Tonight, from 8:30 to 9:30 p.m, we're being told to turn off the lights in celebration of something called "Earth Hour." And we're being told to do so by all those enlightened progressive types so as we can collectively take a stand against "AGW" (Anthropogenic Global Warming - a.k.a., human-caused climate change.)
Yes, folks, we're supposedly killing the planet thanks to our cars and our home heating oil and everything else that gives us a comfortable lifestyle. And unless we revert to living in grass huts and forage for grubs, planet earth is deader than disco.
But as Public Enemy once crooned: "Don't believe the hype."
Here are two good reasons to keep your lights blazing come Saturday night when we should be "celebrating" Earth Hour.
The first reason NOT to celebrate Earth Hour: Earth Hour Doesn't Achieve its Intended Effect (Energy/Carbon Reduction):
It is perversely amusing to see thousands of Earth Hour adherents generate illumination during Earth Hour by lighting candles and making bonfires. Isn't the very premise behind Earth Hour to REDUCE carbon emissions? Where is the logic in eschewing clean-burning electricity - and by the way, 96% of the electricity in the province of Ontario IS clean-generated - in favour of illumination obtained from a power source (i.e., open fire) that generates completely unfiltered CO2 emissions?
Indeed, most of the candles sold in Canada are made from paraffin, a petroleum byproduct. Thus, illuminating one's house with paraffin candles is equivalent to letting a diesel engine idle.
Oh, and how's this for an inconvenient goof? Turning off the lights in a skyscraper only to reactivate those lights an hour later actually consumes MORE power than letting those lights remain on for the duration of that hour. Oh sure, it makes for a nifty photo op - but what, pray tell, is the point? Is Earth Hour simply about feel-good optics rather than tangible solutions?
The second reason to take a pass on Earth Hour: Sponsor Hypocrisy
I find it a tad rich to receive a holier-than-thou sermon from a corporation that isn't doing everything in its power to reduce its environmental footprint. Case in point: Earth Hour Canada sponsor the Toronto Star. To quote the Star verbatim:
"We are committed to reporting on and bringing awareness to environmental issues that matter to Canadians. We believe that action on climate change is needed and that Earth Hour is a way to bring attention to this URGENT issue facing us all."
Well, if there's such enviro-urgency afoot, why doesn't the Star choose to reduce its carbon emissions and save millions of trees in the process by no longer publishing a hard copy version of the paper? After all, the technology exists for the Star to be delivered electronically... except that might not be so good for business as many readers and advertisers actually still prefer a paper-based product. Stop the presses in the name of Mother Earth? Not a chance. "Business is business" after all.
Bottom line: if you want to experience Earth Hour 24/7, 365 days a year, then by all means take a charter flight over North Korea. And if you receive permission to touch down in the Hermit Kingdom, feel free to ask your average North Korean how wonderful it is to shiver in the dark and eat grass on a daily basis.
In the meantime, let's all reject the Earth Hour hoax. "Fight back against this insanity on Saturday night by turning ON every light, appliance, and gadget in your house. Celebrate this particular 60 minutes in glorious electrical illumination. And let's refer to this wonderful celebration for what it really is: Human Achievement Hour.
It's a great time to be alive, for we are living in a golden age. Don't let a bunch of disingenuous naysayers tell you otherwise.
The earth's atmosphere is a closed system, like a very big garage! There is no fresh air coming from space So everything we spew into the air, stays.
What we should be doing, rather that trying to limit the use of energy that is presently available to us, is to to encourage the developement of further sources of energy so that everyone in the world is able to enjoy the benifit of readily available power.
This idea that we as humans are doing "Mother Nature " wrong is nothing more than a holdover idea of primative religions that people are inherently greedy and evil. There is no reason why the bushmen in Africa should not have all the energy benifits that we in America enjoy and this is available thru science. So if you want to be a true benifit to mankind ,as a true enviornmentalist you should be insisting that all future sources af energy be developed a.s.a.p. so as to maximize its benifit to mankind now.
I don't think that any sort of environmentalist, or person who pays any measure of attention to earth sciences, would support unbridled energy development - even if it is in the name of further development. The fact of the matter is that future technologies do not exist yet or are so underdeveloped and underfunded that they will take ages to come to fruition. That, with paired with our generation's heavy dependence of fossil fuels (namely oil) makes such an ideal untenable.
"So if you want to be a true benifit to mankind ,as a true enviornmentalist you should be insisting that all future sources af energy be developed a.s.a.p. so as to maximize its benifit to mankind now."
I'm sorry but I think this is just a skewed and idealistic view of how the real world works. By allowing completely unregulated use of current energy in the name of what we *might* discover is putting your eggs in one basket. Our current energy system is not sustainable, and irreparable damage has already been done to the ecological realm. Not realizing either of these things, ignoring any idea of conservation, and hoping for science to solve the problem is the kind of thinking that dooms future generations.
1) Fiscal conservatism: I don't like paying hefty taxes, nor do I like paying hefty electric bills. All the lights in my home are energy efficient, and i always try to be as energy efficient as possible. This not only helps the environment but also ensures that I am not wastefully spending.
2) Conservation and greening spaces: this is a bit abstract but I support maintaining the green spaces in this country. I grew up in green spaces and want to continue to see green in my neighbourhood. I grow my own fruits and veggies, save myself money, keep green and keep healthy (so i dont waste government spent healthcare). I also like to fish and I used to hunt. What is the point of gun laws, hunting and fishing laws (all of which are supported by conservatives) if our hunting and fishing spaces are being destroyed. What's the point of me owning a rifle if i cannot use it in the forests in Canada.
And knocking a newspaper for remaining viable? Your overly jaded writing fails at logic.
I have my own issues with rememberance day (specifically, the stuff quoted, as much of it is oddly pro-eternal war like Flander's Field), but if people will only do so much stuff (say 3 actions), those actions are best used in ways which maximize effectiveness.
They busted that on Mythbusters years ago.
http://dsc.discovery.com/videos/mythbusters-lights-on-or-off-minimyth.html
Not a very strong endorsement of your scientific credentials man. Also, people don't burn candles or make bonfires, the whole point is to abstain from minor conveniences. If you're going to criticize something, it's best to not be completely wrong about everything you say.
And if you really mean it, don't stop there. Prove how phony the global warming hype really is - shut all your doors and windows and burn a bucket of coal!
That'll show em...
What nonsense.
I don't even ever celebrate Earth Hour, but that doesn't mean that I think that being disparaging of the concept is a worthwhile or ethical opinion to hold.
"Turning off the lights in a skyscraper only to reactivate those lights an hour later actually consumes MORE power than letting those lights remain on for the duration of that hour."
Maybe I will just go outside and see if I can see a star without so much light in our city. Probably not enough people will shut down to make that happen.
"Based on the amount of energy consumed turning on the bulb, they were able calculated how long the bulb would have to be turned off in order to make it worth the energy savings, i.e. "It's best to turn off the bulb if you are leaving the room for":
Incandescent: 0.36 seconds
CFL: 0.015 seconds
Halogen: .51 seconds
LED: 1.28 seconds
Fluorescent: 23.3 seconds
In other words, its almost always best to turn the bulb off. Even the 23 seconds for the fluorescent lights isn't very long, and the rest of the times are pretty much blinks of an eye."
Is there a source for this claim? The Mythbusters disproved this on a smaller scale... not that they're infallible, but at least they backed up their claim, which you did not do.