Comments on: Earth Hour, candles and carbon

By: Sridhar

Sridhar — Wed, 22 Apr 2009 17:59:47 +0000

“Carbon neutral” is a way of saying I care, without actively doing anything about it.

The 1999 Coal – CO2 emission of USA would have taken a forest the size of jupiter (120 times earth’s surface) to fix.

All forms of Bio-fuels do not reduce atmospheric CO2.

By: DavidCOG

DavidCOG — Wed, 01 Apr 2009 00:20:19 +0000

Of course, if Earth Hour were about saving carbon emissions for that one hour of ‘lights out’, this article would have a point. As that wasn’t the point of Earth Hour, the article is irrelevant and nothing more than picking holes in the efforts of others to raise awareness.

By: democratsarefascists

democratsarefascists — Tue, 31 Mar 2009 17:19:05 +0000

Another liberal “solution” like the CFL bulbs leeching mercury into our rivers.

Other solutions:
Wind: mills flinging ice into homes, killing and maiming people, destroying property, killing off entire bat populations
Solar: Entire fields of collectors required to generate enough energy for only one building
Biodiesel: Killing off the equivalent of an entire country’s agricultural land so Hollywood celebs can look socially conscious

Workable solutions not PC enough to be allowed:
Nuclear
Clean coal
Drilling for oil

Yeah, let’s talk about letting science and reason, not emotion, dictate policy. Then the Leftists might regain some credibility, but not before. Currently, they are a childish, hippie joke.

By: John the Econ

John the Econ — Mon, 30 Mar 2009 22:40:23 +0000

The worst possible outcome for the environment would be if these clowns got their way and destroyed the economies of the world. Imagine the carbon spewed and other real pollutants emitted as billions of impoverished people resort to candles and anything else they can find to burn for simple light and heat when money becomes worthless and carbon is used as an excuse to tax everything in sight.

By: Tee’s Blog » Earth Hour - What Crock of Sh**

Tee’s Blog » Earth Hour - What Crock of Sh** — Mon, 30 Mar 2009 18:40:11 +0000

[...] more on why Earth Hour is bulls**t, read this. Its very good. And a bit eye opening, for the people who think their statement did anything [...]

By: september99

september99 — Mon, 30 Mar 2009 16:15:42 +0000

The Earth Hour was not only about turning of the lights but to quit all possible electricity use for one hour. People usually use several appliances, and not only one lightbulb in this hour.
The message for me was, I can spend one hour without electricity if I decide to. I can even spend it with only one candle lit on.
What should we do – try to find a way to use less electricity, or build new plants to serve all our endless needs?

By: Velas na Hora do Planeta

Velas na Hora do Planeta — Mon, 30 Mar 2009 13:56:39 +0000

[...] Insights vez alguns cálculos e chegou ao resultado de uma maior emissão de carbono para as velas. http://enochthered.wordpress.com/2008/03/31/earth-hour-candles-and-carbon/ Mas, novamente, ele fez diversas considerações sobre eficiências e luminosidade que podem não [...]

By: Brant

Brant — Sun, 29 Mar 2009 21:01:54 +0000

When you’re done calculating the real cost of beeswax or uranium, you might want to start on the 100,000s of thousands of products and the 100,000s of chemicals and processes (most of which are proprietary and therefore largely unknown except to a few corporate or government chemists employed by the intellectual property holders).

None of the official lists of chemicals used by industry, agriculture, construction, cleaning, etc., are any where near complete. But you can make a start on the first few 10,000s.

Find out what things really cost the ecology and the economy, apart from the obvious things like 95% of the predator fish populations being gone, or 85% of the world’s coral reefs being seriously affected by bleaching, viruses, silt, pollution, dragnet fishing, etc.

By: Brant

Brant — Sun, 29 Mar 2009 20:38:33 +0000

The fallacy of your position is evident in the first two lines: Earth Hour is not about reducing CO2 emissions for a hour, it is about communication. It’s like criticizing Al Gore for flying–you have to fly to communicate effectively with global opinon-makers, just as you have to go on television if you want to tell people who watch too much TV that they’re watching too much TV. If you try to communicate with illiterate TV addicts through thick professorial books, you fail.

That said, the issue of beeswax candles was hinted at by other comments, as well as the issue of glass and metal waste (not to mention mercury and heavy metals, mining, etc.). Perhaps beeswax candles produce as much smoke, heat and CO2 as petroleum-based candles–but they have a short, often local supply chain and can be produced within a few miles of most inner cities, or even in densely populated urban areas.

You have to zero base budget if you’re going to have any chance sustainability, let alone ecological soundness. We need to go sustainable if our technological civilization is to survive: sustainability is survival. Everything else is Malthusian.

Nothing else will do.

That’s one reason why I don’t think nuclear power is the answer. I don’t care for its mining-based, heavy metal-based, oil-burning giant truck-based supply chain, or the sweeping under the carpet of subsidies (via the military and government-driven, non-market electricity pricing) or the complete inadequacy of current toxic and radioactive waste handling.

What’s the real price of beeswax versus uranium–from the ground up?

It is all meaningless until the entire supply and disposal chain has been priced out in realistic ecological and economical terms.

By: EllieG

EllieG — Sun, 29 Mar 2009 10:37:00 +0000

PS – during Earth Hour we take the opportunity to phone family and generally sit around talking in the dark – no lights, no TV. And if we need any light for a moment it’s usually an LED or mobile phone rather than a candle.