
If I'm constantly running a refrigerator, heat, computer, and the old blinking VCR clock, then wouldn't it make sense to unplug all of that stuff on a regular basis (maybe not the fridge...) instead of just out'ning the lights for an hour tomorrow? Plus, what I'll probably do is turn out the lights at home and then go somewhere where there is plentiful electricity, like Bingo at the Republican Club.
Then, the Earth Hour activities include blogging, videoing, posting your Earth Hour experience. So, don't tweet for one hour, and film yourself doing stuff, and then at 9:30 get back online using electricity and post like crazy in a big surge. That's just silly.
But I do get it, and I like how it's calling attention to the big issue of global warming. Last year it was illuminating yet confusing saying stuff like we can decrease our one-day energy use by 10% by turning off lights for an hour, temporarily decreasing carbon emissions.
But today, I don't get this: "This year, Earth Hour has been transformed into the world’s first global election, between Earth and global warming."
So, if I go to a brightly lit bingo hall or movie theatre, whose lights are not going to dim, then we're all voting for global warming. But if I sit home in the dark, I'm voting for the Earth. Who's counting the ballots? And if you decide to be all natureboy, make a bonfire and dance around it and pretend you're at Burning Man, you know you're generating carbon that way, too.
The Golden Gate Bridge and the Empire State Building will go dark, which is amazing. I just hope people don't start looting in the darkness.
OK, OK, I get that it's about the symbolism and keeping up the awareness, so that Global Warming eclipses The Economy and The War in our minds for a moment. I buy that.
Comments