I was just thinking whether the substitutes for lighting during the earth hour are ecological and about the general efficiency of the act. This is all again just speculation and just a proof of one individual having an opinion and showing his/her awareness.

What i think is that if you switch off your lights, you shouldn't light a candle instead because of them producing CO2. If you wanted to be ecological you'd use LED if any lights. Some cities also switched off lights from lighting buildings and other public places. However most of those lights use gas discharge lamps which consume huge loads of voltage when switched on compared to what they use for just being on. Same applies for fluorescent lamps. Only incandescent lamps use the same amount of power when switched on and being on, but you definitely shouldn't replace them with candles.

Just to make a point here. I think the earth hour makes a difference, atleast in the statistics and therefore is enough to be a step down the right path. However i think the main effect is psychological, ie. making people think about the status quo and their own manners.

Another fact is that about 85% of produced electricity is used by industry. So would it be also easier to cut down emissions and electricity consumption from the bigger "half"? Just a thought.

This is really off topic and no offence to anyone but what i often think when those people (in finland called "facers" or something) representing some charity organization (UNICEF, WWF, Greenpeace, you name it) ask you to donate money for a good cause, is that why they ask for the money from the relatively poor individuals on the street and not (and i am not 100% sure they don't) the bigger instances like governments and supranational companies who are more likely to be responsible for the problems of the world...?

The answer is because on the whole we don't  think and we don't care. In the end We are the people responsible for those actions and those companies and governments to exist and last and the foremost responsible of our own daily actions. It's useless to think whether one's actions make any difference. Do the choice for good if not for the environment or statistics, then do it for the sake of ethics. :)

Peace out. And love.

-Olli

rayfenwick wrote:

My local MP was John Prescott, and how I really appreciated "two jags" telling me to use public transport when I've seen his missus chauffered to the chemists practically opposite their Hull residence in a 4 litre v12 Jaguar.....with the engine left running whilst she was inside, of course.

I don't want to spoil the fun, but there is no such thing as a 4 litre V12 Jaguar. 4 litre Jag engines are either inline-6 or V8. V12 Jags are 5.3 or 6.0 litre. Sorry, just can't help myself.

beocool wrote:

I don't want to spoil the fun, but there is no such thing as a 4 litre V12 Jaguar. 4 litre Jag engines are either inline-6 or V8. V12 Jags are 5.3 or 6.0 litre. Sorry, just can't help myself.

We need to have words - you really should get out more!😂

LOL oh dear, to get slightly back on topic, here in sunny NZ we managed nationally to reduce power by 3.5%!

It would have been more, but no doubt the Ponsonby residents refused to turn off their coffe machines, and wine chillers 😁

Henri wrote:

beodude wrote:

Henri, forget about weather phenomenons, the fact is the ratio of gasses trapped in the ice bubbles is definitive proof of what the atmosphere was like hundreds of thousands of years ago.

Considering that only "proof" that gas concentration (partial pressure) has virtually anything to do with atmospheric phenomenons is in man-made, highly speculative calculation formulas. Along with the fact that the astronomy has yet to discover one single planet - among billions known - that has warmed at all during any significant period of time. Planet earth is not a supernova.

As a pseudoscientific scam this climate change hysteria is simply ingenious - all "proof" is so vague and claims so well marketed that finding scientific evidence to support or contradict it is impossible. A religion, nothing more, nothing less, and we're in the middle of its worldwide inquisition as we speak.

Ok Henri, I'll try to explain very simply why gas concentration causes the planet to heat up so maybe even you can understand!!

The most basic experiment that has been carried out:

1. Fill a transparent bottle with CO2 and seal it.

2. seal a transparent bottle with air in it.

3. expose both to sunlight for the same time period.

4. check the temperature of each.

Result: the bottle filled with CO2 is several degrees warmer than the one with air in it.

Conclusion: The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere changes the earth's temperature.

ie more CO2 in the atmosphere means the earth will be warmer than if there is less CO2.

Oh let me think, I no longer have a car so zero emissions there 😁

Changed all my bulbs to CFL

Compost all the kitchen waste

Planted veggy garden & fruit trees to reduce my dependance on items trucked to supermarkets

Changed the outside garden lights to solar powered

OH and now its autumn the cats are helping by reducing CO2 output by refusing to move and now just sleeping all day and night 😕

Puncher wrote:

On a positive note, can I ask what long term action folk have taken to help the situation? Lets start with -

What car are you now driving (engine size etc.)? If nothing else we can preserve what's left of the earth's fossil fuels!

We can use a 5 Door Ford Fiesta ECOnetic as a benchmark

1.6-litre TDCi Duratorq diesel with diesel particulate filter

 

CO₂: 98 g/km
Annual vehicle excise duty: £0

Fuel efficiency (combined cycle): 76.3 mpg

.............and

jldmelb wrote:

I think that deliberately trying to be a knob doesn't do anybody any favours mate.

Sorry, didn't mean to insult anyone's religion.  After all, the United Nations declared last week that it is a human rights violation to defame people's religion.

Tell you what, I took the train to work yesterday.  Saved over 51 cents when compared to the fuel my car uses over the 6-mile trip.  

Have I atoned enough for the sin of leaving all my 21 lights on at full power for 7 hours on Saturday evening? 😎

beodude wrote:

Ok Henri, I'll try to explain very simply why gas concentration causes the planet to heat up so maybe even you can understand!!

I haven't got a problem understanding the (highly abused and mispresented) theory behind the global warming scam. While some of the phenomenons described as a cause are technically correct and very well known, their application in this context is seriously flawed. As I mentioned earlier, coming from a scientific/academic background, oversimplifying this will miss the point by miles.

For anyone without in-depth technical knowledge of the subject, here's one article that'll explain the basics in laymans terms, scientifically: http://brneurosci.org/co2.html .

Not quite as simple as barbequing a bottle of carbon dioxide with an IR-lamp, though... 😕