Earth Hour 2008: Will Turning Off Your Electricity for One Hour Truly Make a Difference?

Let's give some kudos to the WWF for getting involved with a monumental environmental cause. No, it isn't the World Wrestling Federation I'm talking about (as much as you wished steroid-infested wrestling would go green)--but The World Wide Fund in Australia--or what's called The World Wildlife Fund in the U.S. and Canada. This international, non-governmental organization has pioneered dozens of environmental causes around the world going back to the early 1960's when it was formed by German Prince Bernhard of the Netherlands to help preserve nature in every corner of the globe. It's also the largest environmental (or conservation) organization in the world with actual behemoth corporations (yes, including oil companies) once known for giving substantial amounts to its cause. In March 2007, they teamed up with the Sydney Morning Herald to start a new campaign in Australia to attempt a cut in carbon emissions: Earth Hour. This process would involve as many businesses as possible in Sydney and other Australian cities turning off their electricity for one hour between 7:30 and 8:30 p.m.

Of course, the question people ask immediately when hearing this is: Does turning off electricity in as many buildings and homes as possible make any difference in the bigger environmental picture? As usual with an environmental answer--it all depends on one's own personal philosophy and which media organization you get an answer from. When it came to the first event done in Sydney on March 31, 2007--a negative answer came from photography experts who said the blackout pictures of the city were doctored.

The whole purpose behind doing this is to demonstrate how simple it's supposed to be in cutting carbon emissions once we wise up to our carefree use of electricity. Their goal behind the one-hour shut-off of electricity was to reduce those emissions by 5% and persuade other people around the world to do the same either on their own day/night or in unison with Earth Hour. And no business is forced into it (this isn't a quasi terrorist organization that pelts people with eggs if they don't do their bidding)--even though many major businesses in Sydney, Australia likely did it just for the sake of publicity. Considering there was a "before and after" shot of the lights going out, someone spotting a particular building with no lights would obviously get a better reputation than one that was still lit.

As you might expect, a lot of rumors started to spread to discredit the event. One of the worst ones was the thought that all the street lights in Sydney would also be blacked out--hence creating the environment for more crime to occur. The intention all along was to leave street lights on for safety purposes and just have lights in buildings, on the Sydney Harbor Bridge or in some parks blacked out for the hour.

Well, it doesn't go over my head that the wars between the environmentalists and those opposed were increased when this event went forth on that March night of 2007. It's always best, though, to find the middle ground between the two if you really want to find a true answer to solving problems. If you do that, you'll find that Earth Hour is a worthy cause that probably had some overzealous people at work to make it look like it was a complete success. In reality, it probably needs a different philosophical spin to make a true difference as it expands this year and in future years.

The war of the carbon emissions...
The early discrediting of the event should have alerted the radar of Earth Hour's organizers that those who don't believe global warming is happening would try something to make the event look bad. Some in America may think that Australia wouldn't have many people opposed to global warming when there's just as many there as in America or anywhere else. These particular people trying to discredit Earth Hour went a little out of their way, too, to make the whole event look worthless. On the front of major newspapers there the morning after the event were the expected pictures showing the city well-lit--and then dark. But then a popular TV network in Sydney (ABC...not the American Broadcast Company) did some extensive investigations into the quality of the after pictures and suspected the photographers took the photo at a lower exposure to give the illusion of it being darker than it really was.

That argument managed to put a bit of suspicion on the event when it didn't really have to. However, it proved how political both sides of this war are when the global warming side had to exaggerate things in order to sell their causes to the masses--and the opposing side spent valuable time analyzing photos for several days that couldn't really get a consensus they were intentionally darkened. No matter if the photos were intentionally darkened or not--it was obvious many buildings and other places turned their lights off for the whole hour. This was a media event, after all, and clever little ways to make it look good are going to be inevitable. The only thing left to ponder was whether it was really cutting carbon emissions at the 5% level Earth Hour's people estimated.

Sure, you knew someone was planning long in advance to study if the above 5% was accurate. An independent study at the University of Chicago just one month after the event (you knew they couldn't wait) indicated that the reduction of carbon emissions was barely over 2%--and basically estimated at nothing. The test results also supposedly postulated that most energy conservation reaches a higher percentage on any particular day in Sydney (or any city) and therefore makes Earth Hour pretty much a Needless Hour. This was all based on the reports that well over half of Sydney, Australia participated in the first ever event. It almost sounds as if they're as evenly divided on global warming as America is politically.

The Earth Hour founders fought back at all the controversy and argued that they definitely reached the quota they hoped for when reporting over two million people turned off their lamps, TV's, computers (no easy feat there) and refrigerators throughout Australia and a few other international countries. They never released anything definitive, however, that proved the math as the University of Chicago attempted to do above--if even that was correct.

Sure, you knew that this can lead to the old logical fallacy of two wrongs making a right...

Earth Hour 2008 will be international---and finding a right within the wrongs...
Never underestimate the power of the media and big business promoting an act that can potentially slow down global warming. The World Wildlife Fund has been so powerful for so long that the only thing they didn't have on their side was Al Gore (who likely at least gave donations at one time or another). This WWF even became so powerful that they sued the wrestling version of the WWF in 1979 for stealing their initials. All of that was settled eventually when Vince McMahon was forced to change the name of his sweaty wrestling organization so far never proven to be environmentally friendly.

With power like that from an environmental group, it isn't any surprise when they managed to convince people that the previous criticisms of their cause were not worth worrying about. Now the heads of Earth Hour managed to do one incredible thing: Get 24 major cities around the world to take part in their one-hour electricity shut-off on Saturday, March 29, 2008. Yes, America is getting involved this time. If you live in Atlanta, Chicago, San Francisco or Phoenix--then you might want to participate if you feel good about it and truly think it'll make a difference. Countries from Australia to Israel will also be involved.

____

We're probably learning as a civilization that banding together for causes ultimately begets indirect changes rather than the cause being a direct contributor to the change. A lot of people who work for the WWF and the Earth Hour organization probably don't want to emphasize that outwardly. But one of the best descriptions I've heard recently in the media when describing the Earth Hour was through the mayor of Dublin, Ireland--one of the cities participating in this event in March. Their Lord Mayor, Paddy Bourke, was quoted as saying for news.com.au: "Through one simple action, turning off our lights for an hour, we can deliver a powerful message about the need for action."

There you have a quote that gives us an ultimate truth in the real meaning behind any of these causes. The publicity of possibly up to 30 million people turning off their electricity on March 29 should move the powers-that-be (who don't all believe in global warming) to seek out some kind of action if Al Gore and the WWF can't incite it directly. Getting governments to at least do something shouldn't be disagreeable to either the Earth Hour side or the opposition side...
___

Sources:

www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,23244498-1702,00.html