Area Soldier Killed In Fort Hood Rampage
Stroger Makes Hollywood Play
Put Down Your Nanowrimo And Leave The House
Sox Shuffle Continues
The World Wildlife Fund wants us kept in the dark. They are the organizers of the worldwide Earth Hour event taking place this Saturday from 8:00 - 9:00 p.m. When the hour strikes, the hope is that as many people as possible will turn out their lights for 60 minutes in an attempt to raise awareness on the issue of global warming.
Earth Hour was a successful movement last year in Sydney, Australia, with not only 2.2 million people and over 2,000 businesses hitting the off switch, but even landmarks like the Harbour Bridge and the Opera House going dark for the occasion. This year they’re taking it global. Christchurch, New Zealand will kick off the shut down, and more than 20 cities in 14 time zones will follow the lead.
Atlanta, Phoenix and San Francisco are official participants, but Chicago can give itself a pat on the back for being Earth Hour’s American flagship city. Major landmarks including the Sears Tower, John Hancock Center and Navy Pier will be turning off all unnecessary lighting, and most major downtown theaters will be turning off their marquees. Heck, even McDonald’s is getting in on the action by turning off almost 500 sets of golden arches in the area.
You can register yourself as a participant at the event’s website, and if you’re really motivated, they encourage you to get your friends and even your school or employer involved, if they aren’t already. Head out on Saturday night to see what our fair city looks like in the dark, or stay in with your lover and live out that romantic blackout fantasy you’ve always had. Everyone has that…right?
Earth Hour Chicago, 8:00 – 9:00 p.m. on Saturday, March 29th.
Photo from Troy McClure SF.
add to stumble upon
add to reddit
tweet this
post to facebook
Hell yeah, I've been planning my Earth Hour party for over a month.
I really hope this is an annual event that catches on. Get motivated people, even if you are not a super "Go Green" kinda person, this is something can really motivate people, with direct visual evidence! I'm pumped, it should prove to be a funky event.
Totally going for it! Where are my candles? Where's my bottle Of Coppola Claret?
For those of you in Logan Square there's an Earth Hour event happening here.
I think this is a terrific idea - I've been seeing posters all around the Loop, and it's nice that the idea is attracting corporate attention. It's probably the closest thing to an acknowledgement of global warming/the energy crisis we're going to get from corporations. Congrats to the World Wildlife Fund for thinking of it. I just love it when a creative thought can inspire real impact like this.
Yay!
When I was in College, we were encouraged via PSA's on the College Radio station to "Do it in the Dark!" i.e. study during the day and keep lights off at night. I am just like, "I was in CLASS during the day". Also, this is dumb.
This is a stupid stupid idea- how much waste was created for this marketing campaign?
I even saw a very brightly lit electric billboard on I-55 the other day. Not to mention all the lighted CTA billboards around town.
How about actually doing something for more than an hour that helps the environment?
What if you got McD's to light those arches with LEDs instead of fluorescent? Oh wait thats not a token symbol... that would require money.
And is someone going to say- oh shit I care about the environment now because the McD's arches are off for one hour?
I am sick of marketing/advertising for enviro issues that spend $50 on helping someone and $50,000 telling people how enviro they are.
I am going to protest by shining my giant 10,000 kW bat signal at the Hancock building.
i'm pretty sure economic analysis would put the energy savings far above the marketing expenditure.
and you have to start somewhere. this is the only enviromental campaign i've seen that's attracted corporate attention.....
and you have to start somewhere.
I think the argument is that if everyone just goes back to their previous energy consumption at 9:01, this isn't the "start" of anything.
i just meant getting the corporations to acknowledge excessive/wasteful energy use.
do you think they realize what they've done by participating?
And out come the wet blankets, as was the case for World Pillowfight Day. Lighten up, people! It is a start, and it's better than ignoring the issue altogether...
Please, there is no such thing as global warming.
Please, there is no such thing as global warming.
Wow. I'm sold. Convincing argument.
While I do totally believe mankind has a hand in global climate change, I also believe there is a natural climate cycle, and the earth cools off and heats up in steady intervals. This is why trees harvested by Stradivarius during a "cool" period in Europe are denser, thus producing a richer sound in his instruments.
And I'm with spav, prescott, and kfunk. This is a pointless, meaningless gesture meant to let (as spook would say) "goo-goo libs" feel better about "going green" while they drive their SUV down to Starbucks for a congratulatory frappacino.
The same people who would turn their lights off would also probably protest a carbon-neutral fission plant being built within 1000 miles of their home, buy a hybrid car laden with a massive mercury battery, and dutifully recycle every last piece of plastic they have despite the fact it takes more energy to recycle than to just make a new product.*
*- (I'm not against recycling per se, just plastic. And hybrid cars aren't evil, they do get people thinking ahead to hydrogen fuel cell vehicles. But I'm rabidly pro-nuclear power. To the point that I'm a little turned on when I think about "fuel rods". Also, girls in glasses. And arson. But thats not really related to the topic at hand.)
I'm becoming less and less hopeful about hydrogen fuel cells, especially after reading this...
Pinko, I will concede that Earth Hour is slightly more productive than being hit in the face with a pillow.
@ Prescott:
The Hydrogen economy only becomes sustainable after a widescale rebirth of nuclear and other energy technologies. It's still possible, I just wouldn't hold your breath to see it in the next decade.
Plum: I am probably as pro-nuclear as you are, even with the questions about where to put the waste, but I remain skeptical that nuclear is the savior, as some (perhaps not you) make it out to be.
For one, the licensing process remains lengthy. And even if we built a new plant say, every 5 years (highly optimistic, most likely) we still might face significant gaps in energy supply (but I don't pretend to be an expert on this). That's why I favor a crash funding program for solar and wind to help fill those gaps--solar still has a long, long way to go, but it is abundant. Any thoughts?
I agree about the meaninglessness of this event. It's just stupid PR.
The whole point of this stunt (and yes, it is obviously a stunt) is to raise awareness, nothing more...
If it gets only a few thousand people to turn off some lights for an hour and consider their present and future energy consumption (who otherwise might never give it a second thought), then it's productive. Is it going to change the world? Of course not, but if only for an hour, it will bring awareness to the forefront of peoples' consciousness. And God forbid, it might even be a little fun (I realize how much 'fun' is frowned upon around here by the resident intelligentsia)...
It's not like this event is the brainchild of some greenwashing global corporation like BP Amoco, after all--it's sponsored by the World Wildlife Fund...
Pinko: Good points, but with steadily rising gas prices, and rising costs for natural gas, heating oil and electricity, as well as near daily news about peak oil theories and "green" initiatives and similar issues, I really wonder how many people are unaware of energy consumption. This stunt seems like too little, too late, but I am a pessimistic asshole.
@Matilda:
- The problem with solar is that it takes a shit ton of panels to make anything happen, and those panels are made from materials that aren't exactly mother earth friendly. The idea that individuals can install solar panels on their roofs and get a tax benefit or electricity surplus is a good one and needs to be pursued.
(However, what are renters to do? And creating incentives to mount a $20,000 solar panel to your roof is good, but where is the average person going to get the upfront cost?)
And big solar farms are crazy expensive, inefficient, and take up a lot of room. Not to mention northern cities (i.e.- Chicago) that experience months of cloud cover at a time can't get the whole return on investment.
- Wind power requires, well, wind. And here in Illinois, the wind tends to blow the most when we don't need that energy (Winter, versus summer when the load is the greatest). One of Blago's big initiatives was installation of huge turbines all over rural Illinois, and if you run into them a lot (like I do when I'm visiting family), you'll notice they aren't really moving too much. You can't bank the energy when you need it, and it needs to be close by for it to be effective.
That's not to say I'm against all these alternative fuel sources. Geothermal and Hydroelectric are great where they're available. And biofuel makes sense... but it's not exactly carbon neutral.
The thing a lot of solar and wind proponents fail to mention in a lot of their arguments is that widespread adoption of their energies would entail people severely curb their energy use. This is because even on a mass scale, solar and wind can't cheaply and efficiently replace 100% of all the energy fossil fuels and nuclear power provide. And while it'd be great for people to turn down their lights and heat, use less, and so forth, the typical mindset in America is "That's great for the next guy, but fuck that, I need to crank my A/C to 11."
And that's ultimately the sea change that really needs to happen is to convince everyone to conserve, before any viable alternative becomes ready. Anyone ever see Al Gore's electricity bill for his home in Tennessee?
If it gets some people to reduce their energy consumption, that is great. But I am not convinced. Why don't we instead have some serious conversation about nuclear energy in this country, or public transportation, or solar energy? Because it is too hard? Too boring? Doesn't get the votes? I agree: after this hour is up, most people will go back to their wasteful ways. It is a PR stunt. And, if the Sears Tower and other buildings can turn off their lights this on Saturday, why can't they shut off the lights every single night?
And Getreal, not sure if you are being sarcastic or not, but if you are not, I'd be interested on hearing what scientific evidence has lead to you believe that? (and please do not quote the right-wing's talking points on that paper that was recently published that global warming is natural and cannot be prevented. If you read the original paper, which I did, that is absolutely not what the authors are saying).
Thanks, Plum, for the thoughts.
I don't think there is any savior, but we really need a combo of conservation, nuke, solar, wind and perhaps other sources to supplement oil. I have no clue what the formula is, but I am sure the lefties will make it difficult for nuke, even were solar and wind thrown into the mix.
@Pinko:
Sure, it's great. But I fucking hate "awareness".
You know all those pink ribbons everyone loves to wear for breast cancer? And all those adorable pink products that makes everyone feel like they're doing something for a change? Also, those three day walks that require an investment of thousands of dollars?
Yeah, they raise "awareness" but they don't raise money for research. And I mean real, honest to goodness, rubber-to-the-road research. And it would be investment in that that could have helped my grandmother and aunt while they were still alive.
I know it seems like a massive digression into my bipolar lunatic land, but honestly this is almost the same fucking thing.
Take all the money you used to design cute little bus ads, take all the money you used to place radio and TV ads, take all the money and effort you used to get all those businesses involved and instead sink it into people who are actually doing real, actual, pragmatic research into getting us off of fossil fuels. That's what I'm arguing.
When I worked up in Las Alamos, NM with all sort of people working in nuclear research, they had to go begging with hat in hand all the time to Washington for funding and grants. And conservatives want to keep sucking oil, and liberals were all afraid of the nuclear bogeyman. Not to mention all the lab time lost having to tap dance for change just to get a needed piece of equipment. "Awareness" doesn't help those scientists.
"Awareness" doesn't help those scientists.
To the contrary, it seems to me that awareness is at the very heart of the problem. If conservatives want to keep sucking oil, then they need to be convinced that nuclear energy (as well as other alternative energy sources) can be profitable as well. If liberals are afraid of the nuclear bogeyman, then those perceived misconceptions need to be addressed. Change can only come quickly if backed by both popular demand and economics...
As for me, the jury is still out. The revival of the whole nuclear debate has created a schism within the environmental movement. I'm on the fence until I hear more convincing evidence one way or the other...
@ Pinko:
What do you need to know? Honestly... I have a job this summer with the ITER team in Japan. I have more access to information than you can imagine.
Plum:
As someone whose bosses have to basically beg the federal government for money to pay my salary, pay for equipment, and pay to perform research, I understand where you are coming from.
But, I think that awareness can sometimes help scientists. For example, the breast cancer awareness movement has probably made people aware of how to prevent cancer: early detection means early cure. If a woman gets a mammogram and finds out early that she has cancer, her odds of survival are better. Scientists can get approval to study the tissue. Better yet, if that woman gets involved in research studies, she is helping scientists directly.
Yes, the PR spent on three-day walks and the like is expensive. Avon spent 7M in "awareness" in 2006. But Avon generated 69.9M in 2006 from public support and revenue. Is the money spent on awareness worth it? Probably.
I think one thing that people forget or don't know about is thermodynamics. Energy can't be created it is merely transfered into different forms. So no matter what form of power we use it will cause some form of negative effect.
Secondly, weather is cyclical. You can't judge the change in temperature of a multibillion year old planet based on 100 years of data. It's statistically insignificant.
Look at pictures of Chicago from the 50s and 60s the buildings are all covered in soot. We've done a lot to clean things up already.
To look at only carbon factoring into temperature is no more right than saying oil is more expensive because we are fighting a war. You have to look at local supply/demand, global supply/demand, value of the dollar, value of other commodities, and on and on.
With the temperature you have to look at what the sun is doing, temperatures of other planets, ocean currents, where temperature is being taken (concrete and asphalt trap heat) and on and on. To say there is global warming is misleading because there is not enough evidence to prove or disprove. I saw a story once where scientists said there was a 90% probability of man-made global warming. Anyone that knows stats knows you base your test based on 95% with type I and type II errors. 90% isn't statistically or scientifically acceptable.
I would need to know that the health risks associated with having a reactor in my community would be relatively low...
I would need to know that the impact to the environment and area wildlife would be relatively minimal...
I would need to know that security at these sites would be tight enough to deter terrorists from attacking what could be perceived as "soft" targets...
Persuade me on these issues, and I have no problem with nuclear energy. Anything has to be better than oil and all the problems it has caused, both environmental and political...
@Pinko:
I could lie to you and say it's incredibly safe. But it's not. Will it blow up and rain radioactive hellfire on everyone? Probably not. And with the safety protocols that have been tested and put in place over 60 years of research and development, they've reduced errors to a factor of a millionith of a percent of failing.
Case in point: TMI was all human error. The problem fixed itself when someone who was properly trained walked in, saw what was going on, and let the reactor correct itself.
But when it comes to waste (at least with a Fission plant) storage is a sticky issue. Not because we don't know HOW or WHERE to store it, but because people are concerned about spent fuel moving through their communities.
But I've seen the tests done on the casks, and let me tell you, it'd take SEVERAL freight trains plowing into them to crack it open. They drop them from helicopters into the desert to see if they'd survive. Usually they make it out with just a scratch or two.
As for security... like I stated before, the reactor themselves are safe. A typical person wouldn't be able to "Cause" an accident, but the storage of spent fuel at the plants themselves is an issue. All the more reason to provide a single safe and secure repository facility at Yucca Mountain.
And radioactive waste is nasty, but nowhere near as nasty as some of the really dangerous chemicals that travel our railroads and highways everyday. A radioactivity spill can be contained pretty readily. (Chernobyl and Hiroshima recovered fairly quickly, and those were massive events... not an accidental "spill") But a chemical event could kill hundreds, even thousands (see Bhopal, India)
I forgot... the by product of the ITER project? Helium. Great for making the French even more squeaky voiced.
And it only costs five billion :-)
Ok had to check in here and see if anything intelligent was said.
Re hydrogen article on skeptic:
Hydrogen can be made from water using electricity so the whole transmission system argument is null.
Yes there are inefficiencies in creating hydrogen- compare that to the inefficiencies inherent in making gasoline in order to make a valid point.
Re: Nuke Power
eh nuclear is a short term solution that ranks better than burning coal. However, distributed renewable energy from wind and solar will help cut down the peak demands that tend to size energy plants or drive new electric plants.
"Major landmarks including the Sears Tower, John Hancock Center and Navy Pier will be turning off all unnecessary lighting"
Why do I picture low flying aircraft suddenly smacking into towers that have gone dark against a suddenly darker sky? Looking toward the Loop at night, as it is, one isn't really seeing the glowing skyline one used to; I wonder how the building administrators are going to define "unnecessary"?
The Sears Tower will be turning off the lights that illuminate the broadcast antennas and the Skydeck, both of which are considered "non-essential." They will also be encouraging tenants to make sure all lights in their offices are off before they leave tonight. However, all emergency lighting will remain on, and the building will most definitely still be visible.