Letters to the editor: The lights are off, now lighten up
RE: ‘How to honestly be a greener citizen” by Darius Mirshahi. Volume 41, Issue No. 27 March 30, 2009.
I would like to address the author of the Social Justice Column with regards to his article on “How to honestly be a greener citizen.”
Mr. Mirshahi, you insist that Earth Hour is damaging because “it allows people with good intentions to falsely believe that they are taking action, and being part of the solution, when they are actually doing nothing.” First of all, I refuse to believe that any reasonable person thinks that he/she is doing all that is possible to maintain the planet by turning off their lights for an hour once a year. I thought it was obvious that the point of Earth Hour isn't so much to save energy as it is to raise awareness.
It is indeed a symbolic gesture, as you say. So does that make it damaging? Is it damaging to breast cancer patients if I run a marathon in their name or put a pink sticker on my windshield? Nobody's ever been criticized for wearing a yellow wristband instead of becoming a doctor and “REALLY” doing something to end testicular cancer.
That's because the point of such massive conventions is mostly about getting the topic on people's minds. Will running a marathon cure breast cancer? Of course not, but the positive attention created by an organized group of people cooperating in the common interest of a cure certainly can't hurt.
Similarly, the world turning off their lights for an hour won't stop climate change, but if it can get attention, if it can raise awareness, if it can make even just one otherwise non-environmental person stop and think twice about the state of our planet then I ask: where's the harm in that?
I'll tell you what DOESN'T make the average person want to be more environmentally friendly: being barked at, insulted, and preached to that their gestures are not only naively insufficient but are in fact “an obstacle to change.” Buying a hybrid may not save the planet, but it'll do more than snarky, rabid, ranting journalism ever could. Lighten up on the moderates.
As for your comments about Earth Hour benefactors, so Earth Hour has corporate sponsors - big deal! We complain that corporations are greedy, self-motivated, bloodsucking villains who rape and pillage the planet and when they offer an environmental olive branch we set it aflame? Is every corporation so inherently evil that it automatically ruins an otherwise good cause by attempting to associate with it? If corporations want to help raise environmental awareness by participating/donating to Earth Hour then I say good on ‘em.
The WWF isn't giving away any get-out-of-polluting-free-cards to its donors, and if a company thinks that it can avert suspicion and environmental scrutiny by publicly donating to a green organization then that company is gravely underestimating the public's growing concern for corporate misconduct, and will pay dearly for it.
It's a shame because I agree with your article on several points - Buying nothing IS more green than buying green, students ARE some of the worst offenders when it comes to waste, and your “Really Really Free Market” event this Friday, where people come to trade stuff they don't need for stuff they do, sounds like a really really great idea.
Now, if I wanted to be a dick about things I could say that 36 million people turning off their lights and saving hundreds of megawatt-hours of electricity is more beneficial to the environment than a community swap meet - but I'm not a dick. I recognize the positive symbolic nature of your event, as well as your effort, and I respect it. The same way that I would expect someone like you to respect the symbolic nature of Earth Hour instead of talking down to the millions of global citizens who take an hour each year to do SOMETHING in order to raise awareness, rather than nothing.
-Submitted by jL
RE: ‘How to honestly be a greener citizen” by Darius Mirshahi. Volume 41, Issue No. 27 March 30, 2009.
Chirping a green innovative is almost as bad as Barack Obama saying his bowling skills are less than par with that of Special Olympics athletes (he later apologized for his remarks). Earth Hour is not designed to change the world, its main goal is to get the average citizen to realize that we need to make changes in the way we produce and consume our energy.
Once again Mirshahi is wrong by saying, “Earth Hour does nothing to reduce energy demand in the long term, and in fact is a major obstacle to change”. I suppose in the long term that, yes, turning off your lights for an hour is not going to do anything. Unless of course we live in Orwell's 1984 and it is merely a part of a fake economic blitz. However, I don't want to get into his obscene political views and I'll just deal with the matter at hand.
Mirshahi thinks that reducing energy production can be a solution to the problem. Well, everything we use on a daily basis is in need of some sort of power. Be it cars, trains, cell phones, ABM's, etc. His illogical argument of cutting production or turning the power off during peak times would bring us one step closer to a pre-industrial revolution era. The solution to our problem is not reducing our production, but instead implementing a combination of more efficient methods of production, proper utilization and finding better ways to produce energy.
The only automotive company that is going to make a major difference in reducing our carbon footprint in the next two years is Tesla. Every other company has its hybrids. However, they are only the first step; let it be stated for the record it is a positive step forward. For every litre of gas we use in a car, one pound of C02 is released into the atmosphere, so by cutting down using hybrids we are actually doing our environment a favour. If we all purchased electric cars, not only could we pay less to get from point A to point B, but we could lower our total carbon footprint. If our cars don't use gas and are fueled by solar or wind power, the only foot print we would need to manage is that of which is created in production of the cars and power generation stations.
Each province in Canada differs socially, economically and geographically; to expect the prairies to provide power via hydro-power generation stations would be foolish. It is much easier to do so in Ontario and Quebec where we have massive river systems that lead into the great lakes; these lakes already provide a majority of our hydro electric power. We need to see a hybrid system, tailored for each province; the prairies could rely on a combination of wind and solar power. Whereas, the other provinces could invest in nuclear power plants and other cleaner ways to provide for our growing energy needs.
We as a people are not isolated; I repeat we are not an island unto ourselves, we can repair our environment and we can better our selves. We live in a very complex world; issues are no longer black and white, rich and poor. If it is solutions you want, then stand up and work for change. Contact your local MP's, or write our Prime Minister. We the Canadian people have the tools readily available to us; we have some of the finest research intuitions in the world and currently have over 80,000 unemployed auto workers. We need to get our act together and lead the world onto the right path for change.
-Submitted by Paolo F Campisi
Editorial opinions or comments expressed in this online edition of Interrobang newspaper reflect the views of the writer and are not those of the Interrobang or the Fanshawe Student Union. The Interrobang is published weekly by the Fanshawe Student Union at 1001 Fanshawe College Blvd., P.O. Box 7005, London, Ontario, N5Y 5R6 and distributed through the Fanshawe College community. Letters to the editor are welcome. All letters are subject to editing and should be emailed. All letters must be accompanied by contact information. Letters can also be submitted online by clicking here.
I would like to address the author of the Social Justice Column with regards to his article on “How to honestly be a greener citizen.”
Mr. Mirshahi, you insist that Earth Hour is damaging because “it allows people with good intentions to falsely believe that they are taking action, and being part of the solution, when they are actually doing nothing.” First of all, I refuse to believe that any reasonable person thinks that he/she is doing all that is possible to maintain the planet by turning off their lights for an hour once a year. I thought it was obvious that the point of Earth Hour isn't so much to save energy as it is to raise awareness.
It is indeed a symbolic gesture, as you say. So does that make it damaging? Is it damaging to breast cancer patients if I run a marathon in their name or put a pink sticker on my windshield? Nobody's ever been criticized for wearing a yellow wristband instead of becoming a doctor and “REALLY” doing something to end testicular cancer.
That's because the point of such massive conventions is mostly about getting the topic on people's minds. Will running a marathon cure breast cancer? Of course not, but the positive attention created by an organized group of people cooperating in the common interest of a cure certainly can't hurt.
Similarly, the world turning off their lights for an hour won't stop climate change, but if it can get attention, if it can raise awareness, if it can make even just one otherwise non-environmental person stop and think twice about the state of our planet then I ask: where's the harm in that?
I'll tell you what DOESN'T make the average person want to be more environmentally friendly: being barked at, insulted, and preached to that their gestures are not only naively insufficient but are in fact “an obstacle to change.” Buying a hybrid may not save the planet, but it'll do more than snarky, rabid, ranting journalism ever could. Lighten up on the moderates.
As for your comments about Earth Hour benefactors, so Earth Hour has corporate sponsors - big deal! We complain that corporations are greedy, self-motivated, bloodsucking villains who rape and pillage the planet and when they offer an environmental olive branch we set it aflame? Is every corporation so inherently evil that it automatically ruins an otherwise good cause by attempting to associate with it? If corporations want to help raise environmental awareness by participating/donating to Earth Hour then I say good on ‘em.
The WWF isn't giving away any get-out-of-polluting-free-cards to its donors, and if a company thinks that it can avert suspicion and environmental scrutiny by publicly donating to a green organization then that company is gravely underestimating the public's growing concern for corporate misconduct, and will pay dearly for it.
It's a shame because I agree with your article on several points - Buying nothing IS more green than buying green, students ARE some of the worst offenders when it comes to waste, and your “Really Really Free Market” event this Friday, where people come to trade stuff they don't need for stuff they do, sounds like a really really great idea.
Now, if I wanted to be a dick about things I could say that 36 million people turning off their lights and saving hundreds of megawatt-hours of electricity is more beneficial to the environment than a community swap meet - but I'm not a dick. I recognize the positive symbolic nature of your event, as well as your effort, and I respect it. The same way that I would expect someone like you to respect the symbolic nature of Earth Hour instead of talking down to the millions of global citizens who take an hour each year to do SOMETHING in order to raise awareness, rather than nothing.
-Submitted by jL
RE: ‘How to honestly be a greener citizen” by Darius Mirshahi. Volume 41, Issue No. 27 March 30, 2009.
Chirping a green innovative is almost as bad as Barack Obama saying his bowling skills are less than par with that of Special Olympics athletes (he later apologized for his remarks). Earth Hour is not designed to change the world, its main goal is to get the average citizen to realize that we need to make changes in the way we produce and consume our energy.
Once again Mirshahi is wrong by saying, “Earth Hour does nothing to reduce energy demand in the long term, and in fact is a major obstacle to change”. I suppose in the long term that, yes, turning off your lights for an hour is not going to do anything. Unless of course we live in Orwell's 1984 and it is merely a part of a fake economic blitz. However, I don't want to get into his obscene political views and I'll just deal with the matter at hand.
Mirshahi thinks that reducing energy production can be a solution to the problem. Well, everything we use on a daily basis is in need of some sort of power. Be it cars, trains, cell phones, ABM's, etc. His illogical argument of cutting production or turning the power off during peak times would bring us one step closer to a pre-industrial revolution era. The solution to our problem is not reducing our production, but instead implementing a combination of more efficient methods of production, proper utilization and finding better ways to produce energy.
The only automotive company that is going to make a major difference in reducing our carbon footprint in the next two years is Tesla. Every other company has its hybrids. However, they are only the first step; let it be stated for the record it is a positive step forward. For every litre of gas we use in a car, one pound of C02 is released into the atmosphere, so by cutting down using hybrids we are actually doing our environment a favour. If we all purchased electric cars, not only could we pay less to get from point A to point B, but we could lower our total carbon footprint. If our cars don't use gas and are fueled by solar or wind power, the only foot print we would need to manage is that of which is created in production of the cars and power generation stations.
Each province in Canada differs socially, economically and geographically; to expect the prairies to provide power via hydro-power generation stations would be foolish. It is much easier to do so in Ontario and Quebec where we have massive river systems that lead into the great lakes; these lakes already provide a majority of our hydro electric power. We need to see a hybrid system, tailored for each province; the prairies could rely on a combination of wind and solar power. Whereas, the other provinces could invest in nuclear power plants and other cleaner ways to provide for our growing energy needs.
We as a people are not isolated; I repeat we are not an island unto ourselves, we can repair our environment and we can better our selves. We live in a very complex world; issues are no longer black and white, rich and poor. If it is solutions you want, then stand up and work for change. Contact your local MP's, or write our Prime Minister. We the Canadian people have the tools readily available to us; we have some of the finest research intuitions in the world and currently have over 80,000 unemployed auto workers. We need to get our act together and lead the world onto the right path for change.
-Submitted by Paolo F Campisi
Editorial opinions or comments expressed in this online edition of Interrobang newspaper reflect the views of the writer and are not those of the Interrobang or the Fanshawe Student Union. The Interrobang is published weekly by the Fanshawe Student Union at 1001 Fanshawe College Blvd., P.O. Box 7005, London, Ontario, N5Y 5R6 and distributed through the Fanshawe College community. Letters to the editor are welcome. All letters are subject to editing and should be emailed. All letters must be accompanied by contact information. Letters can also be submitted online by clicking here.
