My personal thanks to the awesome Australians who thought this up!
"In every stage, let history's page advance Australia fair!"

__________________
"If you think the LHC will create black holes, you might as well believe Hobbits are at the bottom of your garden."- Dr. Mike Inglis
Rovers forever! - ToSeek
"Carl Sagan sent a message to ET,
Neil Armstrong walked in the Sea of Tranquility
Steve Squyers built Spirit and Opportunity
Dan Haylen upchucked in zero gravity." -Brent Simon, The Space Camp Song

The point I was going to drive toward is that before any action can be taken people must be made aware there is a problem to act upon. That is the point of raising awareness, to help people understand that something needs to be done. Having just experienced the worst winter I can remember I wouldn't even begin to conceive on my own that global warming could be a problem. In fact, based upon my experience I would say that global warming is not occurring. The flaw in my logic would be that I am examining the situation locally and require others to make me aware of what is occurring on a global scale.

I have never seen a river grossly polluted with chemicals, but I understand that dumping chemicals into rivers is a bad thing because it kills the life that lives there and has a domino effect on the surrounding ecology. At some point in my life someone made me aware of that. Now if I have the option to vote for Candidate Toxicwaste or Candidate Clearwater, I'm going with Clearwater. I will have allowed change to occur only through my awareness of the problem and my power to vote. I do not have to lobby for nuclear power to make a difference, I can vote for someone, to represent me, who advocates it.

Unfortunately this ability to vote one way or the other is about the most you'll ever get from most people. The "interest" starts with "self-interest". How do you get pig-farmer Joe who doesn't even know what an atom is to begin understanding the benefits of nuclear power? When it comes time to vote he may vote for one candidate over the other based upon the number of letters in their names. On the other hand, if Joe reads a pamphlet distributed by an "awareness group" that tells him about the issues and he later learns that one candidate supports the issue, his vote will probably go for the candidate who's view on the issue is in line with what he learned.

All human interaction starts with communication. Awareness programs are simple methods to get a message to as broad an audience as possible. I was going to go step by step with Canuk to show him that even the people he spoke positively about probably had their roots in some kind of awareness endeavor that brought them together.

If I was trying to argue that these awareness programs are better than action I would be wrong. But I am not arguing that. I am arguing against the idea that awareness programs are useless or even bad. How do you motivate or inspire people to educate themselves on important issues or to become involved in making a difference if you do not make them aware the problem exists in the first place?

__________________
The only way of finding the limits of the possible is by going beyond them into the impossible.

Arthur C. Clarke

The Brain Science Podcast

Yes, that is an interest group. It's just that, in this case, they aren't directing their energies to a common good. Heck, arguably this is two interest groups: individuals who are concerned about the environment and companies who are concerned about looking good so they can sell more product to the first group. I'd say that the second group has more potential since it is acting on an economic impulse, but that both groups were entirely ineffective in this case. For example, if every Canadian were to turn out the lights for an entire year, the savings would be eaten up by one month of power consumption in China. If every household in the US were to replace one bulb with a CFL, the savings would be eaten up within two weeks - China constructs new coal power plants at the rate of one a week. Source.

These efforts do nothing.

Essentially, yes.

Economics. Right now, "green" is big. You're more likely to get a sale if you can say that your products and services are good for the environment. Yes, that's a little cynical. But that's economics. It's also the only way to cause real change in this regard. Economic incentives are how the world works. There's a good overview in the Maclean's article I linked to above (read that, by the way - good stuff). It recommends a carbon tax across the board which increases over time so that the economy can adjust. Take the revenue from the tax and dump it into R&D. Don't bother trying to implement things like solar power until more technological development is done. Why? It costs too much. Develop the technology until the price comes down, and raise carbon taxes until they are prohibitive. The environmentally-friendly options then become economically-rational to use. You won't need to force people to adopt them through gimmicky PR campaigns - they will have a rational (and I use this term in an economic sense) reason to want to adopt them.

By providing an economics-based program, you avoid the tragedy of the commons. This means government programs, not grassroots environmental "feel-good" exercises.

The rest of the world has other lobby groups. Do you honestly think that the US or the UK or Germany or wherever doesn't have a similar group?

No, they do. But the best way to ensure that is not to make people feel good about meaningless action, but to hit them in the pocketbook when they transgress.

Everyone should be concerned, but it is true that the largest power consumers (industry and commerce) are the ones that need to take the most action. They do, after all, account for most emissions. Why shouldn't we focus on them?

You can be part of the solution, but not by participating in useless things like Earth Hour. Write a letter to Congress. Join these guys (they promote economics-based environmental programs). Support carbon taxes. Support R&D into environmentally-friendly technology.

__________________
Quaeso quousque humi defixa tua mens erit? Nonne aspicis, quae in templa veneris?

My point, though, is that people already know about global warming. they are aware. Trying to increase that awareness further is pointless. Perhaps this would have been a good exercise twenty years ago, but not now. And don't say "But what about the global warming deniers?" because this sort of awareness stunt will not convince them; if anything, it might just annoy them.

Yes, it starts with awareness. And, yes, the CNA started that way, probably. But it is economics that cause real change. It's economics that holds the CNA together, and it's economics that will fix global warming. Unless it's cheaper to buy an electric car, no one is going to buy one, even if they are "aware."

Again, they already know. That means the effort and funding is wasted. Thus, this campaign is worse than not having one at all.

__________________
Quaeso quousque humi defixa tua mens erit? Nonne aspicis, quae in templa veneris?

That's not the subject of the "awareness" in this case. As the original article (which few here seem to have read because their objections are all on some other subject) said, it's about the lack of a need for all of the wasted light and the fact that things would still be fine without it.

Maybe the problem is the name "Earth hour", which doesn't really say what it's actually about and seems to have set off some people's hostility over another issue that this didn't need to be associated with...

Yeah, I can't find a link to the OP article - I get a 404.

__________________
Quaeso quousque humi defixa tua mens erit? Nonne aspicis, quae in templa veneris?

__________________
The only way of finding the limits of the possible is by going beyond them into the impossible.

Arthur C. Clarke

The Brain Science Podcast

Nothing I see there changes my opinion, I'm afraid. they state that the goal is to "inspire people to take action on climate change." Just another awareness campaign.

__________________
Quaeso quousque humi defixa tua mens erit? Nonne aspicis, quae in templa veneris?

Canuck, it took me a while to remember where I saw this and then dig it up, so please excuse my delayed response to your lengthy replies above. Watch this http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t77ph...eature=related . It's six plus minutes long but you can jump right to the 3:10 mark. Watch it for at least one minute. I offer this as a rebuttal to your comments. If you do not understand why after viewing it, let me know and I'll go into detail.

__________________
The only way of finding the limits of the possible is by going beyond them into the impossible.

Arthur C. Clarke

The Brain Science Podcast

So GE is building environmentally-friendly products because of economic benefit to the corporation? How is that different from what I'm saying? Economics is the proper way to approach the problem - that's exactly what I'm saying.

Society changes and then corporations need to? Yep. Economic pressure - nothing more. He says his goal is to address demand and turn a profit. Heck, he's even behind the carbon taxes/trading that I'm talking about.

This isn't "awareness" at all. What's you point?

__________________
Quaeso quousque humi defixa tua mens erit? Nonne aspicis, quae in templa veneris?

I'm entirely aware that this fits many of your points, many of which I do not disagree with, but what was the underlying motivation? What did Immelt explicitly state was the reason GE went "green"?

__________________
The only way of finding the limits of the possible is by going beyond them into the impossible.

Arthur C. Clarke

The Brain Science Podcast

At around the 4:00 mark:

"But I work for investors. And I don't think anybody should ever be confused about, you know, what our motives are. We want to use this technology to solve a customer issue, to maybe have a societal impact, and make money for investors. And I've always been upfront about that."

It seems like a purely economic motive to me. And, I know where you're going with this - why does this motive exist at all? Because people want environmentally-friendly options. Which means, yes, they need to be aware that such options both exist ad are important.

This does not detract in any way from the point I'm making.

They already know these things. The fact that they're asking for them is proof enough of this. Any effort at telling these things to them is a waste of resources because they already know. Awareness campaigns are important, but only if the populace is unaware - this is not the case with Earth Hour.

__________________
Quaeso quousque humi defixa tua mens erit? Nonne aspicis, quae in templa veneris?

Ok, so you do understand that society is dictating this economic change. Good. The only part left then is to ask you about young adults and children who have not been exposed to much information about the issues and probably should be informed. Why is sending the message to turn off lights a bad thing? And again, I'll ask, why did all those large corporations participate if it was a waste of time. Surely the boards of those companies would not be tolerant of frivolous activities as you suggest this endeavor was.

The company I work for sends all employees messages about reducing our energy footprint both at work and at home. Why would they need to do that if society has reached the saturation point of knowledge regarding energy usage? What I see occurring in the real world doesn't seem to line up with what you have been trying to tell me.

I'll defend the idea of Earth Hour with one more point I made earlier but we haven't really discussed much and that is that there is a world of difference in the lasting affect in memory between reading about or hearing about an issue, and having a full sensory experience. Things like this make an impression and it also invites conversations about the issues involved. I just don't see how that's a bad thing or should be avoided.

__________________
The only way of finding the limits of the possible is by going beyond them into the impossible.

Arthur C. Clarke

The Brain Science Podcast

School and parents. You yourself said that your son understood what was going on because you explained it properly, and that your daughter did not and that you need to try again (I applaud that, by the way). The activity itself didn't mean anything - you explained it, gave it meaning. Since adults (parents, teachers, media, etc.) are informed, they will pass it on to the children, no gimmicks needed.

In itself, it isn't. I'm complaining (ironically) about the resources wasted here. If the organizers had dumped the cash into R&D and the press coverage into lobbying government for carbon taxes, more good would have been done. Much more good.

Cash. Cold hard cash. Dollars. Greenbacks. Moola. They realize that people are more likely to buy a "green" product. They want the good press of getting on board with this feel good exercise. Why? Because then it makes people feel good to give them money.

Money, again. their internal practises need to be "green" before they can slap the label on the product.

I agree that people are more likely to remember it. I just don't think that's a good thing. They'll remember the experience, not the knowledge. While they would be less likely to remember the process behind global warming, they'd be better off with that knowledge than some vague, fuzzy warm feeling they got from standing in the dark.

Besides, I'm more interested in practicalities. The public is educated enough to put economic pressure on companies. Good. Now we need to get them to pressure government to increase economic incentives. There are only so many resources to go around, and PR stunts waste them.

__________________
Quaeso quousque humi defixa tua mens erit? Nonne aspicis, quae in templa veneris?

Right, I don't disagree with the motive of the company, I'm asking why they bother to do it if everyone is "aware".

__________________
The only way of finding the limits of the possible is by going beyond them into the impossible.

Arthur C. Clarke

The Brain Science Podcast

Because it looks good. If they participate, they can say that they took part in a high-profile, ostensibly "green" activity. It increases sales.

Now, normally, I have no problem with that. In cases where companies give in to economic pressure to participate in actual innovation, I'm happy. If they, say, sell electric cars because they'll make more money doing so, I'm happy. That's how things should work. But when they get the same economic benefit from doing something which doesn't actually do anything, I'm not happy.

__________________
Quaeso quousque humi defixa tua mens erit? Nonne aspicis, quae in templa veneris?