More Lighting, Less Crime. But . . .

Writing in The Atlantic, Elizabeth Glazer, a former federal prosecutor and adviser on public safety, notes how a piece of common sense — that improved street lighting decreases crime — still holds good and can still be used to good effect.

Thus:

[New York City] studied the effect of the lights on crime and neighborhood life. Aaron Chalfin, a criminology professor at the University of Pennsylvania, ran a randomized controlled trial across 80 of the city’s 335 housing developments, half of which were outfitted with temporary lighting towers. He found that serious nighttime outdoor crime dropped by 35 percent without a rise in arrests. The crime didn’t move elsewhere; it simply disappeared. A follow-up three years later found that this drop in crime had persisted.

No surprises there, but was enough thought given to what this could mean for the planet?

In net-zero Britain, some might think that it had not.

From the BBC:

Street lights will be switched off early or dimmed on a permanent basis on streets across Devon after a year-long trial.

Devon County Council has said using less energy on street lighting is saving them about £270,000 a year and reducing carbon emissions by about 200 tonnes a year. . . .

Dan Thomas, Liberal Democrat cabinet member for highways, said: “This decision strikes the right balance between being responsible with public money, tackling climate change and continuing to keep people safe.

Britain’s Liberal Democrats are often described as a centrist party, a misleadingly reassuring label in an age of radicalized “centrism.” Contrary to Thomas’s claim, the change in lighting policy does not represent a real balance. It will not “tackle” climate change, and the cost savings may strike many as a poor bargain if the result leads to an increase in crime.

For his part, Thomas maintains that the council can “make changes where they’re needed, including increasing lighting levels if safety issues are identified.”

And how will “safety issues” be “identified”? And how many “issues” will it take to change the policy? And how many people will be dissuaded from going out at night because of the dimmer lighting, a loss in itself and one that adds to the dangers created by inadequate lighting.

The BBC:

A woman who lives on the West Garth housing estate in Exeter said switching off the street lights on her estate was “horrendous”.

The woman, who did not want to be named, said she used to work night shifts and would regularly be going to and from her house in complete darkness.

She said: “You cannot see a thing at night and it was really scary.

“They certainly aren’t protecting women or any vulnerable people.”

On the other hand, they might have been protecting insects and bats. As was explained in a February 2026 article in Biological Conservation:

Limiting insect attraction by dimming urban streetlights will likely benefit insect populations, which in turn is beneficial for bats in the long term. Our findings show that darkness is not only essential for bats and insects in natural areas, but in urban habitats as well.

So there’s that.