Very little of our electricity comes from fossil fuels here in Puget Sound. My provider is about 82 percent hydro, and about six percent coal. Earth Hour is significantly less meaningful here than in most places ... which is saying something.
Cross-posted on <pudge/*>.
Posted by pudge at March 28, 2009 08:10 PM | Email ThisThose who claim that we must cut off our carbon emissions to prevent an alleged global catastrophe need to learn the indisputable fact that cutting off our carbon emissions would be a global catastrophe. What we really need is greater awareness of just how indispensable carbon-based energy is to human life (including, of course, to our ability to cope with any changes in the climate).
It is true that the importance of Earth Hour is its symbolic meaning. But that meaning is the opposite of the one intended. The lights of our cities and monuments are a symbol of human achievement, of what mankind has accomplished in rising from the cave to the skyscraper. Earth Hour presents the disturbing spectacle of people celebrating those lights being extinguished. Its call for people to renounce energy and to rejoice at darkened skyscrapers makes its real meaning unmistakably clear: Earth Hour symbolizes the renunciation of industrial civilization.
http://www.aynrand.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=22887&news_iv_ctrl=1021
Posted by: Bill K. on March 28, 2009 09:33 PMI'm sure I offset dozens of idiots.
Posted by: deadwood on March 28, 2009 10:09 PMWhat happens if everybody uses less power? Does the power company raise its rates so it doesn't lose money? Does anybody remember the Pacific Northwest drought of about 1991, where people conserved so much water that the water company lost money and had to raise its rates in thanks for all our sacrifice?
What happens to the power we don't use? In some parts of the country, I suppose it means they burn less coal, but what about around here? Do they just spill more water over the tops of the dams? It's not like they have big battery banks to store electricity in when we don't use it.
Everywhere I go at night, closed businesses have all their lights left on. Lights blaze everywhere. How about 'turn off half your lights'! Or is that inviting criminals to take advantage of the dark?
We didn't turn our lights off any more than we usually do. But I try to turn them off when we're not needing them anyway. :P
Posted by: Angela in Bothell on March 28, 2009 10:55 PMI just had the mental image of Soundgarden screaming "LAME!" right as their lights go out.
Posted by: Mike H on March 28, 2009 11:47 PMI refuse to submit to cowardly symbolism of regression and submission. Especially when we sit on enough uranium to power our lives efficiently, cleanly and cheaply for centuries.
It's not about our environment or energy, it's about control and destruction of your freedom. Enjoy the light.
You really want to talk about what was "meant"? In the WWF's own words: "Switching off your lights is a vote for Earth, or leaving them on is a vote for global warming."
As far as evil rhetoric goes, that's at the top. This is not symbolic of betterment, it's one of the lowest and most despicable forms of rhetoric mankind has at its disposal. Literally, WWF is saying, "if you don't participate in our symbolic gesture than you hate the Earth."
Talk about complete and total crap. It's the AIDS ribbon all over again.
Obviously those of you who mock it as hyperbole are no doubt the greatest offenders.
Riiiiiiight. So if we say something that is OBVIOUSLY TRUE, then we are "offenders"? Joe McCarthy would be proud.
Your gluttoneous ways will come back to haunt you.
Your unintellectual ways are already haunt us.
All we expect from you is good home training, your rejection speaks loudly about your apparent life styles.
You're an idiot or a liar. Despite the evil rhetoric of the WWF, it is utterly irrational to say that rejection of a SYMBOL says ANYTHING about ANYONE'S lifestyle.
BRAVO! BIS! To Al Gore and all his mindless, bamboozled, take-urban-comfort-for-granted followers on down, let's see you try this. Walk the walk.
Oh, I forgot, Al Gore buys 'carbon credit' absolution for the obscene energy consumption of his mega-mansion. I expect his HVAC system was not shut down for the exhibitionist 'hour'. But maybe he can hire someone else to camp out for a month and live off the land on his behalf. And no wearing machine-made clothing or using machine-made tools and utensils while doing it, either.
Bill K has nailed it.
Posted by: Insufficiently Sensitive on March 29, 2009 09:25 AMIf you had anything to offer other than ad hominem, perhaps anyone here would care about what you say or think you a person with a valuable opinion.
Perhaps.
And judging by my neighbors and the neighborhood, everybody else felt the same way.
In short, nobody of consequence gives a damn about meaningless gestures and silly stunts.
Posted by: jimg on March 29, 2009 12:26 PMI read in the S.Times today that "progressive" is the new "liberal".
Now get with it! We don't want to make anybody feel bad, do we?
Posted by: deadwood on March 29, 2009 01:19 PMI get a kick out of the Dems new campaign to label Republicans as "the party of no".
I actually had that idea last year but it was the Dems that were "the party of no". I even suggested it to the Republican National Committee. If they had used to phrase to illustrate who the Democrats really are we might have won the election.
Liberals, Progressives, whatever they decide to call themselves this year have been saying "no" to energy development for years. They block nuclear power plants, oil refinaries, drilling offshore and in ANWR. They are trying to stop coal mining. They lie and say "wind and solar" are the answer to our energy needs and they know they are lying.
As a result of the Dems and the left in general we no longer do big things in this country. They'd have fought those dams tooth and nail. Heck some of them want to tear them down.
The Democrat Party used to be in favor of massive public works projects like Grand Coulee Dam and the Tennessee Valley Authority. Now they truly are "the party of no".
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on March 29, 2009 01:42 PMThey are the types that move forward the notion that liberalism is a mental disorder. Just read the Daily KOS, Huffington Post, Media Matters and other leftwing blogs to get a sample of their nauseating rhetoric and agenda.
Posted by: KS on March 29, 2009 01:43 PMWoodrow Wilson was pretty good at seizing private lives and property by governmental 'decree', too. Mussolini admired him. An entering wedge for the big-gummint all-knowing 'planners' who don't let trifling concepts like the Constitution interfere with their drive to take control of everyone along with their possessions. The Big Man of the moment.
Posted by: Insufficiently Sensitive on March 29, 2009 01:53 PMHypocrisy, thy name is DEMOCRAT!
HOPE AND CHANGE!
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on March 29, 2009 06:27 PMhttp://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/03/29/al-gore-snubs-earth-hour/#more-6636
The thing is, I doubt anyone likes wasting energy, and if there is a less expensive alternative that is reasonably convenient, even the most hardened right wing zealot is going to use it and does not need some sort of "guilt trip" program to try and get him/her to change.
Energy conservation that can show tangible benefits will be successful, most others will fail or worse, result in cures worse than the disease. Posters have already mentioned such cases.
Let's face it, places were there is copious energy usage are safe, comfortable and healthy places to live. Places where energy consumption is low are often poor, disease ridden and miserable places. Our goal should not be to get back to the stone ages but to use our technology to find new and better energy solutions.
The history of technology is full of positive innovation and one should expect a continuation along this line.
Posted by: Eyago on March 30, 2009 10:33 AMOil? No.
Solar? Not anymore
Wind? No.
Hydro? No.
Nuke? No
Coal? No?
Clean coal? No.
Hydrogen fuel cells? Well, once they find out that the emission from that is water vapor (which is actually a larger greenhouse gas than CO2) then
they will oppose that too. It's just not in use enough yet for them to target. You watch.
No sillier than turning them off.
First, there is no benefit to purposefully wasting energy as it will one, cost you money to do it, and tow, likely cost you more since high demand can often drive rates up.
First, there is no benefit to purposefully turning OFF your lights for that ONE HOUR, since it won't save you any significant amount of money or cost you any significant amount of CO2; and second, no, the demand is lower because of all the people turning them off.
You need to read more carefully. I'm on your side.
:)
Posted by: Eyago on March 30, 2009 11:36 AMOh, I see. Game over.
I agree that there are some radicals who are anti-progress and see any improvement in our lot as fostering the blight that is humanity. Most people just can't quite go that far. I am optimistic that most will discover the impracticality of blocking all forms of energy, but the pendulum might need so swing a little further before it starts coming back.
Funny thing is, humanity is a natural occurrence, no more or less natural then bears, humming birds, spotted owls or red algae, and whatever effect we have on the earth is just as natural as volcanoes, dandelions and butterflies. If we are the cause of a mass extinction like ones that supposedly happened several times in earth's history, why should we be any more at angst over that than a meteor strike or an Ebola outbreak? In a few million years the earth will find a new equilibrium and mayflies will be the new dominant lifeform until the next "reset". We are still less than a blink on the timescale (as is believed by all these greenies, anyway), so they really have no cause to get excited about mother earth who probably hasn't noticed our existence, nor ever will.
Posted by: Eyago on March 30, 2009 11:53 AM
But it seems many people have fallen for the global warming scam. If they fall for that, they'll fall for anything.
Again, I hope you are correct about people finally snapping out of this fugue that they're in.
Posted by: Gary on March 30, 2009 12:11 PMI told her that certain ducks spend summer near the artic circle. "Oh dear", she said, "are they affected by global warming?"
This nonsense is so pervasive, the brainwashing so complete, that nearly everyone has simply accepted it.
I could have told her that Spokane just had its coldest winter on record, and that last year Spokane's winter was the third coldest on record.
Speaking of brainwashing, my liberal sister is visiting with her 9-year old daughter. During our crab feed last night the dear 9-year old made a sneering reference to Sarah Palin. Sigh.
Also, I agree with Eyago in taking the long view and in counting on the common sense of our fellow citizens. Nobody really wants to live in some imaginary pastoral utopia, certainly not so-called progessives, who fill to overflowing most urban centers of this and many other civlized countries.
And Bill, have a hope that that child you met will have an awakening one day. I did.
Posted by: JW on March 30, 2009 02:00 PMPakistan is not a nuetral noncombatant. It's a haven for spillover terrorism. But it's a sovereign nation that our pacifist president, who is so much nicer than George W. Bush, wants to invade.
Those with long memories will note eerie similarities to Nixon and Cambodia, a "neutral" sanctuary for the VietCong. Nixon was wise to violate Cambodia's neutrality, since the Cong had done that already, but America's Donkey-Cong Democrat Left was oblivious to the complicated reality Nixon faced. Our left then saw only the evil of a wider war. Now our left sees ... nothing, apparently. Leftist Obama's widening of our war into northern Pakistan is invisible to our leftist left ... most of it.
And about left-wing pacifist Obama's diversion and redeployment of soldiers from JW's Iraq to our border with Mexico? Deafening silence. It's 1915-1916 once more, when pacific progressive Woodrow Wilson sent Pershing and Patton to invade Mexico, and our left is blind and deaf, still chanting about hope-and-change like groupies at a ParteiTag rally.
Posted by: Barack W. Obama on March 30, 2009 02:20 PMJust what is it you are trying to accomplish here? What is the benefit of purposely running up your electric bill in this fashion? If you think turning off the lights is a silly gesture, why is turning them all on any less silly. At least the folks who turn them off are saving money.
I didn't bother to turn mine off because I had other tasks to accomplish at the time. But I do turn off the lights that I don't need whenever I can. Is that silly too, or just a conservative economic practice?
Posted by: Unkl Witz on March 30, 2009 02:21 PMI don't think you or I were subjected to the level of brainwashing today's kids are.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on March 30, 2009 02:23 PMJust what is it you are trying to accomplish here?
To remind people that our electricity ALREADY IS green, and that it's stupid to try to turn off lights in an effort to save electricity because you're afraid of global warming. (Although maybe you were talking not about my initial post, but a subsequent comment I made?)
What is the benefit of purposely running up your electric bill in this fashion? If you think turning off the lights is a silly gesture, why is turning them all on any less silly.
It's not. That is the point of leaving them on: neither makes any difference, except in symbolism. The symbolism of turning them off is -- they say -- to "vote for Earth." And our message in return, leaving the lights on, is "we mock your meaningless gesture."
At least the folks who turn them off are saving money.
An insignificant amount, so who cares?
But I do turn off the lights that I don't need whenever I can.
I turn them off whenever I am not using them. I am not in favor of wasting electricity.
I am in favor, however, of mocking meaningless symbolism, especially when -- as in this case -- I am told that if I do not participate, that I am a bad person (which is what the WWF says: if you don't turn your lights off, you are voting against the Earth and for global warming ... they literally say that).
A few pennies to flip off the people who think this way is more than worth it.
I cherish freedom enough to refuse to participate in things that I am told I have to do, or in some cases to do things that I am told not to do. Tell me I can't make a cartoon from Mohammed or you will kill me, and guess what? I'll produce a cartoon of Mohammed and tell you to get bent. In this way we make small strides toward liberty.
--agree completely. If I think about these AGW zealots at all, it is with utter disdain. Most of the people that buy into it are just sheep, but Al Gore and his ilk HAVE to know better and are propagating this for political and economic ($$) gain. Al Gore knows he can't win a debate on the subject so he simply says the debate is over and refuses to participate. I can't believe people actually buy into his schtick...
Posted by: Bill H on March 30, 2009 07:29 PMWhen he has the stones to rationally discuss the actual merits of his positions, then he can begin to consider himself a defender of Reason.
OK, I think we're on the same wavelength here. I didn't turn mine off cuz I had better things to do than participate in what we both agree is a pretty meaningless, but frankly harmless , display of commonweal. Guess I am a "bad guy" for "voting against mother earth". -sob-
I'm not sure what you did, cuz you didn't seem to make any recommendation in your original post as to how we should respond.
What caught my attention was the many, many comments of folks who seemed to think the appropriate response to this meaningless display by lib's was to put on an equally meaningless display of wasteful use of electricity ---- for what end? Just to spite the libs cuz you hate them so much?
Is that where we are in our national debate these days?
And yeah, I like the freedom to "choose." I cherish that freedom on many issues.
And banning "black cars" in California is patently absurd!
If they can control the type of light bulbs people use and the color of the cars they drive, then they can move on to the next step and control how much energy we are allowed to use in our house, how many miles we can drive our cars, how many cars we can own, etc., etc., etc. Anyone who has studied the subjugation of the Jews in the 1930's should recognize this approach. Get everyone used to minor usurpations of liberty and then start ratcheting it up. THAT, I think, is why you see outspoken objections to this whole thing.
Posted by: Bill H on March 30, 2009 08:09 PMI think it's a big leap from this symbolic gesture of reducing our energy consumption to controlling "how much energy we are allowed to use in our house".
Could it be that someone here is overreacting?
You seriously discount the idea that cap and trade could be suggested at the household level? I don't discount that idea at all.
Posted by: Bill H on March 30, 2009 08:23 PMSo, one needs to consider that there is a different agenda. That agenda just happens to be to impede energy consumption by dictate. They know that people will not do it on their own. People on the left actually have a very negative view on humanity and believe that good only comes through state control. And in a way they are correct. It seems that most liberals cannot live their beliefs. They cheat on taxes even though they believe that the rich should pay more, and they create more carbon even though they believe everyone should use less. Thus, it's not unreasonable to assume that since they cannot conform to what is right voluntarily, then no one else can either. Thus, government must do it for them.
It is not a far-fetched, tin-foil theory. It's actually quite logical. If you catch them in a "San Francisco"* moment, you might find that they WOULD impose power-use caps if they thought the political climate would allow it.
Greenies really believe humanity is a blight on the earth and must be not only contained but scaled back. Scaled back to what is the question. A question that you really don't want to know the answer to, I think.
*This is in reference to Obama's admission in San Francisco that he would bankrupt coal.
Posted by: Eyago on March 30, 2009 08:48 PMI think it's a big leap from this symbolic gesture of reducing our energy consumption to controlling "how much energy we are allowed to use in our house".
I think Bill H has it mostly right here. The organizers at the WWF and elsewhere would love to be able to limit us as much as they possibly could.
http://www.snopes.com/politics/traffic/darkcars.asp
Posted by: Robert on March 30, 2009 10:02 PMWOW - it really is easy to write like you!
Posted by: Robert on March 31, 2009 01:05 PM