In ten days time, it will be Earth Hour. Apparently, this Sydney event has gone global this year, so even if you don't live here, you might have heard of it. For one hour, we're supposed to turn off our lights to show we care about greenhouse gasses and global warming.
Sounds like a worthy idea, right? You're probably thinking "that's gotta be good for the environment", right?
For an hour, everyone pulls out their candles, goes ooooh, and aaaahh, has a romantic dinner and feels better now that they've made some real statement and saved the earth from all those evil greenhouse gasses. How much better does it get?
Except for one thing...
A 100w incandescent light globe uses electricity which, if it was created in a coal fired power plant, created about 13g of carbon dioxide. A 2.5cm diameter candle will burn down about 5cm during that hour, and create 15g of carbon dioxide. One candle. Of course, to light a room to the equivalent of a 100w light globe, you'd need 1500 candles, and it would be so hot you's have spontaneous combustion in your lounge room, but that's not the point. Just one candle produces more greenhouse gas than a standard 100w light globe, and if you've ever had to wait it out through a blackout, you'll know that one candle isn't enough.
It gets worse. If your candle's replacing a fluorescent light or one of those energy saving flouro bulbs, you need to compare the candle's 15g with just 3g of the dreaded CO2 made by the electric alternative.
So let me get this right. We're going to get everyone to switch off their electric lights and burn candles for an hour, producing MORE greenhouse gas so we can save the environment from... um... greenhouse gas? Really?
And while I think of it... last year's Earth Hour resulted in a drop in demand of just 1.7%, which actually made ZERO difference to the amount of greenhouse gas produced, because coal fired power stations aren't like the engine in your car where you can just press or release the pedal according to the demand you want to place on the engine... all of which means Earth Hour actually adds a staggering and unnecessary load to the total green house gas emission (if you believe in this sort of thing). In short, Earth Hour's a big con.
Next, they'll be telling us to forego our cars and ride horses for a day, conveniently forgetting to mention that the envirodamage done by the methane the horse will produce will make our internal combustion engines look like environmental saviours.
Don't believe a word of the global warming scam. Just start asking where the money trail leads.
17 comments:
What if we promise to turn off the lights, tv, everything and just sit in the dark? No, that would probably end up with a huge baby boom in 9 months which would be even worse for the planet.
(I'd join anything that meant I could ride a pony again though).
http://global-warming.accuweather.com/
http://www.globalwarmingblog.org/
Who do I believe?
Chester, Like so many others YOU completely miss the point of Earth Hour. But then you are part of a massive group of humans. You will one day learn the truth, hopefully before it is JTL. For myself I want us to be JIT. If we do not wake up to the unsustainable 24 hour day killing off Life On Earth then YOU will be sorry, along with many others. By then however it certainly will be JTL? Nocturnal creatures are already dying, like whip-poor-wills and night jars - but do you care? Do you?
Anonymous... yes. That's the problem, not just with Global Warming but with just about everything is this life of ours. Who do you believe? We are bombarded with so much conflicting information every day that what you believe is... um... well if you've read some of my older posts you'll know that it's going to be guided by what you believe, if that makes any sense.
My advice, go with your gut. It's usually right.
Graham, no, it's you who miss the point. Of course I care, and if you read back through my previous posts on global warming, you'll see words like "there's no doubt that we humans have been reckless with the way we've abused our environment and we have to change our ways".
But here's the problem... bad science, deception and fashionable fads aren't the way to achieve that. Why? Because all they do is distract people from the real problem. People turn their lights out for an hour and it doesn't "raise their level of consciousness about environmental issues" (which is one of the justifications I've read lately). All it does is make them feel like they're doing their bit.
In addition, people like me start to question the science of it all, and the fabric of lies around which the neo-environmentalism fad is built begins to break down. People get cynical, and they don't listen.
Governments (or, more precisely, politicians) are an even more cynical lot. They don't actually care about the "big" issues. All they care about is the next opinion poll and when the issue stops having an impact on those, then environment gets dropped from the agenda.
We need real solutions. Those solutions take time and money, and to get both the time and the money, we need leaders with vision.
Graham, I don't want our environmental recklessness fixed Just In Time. I want it fixed now, and for reasons which are only partly to do with whip-poor-wills and night jars.
There is one thing that's being sacrificed by the environmental movement and it might just be the most important of all. It's called "truth". Beware. Whenever any group sacrifices truth to gain some control over your life, you're on a very slippery slope indeed.
And Anonymous, one more thing...
Follow the power/money trail.
Look for people who are now receiving funding who weren't receiving funding before. Look for people who now have power who didn't have power before.
Disbelieve anything they say.
Ever had that warm glowing feeling as you put a bumper bundle of used packaging and old papers in the car to go to the recycling centre that you're helping the planet?
Chester, Once again YOU miss the point - and blame me. Please stand stand back and look at what you describe without emotion. Frankly I believe that your advocacy is "blinded by the light" and NOT the light of LP, light pollution. Unnecessary light at night is causing the 24 hour day. This is unsustainable. Stand back without emotion and read the "missives" which you have already written. Many of your statements are excellent. Their emotional "packaging" is the problem. As I have already said you are one of the many and not one of the few which you imagine.
I am and always will be a scientist seeking the truth. I was once told by some colleagues 25 years ago that I was "wrong" about focused electron probes. I can now say that I told them so. This gives me no satisfaction. I told them the truth but, just like politicians, they only wanted to believe their OWN truths. Please do not let emotion cloud your balance of judgment. You know that this makes sense? I am sure. All the very best, Graham.
Global warming is a fact, not a neo-environmentalist fad. If we don't recognise that the we are behaving like the proverbial ostrich with its head in the sand. One only needs to look at a light pollution map of the world to realise exactly what is happening. Thousands of cities, world-wide, cooking the atmosphere all night, evey night, just to maintain a 24 hour society. Not only that, but the fuel consumption needed to release all that energy is further contributing to the problem. This energy abuse is unsustainable and stems from the fact that the planet is overpopulated. Our civilisation needs to look again NOW about how we utilise energy, otherise it will be too late, not only for other living things, but also for ourselves as well. The writing is on the wall. Make sure you read it.
Colin Henshaw
Graham, Colin, Martin, I understand the issue, and value your perspectives.
Our 24 hour day is not only making it difficult for nocturnals, it's making it difficult for us. It consumes resources, deprives us of much needed sleep, and disturbs the quiet for all creatures.
The human race is just about night blind... while just five generations ago, our forebears were reading by candle light.
However, I'll say it again... there is no doubt that we humans have been reckless with the way we have abused the environment, and there's not doubt we have to change our ways.
But "global warming"? Sorry... the balance of evidence points to other than humans as the cause, and the problem is that the half arsed science with-us-or-agin-us politics of the humans-did-it lobby leads to very bad outcomes.
For example... there seems to be a belief that it will all somehow be better if we switched to biofuels (leaving the fake biofuels I talked about a few posts ago aside). They sound great. They're "carbon neutral", except that to produce enough biofuels to cultivate and move the food to feed the population, entire rainforests will need to be cleared, and the production process is anything but energy efficient. In addition, the value of the crop means land that should be used for food gets used for fuel.
Or perhaps you're in the hydrogen camp. Hydrogen's a "clean" fuel. Burning it doesn't produce carbon, it produces water vapour, which, if I remember correctly, is about 7 time more "greenhouse" than carbon dioxide... and then we really will have a problem.
Me? I'm probably in the nuclear camp for now, though there are some pretty exciting developments in solar generation on the horizon that, with a little political will, would make the whole fossil fuel problem go away.
Unfortunately, it's not realistic to turn back the clock and return us to a pre-industrial society, so we have to find a way through the problem.
And yes, "global warming" IS a fact. (Let's leave aside the suggestion that there's been global warming on Mars, which, unless Stargate really is a documentary, isn't likely to be our fault.)
The reality is, the world heats up. It cools down. It heats up again. In 1974, scientists were making dire predictions of an impending new ice age. I remember. I was there. It was only later that they found out that this was not because of human activity, but because of a wobble in the earth's rotation.
I've already posted about the huge increase in volcanic and seismic activity over the last 300 years. The geological evidence points to a similar (though greater) increase at the last big warming, which if I recal, was about 60 million years ago. Is it responsible this time? I don't know.
But let's not bicker about the cause...
Let's look for solutions.
Is it as simple as just turning out the street lights after midnight, or perhaps even ten o'clock. Do we have a curfew between 10 and six, thus making sure that there was a little peace and quiet for eight hours of the day.
Do we redesign our cities, compacting them so that their footprint on mother earth is smaller?
Do we have mandatory population control... something like a Chinese one child policy designed to halve the world's population in two or three generations.
Or maybe we need another war. A bloody big one that halves the population with weaponry rather than statute.
What would you do? What would you have our leaders do? What would you have us do?
I'm sorry if my writing on this topic is "emotional". I guess that's because I'm more than a little emotional about it.
I just hate it when those with a hidden agenda foist neo-environmentalism like the Kyoto protocol on us at great cost for no benefit. Look at all the countries that signed up to Kyoto. Has it made the slightest difference to Mother Earth? No. It's just another trendy cause-of-the-left... a political victory for victory's sake, totally divorced from real outcome.
And switching out the lights for an hour just doesn't cut it for me.
Oh... and thank you all for your contributions. Vigorous and passionate debate is always worth the effort.
Chester, In your intial post you stated that coal fired power plants do not respond like the gas pedal on your car. That is not exactly true. I worked in coal plant for 12 years and they can ranp up and down quite rapidly. No, not like a car engine but fast enough to react to demand changes. But they are bad for the environment and they produce more pollution then most people imagine.
In addition, in you last post you stated that you were inclined to lean toward nuclear fueled power plant for the answer. Nuclear is NOT the answer! I live outside Chicago and I am surrounded by 5 nuclear reactors within 60 miles of where I live. Because nothing is perfect, there are releases of radioactive products into the environment - some have occured just recently. Nuclear power just trades one problem for another and nuclear has a very long half-life. Where do you store the waste? How do you safely transport the waste over long distances? And most importantly, which heavily populated towns do you travel through to get the waste to a "secure" storage facility? In the Chicago area there is now talk of resurrecting the process whereby spent nuclear waste is "recycled" to reuse in breeder reactors. The concept is good, but the "recycling center" is in a heavily populated town, surrunded by more heavily popluated towns. There is just too much risk in the contiuous transport of this material.
I do not have any answers here,I am just pointing out problems that each of the conventional sources of electricity creates.
Debra
Thanks Debra. Yes, nuclear has some serious problems in relation to waste but on balance, of the available large scale energy producing options available today, it has the least impact on the environment. (Which is not to say it's good... just the best option.)
The only real ray of hope (and the pun isn't intended), is solar, where there have been some exciting breakthroughs in the last year or so.
Chester,
Sir, I beleive that you are really missing the point about turning off
UNEEDED LIGHTS:
Please take a look at these articles about LIGHT POLLUTION:
From a recent edition of US News & World Report:
http://www.usnews.com/articles/science/2008/03/14/turning-out-the-lights.html
Or if you prefer here are some particulars...wasted light costs Americans $10.4 Billion EVERY YEAR and wastes 38 Billion TONS OF CO2
EVERY YEAR!
From The New Yorker:
http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2007/08/20/070820fa_fact_owen?currentP
From The Philadelphia Inquirer:
http://www.philly.com/philly/entertainment/10710467.html
Now please, look at these photos and tell me that we should keep wasting electricity to light the night sky?
Sheesh, you amaze me really!
Sincerely, if not sadly,
Patrick Edward Murray
Past President,
Bucks-Mont. Astronomical Assoc. Inc
Ok, ok, ok... I get it.
Light pollution is BAD. Keeping lights on to unnecessarily illuminate whatever would otherwise be in the dark is BAD. Street lights... BAD (and, paradoxically, if they turned out the street lights, the head lights on your car would work better, but that's for another blog). Outdoor lights in general... BAD. Indoor lights that shine out of the windows... BAD. Come to think of it, indoor lights that don't shine out of the window but are on when no-one is in the room... BAD. Illuminated outdoor advertising... BAD. The whole of the Las Vegas strip... BAD. The headlights on your car... BAD. Thomas Edison... BAD.
Really. I do get it. I think most of the above are a stupid waste of money and resources.
The trouble is, that's NOT what Earth Hour or this blog are about. More precisly, it's not what most people think Earth Hour is about. For most people, Earth Hour is about doing their bit to fight Global Warming. If you want it to be about Light Pollution, then you're failing dismally to get that message out there. And if you think that by getting people to believe they're doing something about Global Warming in the hope that they might have some epiphany about Light Pollution while the lights are out, then you're using deception and slight of hand. It won't work. People will switch their lights back on at the end of the hour, smug in their contribution and blissfully ignorant of the Light Pollution problem.
So instead of shooting this messenger, maybe you need to look at the message Earth Hour's carrying, because I'm not the one who's writing the press releases or scripting the expensive TV commercials to promote the bloody thing.
"So instead of shooting this messenger, maybe you need to look at the message Earth Hour's carrying, because I'm not the one who's writing the press releases or scripting the expensive TV commercials to promote the bloody thing."
Now, now Chester don't get upset. For me turning OFF unnecessary lights and others as well to justify the use of candles is for me part of the PR failure with EH. In the UK no-one had heard of EH. Docklands was all lit up and yet Sydney, San Fran, Chicago, Ottowa, Tel Aviv, Rome and Athens joined in. I know that the Mayor of London and the Mayor of my home town Manchester knew about EH because I had told them. Last year for Manchester. They just do not care. EH is ALL about raising awareness that we have a problem which we are actively creating. EH will NOT stop climate change. We need to stop its speed of development. If we do nothing then bye bye the future of the Earth' kids. The Earth will continue but we won't. I am not joking. The fact that complacency and ignorance prevails is what I fear now.
Post a Comment