Earth Hour

[kEiThZ]

^ Because stuff like this costs money, staff resources and consumes a valuable portion of our public's short attention span. I'd rather those resources go into everyday actions that make a difference than a single hour of light-less entertainment.

Now if this was advertised as a way to get our birth rate up, I'd have a different opinion.

 

[afransen]

The only real threat posed by an SUV is when their drivers try to park these behemoths.

There is also the arms-race in terms of vehicle size. People buy big vehicles because the increased mass is perceived to increase safety, generally at the expense of those in smaller, lower vehicles.

 

[bleeepbluuup]

^ Because stuff like this costs money, staff resources and consumes a valuable portion of our public's short attention span. I'd rather those resources go into everyday actions that make a difference than a single hour of light-less entertainment.

Everyday actions are essential, but I think the nice thing about Earth Hour is that it demonstrates an immediate, obvious, and measurable effect of conserving energy. Lights go off, it's dark, power consumption goes down by x. It's a small stupid thing, but getting a point across is always easier if you've got a little 'show' along with your 'tell'.

 

[kEiThZ]

Everyday actions are essential, but I think the nice thing about Earth Hour is that it demonstrates an immediate, obvious, and measurable effect of conserving energy. Lights go off, it's dark, power consumption goes down by x. It's a small stupid thing, but getting a point across is always easier if you've got a little 'show' along with your 'tell'.

The Star reported that electricity consumption was only down by 5% across the GTA. A cool day in the summer has a greater effect than that. So would changing half a dozen light bulbs in your house to CFLs (particularly in rooms that you regularly use).

 

[Hydrogen]

Earth hour is really about raising awareness, and I think it's done a really good job at that. Why sniff dismissively at this when it's so easy for cities and the average person to participate - and there's no downside? Cynicism is unbecoming.

It's really just earth day in another form - and who celebrates earth day anymore? It gets hardly any media coverage at all.

Raising awareness about what? Does turning off a few lights for an hour actually do anything (other than assuage guilt for some people)?


digi said it best:

Earth hour is to show you how many people will do what the media tells them to do, without thought or question.

 

[digi]

During "summer heat emergencies", the building I work in turns off the 4 highly efficient metal halide lights in the lobby, while leaving the forty 50 Watt halogens on.
During the winter, airconditioning blows down the back of my neck, while heat is pumped out of the hot water radiators.

 

[syn]

I think Earth Hour is ridiculous. It's the choices we make everyday that help the environment not symbolic crap like turning lights off for an hour once a year.

How about taking transit to work everyday? Or actually living closer to work? Or eating less meat (particularly red meat)? Those three things alone would make such a significant different reducing one's carbon footprint. Instead of promoting that stuff we give suburbanites who commute to work in SUVs from 50 km away a feel good campaign that helps assuage the guilt that they aren't doing enough for the environment. If we want to do that, the suburbanites should have an Earth Week. No lights for a week would truly be an enlightening experience.

I agree it's ridiculous in that sense, but I think it has one significant benefit. It's a good example of what can be accomplished if everyone makes a small sacrifice.

 

[Hipster Duck]

The most effective way to bring about real change would be to raise electricity rates. I think most people would agree to higher rates if it meant getting rid of at least part of the "debt retirement charge" which can be the highest portion of the hydro bill for some of us.

 

[Hydrogen]

How do you know that it would be effective? Rates are higher in some jurisdictions in the United States, but with no noticeable effect on consumption.

 

[lordmandeep]

There is also the arms-race in terms of vehicle size. People buy big vehicles because the increased mass is perceived to increase safety, generally at the expense of those in smaller, lower vehicles.

Yes I have heard of so many Women who after a Car Accident in Honda Civic switch to a massive 5000 pound SUV.

Even when it comes to small cars, I refuse to drive V-4. To slow and the cars are to small.
Come on V6 200 HP!!

The most effective way to bring about real change would be to raise electricity rates. I think most people would agree to higher rates if it meant getting rid of at least part of the "debt retirement charge" which can be the highest portion of the hydro bill for some of us.

damn the environment, its 40 degrees outside I am turning the AC on...

 

[Hipster Duck]

How do you know that it would be effective? Rates are higher in some jurisdictions in the United States, but with no noticeable effect on consumption.

Well, we have considerably higher per capita usage than California, a rich, industrial state of McMansions where you have to air condition your house for more than half the year. The highest usage, period, is in Quebec where they pay a measly 2 cents/kWh.

Seriously, what is a better motivator of behavioural change than pricing?

 

[Hydrogen]

Quebec has massive hydro resources. Why should they gouge electricity buyers?

Are you absolutely sure that usage is so thoroughly pegged to the price of electricity alone at these lower price levels? Be careful when you try to compare consumption in two different jurisdictions; if you look at your own electric bill you will note that the portion for electricity is only a portion of the total bill.

I think it's funny that some people would think that access to less expensive electricity should be viewed as a bad thing.

 

[Hipster Duck]

Quebec has massive hydro resources. Why should they gouge electricity buyers?

Norway also has enormous hydro resources (and oil, too). They don't fritter and waste their resources and have instead amassed a rather large rainy day fund. The Qubecois could do the same, or export more of their excess capacity to other jurisdictions. Alternatively, if there isn't a large enough market for that, they probably shouldn't have built so many dams in the first place.

Their current practice of spending oodles to build enormous infrastructure projects that don't maximize their return on investment (they may be profitable, but they could be more profitable, or they could have gotten by with less) seems foolish, especially when there are no net benefits to society (Norway has a higher per capita income and lower income equality than Quebec).

Are you absolutely sure that usage is so thoroughly pegged to the price of electricity alone at these lower price levels?

I never suggested that price, alone, leads to reduced usage. But, I don't think that there are better tools out there to change usage patterns than through pricing. It's like the old adage that democracy isn't perfect, but it's the best thing we have.

Be careful when you try to compare consumption in two different jurisdictions; if you look at your own electric bill you will note that the portion for electricity is only a portion of the total bill.

That was precisely my original point: do away with the debt retirement charge, which is currently the largest portion of many consumers' hydro bill, and recover the lost costs by instituting a pricing scheme that gives people an incentive to conserve. It sure would be more effective than "earth hour".

 

[Tuscani01]

That was precisely my original point: do away with the debt retirement charge, which is currently the largest portion of many consumers' hydro bill, and recover the lost costs by instituting a pricing scheme that gives people an incentive to conserve. It sure would be more effective than "earth hour".

I think the delivery charge is the biggest ripoff on the bill. I pay more for delivery than I spend on hydro itself... and I live in an 11 storey building. Why do we each have to pay separate delivery fee's when Hydro is only delivering to one building?

 

[khris]

Some more photos. Times Square barely changed at all haha.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2009/03/photogalleries/earth-hour-2009-pictures/index.html