Sydney will turn off its lights for one hour at 7.30pm on Saturday March 31, 2007. According to the World Wildlife Fund (WWF) this will be: “a major step towards reducing the city’s greenhouse gas pollution”.
The WWF, with the support of The City of Sydney and the NSW Government, have nick-named the event “Earth Hour” and determined that it “will be the highlight of a major campaign to encourage businesses, communities and individuals to take the simple steps needed to cut their emissions by 5 percent in 2007”.
I wonder what is special about 5 percent. Furthermore, one hour in one day of one year is not going to provide a saving of 5 percent.
If WWF was serious about a 5 percent saving then they might propose Sydney turn off all its lights for 18 days this year?
And this word “major” keeps being repeated. But it hasn’t even been suggested that football games be cancelled.
In yesterday’s The Australian it was just suggested they be rescheduled.
Now how is that going to save electricity?
It would be just like me taking a nap from 7.30pm to 8.30pm on March 31st and then stay up until say 11.30pm instead of going to bed at say 10.30pm?
Not that the sporting clubs are prepared to even go along with the idea of rescheduling with an NRL spokesman claiming: “It would be impossible for us to reschedule or fit our fixtures into this scheme”.
On March 31, at least 60,000 fans are expected to watch a rematch of last year’s Sydney Swans-West Coast Eagles AFL grand final at Telstra Stadium under big lights. While at the Aussie Stadium the NSW Waratahs and New Zealand’s Canterbury Crusaders will compete as part of rugby’s Super 14 series and at Parramatta Stadium rugby league fans will be watching the Eels take on the Wests Tigers also under full illumination.
“We are always happy to talk about ways of being more environmentally efficient but the matches must go ahead,” said the NRL spokesman.
So how could our sporting heroes be more “environmentally efficient”?
Perhaps more home games and a ban on interstate and particularly international competitions given travel is considered to be so energy inefficient?
In the media release announcing the Earth Hour, Greg Bourne, CEO of WWF-Australia, was upbeat about the importance of Sydney. He claimed that Sydney is renowned across the globe for its ability to make things happen citing the 2000 Olympic Games.
It got me thinking wouldn’t an Olympic Games be a huge source of greenhouse gases? There is all the air travel to the event from every corner of the globe by officials, athletes and all the spectators. Then there is all the lighting of many venues, heating of swimming pools, air conditioning, fast food, advertising, plastic mascots and the list goes on.
But of course we are not going to cancel the Beijing Olympics because like so much that uses energy the Olympic Games is about community, it’s about culture and its about excellence.
So why is Sydney going to turn off its lights for an hour on 31st March?
Is it also about community, a new culture of austerity and perhaps being better than everyone else?
It is certainly not about making any significant difference to the city’s greenhouse gas emissions this year or into the future.
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
Jen, tis the silly season and maybe it is just a Costello strategy to up the birthrate. (Remember New York blackout). I thought the way communities change is through awareness etc and that requires a bit of a spin and cheap symbolism as people who write to capture the publics attention know. It’s a tangled web. Anyway since Paris went home what else could Sydney do. Just get used to carbon being the new black.
The idea of highlighting “businesses turning off their lights when their offices are empty and households turning off appliances rather than leaving them on standby” seems rather sensible and hard to argue against. Such measures not only reduce greenhouse emissions, but save money as well. They are the easiest steps to take. If Earth Hour makes people think about those steps and act on them, it’s hardly a bad thing.
The argument that turning off the lights for an hour won’t bring about significant DIRECT reductions is a straw man. WWF are not claiming it will. It is purely about symbolism and getting people to think about what personal steps they can take to reduce emissions. Good on ‘em.
Sydney skyscrapers leave their office lights on all night long. It’s good if they locate the OFF switch. Light pollution obscures stars and wastes energy. People run lights in empty rooms and leave appliances on standby.
The more sensible solution (at least in the US) is to go to permanent daylight savings time. That does work.
It certainly can’t hurt to conserve energy. I saw some pictures recently of the world at night with Europe and the eastern half of the US appearing extremely well lit up. Do we need this amount of lighting all night. Couldn’t we survive if the lights were turned of from say 11pm.
In China sometimes you don’t have the choice to conserve, they just blackout sections to “fix” the current lack of power generated.
What an appropriate metaphor for keeping metrocentrics in the dark. And I gather the city fathers are also intent on feeding them recycled $hit (don’t delete, it is now a parliamentary term) to complete the transformation to mushroom status.
And for what? So the WWF can indulge in more Kyotos Interruptus.
I agree Nexus 6. There is no harm in it and it serves the purpose of getting people to think about their actions (or inactions when it comes to turning off the light switch or standby). Only a hardened cynic would criticise such an event. As for ‘It is certainly not about making any significant difference to the city’s greenhouse gas emissions this year or into the future.’ Perhaps it will make a difference in the future if more people actually think about saving energy instead of sitting back and being critical of those that are trying to make a difference, however small.
Its a silly meaningless gesture, most energy saving lights take time to warm up and restarting could use more power than what was saved.
But still, if it makes you feel better go kiss a polar bear.
Unsuprisingly, you’ve fallen for a myth because it suits your ideology, Rog.
Turning lights off when not in the room for a period of a couple of minutes or more saves energy.
Misconception #1: It takes more energy to start a fluorescent that it does to run it, so leave the lights on all the time to save money on your electric bill.
Reality: When you turn on a fluorescent light bulb (correctly called a “lamp”), there is a very brief jump in current when the ballast charges the cathodes and causes the lamp to start. This inrush of current can be many times greater than the normal operating current of the lamp. However, the spike of current draw normally lasts no longer than 1/10th of a second, and draws the equivalent of about 5 seconds of normal operation. So, if you turn your fluorescent lamp off and on more frequently than every 5 seconds, you will use more power than normal. So, normal switching of fluorescent lamps has very, very, very little effect on a power bill.
http://wattwatchers.org/Assets/flyers/myth%20v%20fact%20update%2010-04.pdf
Has anyone here twigged that March 31 is the eve of April Fool’s Day?
and today is the eve of tomorrow.
So what?
Pffetc, “earth hour” is a fool’s gesture, that’s what. Better to hold your breath for an hour in order to limit carbon emissions.
Having just viewed comet Mc Naught out over Botany Bay, I couldn’t help but wonder what it would have looked like 200 years ago, with no residential, shipping or refinery lights. It was truly beautiful, but would have been even more so without the light pollution.
Maree S, perhaps you could take your own advice?
Very clever nexus, tell me about sodium lamps eh?
Libby, for many reasons 200 years ago you would not have seen comet Mc Naught.
Use sodium lamps in your house, do you rog?
How many offices and households use sodium lamps rog? How many Sydney street lights are sodium? Will street or security lights be turned off during the hour? Incredible how much disconnected garbage you vomit up, you should try turning the light on inside your head.
A really dumb idea, hay? Gee those NGO’s are out to destroy the planet.
..a display of stars not seen from the CBD in decades…..
“If Australia’s commercial business sector simply turned lights off when buildings were not in use we could save between 2 and 4 million tonnes in greenhouse gas emissions.”
An initiative begun last year by City of Sydney, North Sydney and Parramatta City councils and the Department of Energy, Utilities and Sustainability encourages commercial offices to increase their energy efficiency.
It estimated that if all the offices in those business districts improved their Australian Building Greenhouse Rating by one star it would save $21 million in energy costs and cut more than 189,000 tonnes of greenhouse gas emissions every year.
(SMH)
You can read about their public lighting here if interested
http://203.147.135.212/Council/documents/meetings/2006/Committee/Environment/110906/11-09-06_EHC_ITEM4.pdf
Judging by the empty remarks in this post Jen left her brain on holiday.
“Libby, for many reasons 200 years ago you would not have seen comet Mc Naught.”
It was more an example, not a specific. Sorry you missed the point Rog.
I think the argument about the cost of switching fluorescent lighting is about 50 years out of date. rog just hasn’t updated for a while!
At my office building, although only 10% of personnel were there — due to well-anticipated Christmas leave, still 100% of task lighting was on during the day for the absent workers. Often when I arrive at work at 9 am the flood-lighting for the building is still on although the sun has been up for hours. No-one switches their computers off at lunch-time, etc. Electricity is so cheap that no-one cares about these issues.
You guys….yes red panties, street lights need to warm up as do lamps in sheds, factories, warehouses, petrol stations, supermarkets….they are everywhere.
are why do we have these street lights? security
So come on ready pants, lets hear about your beloved PP in a world of darkness.
Ahhh. Another example of symbolism over substance. If that makes them happy, let those that will go for it. As long as they don’t try to impose any such outlandish ideas on others.
Maybe one of you people down-under will be able to locate after the fact stats on the efficacy of such a symbolic gesture. If stats can’t be located, you can be sure the idea bombed.
Ma nature might be just diabolical enough to throw a wrench in the works with an unexpected heat-wave. Similar to the cold weather that was following Al Gore around last year wherever he went to speak.
Take the unwelcome facts like a man rog. yet again you didn’t know what you were talking about, this time in terms of:
a) the activity (the street lights and outside security lights will be left on)
b) the efficiency of the technology
c) the type of lights used (follow that link I gave you to read how Sydney lights its urban public places with white(r) lights. Most of its main traffic roads don’t have pressure sodium lights).
If you want to suggest that it’s cheaper to leave lights and appliances running all day long please provide your EVIDENCE (energy use starting up versus operation) or its now agreed alternative, ACCEPTED COMMONSENSE WISDOM. Also tell us whether running lights all day ages the lamps and makes them less efficient.
Only la pants would be foolish enough yo boast of having ACCEPTED COMMONSENSE WISDOM
Please limit comments to 2-3 per 24 hour period if you have nothing more substantive to add.
Rog (hook line sinker) the commonsense evidence reference was in direct connection with an article you recently posted (parachutes & biodiversity). Your comment shows you didn’t read or understand the very article that you copied & pasted (as thoughtlessly as usual).
rog before telling further tall tales please do your homework: read the link I provided above to understand the mix of lighting that is used in Sydney. Also note that street and security lights will not be turned off during the hour. It would help if you compared your bias with the facts 1st.
To justify your unsubstantiated claims you need to provide engineering data on startup vs steady state for each of the types of lighting commonly used in Sydney. If you read the link I gave you then you’ll be able to tell us what the proportion of sodium v’s other types of lights is, which type of sodium lights are used and where. Then you should provide the efficiency numbers for all, including metal halides and mercury vapour too: startup v’s steady state and with lifetime energy use (ageing) factored in.
This is the type of substantive evidence a reasonable person would consider before rubbishing efforts to reduce energy (& $$$) waste from unnecessary lighting.
The more sinister aspect of this sort of urban tokenism is that all the punters will pat themselves on the back for their one hour of good works and then let the greens dream up some new way to shaft farmers big time in another totally disproportionate display of “greenhouse equity”.
It is a classic re-run of the old “you dig the ditch while we drink the tea” scam.
The production of artificial fertiliser requires the burning of lots of carbon so I think the footballers will all be able to do their bit for the environment by urinating and defaecating on the field after the game.
Fertililser – we could just use everything that falls out of Motty’s mouth. (This is new information which is equally relevant as Scott’s post).
“So how could our sporting heroes be more “environmentally efficient”? Perhaps more home games…”
Hmm, and whom would the home team play?
Geoff, Thank you! I thought I was so funny with that sentence! 🙂
But it seems I am not a good enough writer to convey the more subtle thought effectively/humourously.
i read this blog as much as anything for rog and ian motts laughable comments. do you guys actually believe the gob shite you type or are you just lonely and attempt to bait people into fruitless arguments with you?
In my opinion Rog and Ian Mott make a very valuable contribution some of the time. Thanks guys.
Thanks Jen, the times when we don’t make valuable contributions is when we indulge in our favourite sport of jamming common sense down the throats of fools. It’s our prix de passion. Whats a Julian?
Well either common sense or bilge water depending on the viewer’s perspective (called relativity theory).