Pink Poogle Toy Forum

Or over new years this year, where it got down to like 35 overnight or something... that was ridiculous.

I'm pretty good at water conservation, but that's because I've been on water restrictions for the past few years because of the drought over here.

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.

A/c is never a necessity - what about all the people that lived in HK before a/c was invented? They survived!!

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 first ).[/quote]


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.

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.[/quote]

Here it was all over the news in the papers and such. There was a running tally in one of the papers of which "landmarks" etc had signed on for it, and there was a big article when the government said that all government buildings would have their lights out for it etc etc.

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.

Deliberately missing.

The point you're deliberately missing (I'm assuming you're not stupid, so I'll assume it's deliberate) is that that energy would have been spent regardless. The newspapers are printed every day with the same amount of paper and the same amount of ink, running the presses for the same amount of time, taking up the same volume and weight on the same delivery trucks that drive the same routes -- they just chose to write about this rather than something else. The same thing goes for TV news -- they didn't broadcast for extra hours to talk about Earth Hour, and I'm pretty sure no one turned on their TV for extra time just on the off-chance they might hear about a way they could help save energy. Most people spend the same amount of time on their computer regardless of whether they're looking at the Earth Hour website vs. PPT. Different websites don't really consume different amounts of energy.

Now, people did have to go downtown to be available to throw the switches. But what else would they have done in that hour? Gone downtown to a movie? Gone to a dance club? Eaten a steak at a fancy downtown restaurant? I would hope they would have considered the environmental impact of what they were doing to get to Earth Hour. I know I did -- that's why I went for a walk. On the news, they said many took public transit -- which again, would be running the same routes with approximately the same load, for the same amount of time, regardless of whether they were on it or not.

Nu uh, aint buying that.
You want to save the Earth?
You'd better detonate a Nuke in the atmosphere (For the EMP) as there is no way in hell Two Million people are ever going to make a difference.
Especially by arguing my point on the Internet.


Edit: As for your "It happens anyway" Argument, that doesn't fly with me, and nor does it fly with a court of law.

Your argument was that it cost extra energy to promote Earth Hour. My point was that the means used to promote it were channels that use the same amount of energy regardless of what goes through those channels -- they took out crap and put in information about how to conserve energy, increasing awareness even in those who didn't participate. But it's the SAME amount of energy, not more. This directly refuted your argument.

Now your argument is:

So what? Since we couldn't get the newspapers to stop printing, the TV stations to stop broadcasting, and the internet to stop existing, we shouldn't even try to conserve energy? I'm not responsible for what other people do when I have no control or responsibility over them -- that does fly with a court of law. But apparently, according to your argument, if we want to do anything good for the environment, we must do everything -- try to force independent businesses to change their practices, give up our computers, and live our lives naked in burlap hammocks, eating nothing but the fruit Mother Earth drops.

My understanding is it was 2 million people in the inaugural year -- when it was just one city, Sydney, doing it. Regardless of the actual numbers, this was an awareness campaign. It's impossible to motivate people to willingly make radical changes in their lifestyles -- look at how many people watched "An Inconvenient Truth," declared everyone should see it, and yet haven't done ANYTHING to change their own lifestyles (I personally never saw the movie). Unless you want to do it by force, the only way to get people to change is through a series of small, seemingly easy changes -- it's called the ripple or butterfly effect. People switch from incandescent to CFL, turn the thermostat up a few degrees in the summer, try public transit once a week and add gradually... or learn how to spend an hour in the dark without using electricity to entertain themselves.

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? Are you a fatalist who's given up? 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.

(I'm just going to snip the crap out of this quote)



Please do not use that as an example, it is full of half truths, inaccuracies and down right lies.

Anyway, no, my point wasn't that it cost more to promote it (Although it did, that Website had to be made by someone, someone had to write up the newspaper article on a computer, and so forth) but the... Hypocrisy, of telling everyone that we are killing the world with our electric evilness or whatever... Via an electronic medium.

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.




The Earth is far from doomed, I am simply aware that all this half arsed campaigning is far too little, far too late.
And besides which, Global warming is only the begining, something I dearly hope I live to see the fallout from.
Not that I will of course, such events take time.

Keep it friendly guys. And if you want to continue this debate, i'd suggest making a thread in the debate usergroup rather than carrying on here.

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.

To get back on topic, the energy savings in Georgia was only a 4% reduction -- not particularly surprising to me, because I saw so few houses participating. It seemed disorganized, hardly getting mention on the news/through the grapevine until the day before. How did other people's cities fare?