Talk:Earth Hour

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Flag
Portal
 Earth Hour is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.
Start This article has been rated as Start-class on the quality scale.
Mid This article has been rated as mid-importance on the importance scale.
This article is supported by WikiProject Sydney.
Assessment comments
WikiProject Environment
Portal		 This environment-related article is part of the Environment WikiProject to improve Wikipedia's coverage of the environment.
The aim is to write neutral and well-referenced articles on environment-related topics, as well as to ensure that environment articles are properly categorized.
See WikiProject Environment and Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the assessment scale.

Contents

[edit] CO2 saved figure is much too high

The claimed saving of 23.9 billion metric tons is approximately the same as the total annual world CO2 production, as can be seen in the list of countries by carbon dioxide emissions! Obviously, this figure is hugely inaccurate. I have removed it until someone can come up with a correct figure for the savings. Daen (talk) 18:21, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] earth hour

I changed the reference to 10% reduction in greenhouse gasses to 10% reduction in electricity consumption because that's what the cited newspaper article said. There is not a linear relationship between consumption and greenhouse gass emission, so a 10% reduction in the former does not produce a 10% reduction in the latter, but rather less, depending on the mix of base load and peak load generation in use.

Sylvia 06:02, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

1st phrase should read "Earth Hour is an international feel-good event..." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.169.152.32 (talk) 22:15, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Criticism

Earth hour is a positive awareness campaign. Unfortunately, the introductory content does lend itself to misinterpretation, especially figures about reductions in Sydney, one could start believing that shutting down lights for one hour will significantly dent our emissions. A simple calculation should be shown: Even if the whole world shut itself down for an hour (hypothetical), there are at least 8765 hours in a year, thus leaving about 8764/8765 ~ 99.99% of our greenhouse emissions.

Think of Earth every minute not just once a year for an hour! Take your bike, turn off lights whenever possible, avoid taking planes, separate trash, buy fairtrade products, quit using your air conditioner, insulate your home in winter... There's so much you can do every day! �Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.104.182.167 (talk) 19:16, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

From e technological point of view, this one hour of not consuming electrical energy is more harmful than it is beneficial. In case that consumptions decreases significantly power plants might have to be shut down. Bringing them back on the grid is a time- and power-consuming process and costs the generation companies a lot of money. The power surge when everyone turns the power back on at 9 o' clock has to be supported, too, in order to prevent transformer banks and distribution facilities to trip.

Hopefully, earth hour will increase awareness of energy conservation. The plan itself does not make any technological sense and (from my point of view) for many people it might serve as a welcomed peace of mind for the next overseas vacation.


The two sentences of the criticism section reads as follows;

Despite some being of the opinion that Earth Hour was a "stunt" related to an upcoming election, it was devised as a politically neutral, community-focused, event. How politicians reacted to Earth Hour was entirely up to them.

It rightly has a neutrality disputed tag. However, I think we could nuke "how politicians reacted" sentence, and leave the politically neutral sentence, with a cite needed tag. So that's what I will do.Teiresias84 04:24, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh and I had to reword the other bit to maintain flow.Teiresias84 04:27, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Just to point out earth hour is NOT meant to reduce greenhouse emissions. it to raise awareness and show support, can we change the criticism part of this article now? --220.253.32.217 (talk) 10:12, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't see how a criticism section is appropriate for this page. The opening paragraph states that Sydney's power consumption fell from 2.1 to 10.2 percent during the hour in 2007, so I don't see why the other statement at the bottom needs to be there. The newspaper photos aren't really noteable, either, seeing as though the newspapers weren't in charge of organizing the event. It's just an effort to raise awareness about energy usage and climate change. Besides, there's other benefits to reducing energy, with respect to light pollution. Some recent studies have even shown artificial lighting is related to higher cancer rates. Lo and behold (talk) 21:46, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

I would disagree Lo. I personally believe the whole hour to be a foolish stunt, because as stated above the whole thing makes little technological sense. The figures quoted are for the CBD only, which is a tiny area compared to the rest of the city, and they are open to a wide range of interperetations. Not only that, the majority of people who were taking part in the hour were burning candles in their home, which in itself most likely created more carbon dioxide than was saved. When you take into account the fact that someone may be burning three+ candles just to make up for one energy saving lightbulb (which are now very common in the Australia for example, the country most heavily involved in Earth Hour), and that for each molecule of candle wax (C25H52) burnt, 25 molecules of CO2 are created, the figures start to become clearer.
Thus it is foolish to quote power grid figures because they fail to account for the millions of candles that were being burnt on the night. If people weren't burning candles, and walking around in the dark instead, then it is likely that several people would have injured themselves, the repairing of which is a huge energy consumer itself (if one person were to have fallen down the stairs attempting to negotiate them in the dark, imagine the energy consumed in transporting that person to the hospital and subsequently caring for them). I am aware that such hypotheticals may seem ludicrous, though I myself, opposed to the concept of lighting a candle, knowing the reverse effect such an act would have on my reduced energy consumptions, attempted to negotiate the house in the dark, stubbed my toe 3 times and almost fell down the stairs. And I only got up twice. Keep in mind that I am a most able bodied and fit 16 year old. Thus the true effects of earth hour are clear: either people lit candles, reversing the effect on carbon emissions, or they walked around in the dark, hurting themselves, again reversing the effect on carbon emissions.
Hence the only plausible explanation of why such an hour should take place is to raise awareness. However, I object to this standpoint also. In order to solve the problem of climate change, we need action, as opposed to awareness. By now, most if not all of educated society is aware of the problem of climate change. This does not mean that they are going to do anything about it. The best way to make them do something about it is to create a sense of alarm; to play upon the basic human instinct of survival. If something does not threaten a person's ability to survive or survive comfortably, it is unlikely that they will act upon it. Acting on climate change reduces one's ability to lead a comfortable life (e.g., through a reduction in car usage), and thus unless the immediate benefits are clear to most people, they will not take action. "What does this have to do with Earth Hour being bad though?" you may ask. Well, Earth Hour lulls the overwhelming majority of participants into believing they have done something about climate change. It reduces the sense of alarm felt by people that 'nothing is being done', and hence reduces the likelihood that they will take real steps to reduce emissions. Claiming otherwise is foolish: ask people whether or not they believe that their actions in Earth Hour reduced emissions and you will receive a resounding "yes".
Hence, the Criticisms section should not only remain, but be expanded to include viewpoints such as mine (which hopefully a reliable source will soon echo), which I believe have a place in what should be a debate. This hour should not go on any longer. We need real action on climate change instead of stunts like this. senex (talk) 08:11, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Non-neutral phrase

I deleted this:

"While the scientific opinion on climate change summarised by the reports of the Nobel prize-winning Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is now accepted by all major governments,..."

This is clearly inserted to discredit the criticisms before the reader has even gotten so far as to read about them. Furthermore, it is a statement CRYING OUT for a citation, but there is none. The only way it should be re-inserted is if someone can back it up with a verifiable source. Moreover, in such a circumstance, it should be added in a separate section, possibly entitled "Response to Criticism". Since this gets into areas of controversy over climate change, perhaps there should simply be a link to the appropriate page(s) which discuss(es) that topic. Magnetic Rag (talk) 08:40, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

I think the whole criticism section should be removed, considering nothing mentioned there is relevant to the article. The opening paragraph states that energy consumption fell from 2.1 to 10.2 percent. That seems to be more related to different methods of analyzing power usage, than criticism. The 10.2 percent decrease was estimated by the local utility company, not by any organization related to Earth Hour. The alleged newspaper photo doctoring would be better placed in the articles on those newspapers than Earth Hour, since those newspapers weren't in charge of Earth Hour either.Lo and behold (talk) 21:52, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
To remain NPOV, keep the criticism section, but you can stubify it. OhanaUnitedTalk page 04:30, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Six cars off the road statement

Can it be incorporated into the text that the criticism about the 48,000 cars off the road for one hour is equivalent to six cars in one year is a bit misleading? There's no source for this but the 6 cars figure is derived by assuming that those 6 cars are running 24/7 for one year. If we assume that the average car runs 1.5 hours everyday (citation needed of course), then this translates to about 80 cars instead of 6. --seav (talk) 03:54, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I used my calculator and did some number-crunching activity. I guess you're right! That person assumed the cars are running non-stop (without stopping for fuel or maintenance). I've toned it down but the essence is still there. OhanaUnitedTalk page 04:34, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
To say the 6 cars comment is misleading is heavily PoV given that the maths is correct. That stated, if we were to simply accept as fact that it is misleading (And ignoring my assumption that most ordinary people would be able to work out where the figure came from), to water down what is the strongest criticism of the event in a section labelled "criticism" is wrong. The article should be about the event, and present simply the facts and the criticisms at face value... It should be left to the reader to decide if the criticism is fair or to disregard it. I re-added the comment, but provided a comment as to where the figure has come from, along with the counter arguments. I guess my question is to ask if the counter arguments I have added still fair given they (IMO) essentially shoot down the criticism?--TheRack (talk) 03:30, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
Bolt's weasel-worded statement (and Solomon's linked reiteration) needs to be either quantified, clarified or removed. I suggest something along the lines of;
"... Bolt evaluates that Earth Hour in Sydney removed approximately the same amount of energy-use as six cars driving non-stop for an entire year."
Unlike user-TheRack I think that many, if not most, people will not realise that Bolt refers to six permanently-running cars. I also think that Bolt perfectly understood this when he specifically failed to qualify his statement. Forgivable as he's a journalist for the Herald Sun after all... Solomon (as a Finance Ph.D.) should know better.58.179.130.252 (talk) 08:29, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
There are always cars on the road, so clearly it's not going to be the same six cars. What everyone here has missed is the central issue that 6 cars, 80 cars, 40,000 cars are all a microscopic dent in a field of 600 million cars. mdf (talk) 23:15, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Time dispute: 0900 GMT for all areas or 8 PM local for all areas?

According to this article, the time for the 2008 Earth Hour is internationally set for 0900 GMT for all areas (I think the 8PM "Local time" is in Sydney Australia only). Antmusic (talk) 23:12, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

You and that article is wrong. If it was 0900 GMT for all areas.. then some cities would be doing the Earth Hour event during the day.. or even when asleep, when the lights are usually off. Also, refer to the official site for the information, not Yahoo! news. CNN and CTV both stated that Earth Hour will go on at 8PM local time. --staka (T ûC) 00:40, 29 March 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Origins source

The Orgins information was provided specifically for this article by Andy Ridley, Communications Director WWF-Australia. How should this be cited? Ben-Substance (talk) 05:25, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

[1]


This whole paragraph is junk and needs to be completely rewritten without the sentiments of someone who shows such clear bias �Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.161.69.31 (talk) 11:14, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Reliance upon blogs for criticisms

Those inflating the "criticism" section with blogger and Facebook material need to read Wikipedia's policy on reliable sources. Shem(talk) 13:00, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, that entire section should be purged from the article. It doesn't seem very relevant. Lo and behold (talk) 21:53, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Black google

How does the google statement that a permanent black google would not save any power correspond to this site [1]?. (Found by searching "black google", on google.) Sorry for the bad english. Perhaps this should be noted in the article? --83.72.7.63 (talk) 17:56, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

The black background would save almost no energy in LCD monitors, as the backlight is always on. It will only work for CRT and other types that requires no backlight such as OLED. There are some technologies to dim certain regions of a LCD screen to provide a better contrast and possibly save some energy; however, I'm not aware of monitors with such technology. They are mainly for TVs. Blackle's idea is outdated. eDenE 18:21, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
Its not an energy saving scheme. Its simply to help publicise the event. I definatly think it should be mentioned with perhaps a screenshot?Mc8755 (talk) 19:42, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
I think this information about google should be reduced in scope, it seems like a nicely placed spam section in the article to get people to go over to use the site. just a thought ;) Landlord77 (talk) 20:44, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
As an aside, on the image, can someone upload one with the browser window a little smaller? Google's page doesn't span that whole width... -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 21:17, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
RE self: just switched from Image:Earth Hour on Google.png to the one that was there before, Image:Google earth hour.PNG. The latter makes better use of space, not sure why it was removed. Edit: and someone reverted back... -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 21:52, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] delete google part

it is insignificant and biased (why cant other websites that turn black today be included?) Next, if we added a section to each day whenever a website changes its homepage design to commemorate, we would have a lot of useless sections in articles. LightSpeed (talk) 23:52, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I think everyone who commented above agrees that this section is significant. OhanaUnitedTalk page 00:00, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
I think this is insignificant either. The section might worth a small section in Google article, but not necessarily here, unless we create list of sites that participated in Earth Hour. Beside it feels like an advertisement or promotion for Google. eDenE 04:27, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
As i said above it seems like spam to me, not everyone above thinks it is signifigant it should be a blurb instead Landlord77 (talk) 00:52, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
WOW! Wikipedians don't want their users to go and post links to unknown shady websites like Google!

--129.97.150.185 (talk) 13:47, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

you dont get the point, this article is about earth hour, not google. wikipedia:bias is obviously existent with you. LightSpeed3 (talk) 18:00, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Heads up guys. LightSpeed3 has been blocked for sockpuppeting (per Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/LightSpeed) OhanaUnitedTalk page 02:24, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Cities

Flag for "Ponta Delgada, Azores" should be Portuguese national flag - other locations do not use state/province/region flag. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.58.128.215 (talk) 13:33, 1 April 2008 (UTC)


Before the list of cities gets too long, time to standardize things. Do we need a list of all cities or major cities plus states/provinces? If we have to list out all cities, Canadian cities will fill up most of the page. OhanaUnitedTalk page 18:25, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. Plus, [2] has separate sections for 'partner cities' and 'supporting cities' (the former being a far shorter list); perhaps these categories should be mentioned separately? -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 19:52, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
Talking about cities, shouldn't Ocean City, United States be more specific? There are four cities with that name.--Megamanfan3 (talk) 20:22, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
The article does a poor job of explaining the difference between supporting cities and partner cities. what's the diff? Murderbike (talk) 21:03, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
I haven't the faintest, and their site barely works. It did make the distinction between the two though, and the brief footage I saw on the news at one of the cities had a large screen with a list of them on it, so clearly there's something. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 21:10, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
Why are all the Partner Cities also shown in the list of Supporting Cities? This seems somewhat redundant to me. -- JackofOz (talk) 22:48, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, lazyness is why :) -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 23:06, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
Seems like a perfectly rational and reasonable explanation to me. Rest easy, I've removed them.  :) -- JackofOz (talk) 23:52, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
Who's on the mission with me to add all Canadian cities that participate? I have the full list on Toronto Star with me, but there're too many cities that I need to add. OhanaUnitedTalk page 00:32, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
I think we should probably make the whole supporting cities section into one of those little collapsable things to stop it taking over the whole page (as it's doing right now). I don't know where that list is; the only other city I know of is Winnipeg, just because I checked the city's site. Is it online somewhere? -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 00:36, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
It's on thursday (March 27) Toronto star Section X (yes, special section) page 6-7. And as a heads up, the article is up on main page so there could be vandalism. OhanaUnitedTalk page 01:14, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) How about a separate page: List of cities that participated in Earth Hour 2008? The difference between partner and supporting cities can become a nice introduction and a map pinpointing the cities can be created. --seav (talk) 03:58, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Too short of a list for a separate page. --staka (T ûC) 04:14, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
I've found a very long list for Canada. It's too many. It even includes communities from Haines Junction, Yukon and Yellowknife and Hay River, NWT.Singh001175 (talk) 05:38, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
And I haven't listed out all the supporting cities from Ontario. That's why we need to sort out this issue.OhanaUnitedTalk page 08:01, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Impact

It seems strange that the earth hour site promotes several environmentally questionable practices in their things to do during earth hour. They propose many things that rely heavily on use of flashlights, they also suggest replacing consumer electronics items with with energy star rated ones. (Specifically a DVD player.) However no mention or analysis is done to justify these as environmentally preferable or energy saving options. Batteries are not very efficient as energy delivery systems, and the environmental impact of batteries is significant.[3] "batteries have remained among the most expensive energy sources"Battery (electricity) For many electronics items, the energy involved in manufacturing, retailing and disposal makes the replacement of a working item a dubious energy savings at best. (Even if discount the impacts from other resources besides energy used.) Zodon (talk) 22:39, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Rush Limbaugh, others of that ilk....

....will state on their shows that the whole thing is a lot of bulls*t, worse. I have heard these guys before. Wait until Monday. 205.240.144.129 (talk) 05:44, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

He probably did as I did, and turned on every light and appliance I could, as well as left all my vehicles idling for the hour. Hey, somebody has to take a stand in defense of global warming. Danthemankhan 06:47, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
I cannot tell if you are being ironic or not … —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.180.65.118 (talk) 07:05, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
I was delighted to find out that power consumption in Calgary went up over the same period the week before. I even left my computer on at work over the weekend as a protest against this tokenism. Ridiculous.139.48.25.61 (talk) 16:48, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
Because...? Ericster08 (talk) 21:01, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
Hmmm... maybe because the whole "Earth Hour" was a pointless exercise in meaningless "feel-good" nonsense politics. The Earth itself produces more greenhouse gases than we could ever imagine pumping out. Every time a volcano erupts, more carbon dioxide is produced than what has been produced by humanity EVER. And cows produce way more methane than we do. I agree with danthemankhan. I turned on every light and appliance I could. BTW, in the news today, it turns out Ottawa is 7 inches from setting a new snowfall record. This on top of all the other records for cold and snowfall that have been shattered this winter. DAMN YOU GLOBAL WARMING!!!SpudHawg948 (talk) 10:11, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
Enormous amount of cows' methane should be blamed on us, not on cows. These emissions are counted as man-made emissions. Just for you to know and be correct in future. :) �Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.51.96.135 (talk) 17:31, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
And pray tell, just how are we to blame for cow farts?SpudHawg948 (talk) 13:11, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
It's agriculture, stupid! It seems you haven't read a paper on climate. Then who are you to discuss it? What's the price of your conclusions? Baseless. Unreasoned. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.51.102.216 (talk) 07:36, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
So, what you're telling me is that, if it weren't for "agriculture" then either a)cows wouldn't exist, or b)they wouldn't fart? Hmmm... now call me crazy, but something about that doesn't add up. It seems you haven't read a paper on biology. And you're argument that if I haven't "read a paper on climate" then I shouldn't discuss it is baseless. If that is the case, than we had better get rid of "An Inconvenient Truth" since Al Gore is a career politician, not a climatologist. And please, in the future, try to refrain from ad hominem attacks. "Stupid"? What is this, the third grade? But, getting back on track, please offer a valid defense for the claim that methane produced by cows is man-made. "It's agriculture, stupid" doesn't cut it. SpudHawg948 (talk) 08:13, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
Stupid was not intended to be an offense. It's neologism, haven't you heard it? 'It's economy, stupid!', 'it's environment, stupid!', etc..
Considering giving you something on agriculture - I won't. :) It's wikipedia, you know. Try search 'agriculture' and look for its impact on environment or 'climate change' and try the section of agriculture. Finally, download UN report or something. So much of it on the web.
There would certainly be a hell of a lot less cows thats for sure. Oh and just because volcanoes kick out a lot of CO2 that doesn't excuse us. Would it make sense if I said "you regularly carry 50 pound boxes around so would you mind carrying this 20 pound box at the same time? It's not even half what you normally carry!" TheGreatZorko (talk) 12:56, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] For those who can't do math

Article says:

Although the Herald equated this with "taking 48,613 cars off the road for one hour", Andrew Bolt claimed that it represented taking only six cars off the road for a year.

Hint: 48,613 cars for one hour IS 5.5 cars for a year. There is no conflict between these two claims. 72.208.61.246 (talk) 23:26, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it's saying that there is a conflict between the claims. It's saying that "48,613 cars for one hour" makes it seem big and impressive, but in reality its only equal to "6 cars off the road for a year" which sounds much less impressive or insignifigant Ttony21 (talk) 01:10, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
I was confused by this at first, too. I think rephrasing it to "Although the Herald equated this with "taking 48,613 cars off the road for one hour", Andrew Bolt points out that this represents taking only six cars off the road for a year." would clarify this.
Bolt's statement is only true if the cars are driving for over 22 hours per day (48,613 hours / 6) / 365 = 22.2 hours per day.
I would bet that most people would read it as saying that Earth Hour in Sydney only had the effect of taking six AVERAGE cars off the road for a year as opposed to 6 near-permanently running cars.
I'd like this to be clarified in the article as it is pretty misleading -
Even if you over-estimate the ABS daily car use figures (of under 2 hours/day to a full 2hours/day)... enough energy was saved in that one hour, in that one area to take 66 average cars off the road FOR A FULL YEAR.
I added this information to the article but it has since been removed.
Is there any reason why this weasel-wording should not be either quantified, clarified or removed?58.179.130.252 (talk) 08:12, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Question about Earth Hour that this article doesn't answer..

Are you supposed to not use any electricity for one hour, or are you supposed to just turn off lights. --staka (T ûC) 01:13, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Doesn't it tell you in the first sentence? It tells you to turn off the lights, and "non-essential" electrical appliances (tv's, computers, etc) Ttony21 (talk) 01:19, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
So it does tell you... ok, nevermind. Well odd how some people are saying they are participating but they are on their computer. --staka (T ûC) 01:21, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
Well it's based on your time zone, for example it's 9:22 here in New York so our hour is over already ;) Ttony21 (talk) 01:23, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, so we are in the same time zone.. I guess time zones are probably the reason why. --staka (T ûC) 01:32, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Electricity

Earth hour is a good time to save electricity. This is a time the world can trust people to save electricity. �Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.170.189.157 (talk) 07:15, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Sofia Added

I am from Sofia, Bulgaria. Our city has also joined this initative so I included it.

SunnieBG (talk) 09:05, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] New Zealand was first

Why does the main page state that the earth hour started in sydney 31/3/2008 when we held it here in chch, new zealand nearly 2 days earlier? 8pm - 9pm 29/3/2008 earth hour christchurch nz. 122.57.5.197 (talk) 10:59, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Correction, the main page states that the first earth hour started in sydney 31/3/07, not 08. 58.172.130.139 (talk) 05:54, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Touché, thanks for pointing that out. �Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.57.5.197 (talk) 11:35, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I have some photographs of Sky Tower, Auckland, turning off its lights. – Kaihsu (talk) 23:47, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Now posted. – Kaihsu (talk) 08:47, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Energy saved

You cannot save X megawatts of electricity. However, you can reduce your consumption by X megawatts. Doing this for one hour will save X megawatt-hours. -- 84.215.118.245 (talk) 15:52, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Furthermore, the article says this:"According to WWF Thailand, Bangkok decreased electricity usage by 73.34 megawatts, which is equivalent to 41.6 tonnes of carbon dioxide.". This doesn't make any sense. It needs to be something like "73.34 megawatts, equivalent to 41.6 tonnes of CO2 per timeunit. --Ysangkok (talk) 16:05, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
Considering it's called Earth Hour, the time unit is already specified. For that hour they reduced their usage (I presume averaged) by 73.34 MW. Where is the confusion? 58.179.130.252 (talk) 08:14, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
Speaking of power as if it was energy is like mixing up nouns and verbs. This is the kind of thing you can tolerate, even enjoy, with small children and people learning the language, but in an encyclopedia article? We correct the kids, and they accept it and move on. Why not Wikipedia?
But that is piffle compared to the real problem: the electrical energy:CO2 ratio is a big function of location. For example, even within one country there are quite large variations (see table 5) depending on how much electricity is generated from water or nuclear. Why should this article focus on Bangkok, and not, say, Montreal?
And finally, I can't help but observe that it will take anywhere from 24 to 72 years of Earth Hour's (as defined in this article) to be equivalent to the energy savings achieved by those who endured the Northeast Blackout of 2003. I truly love the Earth ... it's just some people need to get their priorities more in line with reality. mdf (talk) 17:44, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Pictures

The pictures on the page, quite frankly, are taking the piss, there is almost no diference between "before" and "after" and the sydney harbour shots are ridiculous. Terrasidius (talk) 12:58, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Irrelevant Claims

Yes, this event did reduce electricity usage slightly, and in warmer places like Sydney it might even have reduced total power consumption and even reduced carbon emissions.

But in many other places that was simply not true. e.g. in Canada on a Saturday night most electricity is produced from carbon-clean sources (hydro-electric or nuclear-electric) so the carbon emissions were not reduced at all.

But almost all of the electrical energy used by interior electric usage ends up as heat, heat whose absence on a cold March evening will need to be made up by the furnace, which is typically powered by oil or gas.

The net effect was to increase Canadian carbon emissions during the hour.

And to further illustrate that people really have no understanding of what is involved with this, many people turned off their clean electric lights and then lit candles, converting paraffin into carbon-dioxide (3 kg of CO2 for every kg of wax burned).

Don't forget too that it takes more energy to light a fluorescent bulb than to KEEP it lit. Given the whole thing about "carbon emissions" is a bunch of hocus pocus and voodoo (read: bullshit) it's really pointless to talk about them being affected at all by this stunt. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.67.93.133 (talk) 03:50, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
You'd do good to forget stuff that isn't true. mdf (talk) 21:32, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Units of measure

> According to WWF Thailand, Bangkok decreased electricity usage
> by 73.34 megawatts, which is equivalent to 41.6 tonnes of carbon dioxide.
I would understand if units of energy were equivalent to some amount of CO2. If the given figure really represents drop in power, the article should make it clear that it was the average drop of power consumption for the duration of the whole event, which resulted in specified drop in CO2 emission for the whole hour.


[edit] Does darkness affect crime?

So did crime rates go up during the dark hour? I can imagine predators waiting to take advantage.--Loudes13 (talk) 14:39, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Feel free to make an educated guess. mdf (talk) 14:56, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
Even if to ignore the above link - One of the principles of Earth Hour is that only non essentials are turned off - Meaning that lights for a safety purpose (Eg - Street Lights) are not turned off.--TheRack (talk) 04:41, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
This is an off topic discussion not related to improvement of article. Michellecrisp (talk) 05:40, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
Yes it does relate to article improvement, just not this article. Send it to crime rate and someone should add this finding to the page. OhanaUnitedTalk page 06:42, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

well yes it does relate to crime rate, but perhaps it is as broad as does crime go up every night? or when there are blackouts? + for Earth hour you would have to statistically separate that any rise in crime was actually caused by lights being off. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Misuse_of_statistics#False_causality Michellecrisp (talk) 07:03, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I thought about that, too, Loudes13. It would raise the crime rate, such as looting, because it's so dark. I my opinion, though, Earth Hour is trivial in the cause to save Earth. How is turning out the lights for 60 minutes going to help???? And, don't worry about this discussion being off topic. If you want to see an even worse talk page, see Talk: sean Paul We're keeping with the article. :-)--Listen to your Princess, dear Wikipedians. (talk) 20:18, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi. Seriously, what's the big deal? Most robberies happen during the day, between 9am and 3pm when most people are at work. Besides, turning all the lights off just made me notice that annoying orange glow shining on all the windows. That glow can be seen even when the curtains are drawn (especially, in fact). Anyway, I noticed between a 20% and a 400% increase in the apparent brightness of the stars. Besides, it would be better if they just aimed the streetlights downward, so that it saves energy, reduces light pollution, and won't really change crime rates (who burglerizes at 1 kilometre above the ground, anyway)? I remember the first time I saw the milky way and a meteor while I was away from the urban areas. It's amazing to think that when Los Angeles had that big earthquake, the power went out and everyone went outside, and people even thought a sudden brightening of the milky way had caused the earthquake, and when they called the observatory and they replied that this is what the real sky is supposed to look like, they didn't believe them *sigh*. The real reason people think bright lights reduce crime is probably because of the (very human) fear of the dark. So, why don't we find some sources and include some of this applicable information into some of the articles? Besides, you know what I heard on the street at night (with the streetlights illuminating everything, of course)? Something like, "Well, that was a f***ing great party, wasn't it? Don't look at me like that, you f***ing b**ch. All we're doing is we're f***ing walking down [this street], you f***ing a***ole. F*** off. Just, shut up. I'm not going to f***ing keep this up.", and it goes on like that for another 10 minutes. Anyway, the thing is, reduced lighting, which was only 20% to 400% reduced, is not going to affect burglery and crime that much. Besides, at this rate, pretty soon the light pollution will get so bad, it'll be impossible in the city to see a lot of stars, every house, powerline, and grain of dust will be bathed in an orange-yellow glow, and it'll be impossible to identify the burgler if they aren't visible for at least a minute. Besides, they should get the security lights that turn on whenever it detects movement and shuts off after a while, it'll save energy as well as money. I saw some security lights turned off during Earth Hour, but others were on all night and visible from (theoreticly) 20 kilometres away. Also, that link to Calgary light pollution can be a good source for some of our articles. If you need to improve the articles by adding stuff about light pollution and burglery, you could always find a source and edit. Thanks. ~AH1(TCU) 21:02, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Publicity stunt

The mean and nasty curmudgeon I am, I go to google and enter

"earth hour" "publicity stunt"

(with quotes) and am presented with the first of 12,700 hits. At the top of the pile is:

http://www.thestar.com/SpecialSections/EarthHour/article/407013

Unfortunately, the most of the remainder are all comments on articles, blogs, and other so-called "unreliable sources" discussing (and attempting to dismiss) the matter, so my initial plans to change the introductory sentence of this article to:

Earth Hour is an annual international publicity stunt held on the last Saturday of March [...]

would unlikely survive more than a few milliseconds. However ... is there really any doubt at all? Even within this article we have organizers and supporters being quoted as saying, in effect, "Yes, maybe not a single Joule of energy was really saved, but that's not the point, attention is!" That the organizers would prefer to call "Earth Hour" a mere "event" instead of what it would be called if it was any other kind of demonstration is just their point of view. Why should that one imbue Wikipedia's? mdf (talk) 12:16, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] huh

Hi. According to figures from EnergyAustralia, a local utility, mains electricity consumption for the 2007 event in Sydney was 0.0002% lower during the Hour than would be expected given the time, weather conditions and past four years' consumption patterns. The Herald Sun equated this with "taking 0.048613 cars off the road for one hour."[1] Critics, most notably Columnist Andrew Bolt, labelled this as "A cut so tiny is trivial - equal to taking six cars off the road for a year". Is this true? How is 0.048613 cars for an hour equivalent to 6 cars a year? Thanks. ~AH1(TCU) 22:09, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi. Looking at discussions above, I have changed the figures to more likely ones for now. Please revert, fix, or discuss if I'm wrong. Please respond, and fix the numbers if they are not 2% and 48,613 cars for an hour, as I have written. Thanks. ~AH1(TCU) 22:20, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
Andrew Bolt is hardly a reliable source. He's very anti climate change. Also Earth Hour in Australia is being promoted and was started by a newspaper company that is rival to the one Bolt works for. Michellecrisp (talk) 07:46, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Photos

It seems that there are too many photos placed in the article, should we start considering a gallery? Reorion (talk) 00:13, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, first 2 pictures are from 2007 (not 2008). The one about Central World in Thailand will be deleted in a few days. So I don't see a problem. OhanaUnitedTalk page 02:08, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Graphs

Are there any graphs of power usage (in certain areas)? — Omegatron (talk) 16:07, 13 April 2008 (UTC)