joeyboygolf wrote:

beodude wrote:

Lol you sure you never heard of it??

It's on front page of bbc world news! http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/7969515.stm

It's apparently taking place in 88 countries at 20:30 in each country's own time zone

 

Here is THE BBC News Front Page. Where is your "earth hour" then

link

Did the Chinese shut all of their industry and power stations down for an hour then? Or maybe they switched all the lights off in Bejing?

Don't make me laugh!!

Well, apparently they did!!!! And all lit candles instead!!!!!! It beggars belief!!!

Dking63 wrote:

Sorry to disapoint but I had all my kids go around the house and turn every light on we had, cranked every B&O piece we have ON and then we all got in the 9 man spa we own and like Fred Flinstone "had a gay old time"........... In fact our whole neighborhood was lit up like a Christmas tree. This stuff is funnnnnny! Can not wait til next year.

 

Dave

Ugh, never mind.

Xseries wrote:

I realise that everyone will have a different take on this but I have just looked on the BBC (Biased Broadcasting Corporation) web site at an Antipodean group that switched off their lights  - but lit candles instead!!???  What benefit does that have for the environment?  THe energy in distributing and making candles and matches will be greater than the distribution of power!

Pet Hates - Carbon Footprint - is someone referring to carbon dioxide or is this indeed an archaelogocial relic to match a dinosaur footprint. 

Forgive me also for thinking that the earth has warmed and cooled over the past millenia - oh and will do so again particluraly when the sun runs out of nuclear fuel (ie hydrogen)! 

The REAL issue is actually over population - mankind would not be endangered if the population were 1% of the present level and THEN the carbon dioxide emissions would be reduced., resources last much longer and deforestation not be so rampant. 

Back to B&O - this thread will start to be a re-run of the debate over standby!

Brian

 

Turning off the lights is simply about awareness.

Just us all being aware that our world is very precious and, so far, running on limited resourses - will make a diffeence and will help us work toward different methods of living, so that we can be sustainable - it's all about our consiousness.  not everything is so complicated fellas  🤒

John i appreciate your sentiments, offensive or not, glad to see someonelse is aware.

Dking63 wrote:

Appreciate the freedom of speech, I really mean not harm and I AGAIN teach my children to be RESPONABLE.

I shouldn't really participate in this kind of conversations, but here we go anyway...

Saving energy is a good thing, but I'm slightly tired of hearing all these scientific conversations about climate change and whether or not human activity is even capable of affecting climate in long-term, global scale - they always follow exactly the same pattern: in the end, when everything is said and done, the people who promote the human effect point of view end up admitting that there's no proof, but we should radically cut CO2 emissions "just in case". Personally, coming from a scientific background, I need proof before I believe any of this. The cyclic nature of climate more than explains everything we're experiencing at the moment and, oddly enough, the majority of global warming prophets are the very same people who made careers of preaching about the new ice age back in 70's and 80's. It wasn't quite as profitable back then, though.

Of course I don't mind if someone else wants to play along and feel him-/herself a better person doing so. Religions are popular all around the world, too. Until there's hard, concrete, undisputable proof, count me out - no evidence, no case.

My .02c...

Demonstrating awareness won't overcome the problems of climate change - in fact, awareness initatives risk encouraging people to take decisions that SEEM to be beneficial but in reality are not.

Example. It seems sensible to buy locally produced items in your supermarket rather than items from overseas. There may be many sound social reasons for doing that, but supermarket distribution chains are highly efficient so the energy used to place, say, one kilo of potatoes on the shelf using their hub-and-spoke distribution networks may be much less than a local farmer using his truck to deliver locally.

And what if the local product is industrially grown? Growing tomatoes naturally in north Africa and air freighting then to European retail outlets may use less energy than the same grown in heated greenhouse in northern Europe.

Awareness is no substitute for understanding. Many of those taking part in Earth Hour will actually believe that by turning off their lights for an hour they have "done their bit" and will then carry on burning fossil foel regardless.

Better, surely, to make a small change everyday than to make a gesture once a year.

John,

Just proof that us B&Oers are an awesome bunch. Your apology accepted. As for your boxing up your 6000, glad to hear it is only for a move, I better not find you've given up your B&O. No flat earthers or pseudo-scientists here.

Thanks John

Enjoy your evening.

Dave

Henri wrote:

Dking63 wrote:

Appreciate the freedom of speech, I really mean not harm and I AGAIN teach my children to be RESPONABLE.

I shouldn't really participate in this kind of conversations, but here we go anyway...

Saving energy is a good thing, but I'm slightly tired of hearing all these scientific conversations about climate change and whether or not human activity is even capable of affecting climate in long-term, global scale - they always follow exactly the same pattern: in the end, when everything is said and done, the people who promote the human effect point of view end up admitting that there's no proof, but we should radically cut CO2 emissions "just in case". Personally, coming from a scientific background, I need proof before I believe any of this. The cyclic nature of climate more than explains everything we're experiencing at the moment and, oddly enough, the majority of global warming prophets are the very same people who made careers of preaching about the new ice age back in 70's and 80's. It wasn't quite as profitable back then, though.

Of course I don't mind if someone else wants to play along and feel him-/herself a better person doing so. Religions are popular all around the world, too. Until there's hard, concrete, undisputable proof, count me out - no evidence, no case.

My .02c...

There is evidence showing that the current levels of carbon dioxide and methane (green house gasses) are the highest they have been for 650,000 years. We know this from analysis of gas bubbles trapped in ice at the poles several thousand metres below surface that would have formed 650,000 years ago. There is no doubt that we have caused this very recent increase in the levels of green house gasses because it has happened in such a short period of time. There is no doubt that green house gasses absorb heat more than nitrogen or oxygen in the atmosphere. Global warming and climate change are definitely occurring due to human activity. The world's climate is defintely changing in response and will continue to change if green house gasses increase further - which they seem to be as we do nothing to stop are dependence on fossil fuels. Who knows how severely the climate will be affected when we have burnt most of the fossil fuels and released the carbon into the atmosphere as CO2. Personally I think it will be disastrous.

Hardwriter wrote:

Demonstrating awareness won't overcome the problems of climate change - in fact, awareness initatives risk encouraging people to take decisions that SEEM to be beneficial but in reality are not.

Where on earth did you get that idea from

I did not say awareness is all that is needed (that would be absurd), it is however the vital starting point, and without being aware of something, how the hell does one conjure a soloution for the issue at hand?

Can you fix a door if you can't see that it's broken? Get my gist?

The environment, involves, every, single, one of us.

Climate change has been discussed endlessly here in Finland recently.

People with knowledge and "skepticism" (need hard evidence instead of a theory) are being overrun by "Women against global warming" -groups (no offense towards women, it just happens to be a name of a group)  and politicians with no scientific  background.

Last week a minister in Finland lobbied for only electric driven cars by year XXXX (I can't remember the year).

Now she seem to think this electrical power comes free. A professor of physics challenged her with facts. The following would be according to he be needed to power and reload these electric cars even if we dramatically would shrink out car-fleet in Finland down to 200.000 electrical vehicles (We have 2,5million cars):

-6 ! new nuclear power plants (no point using coal or diesel if we are supposed to stop CO2) Wind, water sun etc. technologies don't work well in Finland. Since all cars must be able to reload at the same time. 

-A reasonable time to reload your car could be an hour. Yes you could also slow load your car during the night, but people will forget, and longer journeys will be required. Imagine the hour wait at the "gas station" people will spend money on things they don't need just to kill the wait. 

So loading your car battery you will draw power equal to 7 home stoves, with four plates on max and using the owen at full power. This for an hour during load-up. Must be possible to have thousands of cars filling up at the same time... Combined with the normal day-to-day usage of electric energy... We need 6 nuclear power plants.

If we mention 1 new nuclear power plant, we have half the county shouting "judgment day". 

This is just another example how politicians and so called environmentalists consultants are talking bonkers.

Imagine the energy and CO2 spent building this country-wide network of electric gas stations.

It's a HUGE run-around-a-bush. This post is great, and just seeing that someone / people understand the see saw ride toward a soloution, is encouraging.

We'll get there... wind, solar etc etc looks promising to me, if it can be done properly, but alot of people will need to unite with the same conclusion for anything to change. Once we have electricity from these natural forms, we can THEN look at building with new energy sources such as hydrogen to power our cars.