That is a charitable interpretation Ed. Most people who promote altruism also feel like they are doing good for humans - and that is PART of the problem.

Earth Hour is not virtuous, it is "virtue signaling." To participate in Earth Hour is to be part of the elite, non-assholes-who-are-killing-the-planet, group of people. When you turn off your light, you show that you are one of the special people that "care about the planet." WORSE YET, if you then look through your neighborhood to see who HASN'T turned out their lights, you are determining TO WHOM you are superior. Anyone with their lights on - needs to be "educated" about the importance of being part of the special/enlightened group of symbolic (virtue-signaling) action-taking people who "are part of the solution rather than part of the problem." Earth Hour is about pecking order, us/them, and obedience to the group.

Scratch the surface of 95% of people who participate in Earth Hour and you will find self-righteousness and virtue-signaling - superiority.

Seriously, try it. Ask people about whether they participated, then ask they why. The answer will jump out at you.

I'd suggest you follow some of the links in the piece plus a few of the reading suggestions at the end to read in their own words what motivates the radical environmentalists. Most people who turn off their lights will be unfocused but not necessarily malicious; they feel they're doing something in part that's good for humans. But the radicals really don't like people..Check out especially my review of "Merchants of Despair." It will shock you. http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/13-04...

Everyone worries about the half-life of radioactive waste. What's the half-life of lead?

"they would be putting their energies behind nuclear power. The 24/7 energy source that has zero emissions with minimal waste volume."
Yes! We should have started long ago instead of stopping building new nuclear plants.

There's a funny cartoon where a nuclear plant is sneering at a coal fired plant. The nuclear plant is saying, "Yeah... but there's no safe way to store your waste either."

The problem is grave. We absolutely should be going to nuclear power.

Indeed.

If the people advocating for low carbon emission generation were actually serious about that, they would be putting their energies behind nuclear power. The 24/7 energy source that has zero emissions with minimal waste volume.

There is actually no problem to solve. The people advocating for this just don't like the solution.

Obviously there is a different agenda in effect.

Yes, turn on the lights, the heater, all your appliances, your faucets and the safe drinkable water from them, get in your car and drive around the block, place a phone call or text, write and count and measure, look up at the heavens and see stars, galaxies, and even a moon that men have walked on instead of holes to a god's home, plant a bush or flower in a location of your choice instead of nature's--celebrate the achievements of men using their minds to discover energy past fire in a pit, to understand life and make it better for all without having to count on the supernatural or gods. .

"They are more than happy to cut human beings down a peg or three and are morally righteous about that."
I have definitely seen this unfortunate attitude.

Even my wife fell into it a few years ago when we were heading to legal conference at a huge indoor water park. One the way she said using all that water is so bad for the environment, and she was annoyed her professional org picked this venue. I said if it provides joy for people, that's why the environment's for. We need to make it sustainable and not unwittingly trash something we want even more in the future, but fundamentally the environment's there for us. I cared for our 1 y/o while she attended the meetings. After a day of meetings she sat by the pool pushing our baby on swing that dipped his legs in the water as he swung. He got a kick out of it, and she was able to relax. On the way home she was saying waterparks are probbaly worth their cost to the environment-- a total 180. :)

I do not believe that it means what you think it means. I think Ed is much closer to the real reason that most people support it.

IF it meant solidarity in championing the value of energy and the cost of not having energy, I would support it. Most of my friends/community are advocates of Earth Hour - and they are much more on the 'humans are a plague' side of the equation than the "technology will solve the problem" side. They are more than happy to cut human beings down a peg or three and are morally righteous about that.

Perhaps the event was meant to celebrate human achievement - but I have never experienced that when I engage with people who promote it. Not once. (before your post).

"[The ideology behind Earth Hour] holds “the environment” to be of value in and of itself, separate from and even in opposition to humans."
This is categorically false. The opposite is true: The environment only has value to the extent someone enjoys it.

The article reasons logically from this false premise and arrives at mostly wrong conclusions.

Carbon emissions are correlated to GDP. They are also a form borrowing from the future, more surely than if we floated a bond or promised a new Social Security benefit. The point of Earth Hour is not to reduce emissions by keeping the carbon emission to GDP ratio constant and reducing GDP. The point is to reduce the ratio and eventually find ways to engineer the environment to human needs or to bring the net release of carbon from our activities to near zero so we can have ever growing economic output without it needing to be paid back in the future when someone has to clean up or work around our mess. So the point of Earth Hour is to celebrate human achievement.

It's a symbolic celebration, but it's powerful. Standing in front of my house a couple years ago with everyone's lights off, though, was a powerful symbolic demonstration of how committed people are to solving the problem.

Much better idea than the UN's Statist Happiness Day.