I remember having a moment during the big ol' northeastern blackout in 2003. Without electricity, people left their houses. They walked outside and talked to each other. Best of all, I looked up and saw stars. In the wash of billboards and airplanes and skyscrapers, I'd forgotten they were even there.

Sometimes seeing really is believing. Last year, WWF-Australia organized the inaugural Earth Hour. Creating buzz and turning heads around the globe, 2.3 million residents of Sydney simply turned off their lights for one hour. The result is immediate and gives a stunning visual of just how much energy is being used to power our cities. In that one event alone, Australia saw a 10% reduction in use of its power grid. In CO2 terms, that's the equivalent of taking 50,000 cars off the road for an hour.

Now Earth Hour is back for 2008; this global lights out phenomenon wants individuals and the businesses they work for to turn off the lights for one hour. In a world so dependent on electricity and energy-consumption, we need to collectively remind ourselves of what we're doing and how we need to change. On March 29, 2008 at 8pm (in each time zone) you have the chance to become part of Earth Hour's environmental movement. Melbourne, Toronto, Chicago, Copenhagen, Brisbane, Tel Aviv and Manila are just some of the global cities that are taking part. Even if you're not in those cities, you can sign up at the Earth Hour website and have some fun in the dark no matter where you are.


John Smith Friday, 01.25.08 @ 1:34 pm

This is a noble idea and i like it.
I may even participate.
However if we want to really make an impact here, why just stop at the lights?
Why not blow the main power breaker on the breaker panel for an hour?
That would save maybe twice to tree times the power.

Just my 2 cents.


Isaac McIsaac Saturday, 01.26.08 @ 2:59 pm

I think you all should check your engineering facts. If the austrailian grid is coal I think you all should check your engineering facts. If the Australian grid is coal or gas powered, the GHG reductions of such an action would be negligible. A boiler system must maintain its temp and pressure in order to function; shutting it down is not as simple as turning off a switch. If a coal plant were to shut down or reduce its fuel consumption based on a one hour reduction in demand, it would have to add an equal amount of energy to re-pressurize its system. In fact the massive draw on the system when everyone went back to normal consumption likely would negate the purported savings. This would apply to a nuclear facility or a gas facility as well. Currently the only type of electrical generation system that can cope directly with this sort of fluctuation would be hydro electric as it can raise gates to reduce water flow relatively quickly. Those gates consume significant power themselves so its unlikely that the energy saving would be that big. Hate to rain on the parade but this “action” is in line with what the powers that be want you to believe, that “saving energy” is a suitable course of action in terms of preserving the earth’s climate. It is’nt, a huge paradigm shift is about the only effective course.or gas powered, the GHG reductions of such an action would be neglibable. A boiler sustem must maitain its temp and pressure




Sponsorship:

Joshspear.com brings a dedicated, young, and influential audience to brand advertisers.

Please contact us for more information.

Regular content continued below...





The Shelter: Dubai
Dieter Rams: Less and More in London
Headed To Dubai
Kinetic Lights
We Are Handsome: Handmade Swimwear
Damien Hirst x Supreme
We Feel Fine: The Book
MOMO Y3 Video
Nokia Viral: N900
Japanese Bar Codes