Don't Kid Yourself- 1 Hour Won't Save World
7 Comments Published by danproft on Thursday, March 27 at 10:29 AM.
Earth Day. Live Earth. And, now, Earth Hour.
The latest bright idea from the country that gave us "Crocodile Dundee" is to have everyone across the globe turn off their lights for an hour at 8 p.m. Saturday.
Apparently, a bunch of neo-Luddites in Sydney did this last year and it made them feel good about themselves, so they've decided to give the rest of the world a chance to achieve a similar sense of self-worth.
Because, if we are being honest, Earth Hour, like its forefathers, is not about environmental policy--it is about social networking and self-importance.
Earth Hour is for those consumed with monitoring their carbon footprint and confused about why they do it.
The desire to be relevant and to have a positive impact on the world is a good instinct. But it's lost in the self-involved nature of exercises like Earth Hour.
The Gandhian ideal "to be the change you wish to see in the world" requires thoughtful, measured action toward an end bigger than one's self.
Earth Hour, by contrast, smacks of desperation for self-actualization.
Rather than creating a platform for compelling, fact-intensive arguments about eco-threats or creative ideas for green energy, Earth Hour is another in an endless series of symbolic events that define intergalactic participation in "something" as an end in itself.
I understand that there are those who believe that rapture is upon us because, over the past 100 years, the temperature on Earth has gone up a little less than 1 degree Fahrenheit.
That, some may argue, is the higher calling to which Earth Hour is responding.
But, even accepting the premise, is the Earth Hour response on point?
Energy consumption is the problem. Turn off your lights for an hour is the answer. Really?
Maybe for a household in the short term, but for nations in the long term?
Along this line of logic, I should counteract America's dependence on foreign oil by riding my bicycle to work--but just for one day?
The reality is that we do not want to live in the dark and we do not want to take a date out on our Razor Scooter. Viable eco-friendly policies will not come at the expense of our quality of life and the mobility we currently enjoy.
The other reality is that the impact of Earth Hour and these other faux call-to-arms events is negligible, if not outright counterproductive, relative to actual conservation or even to advancing a particular remedy.
That's why the explicit mission of these events is routinely the cleverly nebulous and unquantifiable raising of "awareness."
Think about Al Gore doing his excruciatingly awkward hipster routine with Leonardo (or "Leo" as he calls him) DiCaprio at his Live Earth concert last July.
How much wattage was required and how many metric tons of garbage were created so Kelly Clarkson could screech on about her man troubles? That was conservation? That was a global wakeup call?
No, it was a platform for self-congratulatory celebrities and a few bloated politicians to "raise awareness" of their deep-seeded sense of social responsibility prior to taking off in their Escalades and Lear jets.
Fast forward to Saturday. You are sitting in the dark hoping CBS will re-run the episode of "How I Met Your Mother" you are missing (be sure to turn that TiVo off). You are thinking about what you're going to do with that cool $1.20 you're saving off of your ComEd bill this month.
And, wait, what was the point of this again?
No one is for capricious destruction of the environment. Truly being "green," however, demands more than annual self-esteem boosters.
http://redeye.chicagotribune.com/red-032708-proft,0,6335659.story
The latest bright idea from the country that gave us "Crocodile Dundee" is to have everyone across the globe turn off their lights for an hour at 8 p.m. Saturday.
Apparently, a bunch of neo-Luddites in Sydney did this last year and it made them feel good about themselves, so they've decided to give the rest of the world a chance to achieve a similar sense of self-worth.
Because, if we are being honest, Earth Hour, like its forefathers, is not about environmental policy--it is about social networking and self-importance.
Earth Hour is for those consumed with monitoring their carbon footprint and confused about why they do it.
The desire to be relevant and to have a positive impact on the world is a good instinct. But it's lost in the self-involved nature of exercises like Earth Hour.
The Gandhian ideal "to be the change you wish to see in the world" requires thoughtful, measured action toward an end bigger than one's self.
Earth Hour, by contrast, smacks of desperation for self-actualization.
Rather than creating a platform for compelling, fact-intensive arguments about eco-threats or creative ideas for green energy, Earth Hour is another in an endless series of symbolic events that define intergalactic participation in "something" as an end in itself.
I understand that there are those who believe that rapture is upon us because, over the past 100 years, the temperature on Earth has gone up a little less than 1 degree Fahrenheit.
That, some may argue, is the higher calling to which Earth Hour is responding.
But, even accepting the premise, is the Earth Hour response on point?
Energy consumption is the problem. Turn off your lights for an hour is the answer. Really?
Maybe for a household in the short term, but for nations in the long term?
Along this line of logic, I should counteract America's dependence on foreign oil by riding my bicycle to work--but just for one day?
The reality is that we do not want to live in the dark and we do not want to take a date out on our Razor Scooter. Viable eco-friendly policies will not come at the expense of our quality of life and the mobility we currently enjoy.
The other reality is that the impact of Earth Hour and these other faux call-to-arms events is negligible, if not outright counterproductive, relative to actual conservation or even to advancing a particular remedy.
That's why the explicit mission of these events is routinely the cleverly nebulous and unquantifiable raising of "awareness."
Think about Al Gore doing his excruciatingly awkward hipster routine with Leonardo (or "Leo" as he calls him) DiCaprio at his Live Earth concert last July.
How much wattage was required and how many metric tons of garbage were created so Kelly Clarkson could screech on about her man troubles? That was conservation? That was a global wakeup call?
No, it was a platform for self-congratulatory celebrities and a few bloated politicians to "raise awareness" of their deep-seeded sense of social responsibility prior to taking off in their Escalades and Lear jets.
Fast forward to Saturday. You are sitting in the dark hoping CBS will re-run the episode of "How I Met Your Mother" you are missing (be sure to turn that TiVo off). You are thinking about what you're going to do with that cool $1.20 you're saving off of your ComEd bill this month.
And, wait, what was the point of this again?
No one is for capricious destruction of the environment. Truly being "green," however, demands more than annual self-esteem boosters.
http://redeye.chicagotribune.com/red-032708-proft,0,6335659.story
Labels: Dan Proft, Earth Day, Earth Hour, Green
AMEN!
Let me start by saying that I agree with you. Token gestures like this accomplish little and on the whole are meant to make us feel good about ourselves by reinforcing the idea that we are still free, well-adjusted individuals who are not dependent on shiny plastic things with blinking lights for our happiness (which we most assuredly are). Much like the alcoholic who repeatedly proclaims, "I can quit anytime I want," turning off the lights for one hour is our way of saying, I can do without. The reality is, if we tried to extend this to a whole day, we'd be completely screwed. Incidentally, who out there wants to bet that when the majority of those who do participate turn their lights off, they'll still have their TV or computer on? Anyone? Any takers? Didn't think so.
If anything, I think they can be harmful by convincing people they are "doing something" to help, a placebo in the place of real action. It eases the guilt and allows us to believe that we have accomplished something when in actuality we're just stroking our consciences rather than raising consciousness.
However, I wouldn't go so far as to down-play the threat of global warming by laying it out as little more than a temperature bump of one degree in a hundred years. That is both oversimplified and deceptive in that is presents the issue as a minor blip on the radar.
Furthermore, while I'm not a huge fan of what I generally see as a load of half-ass corporate music hacks getting together for a big back patting session, I can see the motivation behind a hosting music festival to raise "awareness" about global warming. The idea is you bring some big names to town, you get their fans to come out to see them, and while everyone's standing around between acts, you take advantage of the captive audience to them about all the things they can do to solve the problems faced in the world. In the case of Live Aid it was to raise money for famine relief. But then famine relief is something to which there can be a more immediate and direct solution. If people are hungry, you feel them. Done. Global warming is a somewhat more complicated issue.
I also feel I should mention that there was much talk of the Live Earth concerts purchasing carbon offsets and using recycled materials to compensate for the massive amounts of power and resources used. I point this out only as something that was stated. If you want to knock them for a lack of financial transparency by all means go ahead and I'll be right there with you.
On the whole, I think a lot of people are worried and they mean well. Going so far as to paint them as caricatures or neo-Luddites doesn't help show them what they ought to be doing. I don't think they're crazy. I think they're scared, and frightened people, much to the delight of George W. Bush, do not behave rationally.
That being said, this idea is as stupid as the Great American Smoke Out (where smokers were asked to give up smoking for one day) and it demands far less (it's only an hour and I don't go through withdrawal symptoms when I switch off the lights). In general, I think it's more helpful to slap people upside head, chastise them, and tell them how to make themselves useful rather than kicking them in the teeth, but then I liked Aussie absurdist comedian Yahoo Serious when I was a kid so what do I know?
This is a crime against humanity. Keep the lights shining!
You want to see streets and buildings with no lights? Go to Detroit. That's the civilization these pinkos want.
Think of all the people that could actually see the milky way for the first time, if everybody turned their lights off, and looked up.
Think of what happened in Isaac Asimov's Nightfall...
Hmm, Mike, I'm not sure if Nightfall is a result to hope for.
Clear, dark skies would be wonderful, even if it's only for an hour. In order to gain such, the commercial sector would have to follow the program for the hour, also.
From the air over the Midwest, you can see the one-mile squares of the townships by their outlines from yard and farm lights. The kind of epiphany I wrote about in Nightlights will be impossible now until the population begins falling (or until we're able to see in the dark).
Tom
Without saying anything against the beauty of a black sky, does nobody ever look up at appreciate the beauty of our washed out sky?
I do like the ruddy color of streetlamps reflected from low stratus.
Tom