Earth Hour in ED

[Miss P]

I wondered if any other ED residents were joining in with the earth hour this Saturday evening? www.wwf.org.uk/earthhour

Seems like a small gesture to help save the planet - for those who haven't heard about it, all you have to do is turn your lights out for an hour at 8.30pm Saturday evening. It's got to be worth the effort - and a good excuse for a candle lit dinner......

[PeckhamRose]

From my flat I can see the whole of the City of London. When I see all those lights turned off then I will turn off mine two. Big business should lead the way.

[Louisa]

It's a bit late to 'save the planet' if you ask me! I think the damage is already done, nothing we do now even on a major scale would not benefit us in the long term... maybe we should look for a new planet to live, preferably somewhere closer to the sun!

Louisa.

[Applespider]

Seem to remember reading something last year to the effect that Earth Hour could cause more problems than it resolved from an energy point of view because of some issues with how the National Grid projects demand etc.

[Strawbs]

I'll do it for sure!

[Babycakes]

me too!

[charliecharlie]

yup, me too... thanks for the reminder

xxcc

[Miss P]

Very pleased to hear that Strawbs, Babycakes & Charliecharlie care enough to at least try. Louisa, if you think it's too late, we may as well just give up now. And go and pick some daffodils to enjoy them while we can.....(In another thread, Louisa was upset about people picking daffs from public parks - in fact I quite agree that people shouldn't do that, it's very selfish.)

I'm sure all those with kids would like to think that we aren't going to leave them with a totally ruined planet & no natural resources left? It's not a huge effort really, is it?

[????]

Couldn't they do this at the end of June? It would be far less inconvenient then

[KalamityKel]

Does it count if you're not in London at the time? :)

[macroban]

Applespider,

I believe that the problem is not with turning things off, but the power demand surge when lights and appliances are turned back on.

MacRoban

[Miss P]

So I guess the trick would be not to all rush for a cuppa at half nine?

Maybe we should all just go to the pub?

[Mick Mac]

I'll be in Edinburgh at a wedding - so no lights on in our house.

Otherwise I'm not sure what the point is? Can you explain what it achieves or encourages us to do?

How does switching your lights off save the planet?

[Marmora Man]

Earth Hour will achieve nothing tangible in the way of reducing carbon output as the power stations cannot scale back generation to take account of one hour's dip in useage.

It will generate more piety and fervour in those that accept, unquestioningly, the tenets of climate change.

I note that the law (or at least industrial employment law) has been tempted to equate belief in climate change with other religious and philosophical views. This seems illogical - there should be a scientific basis for this particular question, not merely a belief. Yet many do accept the climate change thesis without question in the way that fervent evangelicals believe and promote their religious books and views.

From The Independent 26 March:

An executive sacked from a giant property company can claim he was unfairly dismissed because of his "philosophical belief in climate change", a judge ruled yesterday.

In the first case of its kind, employment judge David Sneath said Tim Nicholson, a former environmental policy officer, could invoke employment law for protection from discrimination against him for his conviction that climate change was the world's most important environmental problem.

That conviction amounted to a philosophical belief under the Employment Equality (Religion and Belief) Regulations, 2003, the judge ruled on a point of law at a pre-hearing review of an employment tribunal in London.

[SeanMacGabhann]

comparing the mounting evidence re: climate change with religious belief is poppycock of the highest order MM!

And it is mounting evidence - not concrete proof, so there is room for debate. But equating the current wight of argument with woo merchants is not helpful

I agree that earth hour achieves nothing in terms of measuring output - but as with a minute's silence after tragic events, the IDEA is to make us reflect and think about our current actions. people entrench themselves fartoo quickly so, for example, when I do one of my "too many cars" routines people catsigate me about power/fuel usage, when what I'm more concerned about is basic physics and the amount of square metres avaailable in congested spaces - ie the argument gets deflected

I often find quids pronouncements re: economy and so on a bit, shall we say, over-dramatic. But I do reckon in our lifetimes the major wars (including civil) will be about the realisation that fuel/food/water are not as plentiful as we think. And being able to say "I told you so" to climate-change sceptics will be of scant consolation

Put simply - if the "believers" are wrong - excellent, no big deal, as you were etc, But if the sceptics are wrong....

[Marmora Man]

comparing the mounting evidence re: climate change with religious belief is poppycock of the highest order MM!

Sean, I think you read my post a little too quickly. I wasn't equating beliefs in climate change with religion - I was bemoaning the fact that employment law is going that way. Facts are better than beliefs when trying to make a case for change and too many of those proposing the case for climate change forget to include facts in their argument - James Hansen and George Monbiot being key in this respect.

James Hansen - Guardian

I would not deny that I find many proponents of climate change to be way over the top and that I have yet to see real evidence of their basic thesis. I think the immediate dangers of the future do, is you imply, lie in shortages of energy and other key resources.

On the energy front I think the case can be (and has been) made for extensive use of nuclear powerand not intermittent, heavily subsidised, wind farms, solar power and other supposedly carbon neutral options - tho' I make an exception for tidal power which is a fully predictable source of energy. On the use of other key resources the best bet is to reduce demand - and we (the human race) can best achieve that by a gradual reduction of the world's population (as argued for by Zac Goldsmith of Greenpeace).

[SeanMacGabhann]

You did indeed refer to the law but your own words were "piety and fervour" which I took (and take) to suggest... some sort of religiosity

Any road - what sort of evidence would satisfy a sceptic ? Assuming you would accept evidence long before it was manifestly too late. Does your thinking include any element of "better safe than sorry?"

As for nuclear power - technological advances = A Good Thing. But no country has convinced me that human error won't be the death of us all. Yes former green leaders are now advocating it, and it's attractive for the very reason of not pumping carbon into the atmosphere but between cost-savings, meltdowns and storage issues I'm not happy with it

Wind/Solar power may be ineffcient at present but investing in maximising these will reap more benefit in the longer term IMO

[Brendan]

Well I'm going to be watching Metallica on Saturday night.

If they switch the power off I'm starting a riot.

[brum]

I was interested to hear a prominent scientist recently (can't recall his name) saying that the rise in the earth's temperature over the next century will render vast areas uninhabitable, which will inevitably lead to a massive reduction in the world's population. Nature's equilibrium will therefore be restored, albeit at some cost to the human race - but then, surely we deserved it?? Reassuringly, he thinks that our island will remain habitable, however we should expect a massive influx of refugees. Noah's Ark springs to mind!

[SeanMacGabhann]

The thing with scientists being quoted in the media is (and this applies to pro and anti) "who is sponsoring them"

Also you have to be aware that the media is simply dreadful at reporting anything scientific

www.badscience.net

is the place to get a better understanding

So reading reportage on latest findings is only the smalles part of the picture

[brum]

He was actually on the radio Sean, speaking in person...

[brum]

...Radio 4 in fact, so he must be kosher!

[snorky]

What will this achieve ?

Nothing, except make you feel better for no effort at all- I hjate to be the bringer of doom n gloom, but this onwt change anything. YOu may as well Jet Bono in from his tax haven bolt hole cave complex to lecture your candlelit dinner party on how wasteful we are, for all ther good it will do

Until there are basic changes made to the system that has got us into this wasteful destructive mess, nothing is going to change.

make the most of it now people - before too long ED will be a deserified dessciated wasteland , populated only by feral gangs of rapacious leather clad bikers, fighting for the last few drop of precious hydrocarbons...most likely

[snorky]

brum Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I was interested to hear a prominent scientist

> recently (can't recall his name) saying that the

> rise in the earth's temperature over the next

> century will render vast areas uninhabitable,

> which will inevitably lead to a massive reduction

> in the world's population. Nature's equilibrium

> will therefore be restored, albeit at some cost to

> the human race - but then, surely we deserved it??

> Reassuringly, he thinks that our island will

> remain habitable, however we should expect a

> massive influx of refugees. Noah's Ark springs to

> mind!

There is no "nature" - we have to get away from this idea that there is is this godhead like magical force that can sort itself out

[????]

I'm sort of with Sean but also with Snorky;

The action is symbolic in both a negative and positive way - it IS a reminder and representative of a potential catastrophe that we should think about more so in awareness terms good BUT it is also a very, very, very easy way of deluding ourselves that we are somehow involved and committed to fighting climate change whilst doing absolutely bugger all else that would show proper committment like not flying...er...not driving...ultimately not using any electricity produced by coal.....

To be honest most people's behaviour belongs to the latter so I won't be joining in...there's no real commitment by the vast majority of us to tackle this in anyway.....

Fortunately, and just to show Sean I'm not all dramatic doom and gloom, when the economy goes down the pan next year we won't have any petrol, they'll be compulsory powercuts and no-one will be flying anywhere on hols with the ? worth about 10 Cents B)