The Law of Intended Darkness
Last year, writes Jason King, on the last Saturday in March, Google's white background turned black, as a symbolic gesture for 2008's "Earth Hour."
They accompanied this gesture with a puzzling rationale:
As to why we don't do this permanently — it saves no energy; modern displays use the same amount of power regardless of what they display.
Such a gesture, done with an almost Faustian acceptance that such a gesture will make no meaningful impact on anything, demonstrates everything that is wrong with Earth Hour in its prizing of style over substance.
Bookmark/Share
|
Comments (52)
Comments (52)
I hate this crap.
Even if everyone turned off their lights, this would still save nothing anyway. The electrical system runs WITH RESERVE so all you will do is temporarily increase the reserve, but the power company not just can stop power plants and the like so every power plant will not even notice the change.
To have any positive effects, you would have to have the this event exactly at peak demand and even then it would have to be at place with very little reserve power and it would have to happen for days, not just 1 hour.
Published: March 27, 2009 3:36 PM
Russ
I intend to turn on every light, TV, and radio in the house during "Earth Hour", as a protest against such idiocy. Why people want to go back to the austerity years after WWII, [i]on a permanent basis[/i], is beyond me.
Published: March 27, 2009 3:39 PM
kiba
Turning down the lights save some money. Money that I can trun into gold.
Published: March 27, 2009 3:54 PM
Dennis
"The purpose of the event was not to save money or power. It's a symbolic event."
"We think the value of Earth Hour is the lights going off … not the energy savings."
Here is my interpretation: the purpose of Earth Hour is for certain segments of the environmental movement to illustrate how they can control human activity, and how successful their indoctrination of significant portions of the populace has been while providing an additional opportunity to further this indoctrination.
Published: March 27, 2009 3:54 PM
AC
Me, well I'm going to completely ignore "Earth Hour" and go about my business.
If someone asks me what I intend to do, I'll tell them "nothing different than usual."
If someone really bugs me about it, I'll tell them to leave their lights off an extra hour for me then.
Published: March 27, 2009 4:19 PM
Robbie
"We think the value of Earth Hour is the lights going off … not the energy savings."
That's their real intent. A technology free planet. Well, for everyone not including themselves of course.
Published: March 27, 2009 4:43 PM
geoih
It's symbolic, like praying (very appropriate).
Published: March 27, 2009 4:45 PM
An Observer
There must be a way to harness this energy - this energy expended by emotional people reacting with art and symbolism. Harnessing this "love" and channeling the energy to an intelligent goal would be better for humanity than the compelling and misdirecting theatrics that we have now. Such a waste, such an embarrassment.
Published: March 27, 2009 4:47 PM
Andrew_M_Garland
There is no need to switch off the lights. The failure to build substantial generating capacity (coal, oil, and nuclear) and the policy to take all profit out of non-green energy, will vote for us.
Use tomorrow night's occasion to practice what to do during random blackouts.
Magic Power
Could the nerds give us cheap power if they wanted to?
--------
Acting as part of a group is hardwired into humans. Only cohesive groups of pre-humans survived 300,000 years ago. Big brains have only been around for 50,000 years, and clearly many of them don't work well.
If a person can't "figure it out" (literally use numeric judgment) to evaluate ideas, then he will rely on rituals to identify the people he will trust. So, we see emotionally symbolic but physically ineffective demonstrations to communicate being part of a "good" group.
Published: March 27, 2009 5:16 PM
I Hate Governments
Global warming is real
Most of it is caused by mankind
And yes, it represents a long term danger
Even so, this is no justification to violate individual rights and freedoms, to assault free market capitalism, to assault the rule of law and to initiate force, fear and fraud against individuals.
Private property rights and individual freedoms are the best way against global warming.
Why leave the future of this planet in the hands of governments and bureaucrats ?
Look what they did with nuclear energy, they built bombs and threaten to annihiliate us all and all life forms and turn the whole world into a radioactive cesspool. This threat is still present and it would be much worse than global warming.
Governments and bureaucrats should not be trusted with the future of climate.
Published: March 27, 2009 6:05 PM
ehmoran
I Hate Governments,
If global warming is real and caused by man's production of CO2, then why have average global temperatures drop by 1.7 degrees C while CO2 continues to rise?
Published: March 27, 2009 6:09 PM
ehmoran
I Hate Governments,
Oh yeah, don't worry about Global Climate, the U.N. will fix it......
Published: March 27, 2009 6:12 PM
Proud Individual
Andrew_M_Garland,
"Acting as part of a group is hardwired into humans."
And destroying individuals who act by themselves is hardwired into society and that's what I hate about society.
Published: March 27, 2009 6:12 PM
Jim Fedako
Take a look at the video, keeping in mind that the event took place in cities on the weekend. Is it just me, or does it look like the office buildings were lit as bright as possible BEFORE the lights were turned down? Hmmm.
Published: March 27, 2009 7:59 PM
Pat Miketinac
Serious energy saving ideas that don't need government are ignored. I have lived in an earth sheltered house for 21 years. Heating and cooling is optional here in FL since the interior is always near the 72 degree ground temp. See earth-house.com.
Published: March 27, 2009 9:02 PM
newson
first, champagne gives off C02 - bear this in mind when contemplating the candle & bubbly party.
second, electricity-generation in nsw, australia, is a public-sector industry. (retailing is private, but subject to oversight). ironically, the state governments subsidize pensioners' electricity bills (in some states year-round, in others only in winter).
third, in australia, we routinely suffer power-outages in the hottest days of the year; proof that price of power should be higher, in which case new supply could be brought on at an adequate return.
state governments are all happy to ride the green wave, fully aware that their own price-depressing policies create wasteful incentives for increased consumption.
Published: March 27, 2009 10:17 PM
Alexander
Cover the world in DARKNESS to save it... they are absolutely right! Truly symbolic of their intentions (unintended or not)!
Published: March 27, 2009 10:28 PM
ehmoran
newson,
No farting either and they'll need to limit human oxygen intake....
Alexander,
"Truly symbolic of their intentions." My gosh, that's perfect....
"Socialist pilgrims from all over the world have been fascinated by a stained-glass window in Surrey, England, where a Fabian coat-of-arms brazenly depicts socialism as a political wolf in sheep's clothing. Commissioned by George Bernard Shaw in 1910; for over 30 years it was privately displayed in the socialist inner-circle, who gloated over successful masquerades as "mild reformers" and "righteous liberals". Arrogantly, the socialist leaders picture themselves as shaping the whole world with hammer blows while relegating their followers to the role of blind worshippers praying before the image of socialist propaganda".
Published: March 27, 2009 10:35 PM
Gil
On the other hand, is this article giving a false dichotomy - you can't have nature and technology, the negative externalities that affect nature create greater positive externalities to humans. To care for one is to harm the other - you must choose. After all, take J. King's view on lighting - you must choose between incandescent light or starting fires or sit in the dark. Gee, howz about using CFLs and save 80% of the power for the same brightness? You can use a flashlight with incandescent bulb or use a candle, trip over something you couldn't see and burn your house down. Ever seen them thar LED flashlights? You can stick a 3W LED torch in some poor bugger's eyes and blind them for a few minutes. Heck! You can even get LED imitation candles! You could imagine the J. Kings of yesteryears who would argued you must choose between whale oil or the Dark Ages - petroleum is a fool's dream and will never be practical.
Published: March 27, 2009 11:39 PM
Andrew_M_Garland
For a more objective view of Global Warming
Dispelling the Global Warming Myth
And more on doubts and bias surrounding Global Warming
Global Warming Caused by Humans is a Scam
Published: March 28, 2009 12:13 AM
Derek B
Global warming is pure garbage. Average temperatures are still far lower than planetary averages in the Medieval times.
Many of the scientists who "supported" the claims by government that global warming is real have come out to say now that they were bullied and coerced into siding with the carbon-is-bad side.
Carbon is good! It is what all plant life on earth NEEDS in order to flourish. Higher rates of carbon in the atmosphere are completely cyclical and actually result in higher yields of foods and larger area and density of vegetation. Not to mention that EIGHTY percent of all oxygen production in nature comes from UNDERWATER plant life.
Al Gore made his movie, "an inconvenient truth", which proclaims the be-all and end-all "truth" that global warming will flood the earth sooner than we can imagine and we will either have to develop gills or die. What you DON'T read in mainstream news is that he has been piling up like crazy on carbon credits since the release of his film.
He's feeding the higher-tax machine that we will all see coming soon. Carbon tax is a great way for the government to make tons of cash - they can tax in the name of the greatest cause of all! Preserving our lives! Meanwhile it creates another sub-market which will produce more and more complex products just like the derivatives market and all the pushers who got in on the ground floor rake in billions.
Thank God these manipulative idiots are too stupid to be buying real assets with this "money" (currency) and instead will keep shuffling the paper around as they are consumed by greed - and most likely some sort of built-in government guarantee. We could see a fairly large bubble arise from this social shove. Great opportunity for short-sellers!
Published: March 28, 2009 12:26 AM
ehmoran
Here's a natural phenomenon that explains global and, to a lesser degree, continental temperature variability:
REVISITING MAGNETIC INTENSITY AND CLIMATE CHANGE: A STRONG CORRELATION
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008AGUFMGP11A0709M
Published: March 28, 2009 1:14 AM
Gil
Turning off all the lights remind of those who despair of Communism by pointing how dark North Korea is at night as a great many other countries have street lights and all. However - aren't street lights a 'statist' concept? Would private street owners have humungous lights all over their roads (assuming no government to force them)? Or would they have small LED indicators strategically placed at regular distances so drivers could see where they are going but drivers are going to rely on their halogen headlights to illuminate the streets? Does not the speckled dots on a night-map of the world that represents the 'lights of modern society' really amount to the 'forced illumination of them thar evil statists' as neither private road owner or homeowner would engage in such brightness overkill?
Published: March 28, 2009 1:43 AM
drew
Global warming is a theory, and like all theories, it is open to debate. Hubbert's theory of Peak Oil is another, and in a world with a carrying capacity of fewer than 3B people without petroleum-based fertilizer, it demands far more attention.
One could call it an artificial population bubble on a century-long expansion, if one were so inclined.
Published: March 28, 2009 1:50 AM
ehmoran
drew,
I beg to differ.
Global Warming is only an HYPOTHESIS. There has never been an experiment to indicate that atmospheric CO2 increases ambient temperatures...... (Not that I could find anyway and no one else has provided me with the publication, if it exists).
A theory requires systematic, repeatable experimentation....
Published: March 28, 2009 1:56 AM
ehmoran
drew,
I beg to differ.
Global Warming caused by increasing anthropogenic CO2 is only an HYPOTHESIS. There has never been an experiment to indicate that increasing atmospheric CO2 results in increasing ambient temperatures...... (Not that I could find anyway and no one else has provided me with the publication, if it exists).
A theory requires systematic, repeatable experimentation....
Published: March 28, 2009 1:58 AM
Gil
Since when has CO2 not been known as a 'greenhouse gas' ehmoran?
Published: March 28, 2009 6:22 AM
Joe B
I lost power for an hour on Friday afternoon. Today was a few degrees warmer than friday. This is a strong inverse correlation showing that we need to use more electricity to cool the climate. Q.E.D.
Come on, who's really going to turn off the TV when "Australia's Funniest Home Videos" is on? Are candles allowed during total fire ban season?
Published: March 28, 2009 8:46 AM
Deefburger
I think the argument of whether the the global warming data proves we have an effect or not is moot. Whether the planet is warming up because of us or not, it is still better to reduce consumption of energy, and in the process, reduce our energy bills. The motivation behind reduced consumption is irrelevant, if the effects are widely and personally beneficial.
Second, even if you don't agree that the data interpretation is correct, it serves no purpose to assume possible excess risk (Global warming and it's effects on sea level rise, loss of property, and productive capacity of farms and communities), when the solutions are directly beneficial in and of themselves.
Third, there are opportunities for greater independence in this area. For instance, it may be possible to reduce or remove some of the "beautification" laws that banned towers and antenna installations, that are now preventing us from having our own windmills. If I had my own windmill, I would raise the productive capacity of the grid and lower my "carbon footprint" and reduce or possibly reverse the charges on my account for energy.
My community, if free to erect windmills and towers would find itself immune from rising energy cost from centrally concentrated sources. We as a community would have energy independence. In addition, our generating capacity would not be dependent on just a handful of installations, but instead would be spread out among the community at large, and therefore less likely to fail should a disaster befall, such as a bomb, a natural disaster, or a government bureaucrat gone mad or an army.
If the data interpretation is not correct, but we change our ways any way, we benefit.
If the data interpretation is not correct, and we don't change, then nothing changes. No harm No Foul.
If the data interpretation is correct, and we change our ways, we benefit and mabey we reduce or remove the threat.
If the data interpretaion is correct, and we DON'T change, then we die.
Hmm. Tough decision. NOT!
Published: March 28, 2009 8:48 AM
Deefburger
@emorhan
"A theory requires systematic, repeatable experimentation...."
The problem with requiring proof through experimentation is that you LIVE in the PETRI DISH!
There are safe experiments, and there are unsafe experiments. If I want to "Experiment" on my self, so be it. But to claim a need for experimental proof for something that involves the whole planet is ridiculous.
We're live in 3,2,1 Good evening Ladies and Gentelmen, Bad news tonight. The Global Warming experiment has proven that indeed, the consumption of fossil fuels is causing the planet to heat up and has created a planet wide disaster. Opponents to the "green movement" we're disappointed, but Green Party Candidate Cici Itolduso was overjoyed at the news. Film at 11.
How about if we assume we DO have an impact instead? Since I have to live in the petri dish with you to see the outcome of the "experiment", I would rather experiment with less impact rather than the same or more impact.
Published: March 28, 2009 9:08 AM
AC
I'm purchasing "lights on" offset credits from N. Korea. They're really cheap....in fact they're free. I've got enough to last....well, to last until N. Korea is free from communist poverty.
Published: March 28, 2009 11:39 AM
ehmoran
Gil,
CO2 Greenhouse gas: Well, you'd better plug up all the volcanoes and start killing people, becasue these are your major contributors. The heat absorption capacity of CO2 is nil. Water vapor is your problem.
The atmosphere of Mars is mostly made of CO2 and the temperature change in one day is about 400 degrees C.
Amazingly, the relation between temperature and CO2 was established from data collected near an actual Active Volcano in Hawaii. Think there might be some scientific data BIAS????
Hmmm, hot volcanic lava, high rates of CO2 emanating from the volcanic LAVA????
Deefburger,
I didn't realize you and Gil were scientists?
So, without any experimental data someone can just spew crap and call it a Theory.
Temperatures have dropped 1.7 degrees C globaly and CO2 continues to rise. What's up with THAT.
I agree with cleaning up the planet, but Global Warming is being used as an excuse to Profit and control people.
So, you guys buy into it the scam all you want and start watching your wallets get thinner and thinner with no change in anything.
Published: March 28, 2009 12:34 PM
ehmoran
Lord help me if my facts screw up your THEORY.....
Published: March 28, 2009 12:53 PM
Kurt
All one really needs to know about this 'Earth Hour' rubbish is that CO2 exists in the earth’s atmosphere - with minor fluctuations - at approximately 400 ppm; or, at 4 parts per 10,000. So, take 10,000 white ping-pong balls and throw them into an empty swimming pool, add 4 red ping-pong balls and mix well. Then, spend all [unrepeatable] day trying to find them!
Published: March 28, 2009 12:56 PM
ehmoran
Kurt,
Exactly, I've asked atmospheric scientist to tell my WHAT atmospheric gaseous constituent is DECREASING in CO2 is INCREASING. Here's the answer: "Well, that would be impossible to identify becasue the Science has not evolved enough for us to identify those parameters."
WHAT, I mean, WHAT. But they're telling us the manipulative BS about CO2.
Socialists uses propaganda like Anthropogenic Global Warming (when in fact the Globe has entered a 10 to 20 year cooling phase, hmmm, similar to the 1930's, 1950's, 1970's, and, oh yeah, and the Little Ice Age in the 1500's and 1700's) to control and manipulate the masses and call it "Undeniable Scientific Truth." Another term for "Social Science."
And unbelievably, the MASSES buy into this crap because the Authorities tell us to. Somewhat like the Social Science of the 1930's Germany when the masses were told about the "Undeniable Scientific Truth" that Jews were inferior. That ended up with millions of dead people at the hands of the Nazis.
Published: March 28, 2009 1:29 PM
Justin
Hahaha i love the government hate for a completely voluntary event created to make people think about their overall impact on the earth.
Also @ehmoran: thanks for the great Nazi comparison. I think you are the first person ever to compare someone they don't like to the Nazis on the internet.
Published: March 28, 2009 3:35 PM
Kurt
Justin
Is not the voluntary event which you refer to just a form of mass hysteria? In the begining, Hitler did not force the Germans to hate the Jews; he just sold them the idea that the 'November criminals' (he really meant the Zionist-Bolshevik conspiracy) were to blame for Germany's defeat. Once the Germans bought that idea, then, as they say, the rest is history. Can we not draw a parallel to what happened then to what is happening now with 'Earth Hour' and everything associated with it? As Hitler himself said:
"What luck for rulers that men do not think."
Published: March 28, 2009 4:13 PM
ehmoran
So, those people (Enemies of the State) that don't turn their Lights OFF can be singled out JUST by looking at their Light Bills for that DAY?
Published: March 28, 2009 4:24 PM
Ghost
8:30pm Tonight
International Lights On Hour
Be a beacon of light amidst the darkness.
Published: March 28, 2009 6:57 PM
Justin
Kurt: Yep, trying (even if not successful) to consume less and killing the Jews are pretty much the same thing. No argument here.
Published: March 28, 2009 7:41 PM
newson
to justin:
the link between environmentalism and nazism was more on an ideological plane. ludwig klages 1913 essay "man and earth" profoundly shaped nazi ideology. see this paper for more elaboration -
http://www.spunk.org/texts/places/germany/sp001630/peter.html
privatizing all power is the only way to minimize wastage of power. that the state intervenes to underprice electricity proves that political favouritism prevails over genuine desire to save energy.
Published: March 28, 2009 9:25 PM
Gil
Um, ehmoran, carbon dioxide is a heat-retaining gas, AKA, a 'greenhouse gas'. That part is a fact. What is debatable is whether there is a net increase of the overall concentration of carbon dioxide to create a global warming effect. On the other hand, how to we know whether dihydrogen monoxide is increasing as a proportion of the atmosphere? Alternatively what of methane? It breaks down relatively fast in the atmosphere yet it breaks down to carbon dioxide and dihydrogen monoxide!
It's folks like you who create runaway non-sequitors between potential global warming and associate the doom&gloomers with the science to deny there is any climate science at all.
Published: March 28, 2009 10:28 PM
ehmoran
Gil,
So is Nitrous Oxide, but water vapor holds the most heat, that's what keeps the Earth's temperature from varying like that of Mars.
"Fools Like me", where are your Scientific Publications? Wow, that's a good way to have a constructive discussion, you sound like a Far Left loon with that attitude!!!!!!
In chemical reactions that produce CO2, what is the catalyst for this production?
Mt. Redoubt, an active volcano, at this time is spewing approximately 10,000 tons of CO2 into the atmosphere. Where's the WARMING???
Did you not read the Published Paper
REVISITING MAGNETIC INTENSITY AND CLIMATE CHANGE: A STRONG CORRELATION
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008AGUFMGP11A0709M
Where are you Scientific rejections for that THEORY, since the stated cause in that paper is experimentally proven........
Published: March 28, 2009 11:01 PM
ehmoran
Specific Heat of Water = 4.187 kJ/kgK
Tropospheric composition = ~0.40% over full atmosphere and typically 1%-4% at surface.
Specific Heat of CO2 = 0.735 kJ/kgK
Tropospheric composition = 0.0383%
So, what atmospheric constituent likely is the largest contributor to ambient temperature variability.
Imagine that, and all these so-called global climate models don't use water vapor as a parameter......
Published: March 28, 2009 11:15 PM
Gil
I'd argue that water vapour would count as a greenhouse gas if there is water vapour emissions ahead of what naturally occurs. If the amount evaporation equals the amount of precipitation then there's no net increase in water vapour. Where exactly would the new water vapour coming from? Or are people merely recycling the same water that has always existed (primarily in the lakes, rivers and oceans)?
Published: March 29, 2009 12:39 AM
ehmoran
Excess water vapor might be coming from Volcanoes or Deep Ocean Heating resulting in increased ocean water evaporation. Do you think deep ocean temperature data has been collected and analyzed? If so, what are the results?
But you didn't answer my previous questions yet. One step at a TIME.
However, here's another question: When it rains, what happens to ambient temperatures?
Published: March 29, 2009 1:18 AM
ehmoran
Gil,
Excess water, hmmm, guess that big ol' BLAST FURNACE in the sky has nothing to do with Atmospheric Temperatures.
The fact is that the variability of CO2 concentrations is so minute and its specific capacity shows the amount of heat held by CO2 is inconsequential to affect atmospheric temperature changes.........
Published: March 29, 2009 1:33 AM
ehmoran
Holy crap, I forgot to turn off all my electricity at 8:30.
I guess that's why the Comminuty Militia (NAZIS) came knocking on my door. I told them I wasn't smart enough to remember and asked them why didn't my Govt call me to remind me, seeing that I need my Govt to hold my hand to make me Socially Responsible, knowing that they understand this with all their Social Science and "Undeniable Scientific Truth" and all.....
Published: March 29, 2009 1:53 AM
ehmoran
Gil,
The amount of water (H2O) within the confines of the Earth's atmosphere NEVER changes........
(Except maybe when we use water to extract Hydrogen.)
Published: March 29, 2009 2:09 AM
TokyoTom
"Maybe as much attention should be placed on humanity's hot air footprint as its carbon one."
A pithy way to end your piece, Jason, but it seems to me that - since, at the end of the day you`ve done nothing more than agree with the WWF that Earth Hour is at its core a symbolic event that by itself will save little if any money or power - you`ve taken our time but told us nothing. All you`ve done is to contribute hot air yourself (without at all addressing whether the Earth Hour might itself be, for those sponsoring it, an effective means of symbolic communication).
Was that your intention?
Did you also deliberately intend to sidestep any discussion of open-access resources, property rights and collective action?
Sincerely,
TT
Published: March 29, 2009 10:54 AM
Vanmind
The event is promoted simply as the socialist ritual it is. Those who see through to the underlying religiosity are not moved by the spectacle itself.
Published: March 30, 2009 4:47 AM
TokyoTom
Jason, FYI:
http://mises.org/Community/blogs/tokyotom/archive/2009/03/31/the-mises-blog-on-climate-change-a-beacon-of-quot-dim-rhetoric-quot.aspx
Sincerely,
TT
Published: April 3, 2009 9:32 AM