8 ms·

Earth Hour is a colossal waste of time — and energy

96 points by ValentineC 14y ago

chris_wot 14y ago
"Today, we produce only a small fraction of the energy that we need from solar and wind—0.7 percent from wind and just 0.1 percent from solar. These technologies currently are too expensive. They are also unreliable (we still have no idea what to do when the wind is not blowing). Even with optimistic assumptions, the International Energy Agency estimates that, by 2035, we will produce just 2.4 percent of our energy from wind and 0.8 percent from solar." That's just one massive wall of text that needs numerous {{Fact}} tags slapped onto it. Something every "climate change skeptic" seems to frequently require when they quote "facts" or "statistics". "Today, we produce only a small fraction of the energy that we need from solar and wind—0.7 percent from wind and just 0.1 percent from solar." - source? And why is that - is it possible that's because there are less solar and wind farms than there are other energy sources? "These technologies currently are too expensive." - source? A few issues: governments are introducing carbon taxes to take into account the impact of sources that produce carbon in the atmosphere. The technology has been used for some time, but further research is and will increasingly reducing the cost of photovoltaics and other renewable, less carbon polluting energy sources. "They are also unreliable (we still have no idea what to do when the wind is not blowing)." He conveniently only mentions wind, no mention of why solar is so unreliable. No mention of geothermal, or even biomass. Perhaps he should also look at energy spot markets a little more to see how the real energy market works. "Even with optimistic assumptions, the International Energy Agency estimates that, by 2035, we will produce just 2.4 percent of our energy from wind and 0.8 percent from solar. Seriously, [citation needed].
- chris_wot 14y ago
  Incidentally, he's definitely right that Earth Hour doesn't really do anything to help climate change. No argument from me there. It's a Sydney Morning Herald publicity stunt.
- varjag 14y ago
  Wind farms in Northern Europe likely wouldn't break even without government subsidies. The maintenance of turbines, especially off-shore ones, is very expensive. They are also quite pricey per unit for relatively humble power output.
- sageikosa 14y ago
  > governments are introducing carbon taxes to take into account the impact of sources that produce carbon in the atmosphere That doesn't make the other sources less expensive. It makes the current sources more expensive. If this were a zero sum "game", great. However, more money chasing less efficient energy sources means less money chasing more efficient and less carbon intensive energy sources such as nuclear.
  - chris_wot 14y ago
    That doesn't make sense. A carbon tax allows for the development of nuclear energy, as it should reduce overall costs as less carbon is emitted in the atmosphere. I fail to see how you jump from the assertion that there are less efficient energy to the conclusion that more efficient energy sources will be ignored because of a carbon tax.
- jd 14y ago
  > "Even with optimistic assumptions, the International Energy Agency estimates that, by 2035, we will produce just 2.4 percent of our energy from wind and 0.8 percent from solar." Seriously, [citation needed]. Okay, so I actually looked it up, and your hunch is correct. According to the International Energy Agency's "World Energy Outlook 2012": "A steady increase in hydropower and the rapid expansion of wind and solar power has cemented the position of renewables as an indispensable part of the global energy mix; by 2035, renewables account for almost one-third of total electricity output.", [1], page 6 Also, from their FAQ[2]: > How much of the world's energy comes from renewable sources? "In 2009, the world relied on renewable sources for around 13.1% of its primary energy supply, according to IEA statistics. Renewables accounted for 19.5% of global electricity generation and 3% of global energy consumption for road transport in the same year." So it looks like the Slate article is grossly misleading. [1] http://www.iea.org/publications/freepublications/publication/English.pdf http://www.iea.org/publications/freepublications/publication... [2] http://www.iea.org/aboutus/faqs/renewableenergy/ http://www.iea.org/aboutus/faqs/renewableenergy/
  - sageikosa 14y ago
    Not sure if those statements are in disagreement. Hydropower could easily be the missing 30%, especially with Chinese hydro-power increases. The original statement only referenced solar and wind.
    - pyre 14y ago
      If that's the case, then it's grossly misleading. Only quoting numbers for some of the renewable energy sources while decrying all renewable energy sources (because the ones that you left out don't support your argument)?
      - varjag 14y ago
        It's not really misleading, as he explicitly quoted data for solar and wind. That aside, very few renewable energy advocates are pro hydro dams - that ugly duckling of renewable energy who is never at the table but does all the job.
- Guvante 14y ago
  Keep in mind that all of these discussions tend to jump between definitions of Energy. For instance he may have been quoting total energy usage, which includes things like fuel for cars, while you may be thinking of electricity usage. Similarly there are several categories of consumption, which can also be used to skew numbers one way or the other.
lukasLansky 14y ago
The same argument goes for Mother's day. Why be nice for one day? Does it really make a difference? :-) The value is symbolic. Participation is a reminder and a statement.
- icebraining 14y ago
  Well, if on Mother's Day we were actually hurting them, I think the same argument would in fact apply.
  - notmarkus 14y ago
    The article doesn't succeed, in my opinion, in making the argument that more CO2 is produced. "during Earth Hour, any significant drop in electricity demand will entail a reduction in CO2 emissions during the hour, but it will be offset by the surge from firing up coal or gas stations to restore electricity supplies afterward." Note: Offset. Not negated. "And the cozy candles that many participants will light, which seem so natural and environmentally friendly, are still fossil fuels—and almost 100 times less efficient than incandescent light bulbs. Using one candle for each switched-off bulb cancels out even the theoretical CO2 reduction; using two candles means that you emit more CO2." So if you use a candle and if you use more than one candle for every single light switched off, then you're emitting more CO2.
    - Sunlis 14y ago
      The author also doesn't specify if he's counting bulbs that were already switched off. There are dozens of bulbs in my house, but only a few on at a time.
- Wintamute 14y ago
  But how valuable is that sort of symbolic gesture? If it actually makes people in the 1st world congratulate themselves that they've made a difference by flicking a switch, and then continue as normal as if everything is fine, then it might even have negative value. I don't agree with much of the article, it's quite wooly, but this point was the most valid/interesting part and I think you might have missed it.
EiZei 14y ago
While I do think Germany's energy policy is colossally stupid it does bug me that this article cites a not-so-reputable institute: http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Institute_for_Energy_Research http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Institute_for_Ene...
- chris_wot 14y ago
  He's a climate change "skeptic". Did you expect anything less?
  - SquareWheel 14y ago
    I wish pseudo-scientists didn't use that word. It makes all of us that identify as skeptics look bad.
    - chris_wot 14y ago
      The best sort of skeptic is the one who is skeptical of skeptics. This causes a few self-referential problems, but nobody said life was meant to be easy. Least of all for skeptics.
cormullion 14y ago
A better read on the subject: http://enochthered.wordpress.com/2008/03/31/earth-hour-candles-and-carbon/ http://enochthered.wordpress.com/2008/03/31/earth-hour-candl...
tobiasu 14y ago
Other articles by the author: http://www.slate.com/authors.bjrn_lomborg.html http://www.slate.com/authors.bjrn_lomborg.html Now, where did I put my salt.
- niggler 14y ago
  He also wrote "the skeptical environmentalist"
- JPKab 14y ago
  He's pretty infamous as the "Global Warming won't be that bad" guy. It reminds me of a favorite scene from the animated show 'King of the Hill': Dale(conservitive redneck friend): Global warming? Who cares? We'll grow oranges in Alaska. Hank Hill : Goddammit Dale. We live in Texas. It's 110 degrees in April. If it gets 1 degree hotter, I'm gonna kick your ass.
- jff 14y ago
  omg, ad hominem, yarble garble!
knowaveragejoe 14y ago
I'd say this article teaches all the wrong "lessens", personally.
p6v53as 14y ago
Earth hour is just a way to draw attention to the subject.
- chris_wot 14y ago
  I'm pretty sure that most of us are aware of the subject by now.
- VLM 14y ago
  It failed, I hadn't heard about it until this HN story. It looks very "hallmark holiday".
vacri 14y ago
The author is encouraged to leave all his lights on at home, and activate all appliances 24/7, regardless of whether he's home or not, as a celebration of all the wonders that electricity does for us. I doubt he will have a problem, given that efficiency is not a concern for him (perhaps mute the TV when sleeping, and perhaps turn off the food processor to keep things a little quieter for naptime).
- uvdiv 14y ago
  That's "Human Achievement Hour": http://cei.org/hah http://cei.org/hah I doubt he will have a problem, given that efficiency is not a concern for him Except one hour of this costs essentially nothing, just like one hour of "earth hour" saves a negligible amount of money (if any). They're both purely symbolic gestures. :)
  - deleted 14y ago
    [deleted]
  - deleted 14y ago
    [deleted]
  - vacri 14y ago
    The author isn't just about the one hour of Earth Hour, he's against everything it represents - which for the most part, is efficient use of energy. I'm just saying he should put his money where his mouth is.
- cobrausn 14y ago
  I'm reminded of this tweet from John Carmack. https://twitter.com/ID_AA_Carmack/status/185757996473790464 https://twitter.com/ID_AA_Carmack/status/185757996473790464 John Carmack ‏@ID_AA_Carmack I’m going to turn on every damn light in protest of Earth Hour. Lighting the darkness is fundamental to humanity's climb.
gordaco 14y ago
Solar and wind energy are doing very well in Spain: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renewable_energy_in_Spain http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renewable_energy_in_Spain. There is a lot of FUD about the need of subsidizing, but it seems that the technology is already mature enough, and subsidies are not necessary any more: http://electricidadsostenible.blogspot.com.es/2012/12/espana-la-energia-solar-fotovoltaica-es.html http://electricidadsostenible.blogspot.com.es/2012/12/espana... (link in Spanish, sorry).
mikeash 14y ago
Does anybody actually think that turning off the lights for an hour makes any kind of difference? Seems like this author is attacking a straw man.
- macspoofing 14y ago
  There's probably one or two people who may believe that, but I think most of us see it as a symbolic gesture. Yeah, he is attacking a straw man.
- gojomo 14y ago
  People seem to think 'symbolic' gestures are important. Is there any evidence that they are? I suspect they actually replace meaningful gestures, satisfying a person's need to affiliate with 'right-thinking' without paying any real cost or making any real difference. Without rigorous grounding in results, their popularization could thus make the associated problems worse. Symbolic gestures may kill us all!
- upnorthkid 14y ago
  I don't think the point of earth hour is to make any kind of difference. I think it's more for awareness, lights are a visual guide to power consumption, if the whole city loses power first thing you notice are the lights.
pessimizer 14y ago
I wonder what formula he's using for kWh -> "servant" conversions?
- uvdiv 14y ago
  The naive one that measures the average heat output of a human (about 100 watts, or 2,000 kilocalories/day). This an upper bound on mechanical work.
macspoofing 14y ago
I agree with the author that turning lights off for an hour, once a year, has negligible (if any) impact on the environment or global warming, but I see Earth Hour as a symbolic action that raises awareness of an important issue and is a very nice international gesture of solidarity.
rwallace 14y ago
Symbolic gestures are all very well, but real gestures, however small, are a lot better. Here's a few ideas off the top of my head for things you could do on Saturday instead of turning off the lights for an hour: - If you still use incandescent bulbs, buy some fluorescent or LED bulbs to replace them. - If you heat your house in winter, and it's not well insulated, look up options for getting better insulation put in. - If you're in the habit of driving when you could have walked or used public transport, try one of those alternatives. - If you eat meat, try a vegetarian dinner on Saturday. Any other ideas?
- Zecc 14y ago
  If you usually avoid the first unheated water coming out of the pipes before your morning shower, collect it in a bucket. You can then use it for flushing the toilet, or whatever.
jt2190 14y ago
Slate just syndicated this article: http://www.project-syndicate.org/print/earth-hour-s-counterproductive-symbolism-by-bj-rn-lomborg http://www.project-syndicate.org/print/earth-hour-s-counterp...
asciimo 14y ago
After soundly drubbing the effectiveness of this symbolic event, the author finally suggests an alternative activity: "Focusing on green R&D might not feel as good as participating in a global gabfest with flashlights and good intentions, but it is a much brighter idea." ... with no information about how the average consumer is supposed to "focus."

96 points by ValentineC 14y ago

"Today, we produce only a small fraction of the energy that we need from solar and wind—0.7 percent from wind and just 0.1 percent from solar. These technologies currently are too expensive. They are also unreliable (we still have no idea what to do when the wind is not blowing). Even with optimistic assumptions, the International Energy Agency estimates that, by 2035, we will produce just 2.4 percent of our energy from wind and 0.8 percent from solar." That's just one massive wall of text that needs numerous {{Fact}} tags slapped onto it. Something every "climate change skeptic" seems to frequently require when they quote "facts" or "statistics". "Today, we produce only a small fraction of the energy that we need from solar and wind—0.7 percent from wind and just 0.1 percent from solar." - source? And why is that - is it possible that's because there are less solar and wind farms than there are other energy sources? "These technologies currently are too expensive." - source? A few issues: governments are introducing carbon taxes to take into account the impact of sources that produce carbon in the atmosphere. The technology has been used for some time, but further research is and will increasingly reducing the cost of photovoltaics and other renewable, less carbon polluting energy sources. "They are also unreliable (we still have no idea what to do when the wind is not blowing)." He conveniently only mentions wind, no mention of why solar is so unreliable. No mention of geothermal, or even biomass. Perhaps he should also look at energy spot markets a little more to see how the real energy market works. "Even with optimistic assumptions, the International Energy Agency estimates that, by 2035, we will produce just 2.4 percent of our energy from wind and 0.8 percent from solar. Seriously, [citation needed].

chris_wot 14y ago
Incidentally, he's definitely right that Earth Hour doesn't really do anything to help climate change. No argument from me there. It's a Sydney Morning Herald publicity stunt.
varjag 14y ago
Wind farms in Northern Europe likely wouldn't break even without government subsidies. The maintenance of turbines, especially off-shore ones, is very expensive. They are also quite pricey per unit for relatively humble power output.
sageikosa 14y ago
> governments are introducing carbon taxes to take into account the impact of sources that produce carbon in the atmosphere That doesn't make the other sources less expensive. It makes the current sources more expensive. If this were a zero sum "game", great. However, more money chasing less efficient energy sources means less money chasing more efficient and less carbon intensive energy sources such as nuclear.
- chris_wot 14y ago
  That doesn't make sense. A carbon tax allows for the development of nuclear energy, as it should reduce overall costs as less carbon is emitted in the atmosphere. I fail to see how you jump from the assertion that there are less efficient energy to the conclusion that more efficient energy sources will be ignored because of a carbon tax.
jd 14y ago
> "Even with optimistic assumptions, the International Energy Agency estimates that, by 2035, we will produce just 2.4 percent of our energy from wind and 0.8 percent from solar." Seriously, [citation needed]. Okay, so I actually looked it up, and your hunch is correct. According to the International Energy Agency's "World Energy Outlook 2012": "A steady increase in hydropower and the rapid expansion of wind and solar power has cemented the position of renewables as an indispensable part of the global energy mix; by 2035, renewables account for almost one-third of total electricity output.", [1], page 6 Also, from their FAQ[2]: > How much of the world's energy comes from renewable sources? "In 2009, the world relied on renewable sources for around 13.1% of its primary energy supply, according to IEA statistics. Renewables accounted for 19.5% of global electricity generation and 3% of global energy consumption for road transport in the same year." So it looks like the Slate article is grossly misleading. [1] http://www.iea.org/publications/freepublications/publication/English.pdf http://www.iea.org/publications/freepublications/publication... [2] http://www.iea.org/aboutus/faqs/renewableenergy/ http://www.iea.org/aboutus/faqs/renewableenergy/
- sageikosa 14y ago
  Not sure if those statements are in disagreement. Hydropower could easily be the missing 30%, especially with Chinese hydro-power increases. The original statement only referenced solar and wind.
  - pyre 14y ago
    If that's the case, then it's grossly misleading. Only quoting numbers for some of the renewable energy sources while decrying all renewable energy sources (because the ones that you left out don't support your argument)?
    - varjag 14y ago
      It's not really misleading, as he explicitly quoted data for solar and wind. That aside, very few renewable energy advocates are pro hydro dams - that ugly duckling of renewable energy who is never at the table but does all the job.
Guvante 14y ago
Keep in mind that all of these discussions tend to jump between definitions of Energy. For instance he may have been quoting total energy usage, which includes things like fuel for cars, while you may be thinking of electricity usage. Similarly there are several categories of consumption, which can also be used to skew numbers one way or the other.

lukasLansky 14y ago

The same argument goes for Mother's day. Why be nice for one day? Does it really make a difference? :-) The value is symbolic. Participation is a reminder and a statement.

icebraining 14y ago
Well, if on Mother's Day we were actually hurting them, I think the same argument would in fact apply.
- notmarkus 14y ago
  The article doesn't succeed, in my opinion, in making the argument that more CO2 is produced. "during Earth Hour, any significant drop in electricity demand will entail a reduction in CO2 emissions during the hour, but it will be offset by the surge from firing up coal or gas stations to restore electricity supplies afterward." Note: Offset. Not negated. "And the cozy candles that many participants will light, which seem so natural and environmentally friendly, are still fossil fuels—and almost 100 times less efficient than incandescent light bulbs. Using one candle for each switched-off bulb cancels out even the theoretical CO2 reduction; using two candles means that you emit more CO2." So if you use a candle and if you use more than one candle for every single light switched off, then you're emitting more CO2.
  - Sunlis 14y ago
    The author also doesn't specify if he's counting bulbs that were already switched off. There are dozens of bulbs in my house, but only a few on at a time.
Wintamute 14y ago
But how valuable is that sort of symbolic gesture? If it actually makes people in the 1st world congratulate themselves that they've made a difference by flicking a switch, and then continue as normal as if everything is fine, then it might even have negative value. I don't agree with much of the article, it's quite wooly, but this point was the most valid/interesting part and I think you might have missed it.

EiZei 14y ago

While I do think Germany's energy policy is colossally stupid it does bug me that this article cites a not-so-reputable institute: http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Institute_for_Energy_Research http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Institute_for_Ene...

chris_wot 14y ago
He's a climate change "skeptic". Did you expect anything less?
- SquareWheel 14y ago
  I wish pseudo-scientists didn't use that word. It makes all of us that identify as skeptics look bad.
  - chris_wot 14y ago
    The best sort of skeptic is the one who is skeptical of skeptics. This causes a few self-referential problems, but nobody said life was meant to be easy. Least of all for skeptics.

cormullion 14y ago

A better read on the subject: http://enochthered.wordpress.com/2008/03/31/earth-hour-candles-and-carbon/ http://enochthered.wordpress.com/2008/03/31/earth-hour-candl...

tobiasu 14y ago

Other articles by the author: http://www.slate.com/authors.bjrn_lomborg.html http://www.slate.com/authors.bjrn_lomborg.html Now, where did I put my salt.

niggler 14y ago
He also wrote "the skeptical environmentalist"
JPKab 14y ago
He's pretty infamous as the "Global Warming won't be that bad" guy. It reminds me of a favorite scene from the animated show 'King of the Hill': Dale(conservitive redneck friend): Global warming? Who cares? We'll grow oranges in Alaska. Hank Hill : Goddammit Dale. We live in Texas. It's 110 degrees in April. If it gets 1 degree hotter, I'm gonna kick your ass.
jff 14y ago
omg, ad hominem, yarble garble!

knowaveragejoe 14y ago

I'd say this article teaches all the wrong "lessens", personally.

p6v53as 14y ago

Earth hour is just a way to draw attention to the subject.

chris_wot 14y ago
I'm pretty sure that most of us are aware of the subject by now.
VLM 14y ago
It failed, I hadn't heard about it until this HN story. It looks very "hallmark holiday".

vacri 14y ago

The author is encouraged to leave all his lights on at home, and activate all appliances 24/7, regardless of whether he's home or not, as a celebration of all the wonders that electricity does for us. I doubt he will have a problem, given that efficiency is not a concern for him (perhaps mute the TV when sleeping, and perhaps turn off the food processor to keep things a little quieter for naptime).

uvdiv 14y ago
That's "Human Achievement Hour": http://cei.org/hah http://cei.org/hah I doubt he will have a problem, given that efficiency is not a concern for him Except one hour of this costs essentially nothing, just like one hour of "earth hour" saves a negligible amount of money (if any). They're both purely symbolic gestures. :)
- deleted 14y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 14y ago
  [deleted]
- vacri 14y ago
  The author isn't just about the one hour of Earth Hour, he's against everything it represents - which for the most part, is efficient use of energy. I'm just saying he should put his money where his mouth is.
cobrausn 14y ago
I'm reminded of this tweet from John Carmack. https://twitter.com/ID_AA_Carmack/status/185757996473790464 https://twitter.com/ID_AA_Carmack/status/185757996473790464 John Carmack ‏@ID_AA_Carmack I’m going to turn on every damn light in protest of Earth Hour. Lighting the darkness is fundamental to humanity's climb.

gordaco 14y ago

Solar and wind energy are doing very well in Spain: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renewable_energy_in_Spain http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renewable_energy_in_Spain. There is a lot of FUD about the need of subsidizing, but it seems that the technology is already mature enough, and subsidies are not necessary any more: http://electricidadsostenible.blogspot.com.es/2012/12/espana-la-energia-solar-fotovoltaica-es.html http://electricidadsostenible.blogspot.com.es/2012/12/espana... (link in Spanish, sorry).

mikeash 14y ago

Does anybody actually think that turning off the lights for an hour makes any kind of difference? Seems like this author is attacking a straw man.

macspoofing 14y ago
There's probably one or two people who may believe that, but I think most of us see it as a symbolic gesture. Yeah, he is attacking a straw man.
gojomo 14y ago
People seem to think 'symbolic' gestures are important. Is there any evidence that they are? I suspect they actually replace meaningful gestures, satisfying a person's need to affiliate with 'right-thinking' without paying any real cost or making any real difference. Without rigorous grounding in results, their popularization could thus make the associated problems worse. Symbolic gestures may kill us all!
upnorthkid 14y ago
I don't think the point of earth hour is to make any kind of difference. I think it's more for awareness, lights are a visual guide to power consumption, if the whole city loses power first thing you notice are the lights.

pessimizer 14y ago

I wonder what formula he's using for kWh -> "servant" conversions?

uvdiv 14y ago
The naive one that measures the average heat output of a human (about 100 watts, or 2,000 kilocalories/day). This an upper bound on mechanical work.

macspoofing 14y ago

I agree with the author that turning lights off for an hour, once a year, has negligible (if any) impact on the environment or global warming, but I see Earth Hour as a symbolic action that raises awareness of an important issue and is a very nice international gesture of solidarity.

rwallace 14y ago

Symbolic gestures are all very well, but real gestures, however small, are a lot better. Here's a few ideas off the top of my head for things you could do on Saturday instead of turning off the lights for an hour: - If you still use incandescent bulbs, buy some fluorescent or LED bulbs to replace them. - If you heat your house in winter, and it's not well insulated, look up options for getting better insulation put in. - If you're in the habit of driving when you could have walked or used public transport, try one of those alternatives. - If you eat meat, try a vegetarian dinner on Saturday. Any other ideas?

Zecc 14y ago
If you usually avoid the first unheated water coming out of the pipes before your morning shower, collect it in a bucket. You can then use it for flushing the toilet, or whatever.

jt2190 14y ago

Slate just syndicated this article: http://www.project-syndicate.org/print/earth-hour-s-counterproductive-symbolism-by-bj-rn-lomborg http://www.project-syndicate.org/print/earth-hour-s-counterp...

asciimo 14y ago

After soundly drubbing the effectiveness of this symbolic event, the author finally suggests an alternative activity: "Focusing on green R&D might not feel as good as participating in a global gabfest with flashlights and good intentions, but it is a much brighter idea." ... with no information about how the average consumer is supposed to "focus."