Earth Hour, Energy Efficiency & War – Why Earth Hour is a load of crap
Why on earth do they tell us to turn our lights off???
Let's take it for granted that action is required on climate change. The we need to 'de-carbonise' (noting that there are many other 'greenhouse gases'), to take the fizz from the soda pop of industrialisation.
There are a number of ways of addressing this including:
1 – using less energy
2 – using energy more efficiently
3 – using energy that does not result in carbon emissions
4 – sucking up carbon from the atmosphere.
I don't think anyone would argue about number #2 – if you can get the same result using less energy then that is a good result all round. If we have one use unit of energy to cook more things, drive our car further or heat our houses better, then wonderful. Even without any climate change imperatives energy efficiency is logical.
#3 and #4 are pretty good as well. Though comparatively expensive, things like solar and wind are good 'clean' technologies that can still power the air-conditioners, imacs, popcorn makers and things. And #4 – plant some trees, birds are happy, provides a bit of shade, maybe some fruit, all good.
What I don't get is #1, this crap about turning lights off and unplugging shit. We hear all this stuff about doing 'less harm to the environment' being 'greener' and then we think when we're turning off lights we're being 'good'.
How though are we being 'good' by turning lights off during Earth Hour or any other day for that matter? This energy conservation stuff does nothing at all significant to addressing climate change, it's just something to help middle class westerners feel good about themselves.
An example:
'We bought a Prius as our second car, we are doing our bit for the environment' – no you're not, your first car is a four-wheel drive, and the fact that you have two cars means, by global standards, you are very wealthy and likely to live in a big house (compared say to most Bangladeshis), with lots of light globes and heating and cooling requirements. You possibly holiday overseas, you drive everywhere rather than using public transport and you buy lots of things, like extra televisions, ipads, desktop computers etc.
There is nothing wrong with having all this stuff, just don't think because you make a token effort to be 'green' that this negates the fact that you are rich and you will therefore use a lot of resources and a lot of energy. Don't kid yourself into thinking that by switching your lights off once a year or buying a hybrid car that somehow you're going to balance out this highly consumptive lifestyle.
If the message of Earth Hour is that energy conservation is good, then it is a misguided and delusional event. I can accept it as symbolic thing that focuses our attention on all the stuff that uses energy around the house, which not bad, but apart form that it is just a load of crap.
If energy conservation is a good way of addressing climate change, then really we should just have more economic crisis's and encourage the world's poor to stay poor, because if you are poorer you are forced to use less energy and other resources. Energy conservation messages like Earth Hour, and those that government's post on websites to make it look like they're taking 'real' action, and green groups do because, well they are just green and don't know any difference, are really just saying 'being wealthy is bad'. And if any of us really believed that then we'd be off giving away all our material possessions and living like the Buddha, on the street with a begging bowl, no TV, computer's or cars. The fact is,we don't believe that, we like, no love, being rich, and if you ask any poor person, they would also love to be rich, to have a comfortable home, to have more food, to have a car.
If we are to address climate change we need to shift away from this farce that token individual actions in the area of energy conservation are a real way to de-carbonise the economy. They just aren't.
Leaving climate change up to individual energy conservation actions is really just a distraction. It is similar to arguing that country A – let's call it Oompa Loopma Land - is a threat to our country, so rather than having a big organised full time military with lots of tanks and fancy fighter planes and fierce marines who are at the ready to storm Oompa Loompa Land, we'll get individual citizens to sharpen bamboo sticks for 'War Hour' once a year and then for the rest of the time hope the Oompa Loompas are preoccupied eating chocolate fondue.
There is no way we are going to address climate change through energy conservation efforts (again, true energy efficiency is still a good thing, and we should also do other useful stuff). We, and I assume that because you can access the internet this may include you, like being wealthy and using a lot of energy to have fun stuff like lights on in the house and refrigerators to stop our milk going sour.
We're not going to give up our energy-consumptive lifestyles, so let's cut the crap and just collectively decide that if we really want to do something about climate change we're just going to have to invest in relatively expensive 'clean' energy sources, and once we've done that we can just go back to switching all the lights on, turning the heat up to 35 degrees Celcius in winter and dancing about with no clothes on while we wait for our socks to dry in the clothes dryer – because that's what we are like for the other 364 and a bit days that we aren't indulging our energy conservation fantasies during Earth Hour.
Comments
Post a Comment