School Spirit

Right from the very first, I should probably lay my cards out on the table. I’m not a dedicated convert to the global warming or climate change phenomenon. I’d like to think of myself as a healthy, albeit slightly suspicious, cynic in regards to many of the arguments (if they can be called that) predicting the end of the world due to this nasty carbon stuff. It’s only fair that I say this up front before moving on to the main topic of this post, which is the now global event called Earth Hour.

If you haven’t been aware, Earth Hour was an idea originating in Sydney last year (2007) where everyone was encouraged to turn off their lights for an hour for the benefit of the planet. About 2 million people (or is it households? That would have been more impressive) and 2000 businesses signed up to take part. The goal was to reduce greenhouse emissions in Sydney by 5%. About 10% was the figure achieved according to some reports, so straight up congratulations to Sydney on their one off reduction. This year, it’s a global event and cities all around the world are taking part.

Look, I think it’s a nice idea, I really do, but I have a suspicious feeling that it’s mostly going to be a single, feel-good hour which will give the planet a quick breather (if I may personify the planet… why not? Many people writing articles like this see it as suitable!) before most of the lights will come back on and the planet will once again glow like a Christmas bauble throwing thousands of black balloons into the air like we see on those greenhouse reduction ads on Australian television.

In regards to those ads, why don’t we ever see one showing those black CO2 balloons coming from the backside of a cow?

Some people (and blogs) are spouting the idea that it’s a great initiative to support the Earth and harness the interest of school kids in the wellbeing of the planet, and even better, ‘promises an opportunity where they can behave to demonstrate their understanding of being a global citizen‘. I actually agree with this idea, although I don’t know whether Earth Hour will be the true success it aims to be and therefore I’m not sure I would have (had it been during the term and not the school holidays) sold it to my own kids as a way to help save the planet. I don’t think it’s quite as simple as that, and I’d be selling the kids short if I tried to tell them so. I’m not much for flowery imagery in my statements, but it seems others are - ‘YOUR participation will go a long way in spreading the message thatwe, as individual droplets working collectively - can create an impetus far more powerful than the mightiest of rivers‘. Nice metaphor, and all meant with the best intentions, but does it really mean anything? Rivers are good for hydro power generation, which is apparently better for the environment… but that involves dams, eh? We’re not allowed to build more dams in Victoria… it harms the planet.

On another blog, I found this quote, which shows support once more for the initiative (and keep in mind I support the idea in general, I just don’t believe it is going to have the impact it promises). ‘This is a wonderful, simple idea to share with your students. It can make them feel part of a global movement, but more importantly it demonstrates that individuals CAN come up with simple, sharable ideas that make a difference‘. I actually agree with much of this statement. It truly is a wonderful and more importantly simple idea, and I recognise the benefits of the kids feeling like their involved in something bigger than themselves, their town or even their country. I’m also right up there with anything that will help kids think they’re important enough to make a difference. Again, I’m just not convinced the difference this will make will be of any significant benefit once those lights go back on sixty minutes after they get switched off.

My concern here is that I doubt it will actually achieve anything in the long run, which is what it is intended for. Once that hour is over, just about every business who has signed up will put those lights on in their office towers while no one is working there, have their neon lights back on to advertise their companies to passing pedestrians or motorists. The lights will come back on and the telly will flick back to whatever was being viewed before… and it will happen every night afterwards.

Until next year’s Earth Hour comes around again when we can all feel good about ourselves for going without lights for another hour to save the planet.

There’s my little cynical bit over with. I’ll go about my normal nightly business with a light on in the room I’m working in (usually a little lamp) and maybe the radio in the background or the telly if I’m in the lounge. In the classroom we generally only work with lights on if it gets too dim to see with cloud cover outside over the sun (or once we’ve done so much work we’ve covered the windows with displays!). To me, getting people to work with electricity in this way would be more beneficial. Hopefully that’s the message a lot of the people who take part this year get from it all. If it truly causes thousands of people to think to use only the lights they need when they need them, then I think Earth Hour will have done its job.

I’m not too convinced with some of the comments on the official Earth Hour site either, particularly the Frequently Asked Questions page. What candles should we use for light during this hour, it is asked at one point, to which the response is candles made of beeswax. Why? Because they are carbon neutral because ‘the CO2 they emit has already been taken from the atmosphere to produce the wax‘! Okay, by that logic, coal fired power stations are probably just as carbon neutral because the carbon produced by the burning was already taken from the atmosphere when they were alive as trees back in the Carboniferous Period! Millions of years ago those ancient forests grew, sucking up carbon dioxide from the atmosphere which is now stored in those coal deposits. So burning it is only releasing the carbon back into the atmosphere from where it came. I think that’s a little bit of flawed logic there, but again, it’s a nice thought, eh?

I’ll finish with this quote from the Age newspaper which, despite not particularly liking that paper, makes what I think is the most important point to be taken from this whole initiative. ‘It’s not simply about turning off your lights on March 29, even though it is estimated that this alone reduced carbon emissions equal to 48,000 cars being off the road for one hour last year. It’s about awareness, understanding and commitment: awareness of the impact of climate change, understanding that small, practical gestures by individuals can collectively make a profound difference and commitment to making an ongoing effort to reduce energy consumption for long-term benefit‘.

Anyway… enough rambling. On the whole, I think this Earth Hour initiative is very well-intentioned and will be a great article for the media across the world to cover, and very well might make the world’s politicians sit up and take notice (or at least wave at the crowd when they turn up to show their support before going back to their other policies the next morning). Any small approach to reducing these pollutants will help, but I’m just not convinced this is the world changing event it’s being built up to be.

Mind you… I’m more than happy to be proven wrong!

Technorati Tags: Earth Hour, climate change, global warming.