Earth Hour: a non-event
The Sun-Herald printed a hilarious April Fools’ article concerning its very own Earth Hour™. Having orchestrated this nonevent to occur right at the moment it was preparing its April Fools’ edition for publication, they interpid journos had to splice some photos into their grandiose copy about saving the planet. The joke? Well, spot the difference:
That’s right, the second one is heaps darker. Certainly, the bridge is no longer floodlit. But look at the lights in the buildings – almost all the same windows have lights on in them in the second photo as in the first. Given that several of these are office buildings, some of the few lights that have been turned can be chalked up to people leaving. Get it? Earth Hour didn’t really help save the planet with an awesome display of whatever it might have been a display of – it basically didn’t even happen! Those Fairfax tricksters; what a hoot!
arleeshar wrote:
I too noted this. I also noted this article in which Energy Australia stated that there had been a 10% saving in power in the CBD as a result of Earth Hour.
So, logically, barring some kind of bogan power revolution wherein great swathes of the Sydney CBD not pictured in this photo decided to switch off and tune out, it seems likely that a great part of this saving came from the Harbour Bridge.
Which begs the question - if we can reduce a drain on the public purse and alleviate a small part of our emissions, why - barring a precautionary concern for low-flying 747s and north shore soccer mums in toorak tractors that might not fit under its struts - do we not undertake to de-light the bridge every night?
Mark wrote:
damn straight.
I really loved the stats today, which quoted a survey (although I wonder it it wasn’t self-selected) saying 52% of people turned off the lights for Earth Hour, although only 17% of people turned off the TV. I.e., everyone was sitting around watching tele in darkness. It would have saved more juice to have had them reading books in a well-lit room.
Myth wrote:
Yeah, it seemed a bit of a media beat-up. Like fairfax self promotion.
The simple fact remains that on any climate change self regulation, all a small country like Australia can do is follow the lead of the superpowers, and I am unsure whether anyone is comfortable with whether issues like climate change and how to respond to it should be left to a badly informed public beat up by the media.
That is the preserve of elected officials responding to scientific evidence suitably. I would not feel comfortable in any politician than ran on a climate change agenda because I know that not many even know enough about it to voice an educated opinion.
Mark wrote:
Not only is that not a ‘simple fact’, Patrick, it’s not a ‘fact’ at all. Australia can take unilateral action on climate change, although I take the point that such action would be on the ineffective side. I resolutely do not take your point that decision-making should be left up to ‘elected officials’. If that’s the case, why do they need to be elected at all? Having to respond to electoral pressure seriously mitigates their independence in decision-making. This is indeed the reason for their reluctance to take action, since long-term environmental protection will piss people off in the short term. Note that I’m not advocating the suspension of democracy, but rather believe that that is the logic of your argument here.
The media beat-up here is connected not to the claim that government action is needed, but that civil society can end climate change through concerted action, which is a very dubious one, towards which Earth Hour offers absolutely no evidence.
Post new comment