Remove this ad

Earth Hour 2010

by Tammy Plotner on March 25, 2010

Want to stay on top of all the space news? Follow @universetoday on Twitter


Where will you be when the lights go out? Earth Hour 2010 will take place on Saturday, March 27 at 8:30 pm local time. Even though it will spark a tirade of controversy just asking folks to turn off their lights for one hour, let’s see who would rather fight than turn off a switch. In 2009 hundreds of millions of people around the world showed their support and Earth Hour 2010 will continue to be a global call to action to every individual, every business and every community. A call to stand up, to show leadership and be responsible for our future. Do you have what it takes to make such a simple gesture?

Then let’s rock the house…

Remove this ad

Earth Hour started in 2007 in Sydney, Australia when 2.2 million homes and businesses turned their lights off for one hour to make their stand against climate change. A year later Earth Hour had become such a global force that more than 50 million people in 35 countries showed their support by switch off for a simple 60 minutes. Icons stood in dark silence as Sydney Harbour Bridge, The CN Tower in Toronto, The Golden Gate Bridge in San Francisco, and Rome’s Colosseum, all did their part as symbols of hope for the future.

Can you still use your imagination? Can you? Then imagine Earth Hour from space…

This year China’s Forbidden City heads up a list of some of the world’s most iconic landmarks that have confirmed their participation in Earth Hour – including The Great Pyramids of Giza and the Sphinx. They will be joined by Italy’s Trevi Fountain in Rome and Leaning Tower of Pisa, Big Ben and Houses of Parliament in London, Edinburgh Castle in Scotland, India Gate and Red Fort in Delhi, Victoria Falls in Zimbabwe, Bosphorous Bridge in Istanbul, Hohensalzburg Castle in Salzburg, and Independence Angel in Mexico City. They join a comprehensive list of the world’s great man-made marvels and natural wonders, including the Eiffel Tower, Brandenburg Gate, Hiroshima Peace Memorial, Empire State Building, London Eye, Table Mountain, Christ the Redeemer statue, Sydney Opera House and the world’s tallest building, Burj Khalifa, which will plunge into darkness for Earth Hour

Before you say “Why bother?” or “My contribution won’t make a difference.”, then think on this… Earth Hour has truly managed to raise our awareness of climate change issues. But there’s more to it than switching off your lights for one hour once a year. It’s all about giving people a voice on the future of our planet and working together. Even if you’d rather fight than flick the switch… you are participating. Whether you are an individual, a business, a school or a city, you can show your support for Earth Hour by turning off your lights at 8.30 pm on March 27 wherever you are on the planet. No one is saying you can’t use your computer or watch television. Bake a pizza and eat it by candlelight with your family! All it takes is the guts to show you understand and care enough to take action.

Do you have what it takes to flip the switch?

Remove this ad

About

Tammy is a professional astronomy author, President Emeritus of Warren Rupp Observatory and retired Astronomical League Executive Secretary. She’s received a vast number of astronomy achievement and observing awards, including the Great Lakes Astronomy Achievement Award, RG Wright Service Award and the first woman astronomer to achieve Comet Hunter's Gold Status.

← Older Comments
  • Spoodle58

    Well said Duncan Ivry.

  • joseluis7696

    If the effect of turning out just the home lights is not disruptive enough for the power utilities, they will not demand actions on the governments to prevent the 2011earth hour. Decision level officers will not care a dime for such an action.

    If plain people want to show their power and somehow influence politicians decisions, they should blow somewhere it hurts.

    Otherwise the sacrifice of living in darkness for a full hour will be useless.

    This will only reset our bad consciences to go on polluting in peace, without any other practical result. In this sense, it could be highly negative.

    Also, lots of money have been spent in advertising this action worldwide, money that may be could have been used better and more effectively.

  • http://www.wro.org Tammy Plotner

    thumbs up to NWentland ! you’ve encapsulated part of what i was trying to say (and this is why i write technical pieces and not emotional – i just can’t quite express what i “feel”.)

    proving that we can do something globally as brothers and sisters of the human race – without “authorities” telling us whether we can or cannot – takes guts. it’s not a yuppie thing. it’s not symbolism. it’s not even “stylish”.

    dudes? it’s a tea party and we’re headed for boston.

  • Duncan Ivry

    Tammy Plotner: “… technical pieces and not emotional – i just can’t quite express what i “feel”"

    See my comment above including quotes from your article, and take “let’s rock the house”, and “symbols of hope for the future”, and now “brothers and sisters of the human race” — I nearly couldn’t believe: “brothers and sisters of the human race”, how old are you? thirteen? –, “it’s not a yuppie thing”, “it’s not symbolism”, “it’s not even “stylish”", “it’s a tea party and we’re headed for boston.” By the way, you are attacking a lot of strawmen here.

    And the images full of emotions, the most disgusting thing being the little girl with the candle and the finger on the switch and the look from below.

    Stating that you write “technical pieces and not emotional”, and that you “just can’t quite express” what you feel, is, with all due respect, not what I would call the truth. You really should stop messing around with your readers here.

    Seriously: You should stop writing articles on UniverseToday for several months, and you should only come back if you can show to the editor that you are able and willing to write mostly technical pieces again.

    This to the editor:
    From the comment policy: “Don’t advertise your stuff, or promote your personal theories. We’ll delete any comments that break these policies.”
    What’s about authors of articles advertising their stuff and promoting their personal theories?

  • Hon. Salacious B. Crumb

    Sorry Tammy, your response here sounds just a bit bitter. We were invited for comment here, and sorry, but while you sentiment supports this idea, others like me, humbly disagree.
    Clearly from you latest response you just see this as some kind of protest action against “authorities.” For me, all you have done is to turn this idea into some more irrelevant trendy hippy love fest!

    It does absolutely nothing to solve the problem of climate change.

  • Astrofiend

    Duncan Ivry Says:
    March 26th, 2010 at 7:07 pm

    Hey Irvy – why don’t YOU piss off for a month or two, and only come back when you understand what a massive wanker you are?

    Universe Today owes you nothing. If you don’t like the tone and style of the articles on here, there is a simple solution – don’t read the articles here and bugger off. If you don’t like the ‘non-technical, non astronomy’ articles, then why are you clicking into an article with a heading that gives informs you immediately that it is almost certainly non-technical and not related to astronomy? Could it be that you are a sock-sniffer of the highest order?

    The sheer arrogance of somebody coming onto a website and demanding that they change their content is mindblowing. I guess you could start your own blog, but I presume that you already realise that readership would be limited to yourself. But that would be great – you could go around high-fiving yourself for being such an arrogant, sock-sniffing wanker!

  • William928

    @Astrofiend:

    I couldn’t agree with you more. It’s incredible how self important some of these commenters are. When I finally get to Sydney, I need to look you up and buy you an ale or two or three….

  • http://www.wro.org Tammy Plotner

    thanks, mates…

    i wish i were 13 and didn’t live on wheels again. i wish i could look at a picture of a child and think of it as disgusting emotionalism – instead of a grandchild who for one hour felt important, no matter how true of false the effort may be. i wish i’d learn to take a lesson from others who also contribute here and not read or participate in comments as they invariably lead to hurt feelings and misunderstandings. i wish i really didn’t care about the people that i write for – but i do. i read other people’s websites and links – just as i try to respect their opinions and de-fuse volatile comments with humor that never seems to work.

    about 10 minutes here until lights out. and while they are, i’ll continue to work on my laptop and make my living by writing about astronomy. Duncan Ivry’s response will smart for awhile, but i’ll be around a lot longer than will he.

    and if i ever make it to sydney? the first round is on me…

  • Astrofiend

    Brewskies all around then! T’was a great night over here – enjoy it!

  • Hon. Salacious B. Crumb

    It was great. A couple of people up my street got their homes broken into – no doubt celebrating away at some hippy-like love fest. and even one elderly lady was physically attacked and shaken up when they broke into her backdoor of her house. Nice.

    Good to see human nature in act when they see an opportunity.

  • Duncan Ivry

    @ Astrofiend

    “Universe Today owes you nothing.”
    Wrong! Universe Today is on the Web for it’s readers, and, like any good publication, it owes it’s readers something.

    “If you don’t like the tone and style of the articles on here, there is a simple solution – don’t read the articles here and bugger off.”
    Not on the point! Not “articles” in the polemic plural, but only *one* article. And the simple solution is not the appropriate one. Not going away, but expressing my opinion, just as others do — *that* is appropriate.

    “If you don’t like the ‘non-technical, non astronomy’ articles”
    Not on the point! I did *not* say that.

    “The sheer arrogance … demanding that they change their content”
    See my first point above. A reader demanding a publication to change it’s content a little bit — and this is what I did: little bit, i.e. in the case of this earth day article and the authors “special” content and style — is one of the completely normal reactions a reader can show — at least it is in other respected publications.

    I will not continue this discussion with you. Have a good day.

  • Duncan Ivry

    Tammy Plotner: “… i wish i could look at a picture of a child and think of it as disgusting emotionalism …”

    Please, think one more time about it, because, this is not what I said: just simply “a picture of a child” and then “disgusting emotionalism”. No!

    What I critizise (among other things), is — I hope, I explain it better now — that you, in order to support your campaign, exploit the emotions that child in that image usually activates in the observer. You do it again: “a grandchild who for one hour felt important”. This is *the* important ingredient: exploitation of emotions.

    “Duncan Ivry’s response will smart for awhile, but i’ll be around a lot longer than will he.”

    What do you think, your article and further comments do to me and, as far as I can see, some other readers? Do you still not recognize, what you have done? Do you really think, I, as a long time, loyal reader, can put it away like nothing, if there is such a campaign in the excellent Universe Today?

    And, by the way, is it relevant how long somebody is “around”? I invite you to tower above my 11,5 years of reading Universe Today plus many years to come :-)

    “… comments as they invariably lead to hurt feelings and misunderstandings … humor that never seems to work”

    I did not know, that your experience with comments to your articles (the plural looks correct, I think) is so negative for you. This is really very sad.

    You will get this wrong again, I’m rather sure, but: Don’t pose like an oh so poor victim, but learn how to take those things. Or, if you can’t, then — some will again see this as arrogance — don’t write articles which are published to an audience, where “such a” reaction is possible (it would not be possible in some closed shops).

  • William928

    @Duncan Ivry:

    It seems your strength lies in meaningless criticism of the articles offered here. Perhaps you should take Astrofiend’s suggestion and “bugger off” for a bit. I find Tami’s articles fun and informative. Not everything offered on this site must be strictly scientific and technical in nature. If you’re so bothered by the content, look to another site for your enjoyment. Pointed attacks really have no place here IMHO. If you are indeed a loyal and longtime reader of UT, you should know that some of us who have come here more recently don’t appreciate your arrogant and heavy handed approach. Get over yourself mate!

  • Duncan Ivry

    William928: “meaningless criticism of the articles offered here”

    Again the plural “articles”. It’s one — *one* — article I critizise, and I explained in details why — ergo: not meaningless. Not Tammy Plotner, not astrofiend, not you took this reasons, but supposed “quotes”, things I never said, and talked against them, as if I had really said them.

    “Not everything offered on this site must be strictly scientific and technical in nature.”
    I never requested this or something similar, and, again, I only criticise *one* article, not the site.

    “If you’re so bothered by the content …”
    I’m not bothered by the content of the *site*.

    “your arrogant and heavy handed approach”
    It’s only about one article — *one* –, so what fantasy are you talking about? This appoach: Trying to exploit the emotions of the readers in order to find support for a political campaign, and lying about what someone does, and messing around — this is really bad. Now the author gets away with her eval practise, taking no responsibility, and I’m the eval guy — that’s life ;-)

    Look, your accusations have nothing to do with me, but with what you have in your mind about me — two different persons. So, please, come down to the facts!

    Is it the official policy of Universe Today, that people coming to the site are only allowed reading, and making affirmative comments, but not criticising? No, it’s not — Universe Today is part of the free world and not a totalitarian one. You and others should get accustomed to it. And learn to read without fantasizing!

    To come to an end: It’s only *one* article, and I will not “bugger off”, because I’m very interested in the Universe and all this, and because I like Universe Today. I will continue reading, sometimes commenting, most of the time positive, sometimes negative, and I don’t care about the opinions of certain people.

    And, by the way, I … am … not … your … mate.

    Will not be continued.

  • Astrofiend

    Will not be continued eh? Then why do you keep coming back to check for responses? Piss weak Ivry.

← Older Comments

Previous post:

Next post: