Anti-War Protesters Rally In Federal Plaza
Expiration Date: An interview with Undateable’s Anne Coyle
Review: Revolution Brewing
Where Are You Going? Hyde Park Mural Asks Big Questions
Bookstores We Love: The Book Cellar
Earth Hour 2009, a global initiative created by the World Wildlife Fund, took place worldwide on Saturday, and international landmarks showed their support by turning off non-essential lighting for one hour to make a statement about conservation and climate change. More than 200 large buildings in Chicago participated in the event, dramatically changing the view of the skyline. Chicago was one of 10 U.S. Earth Hour flagship cities. The event started in Sydney, Australia in 2007, and last year it spread worldwide. Chicago participated in 2008 as one of three flagship cities.
As the event continues to grow, WWF hoped to reach 1 billion participants worldwide this year, but official estimates have not yet been released. It seems that preliminary estimates in Chicago from ComEd show that the event may not have done as well this year as it did last. Last year's preliminary estimate showed Chicago area's energy use reducing by 5 percent, but later estimates showed it falling around 7 percent, saving more than 800 megawatt hours. However, preliminary estimates this year only show a 1 percent reduction in energy use, about 100 megawatt hours. The cold, rainy weather may be to blame, since more people might have stayed home and used appliances, but a weather-adjusted estimate is due today or tomorrow.
The visual spectacle of the event is unmistakable, though. (Well, what could be seen through the low clouds, a drizzle and sleet mix, and fog.) Sears, Hancock, Wrigley, the Ferris Wheel and all the big guys in Chicago showed their support. So did Times Square, the pyramids, Eiffel Tower, the Golden Gate bridge, McDonald's golden arches and a research base in Antarctica. For every action, though, there is an equal and opposite reaction. Some anti-global-warming organizations held their own counter-protests by turning every light on. A man who owns an ice cream shop in New Hope, Pa. called the Earth Hour event "nonsense" and planned to illuminate his store with extra theatrical lighting.
add to stumble upon
add to reddit
tweet this
post to facebook
This is what I don't understand:
Say you think Earth Hour is PR nonsense.
Fair enough. Don't take part.
But to act like a bratty kid and turn on all the lights in your freaking house, and all the appliances, too, as some dolts claim to have done? This seems as powerful and honorable as throwing one's soggy Cheerios onto the floor.
What on earth does that accomplish besides a slightly higher power bill? Even if one does not accept the observations/data of the vast majority of scientists on this issue--one can also believe the earth is flat, as well, I guess--does that mean one must NOT also believe in the simple concept of conservation of resources? Silly me: When I was growing up, conservatives still kind of believed in the concept of cutting waste and conserving resources--if not natural ones, then certainly financial ones.
Fucking idiots.
I understand one aspect of the irritation. This is green-washing, pure and simple. It's like a "Hybrid SUV" or donating a tree in someone's name. It's happy talk, good feelings, minimal action.
Cutting consumption over the long term and finding better, less impactful alternatives is harder work. People would rather play activist for an hour than do actual work.
Agree 100% on that point.
But you would think these anti-green morons would find a better way to express their views than using extra electricity as though that will change anyone's mind. At least the PR stunt that is Earth Hour has a chance of changing minds. Turning on all the lights is just a child's tantrum, and has no logic: Even if one doesn't agree that global warming is real, all sensible people agree that all but nuclear or solar energy resources are finite and that one should not waste money just to waste money, right?
It's not even "anti-green". Like you pretty much said Matilda, it's just moronic wastefulness for its own sake, period. Like burning dollar bills in front of your neighbors house because you're annoyed that he's trying to be thrifty and you don't like to worry about such things. I'll show you!
True Jess,
That's an annoying aspect but the goal is simply to raise awareness, so if it gets average joes/janes to consider turning the lights off in a unoccupied room now and then, then it's a success. These childish tantrums in response are idiotic as are all the attempts to poison the well by adding irrelevant asides: Al Gore's house uses lots of power! thus you're all hypocrites!
I myself was using a lot of power at the time, playing music with friends but I try to make an effort to not waste power at home all year long.
Listen to talk radio (WLS for instance) from time to time. You hear these people call in who are really, really angry at being "lectured to" about global warming. They've worked hard and they feel like Leonardo DiCaprio or Al Gore have a lot of nerve to wag their fingers at them for having a big house or leaving their lights on when they're not home or driving an SUV. "Turn off my lights for an hour? That's going to stop global warming? Oh, it's just a gesture? I'll give you a gesture."
The way you get through to these people is their pocketbook. Show them the savings of renewable energy (over the long term it is there) and making small daily changes and you'll bring many mountains to Muhammad.
Seriously, "How dare you try to help me save my money, and at not inconvenience to my existing lifestlye!".
My dad falls into this group of people and most of all he hates the fact that someone with a nearly endless stream of money is trying to tell him how to spend his.
As time goes on and renewable energy becomes more ubiquitous and less hippy bullshit people will consume less. The sudden over-saturation of green-related marketing campaigns and products is exhausting to even people who agree with the general message.
I have to agree with you there. I do believe that global warming exists and I try to live as green as I can, but even I cannot stand to be around the Global Warming Freaks.
They're as bad as bible beaters.
Th point is that it's not a "false dilemma", you can think that living sensibly is important while also being annoyed by dumbasses who are ever present across all political and social spectrums.
Actually I sould have said having to choose is a "false dilemma".
Though it makes for great comedy. Seeing BP and GM and other spending millions to cry "Green" is very amusing.
These are the same companies that spent billions supporting hard line conservative politicians, fighting sensible environmental reform and quashing good science.
Yeah,
The actions of the people described in the article are purely childish, like breaking your toy so you're little brother can't play with it.
I think you mean "pro-global-warming organizations" in that last paragraph. Or "anti-anti-global-warming." Either way, "pro-idiot" would suffice.
The entire concept of "green marketing" is ass-backwards. These products are slightly less harmful than their slightly less "green" competitors, but nonetheless the companies are spending millions of dollars on advertising so that we increase our consumption of these products. Until there is a product with a negative carbon footprint, there will be no true "green marketing."
Also, the fuck-bags described in the article reminded me of Thorstein Veblen's introduction of the theory of "conspicuous consumption," in which he said "if it is not wasteful, it is not reputable."
Yes, but Al Gore will sell you plenary indulgences...I mean carbon credits! Repent for all your carbon sins!
Yeah well: "Green Marketing", "Astro Turfing" what have you, at least people are recognizing the b.s. But yeah all the phoney "green" stuff is overwhelming. The grocery store's not riddled with products covered in double speak.
Correction on my quote: "In order to be reputable, it must be wasteful."
Jimbo's dad runs an ice cream shop? Who would have guest?