

Earth Hour is a colossal waste of time — and energy - ValentineC
http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/project_syndicate/2013/03/earth_hour_is_all_wrong_we_need_more_electricity_not_less.html

======
chris_wot
"Today, we produce only a small fraction of the energy that we need from solar
and wind—0.7 percent from wind and just 0.1 percent from solar. These
technologies currently are too expensive. They are also unreliable (we still
have no idea what to do when the wind is not blowing). Even with optimistic
assumptions, the International Energy Agency estimates that, by 2035, we will
produce just 2.4 percent of our energy from wind and 0.8 percent from solar."

That's just one massive wall of text that needs numerous {{Fact}} tags slapped
onto it. Something every "climate change skeptic" seems to frequently require
when they quote "facts" or "statistics".

 _"Today, we produce only a small fraction of the energy that we need from
solar and wind—0.7 percent from wind and just 0.1 percent from solar."_ \-
source? And why is that - is it possible that's because there are less solar
and wind farms than there are other energy sources?

 _"These technologies currently are too expensive."_ \- source? A few issues:
governments are introducing carbon taxes to take into account the impact of
sources that produce carbon in the atmosphere. The technology has been used
for some time, but further research is and will increasingly reducing the cost
of photovoltaics and other renewable, less carbon polluting energy sources.

 _"They are also unreliable (we still have no idea what to do when the wind is
not blowing)."_ He conveniently only mentions wind, no mention of why solar is
so unreliable. No mention of geothermal, or even biomass. Perhaps he should
also look at energy spot markets a little more to see how the real energy
market works.

 _"Even with optimistic assumptions, the International Energy Agency estimates
that, by 2035, we will produce just 2.4 percent of our energy from wind and
0.8 percent from solar._ Seriously, [citation needed].

~~~
jd
> "Even with optimistic assumptions, the International Energy Agency estimates
> that, by 2035, we will produce just 2.4 percent of our energy from wind and
> 0.8 percent from solar." Seriously, [citation needed].

Okay, so I actually looked it up, and your hunch is correct. According to the
International Energy Agency's "World Energy Outlook 2012":

 _"A steady increase in hydropower and the rapid expansion of wind and solar
power has cemented the position of renewables as an indispensable part of the
global energy mix; by 2035, renewables account for almost one-third of total
electricity output."_ , [1], page 6

Also, from their FAQ[2]:

> How much of the world's energy comes from renewable sources?

 _"In 2009, the world relied on renewable sources for around 13.1% of its
primary energy supply, according to IEA statistics. Renewables accounted for
19.5% of global electricity generation and 3% of global energy consumption for
road transport in the same year."_

So it looks like the Slate article is grossly misleading.

[1]
[http://www.iea.org/publications/freepublications/publication...](http://www.iea.org/publications/freepublications/publication/English.pdf)

[2] <http://www.iea.org/aboutus/faqs/renewableenergy/>

~~~
uvdiv
Lomborg is right here. This graph (2.7, page 2) shows IEA projecting 3-4% of
2035 primary energy to be "other renewables" (including wind, solar, and
geothermal, by their definition). Biomass (wood burning in the 3rd world) is
much larger.

[http://www.worldenergyoutlook.org/media/weowebsite/2011/key_...](http://www.worldenergyoutlook.org/media/weowebsite/2011/key_graphs.pdf)

There's no discrepancy. _Renewable electricity_ may be 1/3rd of the 2035
_electricity_ supply, in that forecast; but wind and solar are only a fraction
of renewable electricity, and electricity is only a fraction of energy. Dams
are also renewable electricity. And non-electric energy (oil fuels) are even
larger than electricity.

(I'm still looking for the actual numbers (a lot of the IEA publications are
paid-access); I'll update this comment when I find them).

(edit: tables are here starting on page 544:
<http://www.scribd.com/doc/72512781/World-Energy-Outlook-2011>)

~~~
leoedin
The focus of the article is almost entirely on electricity. It's fairly
misleading to quote those statistics in terms of total energy consumption when
the rest of the article only discusses electricity production.

~~~
chris_wot
The focus of the article was actually Earth Hour, and how useless it really
is. The whole damn article lurches from one disaster to another.

------
lukasLansky
The same argument goes for Mother's day. Why be nice for one day? Does it
really make a difference? :-)

The value is symbolic. Participation is a reminder and a statement.

~~~
Wintamute
But how valuable is that sort of symbolic gesture? If it actually makes people
in the 1st world congratulate themselves that they've made a difference by
flicking a switch, and then continue as normal as if everything is fine, then
it might even have negative value. I don't agree with much of the article,
it's quite wooly, but this point was the most valid/interesting part and I
think you might have missed it.

~~~
ghshephard
Absolutely nobody (for all reasonable definitions of nobody) believes that
turning the lights off for one hour has any quantitative impact on energy
usage. What it does is _remind_ us that for the other 364 days of the years,
we need to be thinking about energy policy. Efficiency, conservation, and low
carbon/low polluting energy sources are important as we grow to 10 Billion on
this planet, AND the third world starts to consume energy closer to the levels
of the developed nations on a per capita basis.

~~~
Wintamute
I wasn't suggesting that most people think they're making a quantitative
impact by flicking a switch, give me some credit for goodness sake. Did you
not notice how I defined the subject of my comment _symbolic gesture_? I'll
make my point again, since you missed it the first time. I was suggesting that
by flicking the switch, and participating in the grand _symbolic gesture_ of
Earth Hour, people feel like they've achieved something, and go right back to
their incredibly wasteful 1st world life style feeling like they've scratched
their eco-itch for another few days/weeks/months/whatever. As a tactic I think
its shallow and weak. Lifestyle changes need to be baked into the fabric of
society and dictated to us if we're to see any meaningful change, frankly.

------
tobiasu
Other articles by the author: <http://www.slate.com/authors.bjrn_lomborg.html>

Now, where did I put my salt.

~~~
JPKab
He's pretty infamous as the "Global Warming won't be that bad" guy.

It reminds me of a favorite scene from the animated show 'King of the Hill':

Dale(conservitive redneck friend): Global warming? Who cares? We'll grow
oranges in Alaska.

Hank Hill : Goddammit Dale. We live in Texas. It's 110 degrees in April. If it
gets 1 degree hotter, I'm gonna kick your ass.

------
EiZei
While I do think Germany's energy policy is colossally stupid it does bug me
that this article cites a not-so-reputable institute:

[http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Institute_for_Ene...](http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Institute_for_Energy_Research)

~~~
chris_wot
He's a climate change "skeptic". Did you expect anything less?

~~~
SquareWheel
I wish pseudo-scientists didn't use that word. It makes all of us that
identify as skeptics look bad.

~~~
chris_wot
The best sort of skeptic is the one who is skeptical of skeptics. This causes
a few self-referential problems, but nobody said life was meant to be easy.
Least of all for skeptics.

------
cormullion
A better read on the subject:

[http://enochthered.wordpress.com/2008/03/31/earth-hour-
candl...](http://enochthered.wordpress.com/2008/03/31/earth-hour-candles-and-
carbon/)

------
macspoofing
I agree with the author that turning lights off for an hour, once a year, has
negligible (if any) impact on the environment or global warming, but I see
Earth Hour as a symbolic action that raises awareness of an important issue
and is a very nice international gesture of solidarity.

------
p6v53as
Earth hour is just a way to draw attention to the subject.

~~~
chris_wot
I'm pretty sure that most of us are aware of the subject by now.

------
rwallace
Symbolic gestures are all very well, but real gestures, however small, are a
lot better. Here's a few ideas off the top of my head for things you could do
on Saturday instead of turning off the lights for an hour:

\- If you still use incandescent bulbs, buy some fluorescent or LED bulbs to
replace them.

\- If you heat your house in winter, and it's not well insulated, look up
options for getting better insulation put in.

\- If you're in the habit of driving when you could have walked or used public
transport, try one of those alternatives.

\- If you eat meat, try a vegetarian dinner on Saturday.

Any other ideas?

~~~
Zecc
If you usually avoid the first unheated water coming out of the pipes before
your morning shower, collect it in a bucket. You can then use it for flushing
the toilet, or whatever.

------
gordaco
Solar and wind energy are doing very well in Spain:
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renewable_energy_in_Spain>. There is a lot of
FUD about the need of subsidizing, but it seems that the technology is already
mature enough, and subsidies are not necessary any more:
[http://electricidadsostenible.blogspot.com.es/2012/12/espana...](http://electricidadsostenible.blogspot.com.es/2012/12/espana-
la-energia-solar-fotovoltaica-es.html) (link in Spanish, sorry).

------
mikeash
Does anybody actually think that turning off the lights for an hour makes any
kind of difference? Seems like this author is attacking a straw man.

~~~
macspoofing
There's probably one or two people who may believe that, but I think most of
us see it as a symbolic gesture. Yeah, he is attacking a straw man.

------
asciimo
After soundly drubbing the effectiveness of this symbolic event, the author
finally suggests an alternative activity:

"Focusing on green R&D might not feel as good as participating in a global
gabfest with flashlights and good intentions, but it is a much brighter idea."

... with no information about how the average consumer is supposed to "focus."

------
jt2190
Slate just syndicated this article: [http://www.project-
syndicate.org/print/earth-hour-s-counterp...](http://www.project-
syndicate.org/print/earth-hour-s-counterproductive-symbolism-by-bj-rn-lomborg)

------
knowaveragejoe
I'd say this article teaches all the wrong "lessens", personally.

------
pessimizer
I wonder what formula he's using for kWh -> "servant" conversions?

~~~
uvdiv
The naive one that measures the average heat output of a human (about 100
watts, or 2,000 kilocalories/day). This an upper bound on mechanical work.

------
vacri
The author is encouraged to leave all his lights on at home, and activate all
appliances 24/7, regardless of whether he's home or not, as a celebration of
all the wonders that electricity does for us. I doubt he will have a problem,
given that efficiency is not a concern for him (perhaps mute the TV when
sleeping, and perhaps turn off the food processor to keep things a little
quieter for naptime).

~~~
uvdiv
That's "Human Achievement Hour":

<http://cei.org/hah>

 _I doubt he will have a problem, given that efficiency is not a concern for
him_

Except one hour of this costs essentially nothing, just like one hour of
"earth hour" saves a negligible amount of money (if any). They're both _purely
symbolic_ gestures. :)

~~~
vacri
The author isn't just about the one hour of Earth Hour, he's against
everything it represents - which for the most part, is efficient use of
energy. I'm just saying he should put his money where his mouth is.

