Mon Mar 31, 2008 5:33 am
Mon Mar 31, 2008 9:35 am
Rachel wrote:KMB1933 wrote:Nah, HK did not participate. It is evening here and I can see lights on HK Island as usual. But HK also ran its own "switch off lights" campaign a year ago where we were required to switch off lights for 5 minutes. Anyways, it is nearly summer. Without electricity, I can't turn on the AC. If I can't turn on the AC, I will become very hot because temperatures during summer always rise up to 30 degrees C. So, I don't think this is the appropriate time for this "Earth Hour" thing.
Not having a/c at 30 degrees C is nothing - try living through 40 degree days where it only gets down to a MINIMUM of 27 without a/c! Then you'll be happy to turn it off for an hour!
Mon Mar 31, 2008 10:07 am
KMB1933 wrote:Rachel wrote:KMB1933 wrote:Nah, HK did not participate. It is evening here and I can see lights on HK Island as usual. But HK also ran its own "switch off lights" campaign a year ago where we were required to switch off lights for 5 minutes. Anyways, it is nearly summer. Without electricity, I can't turn on the AC. If I can't turn on the AC, I will become very hot because temperatures during summer always rise up to 30 degrees C. So, I don't think this is the appropriate time for this "Earth Hour" thing.
Not having a/c at 30 degrees C is nothing - try living through 40 degree days where it only gets down to a MINIMUM of 27 without a/c! Then you'll be happy to turn it off for an hour!
Well, then I will suggest you to visit HK during June/July/August. If it is not raining, it will be very hot outside. Sooner or later, you will run to the nearest AC to cool down. Having ACs in HK, unlike the west, is a necessity rather than a luxury. I can't live without one!
Anyways, if HK did not participate in Earth Hour, don't blame me. Go blame Donald Tsang.
Mon Mar 31, 2008 11:06 am
Well, I heard about it from my professor, who taught in a completely dark classroom without using powerpoint. But you obviously know me better than I know myself, so tell me what else I am and am not doing, please. (I reserve the right to be obnoxious to those who were obnoxious firstSiniri wrote:Sure, there will be people who are genuinely trying, but to be honest, if you were REALLY trying, you'd have never heard about it in the first place.
Mon Mar 31, 2008 11:31 am
Asthaloth wrote:Well, I heard about it from my professor, who taught in a completely dark classroom without using powerpoint. But you obviously know me better than I know myself, so tell me what else I am and am not doing, please. (I reserve the right to be obnoxious to those who were obnoxious firstSiniri wrote:Sure, there will be people who are genuinely trying, but to be honest, if you were REALLY trying, you'd have never heard about it in the first place.).
Mon Mar 31, 2008 6:21 pm
Mon Mar 31, 2008 7:00 pm
Asthaloth wrote:How did he hear of it?
Magic? Smoke signals?
The interweb.
The point you are apparently missing, is that this was (as far as I can tell) advertised on the internet, accessible [mainly] through the power gobbling computers.
Electricity is used to make newspapers.
Seriously, it's a safe bet more energy was used making sure everyone knew than was saved in this endeavour.
Mon Mar 31, 2008 7:39 pm
Mon Mar 31, 2008 8:19 pm
Asthaloth wrote:Edit: As for your "It happens anyway" Argument, that doesn't fly with me, and nor does it fly with a court of law.
Mon Mar 31, 2008 8:39 pm
Look at how many people watched "An Inconvenient Truth," declared everyone should see it
Where do you fall on this issue, anyway? On the one hand, you imply the earth is doomed and that even using the internet is contributing to its demise. On the other hand, you're using the internet. So are you a hypocrite? Do you just not care? Or are you trying to be sarcastic and don't really believe the earth's in any kind of danger at all? Just wondering... As a scientist, I'm disappointed by the lack of rigor in much of the science involved, but I still think conservation makes a lot of sense.
Mon Mar 31, 2008 9:46 pm
Mon Mar 31, 2008 10:14 pm
Sorry, I didn't mean to misinterpret you -- I think that happens a lot when all you have to go by are words on the page (to be fair, I think you were doing the same to me). Anyway, I still think they could not possibly have used more energy to promote this event than they actually saved -- if I thought that were the case, I would not have participated, obviously. And I agree that the event in and of itself did little in terms of energy savings. As has been pointed out, it was mostly an awareness campaign, the actual effects of which will be almost impossible to measure. But it seemed like it *might* do some self-perpetuating good, and in the net, it seemed to do less harm than good even if it didn't create lasting change. That's why I participated. You are, of course, entitled to disagree on all fronts -- given that measurement is so difficult, I suppose I could be wrong.Asthaloth wrote:Anyway, you are putting words in my mouth, or otherwise misinterpreting what I am saying (I am far from a powerful orator, I know this) but basically, what I am saying is this... "A drop of water raises the ocean" attitude helps nobody.