I did it.

Personally .. I'm going to light a can of hair spray on fire and point it at the ozone layer while raping a polar bear on a lonely piece of drifting ice ..

I'll try.

I'll shut off the ones that are usually on at least.

I like things like this. A global consciousness.

The obvious question arises, is sifting banned during earth hour?

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

We did it last night. I bet there will be an "earth hour baby boom" nine months from now.

Here's Rush Limbaugh's contribution to our earth:

“I have the ability from my couch, wherever I happen to be, I can turn on every light in the place, on all five houses. I can turn on the air conditioner and I can regulate the air conditioner. So I lit my place up like a Christmas tree last night.

“At 8:30 on Saturday night, I’m going to do the same thing. I mean, I might even put a Christmas tree up! I might even put Christmas lights on the outside lights, on the outside landscaping. I mean, I’m going to go just the opposite way, because I, El Rushbo — as you know — resist the tug of popular sentiment.”

8:32pm - everything's off but the router.

Laptop's on batteries.

Three votives glow to my left, one on the mantel, two on my books.

Got a shot of scotch for Mother Earth.

Cheers Mamason!

http://features.csmonitor.com/environment/2009/03/27/does-lighting-candles-for-earth-hour-defeat-the-purpose/

"Depending on where you live and what wattage bulb you use, lighting a candle instead of a CFL could result in a net increase of CO2 emissions. In California, a CFL will emit about 5 grams per hour. In Kansas, it’s almost 13 grams."

Looking at this map, if you live anywhere in a red or orange region, you will actually increase C02 emissions by using a candle rather than a compact florescent for lighting during "Earth Hour."

<embed src="http://i39.tinypic.com/raxf8i.png">

Saving the earth is a good idea...but make sure the physics make sense.

>> ^imstellar28:
Saving the earth is a good idea...but make sure the physics make sense.


Once again, you miss the point.

The point of this was to demonstrate, on a global level, that we as a species, as a community, want to conserve energy and look for more efficient ways, Earth-friendly ways, to power our world.

This was not a plea to start burning candles again.

Did you bother to trace the source of that CO2 estimation past the CSM? Did you bother to check out the person who came up with that statistic?

It was a blogger. Enoch the Red.

Some Ayn Rand cultists in Michigan were holding an "Edison Hour" and encouraging us to use as much electricity as possible. I don't know when people cross the border from stupid to delusional.

I understand the point, I just don't agree with it. Real change doesn't come on the wings of hope or superficial gestures; it comes with dedicated thought and labor.

>> ^rougy
Once again, you miss the point.

imstellar: "Real change doesn't come on the wings of hope or superficial gestures; it comes with dedicated thought and labor."

Right. A collective effort is required. Can't have that without raising awareness -- which is what Earth Hour is/was all about.

>> ^imstellar28:
I understand the point, I just don't agree with it. Real change doesn't come on the wings of hope or superficial gestures; it comes with dedicated thought and labor.


But you don't even know if that CO2 measurement that you cited is remotely true.

Yours is the superficial gesture.

You're just being a contrarian.

Just like Malkin, and Limbaugh, and the Rand fans mentioned above. Nothing that they did was for the sake of the Earth, or for raising awareness, it was just to piss off the "enviro-nitwits."

Because burning more energy than you actually need proves...what?

No, I just believe that if you are going to take the time to do something, it should be done the best way possible.

All around the world people turned off their lights for an hour, but completely neglected the fact that power plants don't just turn off when people hit a light switch.

Nuclear, wind, hydroelectric, coal...these sources of power are constantly running according to peak demand, and cannot be turned off at 8:30 and then instantly brought back online at 9:30. Electricity is not stored, so when people don't use it...it just gets wasted. Thus, even if electricity demand slightly decreased during "Earth Hour"...electricity production, and thus emissions, stayed exactly the same -- and all the electricity which could have been spent on useful work lighting peoples rooms was just wasted as millions of people stared at computer screens in the dark. Add to that fact the millions of candles that were likely burned in the process.

If we are to raise awareness, how about we raise awareness about how electricity production works? Or if you really want to save the planet how about a "ride your bike to work day" or "form a carpool day" which would raise environmental awareness and make a real difference.

>> ^rougy

You're just being a contrarian.

oops

>> ^imstellar28:
If we are to raise awareness, how about we raise awareness about how electricity production works? Or if you really want to save the planet how about a "ride your bike to work day" or "form a carpool day" which would raise environmental awareness and make a real difference.


One is not exclusive of the other.

You have this insistence that it has to be done your way, or the way that "your people" do things.

"Ride Your Bike to Work Day" - my people did that, not yours. Your people were saying "Drive Around for No Reason and Honk at Stupid Bikers" day.

"Form a Carpool Day" - my people did that, not yours. Your people said "Buy a Hummer, smoke a cigar, and taunt faggots and sluts with your buddies."

A real difference? People all over the world, tonight, shut their lights off for one hour. We did this with a collective intent to make the world a better place. Not an end, not a means, maybe not even a beginning: but a statement of fact.

You did nothing but ridicule.

^I don't know who "my people" are, but knowing that power generation does not decrease during Earth Hour, don't you think that sends an inaccurate message to millions of people?

However well-intentioned, Earth Hour is based on a fallacy - turning off your lights for one hour does not in any way reduce emissions.

More so, nobody outside your household even knows whether your lights are on or off, so the idea that turning off your lights during Earth Hour is somehow "voting" (as stated under their about section) is also untrue.

Also, as mentioned, the amount of sex which occurred during that hour is probably enormous. Do you know how many light bulbs a person turns on from age 0 to age 80? Even a single kid who was born from Earth Hour sex would offset the (zero) electricity savings of the millions of people who participated; especially when you consider his kids (20 years) and their kids (40 years) and their kids kids (60 years)...

I am not ridiculing the idea, I am expressing my skepticism; and one reason we are in this mess is that in the past, bad ideas were not challenged with an appropriate level of skepticism.

>> ^imstellar28:
^I don't know who "my people" are, but knowing that power generation does not decrease during Earth Hour, don't you think that sends an inaccurate message to millions of people?

No. Again (big surprise), you're missing the point.

It must be the authoritarian in you who expects somebody to tell you what to do, and who resents millions of strangers across the globe participating in an activity unsanctioned by the power companies.

Like it or not, my power bill will be smaller this month as a result of my participation. If a million people participated in my region alone, then it is a modest savings times one million.

Who on earth would bitch about that, other than some power monopoly who has all of this "extra" energy that it can't bill to its involuntary customers?

1. You are the one who listened to an authority telling you to turn off your lights; without asking yourself whether it made sense or not.

2. Why is my opinion equivalent to resent, in your mind?

3. A 15 watt CFL at $0.05 kw/hour is approximately $0.00075 off your power bill. That is less than 1/10th of a penny. Even if you turned off 66 lights, you would only have saved 5 pennies; and given that your power company rounds to the nearest penny, your power bill actually won't be any different this month. Still, why do you think I care about your power bill either way? I don't.

So to summarize,

During Earth Hour, citizens did not perceptively reduce their power bills, they did not reduce power generation or emissions from power plants, they increased carbon emissions by burning millions of candles, and nobody, including the power company, even knew their lights were off. You are free to participate in Earth Hour, but for these reasons, it is not "anti-environmental" of me if I do not participate, nor is it if I think it is a poorly thought out idea.

Sorry to be ants at your picnic, but I thought you should know the truth. After all, knowing is half the battle.

<embed src="http://i39.tinypic.com/15836s5.png">

>> ^rougy>
It must be the authoritarian in you who expects somebody to tell you what to do,

and who resents millions of strangers across the globe participating in an activity unsanctioned by the power companies.

Like it or not, my power bill will be smaller this month as a result of my participation.

^ Dumbass is play-fighting with one of his strawmen again. The whole 'turn off the lights' meme was intended as a symbolic "vote" for collective awareness about global warming, and as a means by which we can raise global consciousness about this serious threat, not as an action to conserve electricity for one hour on Saturday night.