I have lost count of the number of times the Law of Unintended Consequences has kicked in where climate change mitigation measures are concerned. Today’s example has been known about for a while, but an Observer/Guardian article has drawn it to my attention again, so let’s take a look.

The Climate Group is one of many “green” pressure groups, which seek to impose its own vision on the rest of us. Its “about” page tells us that it is an “international non-profit” founded twenty years ago, with offices in London, New York, New Delhi, Amsterdam and Beijing (non-profit obviously does not necessarily equate to being poor). They claim to work closely with state and regional governments, and they spout the usual stuff about the need to reduce carbon emissions (by 50% in the next ten years), the 2020s having to be “the Climate Decade”, the necessity of capping global warming at 1.5C, etc., etc.

We are told (elsewhere on their website) that in 2015 they launched “a global call to action for all public lighting around the world to be light emitting diode (LED) by 2025”. This campaign was undertaken in partnership with Signify (formerly Philips Lighting) who, by happy coincidence, presumably stood to gain financially if the campaign achieved its objectives. The purpose (apart from making lots of money for Signify) was to reduce CO2 emissions, because LED lights use less energy than their predecessors.

Four years after the campaign was launched, the Engineering and Technology website supplied an update regarding the state of play with UK Councils. We learned that Councils were moving rapidly towards LED lighting, but that the cost of installation was putting some off. The 2025 target date was implicit in the report. Certainly, my own Council replaced our street lamps with new LED lighting some time ago.

Two years later the BBC was still reporting enthusiastically on the “progress” being made: “Essex County Council leader makes LED street lights pledge”. We learned that they were spending (the BBC called it “investing” – note for editors: costs associated with the net zero programme are never to be described as costs, but always as investments) £26.8 million on the programme, and a target date of 2024 for completion of the project. Within a year the BBC was again reporting about Essex County Council, this time with regard to the £100 million budget deficit it would be facing within three years. Hey ho.

That wasn’t the only irony to be spotted in BBC reporting of these issues. Just a few months after its enthusiastic report about Essex County Council’s ambitious plans for LED street lighting, the BBC reported again (“Light pollution from street lamps linked to insect loss”) on the subject. This time the story wasn’t quite so positive

Scientists say light pollution may be contributing to “worrying” declines in insects seen in recent decades.

In a UK study, artificial street lights were found to disrupt the behaviour of nocturnal moths, reducing caterpillars numbers by half.

Modern LED streetlights appeared to have the biggest impact.

Which brings us to today’s report in the Observer on the website it shares with is sister paper, the Guardian: “How blue-rich LEDs harm people and the environment”. Now we are told:

The rush to transition to LED lighting resulted in a botched job: councils throughout the UK installed light in our public buildings and spaces, and in our streets, that was far too intense and contained too much blue light. This is precisely the wavelength of light that most disrupts the circadian rhythm –not just sleep but almost every other physiological process – in humans and the rest of the natural world.

A study by Dark Sky International summarises the available science on light pollution. It questions whether the transition to LED street lighting provides any meaningful environmental benefit, and talks of “greenwash”. There’s no doubt about the harm caused to the overall health and wellbeing of people, with the lives of light-sensitive people being devastated, and by the disruption of natural ecosystems. It has also exacerbated light pollution due to the way blue light scatters and creates more “sky glow” – the smudgy veil of artificial light that obscures the stars.

Blue-rich LEDs have made our world uglier, changing the colour of our towns and cities from a soft orange glow to a harsh, gloomy glare. Light doesn’t just illuminate our surroundings, it creates the very world that we perceive and interacts with life in profound and subtle ways. We need to use it with great care and caution.

“Great care and caution”. Words which, all too sadly, don’t seem to apply where someone claims greenhouse gas emissions can be reduced, and certainly not if there’s money to be made by the climate-industrial complex. Will we ever learn?