As I was traveling around Indianapolis last week, I had the same thought I often have when I go to other cities, like Chicago or New York. When I lived in Chicago, I always took pride in the fact that I could see the skyline from my window at night and admire the lights coming from all of the buildings. Yet, now I seem to have a different take on this. To me, it seems incredibly wasteful to have lights on buildings 24/7, when no one is on these floors. Given that the lights run all day long, there is certainly already a lot of energy being consumed. Why is it then, that buildings have to have all of these lights on, all night long? Is it a security measure, or is it to make the building more noticeable and more attractive to those around it? If it were for security only, couldn't there be a more efficient way to use lighting, such that fewer lights would be on, such as every other floor or bottom floors and top floors only? If it is for aesthetics, can't we get over this attitude that seeing lights on all night long in a city is a good thing? After all, there are power plants running 24/7 as well, to produce all of this electricity, and they are not nearly as attractive to look at. Why can't solar lighting be improved, such that it could illuminate parts of skyscrapers once the sun goes down?

In my mind, if we want to conserve energy, we need to start by eliminating some of the practices that we continue to do in such a big way--like lighting every office building floor at all hours of the night. When you think about the fact that people in Baghdad now have less than one hour of electricity every day at their disposal, it makes you wonder why we think we can't survive without being able to admire a skyline in the evening. Maybe it looks great to those in the cities, but is this enough reason to continue with this practice?