U.N.'s Participation in Earth Hour Is Full of Hot Air, Critics Say

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by iDAG, Mar 27, 2009.

  1. iDAG macrumors 65816

    iDAG

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2007
    Location:
    Athens, Ohio
    #1
    Link

    The amount it was first estimated to save was $81,000 then it was revised to $24,300 before it went all the way down to $102 the building would save. I honestly don't understand why the government is trying to shove down the belief that global warming or "climate change" is real and that the Earth is going to go up in flames in a few years if something isn't done. Don't get me wrong, I think it is a good idea to be eco-friendly when possible but really, the Earth goes through natural warming and cooling cycles and science is able to back that up. :)
     
  2. Zyniker macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2008
    #2
    Let's not forget that this is the same UN who charters jets to fly to faraway places to hold climate-change conferences... ;)
     
  3. Blue Velvet Moderator emeritus

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2004
    #3

    True. But this is on the speed of nothing seen before except for cataclysmic events in the geologic record. Extinction events.
     
  4. swiftaw macrumors 603

    swiftaw

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2005
    Location:
    Omaha, NE, USA
    #4
    I wish that people would stop claiming that the planet is in danger if we don't do something. The planet will be perfectly fine, it is the ability of humans to be able to live on this planet that is in danger.
     
  5. chrmjenkins macrumors 603

    chrmjenkins

    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2007
    Location:
    CA
    #5
    This is a simplification of the actual sentiment. If the planet's changes are large enough to cause humans problems, the millions of species will suffer as well. Generally, we want to preserve our own lives as well as the variety of species on this planet, so we want to minimize our harmful impact on the planet.
     
  6. MacNut macrumors Core

    MacNut

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2002
    Location:
    CT
    #6
    Can we do that at the rate we are growing as a population. The more living things that live here the worse the planet becomes.
     
  7. .Andy macrumors 68030

    .Andy

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2004
    Location:
    The Mergui Archipelago
    #7
    iDAG how does science back up that the earth goes through natural warming and cooling cycles? What data do scientists draw on to reach that conclusion?

    It depends entirely on what those "living things" are.
     
  8. MacNut macrumors Core

    MacNut

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2002
    Location:
    CT
    #8
    Everything that uses the Earths resources to survive.
     
  9. BoyBach macrumors 68040

    BoyBach

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2006
    Location:
    UK
    #9
    So ecology and environmentalism is a "gimmick". I guess that I'll have to stop being so "self-serving" and end my recycling and switching off electrical goods when I'm not using them.

    (I hope you'll forgive me if I don't take seriously anything said through an organisation set up by a tosser like Oliver North and reported by Fox News.)
     
  10. .Andy macrumors 68030

    .Andy

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2004
    Location:
    The Mergui Archipelago
    #10
    Why does using resources automatically make the earth "worse"? Plants use carbon dioxide, water, nutrients, and elements. Do they make the earth "worse"?
     
  11. MacNut macrumors Core

    MacNut

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2002
    Location:
    CT
    #11
    Plants also provide resources, we don't. We need plants to survive. We are using it faster then it can be produced.
     
  12. chrmjenkins macrumors 603

    chrmjenkins

    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2007
    Location:
    CA
    #12
    We don't provide resources? There goes my plans to start a worm farm when I die :(
     
  13. MacNut macrumors Core

    MacNut

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2002
    Location:
    CT
    #13
    What if you are cremated?
     
  14. .Andy macrumors 68030

    .Andy

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2004
    Location:
    The Mergui Archipelago
    #14
    Which going back to my original post is that it entirely depends on what the living thing is. Making blanket statements like this are false;
    Unless in one's subjective opinion the earth is worse with any life on it.

    Carbon dioxide and water as well as a bit of left over carbon, and potash and trace elements. All useful to plants and microorganisms :). But your point is taken that the net result, irrespective of if one cremated or buried, is a deficit resources.
     
  15. MacNut macrumors Core

    MacNut

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2002
    Location:
    CT
    #15
    The problem is that as we continue to expand as a species we will out stretch the Earths ability to mend itself. We can find alternatives to energy but in time those alternates will also cause problems.
     
  16. chrmjenkins macrumors 603

    chrmjenkins

    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2007
    Location:
    CA
    #16
    Don't worry, I was only joking with a minor exception :D

    Really, all alternative energy solutions cause problems? (don't include dirty manufacturing to get the resources and produce them because eventually the clean energy can be fed back into the cycle).
     
  17. MacNut macrumors Core

    MacNut

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2002
    Location:
    CT
    #17
    The one that comes to mind at the moment is Bio-Diesel. I think long term it will hurt us unless we find something better. We are still years off of true clean energy sources and still longer to get it wide spread.
     
  18. chrmjenkins macrumors 603

    chrmjenkins

    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2007
    Location:
    CA
    #18
    That's one-- I said all. On top of that, why will bio-diesel hurt us?
     
  19. MacNut macrumors Core

    MacNut

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2002
    Location:
    CT
    #19
    The amounts of corn needed to be produced.

    Like I said I think there will be better ways in the future. But the best way is just to conserve.
     
  20. Counterfit macrumors G3

    Counterfit

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2003
    Location:
    sitting on your shoulder
    #20
    If they were only going to save $102 over an hour, they must either be really efficient already, or really empty by 8:30.
     
  21. FX120 macrumors 65816

    FX120

    Joined:
    May 18, 2007
    #21
    The same thing that would happen if you had decomposed naturally, only with more CO2 and less solids.
     
  22. Abstract macrumors Penryn

    Abstract

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2002
    Location:
    Location Location Location
    #22
    Of course a 1 hour blackout wouldn't have saved $81,000 in electricity. The $102 sounds possible, but anyone who actually believed the $81,000 figure would probably believe anything they read.


    Anyway, what does the amount of monetary savings have to do with this topic? :confused: It's irrelevant. Businesses and government buildings that participated in Earth Hour were doing it for concern of the environment, and political reasons, not because of the several hundred dollars they'll save in electricity.

    People always bring up money and how they won't save a lot of money if they go green, but I believe, or want to believe, that people are doing it because of their concern for the environment, and that a slight price difference isn't going to sway them if they have the money to afford it. I find that only really mainstream media try to make it appear as though a person's biggest concern regarding things like energy efficient lightbulbs is how much extra a more efficient lightbulb is going to cost initially, when I feel that most people who do it aren't going to change their mind because the efficient lightbulb cost an extra dollar.



    No, the Earth won't suddenly explode, so we're not really doing it for its sake. We're doing it for our sake --- for self-preservation.

    However, I do believe that what we're doing now is causing this, despite the lack of any clear, direct link. Besides, if we do nothing until we're absolutely certain of all the facts, and it turns out that climate change is caused by humans, we wouldn't realize this until we were all dead. I'd rather err on the side of caution.
     
  23. FX120 macrumors 65816

    FX120

    Joined:
    May 18, 2007
    #23
    Most people don't seem to understand that power plants are not load-dependant, and whether the lights in your house are on or not, are producing the same ammount of electricity that they produced yesterday, based on current useage trends.

    I just wish that the proponents of Earth Hour would do a better job informing people that it is just a political guesture, instead of running around claiming to have saved x tonnes of carbon dioxide from being released like they do now, when the reality is that there is virtually no real savings because power production can't adapt to a single one-hour long break in consumption.

    Personally I would rather see the non-essential lighting be turned off permanently if it is such an important issue.

    But they won't, because using 350kW to light up the Eiffel Tower is compeletley worth it to many people.
     
  24. Sedulous macrumors 68000

    Sedulous

    Joined:
    Dec 10, 2002
    #24
    As others have pointed out, it is about awareness. We waste a lot of energy.
     

Share This Page