Why I hate Earth Hour
We are nearing that time again, when everyone, well some people, switch off their lights for an hour to show they are committed to mitigating dangerous climate change. But while it was arguably a worthy plan to create public awareness, it has worn out its use.
The critical flaw with the event comes down to a simple question: Why are we turning off the lights to show how we can tackle climate change?
We can tackle climate change by leaving the lights on, contrary to those who insist renewable energy will cause blackouts on a mass scale. Indeed, by turning off the lights it only stimulates the anti-climate change action brigade into hysterics.
Forget about whether those behind the event – Leo Burnett, Fairfax and WWF – make money from it. They’re not manipulating people, not forcing people to turn the lights off, not making advertisers support the initiative.
They are, indeed, irrelevant to the worth of the event – except that they have allowed ‘lights off’ to be associated with moves to a low carbon economy.
The notion is of course that individually we cannot make much of a difference, but together – by turning off that bathroom light we’re not needing and switching off that TV we’re not watching – we can make a major difference. The sentiment is spot on, the execution is lacking.
We need something more. Much more. An hour is just a gimmick. It’s a bit like the Valentine’s Day of the environmental movement. Aside from the strident environmentalists, most people who commit to it are ‘guilted’ into it. Flowers on Valentine’s Day can’t make up for 364 days of selfishness, just as turning the lights off for an hour can’t make up for 8,759 hours of lazy energy inefficiency (or 8,783 in a leap year).
The frustrating thing is we have barely touched the low-hanging fruit available to us in reducing carbon emissions.
A great article from Tristan Edis appeared recently on Climate Spectator about how we can halve residential energy demand over the next decade (compared to business as usual), just by using products that are already available. For example, by gradually upgrading to new washing machines, fridges, TVs and air conditioners – all of which have seen massive strides forward in energy efficiency.
Going beyond this, there’s so much waste in business and in households when it comes to energy (and water) and reducing it could lead to significant reductions in carbon emissions and cost savings to boot. If, for example, you live in a major city, you only have to look up at nighttime to see the sheer waste of electricity in most office blocks.
A committed energy efficiency push, while a scary thought for many in the energy industry, would make a massive difference – and save money. Combine this with moves to improve vehicle fuel efficiency (like those seen in Europe), construct ‘greener’ buildings and increase the share of renewables in our energy mix and you have a pretty simple and effective gradual move to a low carbon economy.
This is the message we need to get out. This is the message Earth Hour should be promoting harder than any other. Instead, we are just turning the lights out.
Earth Hour takes place from 8:30pm to 9:30pm on Saturday March 23.
Disclaimer: Climate Spectator is 100 per cent owned by News Limited, a Fairfax competitor.
Addendum: Earth Hour traction, according to Google Trends, shows searches for Earth Hour declining significantly since 2009.