, white-sanded beach at Scourie. It was just us, the waves and the wildlife - and a crystal clear dark sky.

The next day we continued another 20 miles or so north to Durness, a small civil parish in the north-west the Scottish Highlands. This isn't the most north westerly point in mainland Scotland but it is certainly the most north westerly village.

It marks the point at which the main coast road from Scourie turns right and heads south east to Thurso via Tongue and through the A'Mhoine peninsular.

Durness is one of the few remaining places of any size in mainland Scotland that you can only access by single track road. The white lines cease some 14 miles south on the A838, and the road east along the north coast of Scotland to Tongue and Thurso has many single track stretches.

The multi-billion pound aerospace industry's high-tech Farnborough International Airshow might then seem a ‘million miles’ away but this is where business secretary Greg Clark officially announced on Monday (16 July) that Scotland is to host a new UK launch base on the A’Mhoine peninsular .

The UK government is making £2.5 million available to Highlands and Islands Enterprise, the Scottish government's economic and community development agency to “develop a vertical launch site in Sutherland”.

And according to Clarke’s statement it “could see lift-off from the early 2020s and create hundreds of jobs. It will use innovative rocket technology to pave the way for a world-leading spaceflight market in Britain”.

Really, one might ask? Of course, the UK’s tabloid press websites couldn’t wait for the embargoed countdown to pass (10.30 pm on 15 July) and were fast off the mark with flights of fancy.

“The spaceport will host launches of satellites and rockets into outer space before eventually including commercial flights which will venture outside our atmosphere,” wrote Mark Hodge in The Sun.               

SNP (Scottish National Party) MP Philippa Whitford seemed to have a better grasp of things when quoted in The Mirror. She said, “launches are currently carried out from Kazakhstan,” giving the distinct impression to the unitiated that Brits might be lining up to compete directly with the Russian launch site.

“Easy launch access from Scotland would benefit the commercial satellite industry right across the UK,”  added Whitford.

Well indeed it might but let’s be honest the A'Mhoine peninsular is not going to be anything like the launch facilities in Kazakhstan, or French Guiana (Europe’s rocket launch site), or NASA’s Florida for that matter.

An artist's impression of the proposed launch site.

Like much of recent government policy, the spaceport announcement is definutely a high-profile attention-grabber designed to make the country feel that in a post-Brexit world it will recapture something of the pioneering spirit.

However welcome the idea, it’s short on detail, content and, above all, finance. I’m guessing that the £250 million would be barely enough to get planning permission through - and the rest will have to come from private funding.

One pathway to a British launch site might lie with the likes of Skyrora, a startup launcher business with serious private funding and it’s headquarters in Scotland.

"As a launch company based in Edinburgh it's very exciting for us that, finally, the UK's first vertical spaceport has been given the green light to be built in Scotland,” business development director Daniel Smith told me.

A consortium led by American aerospace giant Lockheed Martin might also become one of the partners. It could bring a version of the Electron rocket to Scotland which it currently is starting to fly out of New Zealand.

Greg Clarke’s ambitious statement that we “could see lift-off from the early 2020s and create hundreds of jobs” may seem overly simplistic given the hoops hat still have to be jumped through.

But perhaps we should keep things in perspective? Despite the tabloid hype we’re not, at least for the time being, talking about blasting people into space - merely a new breed of satellite known as CubeSats, which are roughly the size as a loaf of bread and can be hurled into orbit on top of a giant firework.

The countdown clock is already ticking on a lucrative commercial market for launching the new generation of mini satellites and time is short for the UK if it wants to capture a significant share of the nascent small launch market.

Regional authorities, rocket operators and the government are going to have to move fast if they want to avoid the opportunities being snapped up other countries. Come on Scotland, you can do it!

See my news item too - Rockets for Scotland

Top banana

WHEN it comes to one of our most popular fruits the UK’s major supermarkets have presided over a race to the bottom for the beleaguered banana industry.

British supermarkets, led by discounters Aldi and Lidl, have for many years used bananas and milk as huge loss leaders - and in the process largely put all but the biggest producers of both out of business.

Supermarket buying power and unfair trading practices, which have driven down the prices they pay to tropical fruit suppliers, has had a negative impact on earnings and working conditions for banana plantation workers. Or, in the case of small-scale producers, such as those in the Caribbean’s Windward Isles, threatened their very survival.

The recently proposed merger between UK supermarket giants ASDA (Walmart) and Sainsbury's raises the prospect of an ever more powerful buyer able to exert even more pressure on prices by squeezing suppliers even further.

Sainsbury's has already said the merger could lead to price cuts in their stores of "around 10 per cent on many of the products customers buy regularly" - and in the case of bananas that would be 3p off the current price per kilo, or 12p from the cost of a pack of eight Fairtrade bananas.

For too long, low prices for bananas in our supermarkets have been synonymous with squeezing suppliers. The prospective merger will therefore is not necessarily good news to already struggling suppliers of bananas and other tropical fruits to the UK market.

Jacqui Mackay, national co-ordinator of Norwich-based Banana Link said: "Banana Link has worked constructively with Sainsbury's and ASDA for many years, both individually and through the World Banana Forum, to support their ethical buying practices.

“We hope that the merged retailer will take a lead in ethical sourcing by ensuring that the prices it pays cover its suppliers' costs of sustainable production and that any projected price cuts are not be made at the detriment of tropical fruit workers and small-scale farmers that produce our favourite fruit.”

Is there an upside? Sainsbury's and ASDA both have demonstrable commitments to ethical sourcing of bananas and all of Sainsbury's bananas carry the Fairtrade label, which ensures fair minimum prices for suppliers which cover the costs of sustainable production.

Both are members - along with Banana Link - of the World Banana Forum, which brings together stakeholders in the global banana supply chain to work towards consensus on best practices for sustainable production and trade.

The increased buying power and greater economies of scale of the merged retailer could provide an opportunity for greater commitment to the ethical sourcing of tropical fruit.

NFU Scotland Chief Executive Scott Walker said: “There is an opportunity here for potentially the biggest player in the UK's retail sector to put in place a system of responsible sourcing and to end the spectre of Unfair Trading Practices by supermarkets.”

A recent proposal by the European Commission for legislation on unfair trading practices in global food supply chains might be welcome news. By protecting small and medium-sized food suppliers against abusive practices of large buyers, it aims to address insecurity among supermarket suppliers, which directly impacts the most vulnerable people in the supply chain.

Banana Link is a small not-for-profit co-operative, founded in 1996, which campaigns for a socially just, environmentally sound and economically viable banana industry. It works in close partnership with Latin American banana workers trade unions, small farmers in the Caribbean and civil society organisations in Europe and the US.

Dazzled by LEDs

DO you still enjoy driving at night? Well, if you don’t and - apart from the ever-increasing traffic volumes - there might be another, initially less obvious, reason.

Last week Public Health England warned that high levels of blue light in LED street lighting can be uncomfortable and are known to cause retina damage. The same goes for the new generation of ultra bright LED vehicle headlights.

The executive agency of the UK govrnment's Department of Health also suggests that daylight-running lights on cars can lead to drivers being dazzled by oncoming vehicles with the risk that they may not see hazards until too late’ - a problem that can be exacerbated by misty conditions and fog.

Right across the UK - and with little heed to the mounting medical evidence against them - LED street lights have been used to replace older forms of street lighting as they are much cheaper to run, easier to control and can have less general light dispersal.

But all this comes at a price and John O’Hagan of Public Health England is now warning that councils and vehicle manufacturers should be considering social and health factors as well as their budgets.

Writing in the chief medical officer’s annual report, he says that if local authorities have been replacing mercury and sodium street lights with LEDs purely on the basis of energy efficiency and cost it is possible to end up with installations that may not be “fit for purpose”.

“Some streetlight luminaires have LED sources that can be seen physically projecting below the luminaire, becoming a glare source or light pollution,” explains. “The light spectrum may also be enriched in the blue, which may be beneficial for keeping drivers alert will be uncomfortable for many people. High levels of blue light are known to cause damage to the retina in the eye.”

O’Hagan acknowledges that LEDs can be provided in a range of colour temperatures and that “warmer colours” are more appropriate for populated areas.

Research assessed by Public Health England and others also raises concern about the variable illuminance of LED light sources which, at the extreme, switch on and off 100 times per second.

“In such circumstances rotating machinery, which could include the blades on a food mixer, may appear to be stationary if the rotation rate matches the modulation rate or is a multiple of it,” suggests O’Hagan.

This frequency can also result in headaches, migraines and feelings of malaise in those sensitive to light modulation.

As blue-rich white light continues to spread across the country like wildfire pollution, a considered national lighting policy is urgently needed is to minimise harmful consequences for humans and wildlife.

Street lights and vehicle lights with a far too high CCT (Correlated Colour Temperature) values (ie, well above 3000 Kelvin) are becoming commonplace.

Public Health England and the Campaign for Rural England are now among the growing number of international organisations calling for lower CCT levels and warmer colour temperatures to help prevent glare, discomfort and potential medical problems in humans, as well as reducing adverse affects to wildlife.