Earth Hour revisited: Critics and symbols

One of most popular page on this website is the post I wrote exactly a year ago called “Earth Hour: 60 Minute gimmicks”. The title is a bit of a giveaway; I disliked 2008 Earth Hour’s gimmicky nature and its purely symbolic meaning (as science has yet to show the event saves emissions). But as this years event approached today, I was also increasingly uneasy about my role in criticising it. As someone who generally speaking, trusts scientists when they say the world is going to hell in a handbasket, was I really “resort[ing] to sabotage” as my commenter “am” pointed out last year? And as most of the people who read the article got here via searches such as “Earth Hour critics”. I wondered was I really the Earth Hour detractor (fifth in the search) Google painted me out to be?

I began by checking the four pages ahead of me. First, as usual was Wikipedia. It was a typical NPOV (Non Point of View) Wikipedia article but did suggest last year’s Earth Hour actually resulted in a net increase in energy usage. And MonstersandCritics was fourth (handy when the search string is part of your name). M&C said the Hour appears to be flop statistically speaking, but environmentalists are mostly in favour of it as an awareness tool.

Blogger Damien Tan was second in the search because he put critics in the title (just like me, now). But he himself is arguably not a critic. He offers a very balanced account of the problem. He is able to see the rights and wrongs of the event, but decides to support it anyway. He reasons: “I support Earth Hour because despite its drawbacks, it’s doing something no global warming roadshow, blockbuster movie or NGO has been able to do - create real excitement and buy-in around a cause, on a global scale.”

More predictably FoxNews was also there and equally predictably it was the least balanced of the four. They acknowledged the global scale of the event but headed their story with a critic of the event. Before he was identified, the “critic” announced he was unimpressed with the UN’s involvement and used my word “gimmick” to put it down: “U.N.'s participation in the event is a "self-serving," thinly guised "gimmick" to sway public opinion ahead of the U.N.-led conference in Copenhagen in December at which world leaders will seek to approve a new global warming treaty,” he said.

But who was he? He was later identified as Thomas Kilgannon, president of Freedom Alliance, a Virginia-based non-profit organisation founded by Oliver North. Sourcewatch calls them a 501c3 (tax exempt) "educational and charitable foundation" founded in 1990 by Lt.Col. (Ret.) Oliver North, who "now serves as the organization's honorary chairman.” Ah, Ollie North - no wonder Foxnews was quoting it.

Freedom Alliance, according to their own blurb, is working to "keep America strong, keep America prosperous, and keep America free.” They are not fans of a global approach to cutting carbon emissions. “A United States bound by global law to reduce greenhouse gas emission levels and forced by the United Nations to send tax dollars and technology to poorer countries, is a country that has lost its will to lead the world,” it trumpets. With opinions as severe as that, it is little wonder they dislike Earth Hour.

But that didn’t describe me. It was just the symbol I didn’t like, not what it represented. I wondered whether other critics disliked Earth Hour for similar reasons. Tim Blair is one of those more fervent critics. He is an “ultra-orthodox” adherent of the Hour of Power established in opposition to the event. I asked him whether the purely symbolic nature of the event could overcome whatever shortcomings the hour might have in terms of actual electrical power saved. His opinion wasn't entirely ultra-orthodox. He doubted if any electricity was saved at all but agreed “every protest, action or ‘awareness raising’ about climate change is purely symbolic.” He said if Australia was to shut down everything, the effect would be so minimal as to be symbolic. “Symbolism is all the anti-carbon movement has,” he said.

Blair has a point, but the event does now have something more to go along with the symbolism. What is changing most rapidly about Earth Hour is its growing international flavour. The event started in Sydney in 2007 with two million taking part. Now just two years later it is a widespread global event with a potential audience of a billion people. As I said earlier, the UN is behind Earth Hour and urging people to “demand action on climate change”. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon said the event was “the largest demonstration of public concern about climate change ever attempted" and a "clear message" that people want action on climate change.

And what has changed in 2009 is that Earth Hour is increasingly a clear message. I agree with Earth Hour’s FAQ (pdf) that climate change is the greatest threat to life on Earth. Earth Hour is no longer getting hung up on how much emissions are actually saved in the hour. The question really is one of awareness, done in “an enjoyable, yet powerful way.” And so one of the climate change issues that Earth Hour has successfully promoted is about land clearing which is the second greatest source of carbon emissions in Australia. My state of Queensland is the worst culprit and WWF and Earth Hour are to be praised for putting it back on the agenda.

Other issues I wrote about last year are still relevant. There are the obvious greenwashing issues as 99 out of Australia’s top 100 companies take part. Earth Hour encourages this and has a 4.1 MB corporate pack you can download from the site. There is also the vexed matter of ownership. It is not Earth Hour it is “WWF's Earth Hour”. The Australian concern is also partially owned by Fairfax (who have a vested interest in talking it up) and ad agency Leo Burnett. Between the three, there is very slick marketing going on to get the brand out to a wide audience.

But that is the nature of the way the World Wildlife Foundation operates. They are not hippy tree-huggers - they cultivate alliances from within the elites of the society they want to change. What I’ve changed is my mind. I probably used to agree with Tim Blair when he told me it was about "middle-class slumber parties and candlelit dinners." But Earth Hour is not just a gimmick: it’s a very powerful symbol of change that is seeping into the political, corporate and social culture with astonishing speed. Earth Hour is one of the primary movers in making the green movement mainstream. Like it or hate it, it looks like it has weaved itself into the fabric for keeps.

Earth Hour: 60 minute gimmicks

India is bucking the worldwide trend and ignoring this weekend much-hyped Earth Hour which will be observed across four continents. The event started in Sydney last year where observers claimed 57 per cent of local residents took and place and electricity consumption was reduced by 10.2 per cent during the 60 minute campaign. Earth Hour is now spreading its wings internationally to at least 13 countries where it will be observed at 8pm local time this Saturday. Bangkok, Dublin, Chicago, Suva, Copenhagen, Manila, Tel Aviv, Christchurch and Toronto are among 24 cities joining Sydney in a campaign begun just last year by the international environmental group World Wide Fund For Nature (WWF).

But this apparent goodness in aid of environmental change is not all that it seems. Some critics argue that any saving would have to be offset against additional carbon burned during the publicity campaign for Earth Hour. Others suggested the original statistics for the 2007 version were exaggerated. The University of Chicago’s David Solomon did a statistical analysis (pdf) of the impact of Sydney’s 2007 version. He found that once factors common throughout the day were removed from the apparent decline, actual consumption dropped by just 2.1 per cent (not the 10.2 per cent claimed by Energy Australia), which he says is “statistically indistinguishable from zero”. Solomon says there is no reliable evidence the event caused any significant decline in NSW electricity consumption.

Solomon’s analysis proves that because there is negligible tangible benefit to the environment, the event is entirely symbolic in meaning. Nevertheless NSW Premier Morris Iemma is refusing to countenance any criticism of Earth Hour. "The critics and sceptics need to get on board," he said when pledging to dim Sydney Harbour Bridge and the Opera House for the occasion. "It's utter rubbish to say that symbolism can't lead to change."

Many don’t share Iemma’s view. Libertarian Catallaxy’s Jason Soon describes the event as a “ridiculous fad” and says its fundamental premise is about “Romanticist aesthetics” which he described as “the thought of being able to see the stars because all artificial lights are turned off and the idea of a retreat to an idyllic past that never existed when cavemen and cavewomen sang kumbaya around a fire”. Soon makes the cogent point that whatever it stands for, it is hardly about efficient energy use which should be based on everyday practice not an extravagant one-off event.

The pointlessness of Earth Hour is gleefully pointed out by climate change sceptics such as Tim Blair. Blair’s mockery has extended to the creation of an alternative event he calls the Hour of Power where he encourages everyone to use as much electricity as possible during the Earth Hour. Blogger Samantha Burns has launched a similar Anti-Earth Hour campaign against what she calls “globalised gullability.” Like Blair, she is suggesting a counter-measure of switching every household appliance on to counter the effects of Earth Hour. But both Burns and Blair are trying to have it both ways, they mock the stupidity of Earth Hour and then suggest an equally lame counter-measure, and in the process give Earth Hour unintended credit and respect it does not deserve.

Earth Hour is a gimmick. This point is acknowledged by supporters such as Mike Garfield, executive director of the Ecology Center in Ann Arbor, Michigan, when he said Earth Hour is “great theatre if it's done on a large scale.” "The first thing is that an event like Earth Hour shows the world how much of an impact an individual has the environment," he said. "To see the aerial photographs of cities lit up at night all of a sudden going dark almost has the impact of seeing the Earth from outer space."

(Image credit: Sydney Observatory)
Earth Hour is a brand owned jointly by WWF Australia, Fairfax Media and the advertising company Leo Burnett Worldwide. And the event is great publicity for all three organisations. As part of the campaign, Leo Burnett created a 30-second advertising spot showing lights being doused across the city, as well as print executions, radio ads, web, posters, postcards, press packs, brand partnerships and merchandise. Leo executive creative director Mark Collis described the event as a “little hippyish”. Of course, it is nothing of the sort. Over 600 very unhippyish businesses and corporations, such as McDonald's, Qantas, Coca-Cola and HSBC have supported the event seeing the benefit of wrapping themselves in the green flag.

Participation in Earth Hour is a salve for people who are otherwise thoughtless about their impact on the environment. It becomes a one hour penance for spendthrift activity and as soon as it is over, they can go back to their TVs and entertainment units, and continue to live their lives the way they always have. They can even feel good about it having “sacrificed” an hour in the battle against climate change. And while Victoria will delight in saving 21 million black balloons in one hour, Australia’s selfishly-high carbon emissions will continue to balloon serenely. The Earth needs a lot more than an hour of our time.