Decaflon

Wow, not a single comment. I guess people here don't care. :-/

I haven't been in notes for a bit, so I apologize for not seeing this thread.

It's a remarkable idea. I admit the act of switching off lights for an hour isn't very practical in saving energy, but as a message it works.

The organizers must be applauded for their creativity. I salute them.

Measuring the Impact of Earth Hour

On March 31st 2007 at 7:30pm, the residents of Sydney, Australia, held Earth Hour, where people were urged to turn off lights and electrical appliances for one hour. According to poll evidence, over 57% of Sydney took part. To estimate the impact of this event, simply measuring the difference between actual consumption and predicted consumption (as media reports did) gives an incorrect inference, because over 67% of the apparent decline was due to factors common throughout the day, not just Earth Hour. Once this is controlled for, electricity consumption during Earth Hour shows a decline of only 2.10%, statistically indistinguishable from zero. Declines as large as those during Earth Hour were common throughout the whole day and within the overall sample, suggesting that cause is omitted variables, not the event itself. These results indicate that policies aimed at encouraging reductions in individual household energy use may be of considerably less benefit than commonly assumed.

Well, okay. I didn't read that document in its entirety, but it concluded that it was difficult to measure the real effect of Earth Hour in New South Wales. It also said that the use of electricity compared to times throughout the day itself wasn't significant, but I didn't catch anything in that PDF that mentioned the fact that there are more lights being used at night when the sun sets, as compared the rest of the day when there is daylight.

Although, it is indeed interesting that at 7:30 the use of electricity went really high, but that might have been coincidental for that day. Still, all scientific notes aside, you can't disregard the fact that something like this was pulled off in the first place, and whatever electricity was saved, even if it was so small.

Shadowsun7, I definitely agree that they should be applauded because this just goes to show that there are people who are genuinely interested in the bettering of our environment. I believe that this is just the beginning of more and more countries taking part in something extraordinary, as it is an effort to spread knowledge of the benefits of being green, saving energy, and feeling good while doing it.

Honestly, what's the point of reading an article that negates the idea of even having an EarthHour? Regardless the scientific results, it can and WILL eventually reach a state where shutting off lights for one hour will actually make a big difference.

@lelia: great find. I was thinking of a few other arguments against Earth Hour while reading the website - like the time without electricity can be put to better use to help the environment, but in the end I decided making arguments like this wasn't teaching people anything. I suppose the surest way to get a message across is to make people uncomfortable, and boy can we get uncomfortable without electricity.

@lasha:

being green, saving energy, and feeling good while doing it.

I doubt some residents of Sydney felt good about doing it. No electricity means no a lot of things. I can't imagine one earth hour happening in my country - the outcry will be united and deafening, and I can already imagine people whipping out laptops to while away the time.

What a thought!

Well, okay. You have a damn good point about "feeling good" while being green and all, but I was referring to that in a more general sense. What I meant is that, generally, when people go green, and keep it stable, they save money! Of course, no one on earth "likes" being disconnected even for a minute against their will, especially in cities like Sydney. But hey, I guess we will eventually reach a time where people will consider it a "norm" to be conservative or "green" with the things we do on a daily basis. And yes, I also do agree that discomfort would have to be confronted by many, but humans are known to adapt. :)

...I didn't catch anything in that PDF that mentioned the fact that there are more lights being used at night when the sun sets, as compared the rest of the day when there is daylight.

I also didn't see where it pointed out the fact that hundreds upon hundreds (thousands?) of businesses and industries shut down (or slow down) for the night, anyhow, thus ending tons of electrical usage, perhaps even the heaviest of usage. So really, where any difference was coming from, was from homes and the businesses that do stay open at night, which, in the grand scheme of business and city life, would still be the minority, I think, even on a Saturday.

Still, all scientific notes aside, you can't disregard the fact that something like this was pulled off in the first place, and whatever electricity was saved, even if it was so small.

After reading a ton of things about this, I personally don't believe "global warming" and "climate change," things that have come and gone since the dawn of time, are a problem (and I don't feel like debating that in a thread that wasn't specifically intended for it), but I'd like to ask how you personally think Sydney's halfway shutting down one night had any impact on an alleged problem such as global warming, when much of the CO2 emissions come from more populated nations (e.g., USA) and/or developing nations that are going through their industrial revolutions (e.g., China and India).

It has always seemed to me that those who believe we have a limited amount of time to "return things to normal" should probably start with that fact and, therefore, should boycott products that are manufactured and shipped out of developing nations. Shouldn't the objective of those who believe in "going green" be to return manufacturing and things to your own country, where you'll have more control over the pollution you are causing? If the matter is so drastic, it would appear that the reaction should be as drastic, too. But of course, such measures would mean slowing production and paying higher wages to local workers, which, in turn, would mean higher costs for products.

I'm actually not trying to be rude here (I hope it's not seeming that way), I'm just curious what your thinking is in regard to all that, because I find a lot of people who are diehard greenies often ignore the fact that much of the world's CO2 emissions come from the places I mentioned above, much less that their personal efforts, no matter how seemingly noble, are blips on a screen which is said to be of global life or death importance.

Honestly, what's the point of reading an article that negates the idea of even having an EarthHour?

Because not reading arguments for and against things can lead one down a path of gullible acceptance of all of what one group says and tells you to do. We need to make our own conclusions, by reading all information we can, not just the information we agree with.

Regardless the scientific results, it can and WILL eventually reach a state where shutting off lights for one hour will actually make a big difference.

I think the point is more that we need to find more efficient ways to be "environmentally friendly," ways that lead to the same, similar or better results than what Earth Hour achieved. A more efficient way will make a bigger difference, and that's why science is important, no matter whether you believe global warming is an issue or not.

After reading a ton of things about this, I personally don't believe "global warming" and "climate change," things that have come and gone since the dawn of time, are a problem

@Lelia: I, too, do not believe in Global Warming. At the moment there are two conflicting pools of evidence in the scientific community: and I have to go with the one against - there just doesn't seem to enough evidence to support the Global Warming theory. Like you, I did not want to raise that issue in this note.

But I have to say here that I think the idea is a good one. It raises awareness about saving the environment: and that doesn't mean just Global Warming, it means pollution and saving life and wildlife conservation. As a message I think Global Hour works. It makes people uncomfortable, and therefore it makes them think.

@Lelia: Thoughts well stated, thank you.

@Shadowsun7: You bring up an extremely valid point about this whole environment thing not only being about the earth's temperature rising a bit, but more on a widespread scale as you mentioned. Wildlife conservation and pollution (which technically contributes to "global warming", no?) are just more reasons to begin acting towards change, and away from neglect.

I must say one thing though...After observing lots of evidence from both sides of the pool regarding the validity of global warming, I've been lead to believe that global warming IS happening, but at a rather slow speed. This is why a lot of people believe that it's just a natural phase that the Earth is going through. And as Al Gore said, "just because we can't see it, smell it, or taste it, doesn't mean it's not there."

Our world today has the largest and dirtiest population the Earth has ever seen, and still growing dangerously fast, for the worst. The abuse the Earth is taking pumping hundreds of millions of pounds of oil and gas are not causing it harm? Honestly, do the millions of tons of CO2 vanish magically with a wave of a wand? Think about the amount of *junk* that goes into our landfills, the air that we breathe, and the contamination that's occurring in our seas, oceans, and other bodies of water. I don't mean to sound like a fanboy on crack or something, but if we think that global warming is not really happening, we will probably end up falling in a hole that will be really hard to climb out of.

There are so many starving nations in the world, yet so many fail to acknowledge or care about it - but there are a few of those that have stood up and realized the reality of it. A lot of us are gifted with the fact that we will probably be born and raised to an elderly age without ever experiencing hunger, or the lack of shelter. This, to me, is like our weakening environment (not just global warming). We don't see it, or experience it in any way, other than the media, this we tend to put it off to the side.

Maybe I'm just motivated for the wrong reasons to make a difference and change myself, and hopefully others, for the better. I come from a very poor country that hasn't experienced stability of any sort for a very, very long time. I was raised for the first few main years of my life in the types of places people would want to hang themselves in. I hate it so very much every time I hear about these terrible situations in the world, and would just hope that more people take some sort of action. Every so often I come to realize the opportunity that I've been given in America, and think back into the past of how things used to be, and how they are now. I also think of the possibilities of how I could have turned out to be if I spent over a dozen years in Georgia, instead of New York. But then again, that's just me. Just my 2 cents, sorry.