Earth Hour?

The cynic that I am was quite reluctant to embrace the so-called 'Earth Hour'.

For those of you not currently sitting in darkness, allow me to explain the concept. For one hour in the evening, all lights across the globe are supposed to be switched off in some kind of bid to save energy. Apparently many major landmarks across the globe are taking part, including the Sydney Harbour Bridge and The National Aquatic Centre in Beijing.

But honestly, what use is this? How much energy will really be saved with this minor gesture towards positive environmental attitudes. It is probably a safe bet that the energy used to spread information about this 'Earth Hour' outweighs the actual energy saved. Perhaps I am setting up a straw man to defeat here and actually avoiding the main point of this gesture. The main issue here must be to create awareness and a sense of solidarity across the world. We can surely address climate change together with such positive actions.

I do not, however, buy into this. Surely a more efficient 'Earth Hour' would include turning off all electricity for one hour, rather than just lights. Surely if we truly understood the massive ramifications of our grotesque use of energy we would dedicate more than an hour to this cause. Surely such an 'Earth Hour' would be less of a novelty and more of a foreboding anticipation of the future. 'Earth Hour' seems to be highly appropriate in that it shows the half measures that we take to solve problems that are not overtly threatening us. While these gestures may assuage some of our collective guilt, they do almost nothing to actually address the problem.

Until climate change becomes a more obvious problem or until we grow as a species to gain some real foresight we will remain the generation that failed the planet.

-The English Student

Social Grotesque I

Sometimes you just have to be disgusted at our grotesque society.

The recent buzz around the Copenhagen conference on global warming touted this as the time that environmental problems will be solved. Or at least, a coherent and importantly, fair method of approaching a situation would be outlined. Of course, thus far this has been a massive failure and a farce. Should the most influential world leaders have their way developing nations will take more of the burden relative to their carbon output. They will pay more for a world wide problem that they had a smaller hand in causing.

Along with this conference has been an increasingly obvious dialogue related to population sizes. A documentary featuring David Attenborough highlighted the issue very succinctly by highlighting that we currently need one and a half planet earths to maintain the consumption of our increasing world population. Is not this ridiculously over-use of natural resources disgustingly grotesque? Surely we have to directly address this problem of over population as it is becoming a very practical issue.

However, answers to this grotesque problem have been even more grotesque. The previously mentioned documentary discussed the policies of many past governments in their efforts to keep their population down. These range from a limit on the number of children legally allowed by the government, to the forced vivisection of males across the country. Every solution to this problem is naturally sickening. If we cannot find an answer to this problem that is not as vile as its origins then we need to look elsewhere.

Copenhagen is failing because we have not recognised the grotesque society we have created. It is borne out in the environmental problems we face, the solutions we have proposed and the manner in which our world leaders are dealing with it.

-The English Student