I mostly agree. Comparing light pollution to air/water pollution is a huge stretch; photons are not comparable to soot, sulfur oxides, microplastics, or mercury

I mostly agree. Comparing light pollution to air/water pollution is a huge stretch; photons are not comparable to soot, sulfur oxides, microplastics, or mercury, to name a few. That said, some ecological arguments presented in the article are fairly compelling, although more research needs to be done on a) how much light pollution actually is to blame and b) how disruptive to ecosystems the putative increase of bird deaths/disrupted turtle nesting/insect reproduction actually is. With respect to disrupted circadian rhythms, blackout curtains or sleeping blindfolds work wonders. Though as other posters have pointed out, people living at extreme northern latitudes don’t seem to have any issues during the summer, when it never gets dark at night; indeed, it’s not getting enough light during the winter that causes problems (seasonal affective disorder/vitamin D deficiencies). Many animals living at those latitudes seem to have adapted fine; the same bird species living in Sweden can also be found much further south. I’ve never understood the emotional argument for dark skies. I’ve seen the Milky Way with my naked eye at night several times, and it was like visiting the Grand Canyon—extremely impressive and worth seeing, but not something that’s so essential to my emotional well-being that I need to see it every night, therefore necessitating drastic measures to ensure everyone can see the Grand Canyon each day.