Earth Hour

Earth Hour by Chris Lawrence

Clearly the goal of Earth Hour events is not to actually achieve any significant reduction in energy use or carbon emissions. The decline in electricity use during the hour is fairly small, and is offset in several ways. A single hour in an entire year is also an insignificant amount of time. The main purpose of the Earth Hour campaign is to raise awareness about climate change, to organize people, and to prompt action towards real structural change that can truly lead to a significant reduction in carbon emissions, and eventually to reductions in the carbon concentration in the atmosphere. The real question is whether or not it is accomplishing these goals.

There has been a lot of debate over statistics related to Earth Hour events which I think is rather specious, as it obviously misses the main point. Earth Hour is not a practical solution to the problem of climate change, nor is it intended to be. It is a form of protest and mass communication, similar to the 350 campaign in the lead up to Copenhagen. In terms of getting out the message, it appears to have been very successful in the past, and likely will be again this year. The event is widely publicized around the world. We see posters, newspaper articles, and extensive television coverage. Many cities and other local communities get involved in the events, and millions of individuals participate.

So, on one level, the campaign has been a success. Just about everyone knows about it, and they know what it’s about. At the same time, however, it doesn’t appear to have helped to increase the number of people who believe urgent action is needed on climate change. In fact, in the US at least, the number of climate change deniers is increasing. While the campaign may not be changing people’s minds about the science, it has been successful in spreading its message to the majority of the population.

Unfortunately, like the 350 campaign, this has not translated into any significant change. Governments have failed to enact the kinds of policies needed, and the failure at Copenhagen was worse than even some of the most pessimistic activists had predicted. Canada has been a big participant in Earth Hour events, at the provincial, municipal and individual levels, yet it continues to have one of the worst climate policies in the world. The fact that countries with poor environmental records can participate in, and even promote, Earth Hour, shows that the event is now being used as a form of greenwashing.

Another problem with campaigns such as Earth Hour and 350, is that they can misdirect people’s efforts. Millions have participated, over long periods, yet almost nothing has been accomplished. This results in many people getting burned out or just giving up. In other cases, people may carry on working on these campaigns, instead of looking into other action that might be more productive in terms of actually changing policy, or otherwise reducing carbon emissions and environmental damage.

One way these organizations can help to address this problem would be to increase cooperation with other groups that may share the same environmental goals, but which disagree on tactics or strategy. Supporters or members who become frustrated or disillusioned could be directed to some of these other groups, where they might be able to contribute in different ways. Earth Hour, for example, may have a specific well-defined role they want to play, but this does not mean they cannot support others playing a different role. Other groups may wish to bolster the Earth Hour idea by engaging in other acts during such periods, beyond simply shutting off lights.

Campaigns such as Earth Hour and 350 appear to be mostly preaching to the choir at this point. When they first started, they did help raise awareness and get more people active in working for climate action, and for this they should be viewed as a success. They have not proven successful, unfortunately, in generating the kind of political and economic change needed to prevent the worst consequences of climate change. It is unclear if they can provide much additional benefit by continuing more of the same. If, however, they can transform themselves into something new and increase cooperation with other environmental groups, they may be able to build on their past success, and help contribute to real change.

Chris Lawrence is the author of Self Destructive Bastards, a blog dedicated to environmental issues. He is a former IT worker living in Toronto, Canada.