"Earth Hour" is Damn Stupid

The BBQ Pit
21

[QUOTE=Raygun99]
They’ve got the photos labeled backwards. If you click on the floating banner in the pic, you can see the difference.

As for the event itself, it always seems like the criticisms come down to “This isn’t going to solve it all by itself, so why bother doing anything?” Which is exactly the problem that it’s trying to address.
[/QUOTE]

No, they’re labeled correctly. The first photo was taken when it was still a little light out. In the next picture, it’s completely dark and so more lights are on.

22

The reason this won’t help or solve anything is because the monsters who are eating the earth, the corporations, aren’t participating, won’t change anything, and don’t care, because they aren’t human. Thousands of human beings turning their lights off would not, I suppose, even come close to the positive impact of one corporation slowing its wasteful, polluting habits. We might care and try to do something, but we’re not the ones who should be doing something. The system which is destroying our planet is not implemented nor maintained by common people.

23

[QUOTE=Stranger On A Train]
Here is the really stupid thing about “Earth Hour”; you’re supposed to turn your lights off between 8p and 9p, local time. What good is that to anyone? Because it is dark outside (at most latitudes) at that hour, you can’t read or do anything around the house, et cetera, so it is not as if it is going to prompt you to repeat this stunt reguarly. (I guess you are supposed to sit in the dark for an hour and contemplate how much better things were in preIndustrial times.)
[/QUOTE]

Precisely my feeling. I’m supposed to sit in the dark when there are books to read? I think not.

I did make sure all the lights were out except the one I needed to read, but - hell - I do that anyway.

24

This is the type of stupid “feel good” meaningless nonsense that the Al Gore set likes. It is like Al himself-who jets off to some conference to decry America’s energy wastage-while not a word about HIS extravagance-he probably uses as much energy as 25 Chinese families. :smack:

25

I once heard that mass turning off of appliances and lights actually ultimately causes more electricity to be used because the power grid supplies power based on an estimate of how much is needed (not by how much is actually being asked for) so the power grid carries on supplying the power that all the houses ares sudden… oh hell I don’t know the logic involved. Just that apparently it is extremely counter-productive to mass turn off lights/appliances.

26

[QUOTE=Oregon sunshine]
The reason this won’t help or solve anything is because the monsters who are eating the earth, the corporations, aren’t participating, won’t change anything, and don’t care, because they aren’t human. Thousands of human beings turning their lights off would not, I suppose, even come close to the positive impact of one corporation slowing its wasteful, polluting habits. We might care and try to do something, but we’re not the ones who should be doing something. The system which is destroying our planet is not implemented nor maintained by common people.
[/QUOTE]

Please take a look at this Sankey diagram:

http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/aer/pdf/pages/sec8_3.pdf

See the demand side of the graphic, on the right. Residential use outweighs either commercial or industrial (but is about 60% of the two combined). Demand-side improvements at the residential side most certainly can result in huge savings nationwide. Plus, your post above supposes that there is enormous waste, in general, in commercial and industrial facilities in terms of energy. Having participated in scores of energy audits of such, I really do not find that to be the case. Having participated in scores of energy audits of residential areas, I do find there to be enormous waste among residences.

Search (if it will let you) and you’ll find a post where I show with hard numbers that just the combined effect of something as simple and frivolous as cable TV boxes results in a fairly large coal power plant just to run them. And search further and see the thread where I show how much I saved by getting and using a programmable thermostat. There is certainly conservation afoot which can be chased at the residential level which could seriously help the environment.

If your point is arguing pollution (whereas the primary point of the “lights out” was more energy conservation, not pollution, although the two are absolutely related) then you have a slightly better point. Again, some of the largest polluters of the US are YOU and ME, driving our cars every day, as well as the pollution from the electrical plants which generate the power WE use.

27

[QUOTE=Lobsang]
I once heard that mass turning off of appliances and lights actually ultimately causes more electricity to be used because the power grid supplies power based on an estimate of how much is needed (not by how much is actually being asked for) so the power grid carries on supplying the power that all the houses ares sudden… oh hell I don’t know the logic involved. Just that apparently it is extremely counter-productive to mass turn off lights/appliances.
[/QUOTE]

You heard wrong. Yes plants are brought into operation based on an estimate of numerous things, everything from the weather forecast to cloud cover estimates to what’s on TV that night. I’ve personally been on the big energy trading floors at places like Exelon and Reliant, and seen what they do there. They have whole teams of people meeting every day to decide and map out exactly what plant should be turned on to what level when. Mass turning off of appliances results in less demand, which after a short delay will result in generation reductions. It’s always a balancing act, but I’m quite certain that this Earth Hour was planned for months in advance.

28

I got an email from a guy who bragged he was celebrating earth hour by running off battery power. Ha ha ha. Like using power you tapped earlier makes it different (not to mention the fact that the wireless router you’re connecting to is plugged in…)

29

[QUOTE=cricetus]
I got an email from a guy who bragged he was celebrating earth hour by running off battery power. Ha ha ha. Like using power you tapped earlier makes it different
[/QUOTE]

Well, what would be wrong with that? I mean, if he wasn’t using the wireless router, but instead was just using a laptop on battery power, it’s not like he’s abusing the earth.

30

You’re using electricity you stored up earlier.

31

Yeah this is really fucking stupid because it gives off the wrong image of what our future should be like. We shouldn’t have to “conserve” in such a dramatic way. We have been living with electricity for a hundred years now and our consumption is only growing.

We should be concerned about more efficient light-bulbs and renewable energy. If we set ourselves up with the correct technology, we can burn the lights all night and not care. If we were to manage to get all of our energy from solar (a lot of new break-throughs on this front) we could waste it all we want.

That’s really where we need to go. Turning off lights in city centers is just a waste of everyone’s time and energy.

32

[QUOTE=cricetus]
You’re using electricity you stored up earlier.
[/QUOTE]

And, you lose some of that electricity. (I’m assuming he just charged up some batteries and then used those for his needs. If you generate your own power, batteries are essential to balance the demand vs supply.)

This is a great idea that I, too, had after the premiere of Al’s movie here in GR, which was attended by several city commissioners and the mayor. Grand Rapids already has a good number of green built buildings, and a few green remodels, and is trying to project that image. GR also has a large housing stock that is decades old, and therefore, somewhat inefficient. My comment to one of the commmisioners was to set up a revolving fund to invest in renovating those inefficient homes, with utility savings used to pay back into the fund. She just smiled and hasn’t done a darn thing about it since.

33

[QUOTE=Merkwurdigliebe]
Yeah this is really fucking stupid because it gives off the wrong image of what our future should be like. We shouldn’t have to “conserve” in such a dramatic way. We have been living with electricity for a hundred years now and our consumption is only growing.

We should be concerned about more efficient light-bulbs and renewable energy. If we set ourselves up with the correct technology, we can burn the lights all night and not care. If we were to manage to get all of our energy from solar (a lot of new break-throughs on this front) we could waste it all we want.

That’s really where we need to go. Turning off lights in city centers is just a waste of everyone’s time and energy.
[/QUOTE]

Not true, not until we can replace burned out bulbs without environmental impact, not until we can manufacture PV without impact, etc. We have to come to terms with the facts that we live like no other generation ever has, and that lifestyle has incredible consequences. Conservation and efficiency is the most cost effective way to meet growing populations using electricity.

34

I vote we hold a rock concert to address this issue.

35

[QUOTE=cricetus]
You’re using electricity you stored up earlier.
[/QUOTE]

But most laptops automatically charge up when they’re plugged in earlier. If the point of earth day is to use no electricity at all, then okay, but if the point is not to use up electricity that’s being produced now, I don’t see how he’s not following the spirit of the law, if not the letter.

36

[QUOTE=Two and a Half Inches of Fun]
No, it is step in the wrong direction; it is just another empty gesture. It allows people to feel like they are doing something and are part of the solution, but they are not really doing anything. It furthers the idea that are easy solutions to the coming energy crisis. Instead of a serious discussion, we get empty awareness raising.
[/QUOTE]

My roommate, who is often big on things like this, wanted to turn off the power, so we did.

It was actually fun, the two roommates and one GF who were here lit two candles, chatted for a bit, played some guitar, and hung out for about two hours with the lights off.

I don’t kid myself that I was solving an energy crisis (don’t know if that’s how the roommie feels), but the benefit I did get out of it was having a time with no TV/computers/etc etc. Just a quiet “family” time, electricity free, and mostly consumption free (aside from the candles).

So, it was fun, and it inspired me to maybe do the same again. I’m under no illusions about my individual impact as part of the global impact due to electricity usage, but it’s just nice to remember that I don’t need to rely on the power grid for entertainment.

[QUOTE=Merkwurdigliebe]
Yeah this is really fucking stupid because it gives off the wrong image of what our future should be like. We shouldn’t have to “conserve” in such a dramatic way. We have been living with electricity for a hundred years now and our consumption is only growing.

We should be concerned about more efficient light-bulbs and renewable energy. If we set ourselves up with the correct technology, we can burn the lights all night and not care. If we were to manage to get all of our energy from solar (a lot of new break-throughs on this front) we could waste it all we want.

That’s really where we need to go. Turning off lights in city centers is just a waste of everyone’s time and energy.
[/QUOTE]

This I don’t get. Aren’t using efficient appliances and using fewer electric lights both viable options, if one’s goal is to use electricity? One may be preferable to the other, but saying, “you’re stupid to consume less, because you should be able to rely on technology to let you do so while having a smaller footprint,” just doesn’t make sense.

37

At least Google had that *uber-cool * black background to commemorate their corporate social resposibilities…

38

[QUOTE=Siam Sam]
I vote we hold a rock concert to address this issue.
[/QUOTE]
This is possibly the most rational suggestion thus far.
*A shortish while later, the concert on Kakrafoon reached an unexpected climax.

The black ship with its single morose occupant had plunged on schedule into the nuclear furnace of the sun. Massive solar flares licked out from it millions of miles into space, thrilling and in a few cases spilling the dozen or so Flare Riders who had been coasting close to the surface of the sun in anticipation of the moment.

Moments before the flare light reached Kakrafoon the pounding desert cracked along a deep faultline. A huge and hitherto undetected underground river lying far beneath the surface gushed to the surface to be followed seconds later by the eruption of millions of tons of boiling lava that flowed hundreds of feet into the air, instantaneously vaporizing the river both above and below the surface in an explosion that echoed to the far side of the world and back again.

Those — very few — who witnessed the event and survived swear that the whole hundred thousand square miles of the desert rose into the air like a mile-thick pancake, flipped itself over and fell back down. At that precise moment the solar radiation from the flares filtered through the clouds of vaporized water and struck the ground.

A year later, the hundred thousand square mile desert was thick with flowers. The structure of the atmosphere around the planet was subtly altered. The sun blazed less harshly in the summer, the cold bit less bitterly in the winter, pleasant rain fell more often, and slowly the desert world of Kakrafoon became a paradise. Even the telepathic power with which the people of Kakrafoon had been cursed was permanently dispersed by the force of the explosion.

A spokesman for Disaster Area — the one who had had all the environmentalists shot — was later quoted as saying that it had been “a good gig”.*[right]–The Restaurant At The End Of The Universe, Douglas Adams[/right]

Stranger

39

[QUOTE=Crafter_Man]
I celebrated by burning a tire.
[/QUOTE]

sniff.
Beautiful man.
I celebrated EArth Hour by not farting for 60 minutes.

40

To offer a contrarian view: This does seem to me to be trying to take inspiration from the Clearwater on the Hudson people. The first step is to start a dialog, to get people aware of the problem, and to work on solutions. Gestures can be used to start the process, even something as fundamentally silly as sailing a sloop up and down a river.

The problem I have with these international initiatives is that by being international, they lack any kind of local focus for long-term, worthwhile changes. Publicity stunts are not necessarily worthless - if the attention that they generate is used for something. I’ll continue my Doper crushing by saying that the suggestions that Una Perrson made upthread would be excellent ways to do something worthwhile. And while I don’t think that it’s impossible for the public at large to face problems, draft solutions and implement them, I do believe that if one is going to make a publicity stunt to generate attention to one’s cause there is a good deal of benefit to having a single, concrete, and simply explained, proposed change for the target audience of the publicity.

Trying to get people to “think about energy use and how to minimize it” is not that. Suggesting that they “think about reducing energy use by such measures as installing programmable thermostats” could be. And lobbying for tax credits for people to buy and install such thermostats would be even better - because for every person who will voluntarily change because it’s a good idea, there seem to be ten more who won’t change a thing til they have an immediate financial benefit right in their face.