NVR Logo
Cities worldwide switch off lights to raise awareness of global warming
Monday, March 31, 2008
Save and Share Share
CHICAGO — From the Sydney Opera House to Rome’s Colosseum to the Sears Tower’s famous antennas in Chicago, floodlit icons of civilization went dark Saturday for Earth Hour, a worldwide campaign to highlight the threat of climate change.

The environmental group WWF urged governments, businesses and households to turn back to candle power for at least 60 minutes starting at 8 p.m. wherever they were.
The campaign began last year in Australia, and traveled this year from the South Pacific to Europe to North America in cadence with the setting of the sun.

Give your opinion on global warming by clicking here
“What’s amazing is that it’s transcending political boundaries and happening in places like China, Vietnam, Papua New Guinea,” said Andy Ridley, executive director of Earth Hour. “It really seems to have resonated with anybody and everybody.”

Earth Hour officials hoped 100 million people would turn off their nonessential lights and electronic goods for the hour. Electricity plants produce greenhouse gases that fuel climate change.
In Chicago, lights on more than 200 downtown buildings were dimmed Saturday night, including the stripe of white light around the top of the John Hancock Center. The red-and-white marquee outside Wrigley Field also went dark.

“There’s a widespread belief that somehow people in the United States don’t understand that this is a problem that we’re lazy and wedded to our lifestyles. (Earth Hour) demonstrates that that is wrong,” Richard Moss, a member of the Nobel Peace Prize-winning Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and the climate change vice president for WWF, said in Chicago on Saturday.

Workers in Phoenix turned out the lights in all downtown city-owned buildings for one hour. Darkened restaurants glowed with candlelight in San Francisco while the Golden Gate Bridge, Coit Tower and other landmarks extinguished lights for an hour.

New Zealand and Fiji were first out of the starting blocks this year. And in Sydney, Australia — where an estimated 2.2 million observed the blackout last year — the city’s two architectural icons, the Opera House and Harbour Bridge, faded to black against a dramatic backdrop of a lightning storm.

Lights also went out at the famed Wat Arun Buddhist temple in Bangkok, Thailand; shopping and cultural centers in Manila, Philippines; several castles in Sweden and Denmark; the parliament building in Budapest, Hungary; a string of landmarks in Warsaw, Poland; and both London City Hall and Canterbury Cathedral in England.

Greece, an hour ahead of most of Europe, was the first on the continent to mark Earth Hour. On the isle of Aegina, near Athens, much of its population marched by candlelight to the port. Parts of Athens itself, including the floodlit city hall, also turned to black.

In Ireland, where environmentalists are part of the coalition government, lights-out orders went out for scores of government buildings, bridges and monuments in more than a dozen cities and towns.

But the international banks and brokerages of Dublin’s financial district blazed away with light, illuminating floor after empty floor of desks and idling computers.

“The banks should have embraced this wholeheartedly and they didn’t. But it’s a start. Maybe next year,” said Cathy Flanagan, an Earth Hour organizer in Dublin.

Ireland’s more than 7,000 pubs elected not to take part — in part because of the risk that Saturday night revelers could end up smashing glasses, falling down stairs, or setting themselves on fire with candles.

Likewise, much of Europe — including France, Germany, Spain and European Union institutions — planned nothing to mark Earth Hour.

Internet search engine Google lent its support to Earth Hour by blackening its normally white home page and challenging visitors: “We’ve turned the lights out. Now it’s your turn.”

———

Associated Press writers Shawn Pogatchnik in Dublin, Ireland; Tanalee Smith in Sydney, Australia; and other AP reporters worldwide contributed to this report.
20 comment(s)

skippert wrote on Mar 31, 2008 6:20 AM:

" The above is a little FYI for all of those people in Napa that just thought it stupid to join in. What make people think they are to good to join in. Just look at the people that don't think it is stupid. Global warming is real and you are causing it. "

Dwayne wrote on Mar 31, 2008 7:59 AM:

" The arrogance in thinking that a natural warming cycle of the sun (affecting all the planets) is caused, or can be affected, by mankind is mind boggling. Of course the shallow thinking masses fell for the old snake oil pitch (the placebo effect) a century ago, so perhaps the inability to think this through is genetic.

If you believe you are the cause of warming, then go change a light bulb and assuage your guilt and feel better. That's no different than going to confession and jumping through the hoops to please yourself.

Meanwhile, the Prince of Green is getting rich selling carbon credits. That makes Al Gore feel much better. "

garrick_1 wrote on Mar 31, 2008 8:14 AM:

" Skippert, you need to spend less time listening to Al Gore and other alarmists, and more time thinking for yourself. I'm not a scientist, but neither is Al Gore, so I think I am at least as qualified as he is to have an opinion on this subject, and it seems to me that the cycles of solar activity are much more likely to be the cause of any "global warming". As for there actually being any global warming, didn't all of the major global temperature tracking agencies report that worldwide temperatures actually decreased this past year? Not only that, they decreased so much that they wiped out the temperature increases from the warming trend that had occured for the last century. Do yourself a favor and take a statistics course at the college, and then look at some of the data for yourself. You'll be surprised what they numbers say when they aren't skewed by someone with a special interest. "

kevin wrote on Mar 31, 2008 9:00 AM:

" I even installed some extra outside lights just for this event. I had the place lit up like New Years Eve. The neighbors all seemed in agreement, all the houses were especially well illuminated Saturday night! "

JimClark wrote on Mar 31, 2008 11:20 AM:

" As much as I HATE the PG&E monopoly, Iturned up my heater lights and did loads of laundry.

I joined the ranks of the "feel" goods, but for different reasons.

Since the environ'mental' cases seem to control our legislatue and we have no choices, our energy "providers" as well as the bozos in Sacramento and Washington, D.C. need to be replaced. "

common sense wrote on Mar 31, 2008 12:04 PM:

" Yep, I changed a couple for bulbs for our neighborhood protest against global warming hysteria. Environmentalism is the new socialism. "

jfz wrote on Mar 31, 2008 12:26 PM:

" Companies and groups that are following Al Grrr, are looking to the future...profits! Instead of the mantra "Global Warming, Go Green...", they are really chanting "Global Warming, Go Greenback!". Whose $30million is Al using to advertize? Certainly not his! Maybe GE's, from their fluorescent bulb sales? Or maybe from the "alternative power" manufacturers? "

Paddy wrote on Mar 31, 2008 1:10 PM:

" The "global warming" warnings were issued decades ago as deforestation raged and populations exploded. Nothings changed and in fact becomes worse as the Global Economy turns China and India into pollution machines that will easily surpass the worst days of the US Industrial Age.
Though my personal belief is that this is, mostly, the natural order of our worlds destiny it's unfortunate seemingly intelligent people still don't believe humanity has left a legacy upon this earth of destruction for money and power and that we are still able to do something about it. Will it change our destiny? Maybe not. Is it worth trying? Absolutely. "

valleylocal wrote on Mar 31, 2008 2:01 PM:

" The 30 Million Al Gore is using for advertising the global warming issue is most certainly from his personal bank account. It is all of his profit from An Inconvenient Truth and his money for his nobel peace prize. You should be inspired by his concern for the environment and giving back. What have you done for the sake of your grandchildren? Anything? "

Dwayne wrote on Mar 31, 2008 3:32 PM:

" Well, valleylocal, you have confirmed that the global warming scam is all about money. Most of us already knew that. When our taxes reach bout half our income, the Earth will naturally start coolin, ya know.

Al Gore is doing plenty for "the children" (where have I heard that mantra before?) with the MILLIONS he is making with his carbon credit brokering business.

After all, Al did invent the internet, so why wouldn't he be a weather expert? "

vanappan wrote on Mar 31, 2008 4:20 PM:

" Ethanol is 20 to 30 percent less efficient than gasoline, making it more expensive per highway mile. It takes 450 pounds of corn to produce the ethanol to fill one SUV tank. That's enough corn to feed one person for a year. Plus, it takes more than one gallon of fossil fuel -- oil and natural gas -- to produce one gallon of ethanol. After all, corn must be grown, fertilized, harvested and trucked to ethanol producers -- all of which are fuel-using activities. And, it takes 1,700 gallons of water to produce one gallon of ethanol. On top of all this, if our total annual corn output were put to ethanol production, it would reduce gasoline consumption by 10 or 12 percent.

Ethanol is so costly that it wouldn't make it in a free market. That's why Congress has enacted major ethanol subsidies, about $1.05 to $1.38 a gallon, which is no less than a tax on consumers. In fact, there's a double tax -- one in the form of ethanol subsidies and another in the form of handouts to corn farmers to the tune of $9.5 billion in 2005 alone.

There's something else wrong with this picture. If Congress and President Bush say we need less reliance on oil and greater use of renewable fuels, then why would Congress impose a stiff tariff, 54 cents a gallon, on ethanol from Brazil? Brazilian ethanol, by the way, is produced from sugar cane and is far more energy efficient, cleaner and cheaper to produce.

"

vanappan wrote on Mar 31, 2008 4:21 PM:

" Ethanol production has driven up the prices of corn-fed livestock, such as beef, chicken and dairy products, and products made from corn, such as cereals. As a result of higher demand for corn, other grain prices, such as soybean and wheat, have risen dramatically. The fact that the U.S. is the world's largest grain producer and exporter means that the ethanol-induced higher grain prices will have a worldwide impact on food prices.

It's easy to understand how the public, looking for cheaper gasoline, can be taken in by the call for increased ethanol usage. But politicians, corn farmers and ethanol producers know they are running a cruel hoax on the American consumer. They are in it for the money. The top leader in the ethanol hoax is Archer Daniels Midland (ADM), the country's largest producer of ethanol. Ethanol producers and the farm lobby have pressured farm state congressmen into believing that it would be political suicide if they didn't support subsidized ethanol production. That's the stick. Campaign contributions play the role of the carrot.

The ethanol hoax is a good example of a problem economists refer to as narrow, well-defined benefits versus widely dispersed costs. It pays the ethanol lobby to organize and collect money to grease the palms of politicians willing to do their bidding because there's a large benefit for them -- higher wages and profits. The millions of gasoline consumers, who fund the benefits through higher fuel and food prices, as well as taxes, are relatively uninformed and have little clout. After all, who do you think a politician will invite into his congressional or White House office to have a heart-to-heart -- you or an Archer Daniels Midlands executive?
"

Dwayne wrote on Mar 31, 2008 4:37 PM:

" Excellent posts, vanappan, and great research.

Please pass the Vaseline..... "

vocal-de-local wrote on Mar 31, 2008 8:20 PM:

" It doesn't matter to me whether global warming is man made or nature made. If it's here it's here and we need to do whatever we can to keep it in check. Things that contribute to global warming should be reduced to the best of our ability. I mean, come on people, do we really need 12 mpg SUV's when four family members can drive around in a 35 mpg vehicle? We have an energy dependency problem which should be reduced with or without global warming.

Additionally, catastrophic weather changes do occur and it can be historically proven. Doesn't matter much whether it's global warming or cooling, weather changes can severely affect our food supply. At the very least, we need to be smart about the possibility and prepare ourselves for it even if we must give something up.

If the planet's population grows to 9 billion by the year 2050, there will be no room for adapting to catastrophic events. We should assume that they WILL happen rather than not. If you care about your children and their offspring, you will begin planning for the future (don't wait until it's too late) by reducing energy dependency and putting pressure on those institutions who depend on population growth for their own growth. If we do not change our mode of "grow and grow more" our future will be more uncomfortable than the heat of global warming. Add global warming to the equation and...I don't even want to think about it. "

aszmidt wrote on Mar 31, 2008 8:43 PM:

" The Limbaugh devotees will tell us that Al Gore is getting rich by publicizing global warming. Guess what, Al Gore was a rich white guy before he took up the fight against global warming and man’s effect on the earth and he will remain a rich white guy whether his movie or books ever make a single penny. He doesn’t need the money he has plenty for three or four lifetimes already. So you have to ask why this Harvard educated man spends his time on this effort. Is it just to yank the chain of the “what problem?” conservatives? Or is it an effort to make a difference in the way Americans, by far one of the most wasteful countries on earth, treat our mother earth, an effort to make us all aware that we are not the only people on this planet. As the most wealthy and ingenious society we have an obligation to the earth, to mankind, to find a way to make a difference. We must take the lead on this issue.

There are so many examples of man’s effects on the earth that I really do not want to go into that here. To the Nay Sayers that will ask for proof of global warming, I say to them, show me your proof. Show me how clear cutting the earth’s rainforests has no negative effect. Show me how spewing millions of tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere every hour has no effect. Prove to me that the tons of waste we create daily do no harm to our environment. The problem, conservation costs money. We all know that nothing can come between a conservative and a penny. Heaven forbid we should have to pay a few pennies more for a compostable drink cup. "

funnyme wrote on Apr 1, 2008 6:31 AM:

" azmidt,
The entire world knows why: Because Mr. Al Gore didn't get the White House on 2000.
And as smart and educated as he is he knows how to get to your brain and make you dance to his rythm. He wants some credit for "his contribution" to the world.
He got his "Prize", it's time for him to go home and keep weeping about his misfortunes and leave my SUV alone! "

vocal-de-local wrote on Apr 1, 2008 10:50 AM:

" funnyme, you hit the nail on the head. People like you do not want to give up your monster, energy wasting vehicles. Guess what? Our resources are finite. Global warming or not, we must keep 'finite' in mind. I suppose you don't object to dancing on hot coals for a Middle Eastern audience either?

You cannot convince me that spewing tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere is beneficial. This deduces down to you and your love affair with an SUV. Yep, I see it every day, people like you driving down the road in vehicles equipped to hold 8 or 9 passengers but there's just one occupant inside. Is your love affair worth $7 a gallon in gas in a 15 mpg vehicle? You must have more resources than I do and I suppose that's the REAL reason you drive a monster SUV. You can flaunt it. "

aszmidt wrote on Apr 2, 2008 8:57 AM:

" funnyme
Thanks for speaking for the entire world. I feel so much better now. I guess none of the rest of us need to do anymore thinking.

Is that the entire world or just the closed minded conservative part of the world?

I think the environmentalist need a catch phrase like the one common sense uses.

How about?
Conservatives are the new Fascists. "

funnyme wrote on Apr 3, 2008 10:17 AM:

" vocal de local,
(I'll try to say it "sugar coated" because the NVR moderator doesn't like my straight forward -cynical- notes):
1. My love affair with my SUV is actually a "work affair" tool. If I don't work I don't make money, if I don't make money... you get the idea. A lot of us -conservatives- can't afford a "Hybrid" version of a "work tool".
3. I don't know where you get your gas but I still pay $3.60/gal.
4. And no, I don't like to dance to nobody's rythm and that is why I believe that we -as americans-should rely on our own sources, which we have.

If you, and all of those "global warming" followers were truly concerned, you would urge our politicians (liberal or conservative) to stop the corruption (just like our troops are doing in the Middle East) in the third world countries, which are the ones who are realistically polluting the environment.

BTW, were you around in the 70's when there was a scare of a "Global Freeze"?
"

funnyme wrote on Apr 3, 2008 10:23 AM:

" aszmidt,
(I'll try to "sugar coated" because the NVR moderator didn't like my earlier notes).

It seems to me you might want to do a bit more thinking because your "catch phrase" identifies better the opposite of conservativism...Hmmm...oh yea, liberalism.

FASCISM - A governmental system led by a dictator having complete power, forcibly suppressing opposition and criticism, regimenting all industry, commerce, etc., and emphasizing an aggressive nationalism and often racism. "

Comment Guidelines
The goal of the story comments section at NapaValleyRegister.com is to have an open, thought-provoking, civil community forum for all issues.
What gets your comment posted?
• Staying on topic
• Keeping your comment to 300 words or less
• Avoiding name-calling
• Addressing your comments to the message rather than the messenger
What gets your comment deleted?
• Personal attacks
• Derogatory remarks
• Name-calling of any sort
• Going off-topic
• Hate speech
• Racially-insensitive comments
• Implying guilt of a subject in a crime story before there is a court verdict
• Posting e-mail addresses
• Posting comments of a commercial nature
• POSTING WITH ALL CAPITAL LETTERS
• Linking multiple comments together with "to be continued..." to get around the 300 word limit.
The fine print
- Comments are either approved or denied. We do not edit comments.
- You are welcome to modify and resubmit a denied comment.
- Comments may take several hours to be posted.
- Comments posted are those of the writer, and do not necessarily reflect the opinion of NapaValleyRegister.com, its employees or its parent company.
- Do you have information on a story? Please go to our virtual newsroom to send us a news tip.
- If you feel a posted comment has violated our guidelines, please contact online@napanews.com or add a comment indicating you have an issue and our moderators will review the comment in question.
Search:
Web Search Powered
By Yahoo! Search
Napa Valley Register on Facebook
Copyright © 2009 Napa Valley Publishing, a member of Lee Enterprises, Inc.
Terms of Use | Privacy Policy