World Wide Power Off

If this exercise did no more than bring peoples attention to a world wide problem then it has been a great sucess. By the simple fact that this is the 106th post on this thread alone proves this point. There were polititians, lord mayors etc making speeches in the dark last night surely that proves that the attention has been drawn to a problem that exists and wont be fixed unless governments and industry does something about it.

To make people aware and talking about global problems has to be a good thing. Next start on world povity.

Most of you people complaining about this idea are probably saving up (accumulating) money or assets that they will leave to their children/decendance (inheritance) so why not leave them a better country to live in.

There are farmers around Australia that are worried about the condition of the soil (salinity problems mostly) that they are going to pass onto the next generation. Water available for farmers kids is another problem especially in the irrigation areas. Doesn't this fit into the same bracket, a farm is no good if there is no rain to grow things (climate change).

Maybe the benifits are a lot deeper than we really realise.

(david gets off soap box)

I guess it's just as well that it didn't make any real difference, Al.

If it did, then a lot of people would be labelled as eco-terrorists and ASIO'd be working overtime. "Why weren't your lights on at 8PM on Saturday? Have you ever been to..." :roll:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by astrid

So non of you guys believe anything is achieved by organised protest.
because thats what it was.

ask Gandi, Lech Welesa, Nelson Mandela, Etc

Astrid

---

Hi Astrid

please dont compare an hour without light with what Gandhi etc had suffered. This was just another rich western feel good excercise that achieves nothing but, well, feel goodedness:rolleyes:.

Unlike Rod, I believe that global warming is occurring and that man is a huge factor in releasing excess carbon into the atmosphere thus increasing it.

I dont support Earthhour because it trivialises the situation and gives the impression that simple measures will help. It also lets the govt off the hook - "well we had earthhour, were doing our bit"

Did we see the irony in people eating out at restuarants by candlelight......how was thier food cooked (gas or ELECTRICITY), how did they get there (car or bus or train, few would have walked)....see..rubbish.

Sadly we are too stupid a species that can be conned by rubbish like this so that as a community we dont have to make the hard decisions.

Message to Lauren.

Good on you Lauren for taking the future of mankind seriously. I applaud you for wanting to raise awareness of the situation.

You and your friends are the future of mankind.

But remember two things;

1. Just because it feels good doesnt make it right.
2. Independant investigation of truth. Never swallow what your told but put it on a balance beam and determine for yourself where the truth lies.

Cheers

dazzler

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by astrid

So non of you guys believe anything is achieved by organised protest.
because thats what it was.

ask Gandi, Lech Welesa, Nelson Mandela, Etc

Astrid

---

:no: absolutely squat, comparing your protest to Ghandi (like Dazzlwer wrote) :no: way there's a comparison there. So now that you've had your one hour crusade, is that it until next year's warm fuzzies, or will you adopt this practice ever on?



:D

Still can't work out where "Light up for Christmas" fits into the "big picture" of global warming......... :no:
Jim

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by powderpost

Still can't work out where "Light up for Christmas" fits into the "big picture" of global warming......... :no:
Jim

---

I think the council was being sarcastic to the street that didnt participate. :~

Anyone who thinks that turning the lights off for an hour has/will save the planet is wearing serious blinkers.
Anyone who thinks that the "Earth hour" exercise didn't help raise awareness of global warming is about as bright as a 25watt bulb.
Anyone who can't see that global warming is now a fact is seriously challenged in the brain cell department!

It's not a question of whether it raises awareness or not, of course it does. It's the fact that it's portrayed as actually doing anything about the problem, rather than just being a token symbolic gesture. The problem is that people will walk away from it thinking they've actually done their bit, when in fact all they have done is contributed to excess clouds of steam in the atmosphere above all the power stations. The coal had already been burnt.

If they could find a way to get people to reduce demand consistently in the long term, then they might be actually making a difference, but how many people left the lights off?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by silentC

It's not a question of whether it raises awareness or not, of course it does. It's the fact that it's portrayed as actually doing anything about the problem, rather than just being a token symbolic gesture. The problem is that people will walk away from it thinking they've actually done their bit, when in fact all they have done is contributed to excess clouds of steam in the atmosphere above all the power stations. The coal had already been burnt.

If they could find a way to get people to reduce demand consistently in the long term, then they might be actually making a difference, but how many people left the lights off?

---

:brava:

What I want to know is what did the CO2 emissions from all the candles that where lit during earth hour did to the ozone layer

This is the type of claim I'm talking about. From the SMH:

Quote:

---

Although the event is intended to be symbolic - empowering political leaders to act against climate change and encouraging people to always save energy - the national drop in power use during Earth Hour was the equivalent of taking a large coal-fired power station off-line for an hour.

---

I don't know much about power generation but everyone I've spoken to who claims to says that it's not possible to just 'switch off' a power station. They work by anticipating demand and excess mechanical force has to be dispersed some other way if the power is not being used. Most coal power stations run the generators by creating steam which powers turbines. The steam is created by heating water by burning coal. If there is more steam than is required for the power being generated and used, the steam is vented. That means the coal was already burnt, so nothing was saved at all.

I've got no problem with the rest of the message, which is a good one. But BS doesn't help anyone and just gives cynics (like me) a reason to criticise them for what is probably otherwise a very beneficial campaign.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Christopha

Anyone who can't see that global warming is now a fact is seriously challenged in the brain cell department!

---

Theres a few of us.....:;

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brickie

Theres a few of us.....:;

---

I rest my case.....

On the contrary Christopha I would say anyone who believes in AGW is a sheep meekly following the crowd who have put their trust in a theory that CANNOT be proven but driven by a media circus where truth cant get in the way of a good story. Picked up on by do good politicians that see the only way to power or stay in power is to follow the mass hysteria.

No doubt they will have an exit strategy when the tide of public opinion changes, as more scientific facts disproving the AGW theory are supported by emperical evidence that can no longer be denied or spun.

This is starting to happen already albeit slowly.

Most effects of AGW claims are based entirely on the premis that AGW WILL happen, giving them a huge scope to let thier imagination go wild, further fueling the media frenzy on "bad news" stories related to AGW.

Your fears will be gone with a few years of global cooling, which by the way will cause Joe Blow to start asking questions and look for answers, which he will find were there all along for those who choose to look.

Mind you it will take a while for some who refuse to believe that AGW might not be true. Then there will be those that will hang on refusing to accept that they were well and truly duped. Others just simply believe what they read in the papers and will easily morph to the other side claiming they never believed in it in the first place.

Lets see what the future brings, increacing global temperatures, stable global temperatures or declining global temperatures. On thing we can be certain of which ever way the temperatures go there will be INCREACED levels of CO2 every year. Nothing is going to prevent co2 levels rising. My tip is slight global cooling for the next 5 years whats yours?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rod@plasterbrok

This is starting to happen already albeit slowly.

Most effects of AGW claims are based entirely on the premis that AGW WILL happen, giving them a huge scope to let thier imagination go wild, further fueling the media frenzy on "bad news" stories related to AGW.

Your fears will be gone with a few years of global cooling, which by the way will cause Joe Blow to start asking questions and look for answers, which he will find were there all along for those who choose to look.

---

rod@plasterbrok

What planet are you from or what are you smoking?

Melbourne has never had water restrictions since 1956 uintil now.

Ballarat is renowned for being the coldest wettest place in Victoria (well nearly) and the lake is dry. The water resavoirs which are in all major waterways are below 1/5th full and havent been over 1/3rd in the past 5 years.

Yes you can say we are going through a dry spell but we have never had a prolonged spell like this before. The snow feilds/season have never been so poor.

Get with the real world and face facts, our kids will not get too hose their concrete paths down like we all used to do.

Wake up and smell the flowers for god sake.