Earth Hour...

Don't lie down with pandas
Peter Foster, Financial Post
Published: Friday, March 28, 2008

I suggested in Wednesday's column that tomorrow's Earth Hour? -- when a number of cities and citizens in Canada and around the world are dimming their lights between 8 and 9 p.m. -- is a gesture both environmentally pointless and politically subversive. By the most optimistic estimates, last year's "great success" at the first such event in Sydney saved the energy equivalent of keeping one -- yes, one--car off the road for six years.

Earth Hour's primary purpose is not to "raise awareness" about climate change, or give people an opportunity to see the stars, but to demonstrate the power of organizer WWF. Such power is not merely cherished for its own sake; it comes attached to the potential for earning big bucks.

I came across an example of the WWF's earning power at the recent Globe conference on business and the environment in Vancouver. The Cement Association of Canada had just produced its second "Sustainability Report." At a related session, earnest industry representatives emphasized the many steps they were taking to reduce their environmental footprint. They committed -- like the doomed carthorse in Animal Farm -- to do more and better in future.

What intrigued me about the session was the presence of Michael Russill, president and chief executive of WWF Canada. When he went to the podium, his tone was quite unlike that of the other panel members. He was not there to grovel, or to struggle with practical issues. He made clear that he was not an "advocate" of the cement industry. Nevertheless, he then talked about the "partnership" that WWF International had with French-based cement giant Lafarge, one of whose North American executives was on the panel. According to Mr. Russill, Lafarge had come to the WWF for help with work on restoring quarries, but this relationship had "expanded." One of the WWF's "stretch targets" for Lafarge was a reduction in its carbon dioxide emissions from developed countries by 10% below 1990 levels by 2010. "We are demanding and challenging and pushing," Mr. Russill said. The WWF, he said, saw its job as "raising the bar." (So much easier than having to jump over it.)

Mr. Russill -- a former oil industry executive -- laid out the "rules of engagement" with Lafarge. The "dialogue" had to be "CEO to CEO." Moreover, the parties had to be free to criticize each other. The WWF insisted on "transparency" and on third-party auditing.

In the interests of transparency, I decided to ask three questions: What was the cost to Lafarge of meeting the WWF's demands? How much was Lafarge paying the WWF? And, since the freedom to criticize was such an important part of the partnership, what criticism did Lafarge have of the WWF's approach?

The Lafarge executive on the dais suddenly looked like a deer in headlights. He didn't have a clue what meeting the WWF's demands was costing. Moreover, he would presumably rather have chewed off his own arm than criticize the WWF. It was left to Mr. Russill to reveal the price that Lafarge had to pay to have the WWF hold its feet to the kiln: ¤1-million, that is, around $1.6-million. (Mr. Russill subsequently came by to assure me that only a small part of the money came Canada's way. Apparently it was devoted to a "big carnivore" project.) Subsequently, however, I discovered, when speaking to Olivier Luneau, Lafarge's head of sustainability and public affairs in Paris, that the figure was actually ¤1.5-million, that is, $2.4-million, annually over three years (a new contract is currently being negotiated).

In terms of WWF targets, Mr. Luneau said, Lafarge was on the way to meeting the intensity reduction of 20% by 2010, but was only halfway to meeting the absolute reduction figure of 10% in developed-country operations.

Mr. Luneau explained that he didn't have a figure for the cost of meeting the WWF's demands (beyond what Lafarge would have done anyway). However, he stressed that Lafarge's link with the WWF was valuable in terms of the company's credibility, especially when it came to input into the policy-making process.

Mr. Luneau said that the WWF brought professional expertise in reclamation, while its "stretch targets" were useful in getting the company prepared for the carbon-constrained world toward which the policy climate seemed to be moving: a little toughening up for a more draconian future.

The WWF thus seems to have found a very profitable and powerful niche for itself, both as business and political consultant, while at the same time somehow retaining its posture as guardian of the planet. This unusual combination means that it can happily bite the hand that feeds it. "Partners" may then proudly display the bite marks as proof of their environmental commitment. It couldn't work anywhere else but the environment business.

This both-sides-of-the-fence shtick reminded me of the modus operandi of Maurice Strong, the den father of radical environmentalism. It is surely not a coincidence that Mr. Strong-- who currently resides in Beijing-- was one of the earliest and most influential members of the WWF. Meanwhile, the Cement Association's Sustainability Report came about as a result of the "Cement Sustainability Initiative" of the World Business Council for Sustainable Development. The WBCSD was started by?Go on, have a guess!

So if you love freedom, and possess the slightest trace of ability to think independently, don't forget to keep those lights burning brightly between 8 and 9 P.M. on Saturday night. And in particular try to avoid idiotic retailers who want you to suffer eyestrain for an hour so that they can demonstrate their willingness to kowtow to the forces of darkness.

http://www.financialpost.com/analysis/columnists/story.html?id=897bee53-5d07-425d-9a63-49affcb5438d&k=31534

When ecophobes argue with you, explaining in condescending tones that the science is settled and that we must do something to save the planet, test them.

Given that any ecophobe worth his salt will swear on a stack of Noam Chomsky texts that Anthropogenic Global Warming is the single biggest threat to ever face humankind, expect them to live accordingly. If they don't, don't even bother debating them because they obviously don't even believe their own rhetoric.
So, here's the deal: Since we are facing global catastrophe, heroic actions are called for. Test how heroic your ecophobe “friend” is by scoring them on the following checklist:

1 to 3– Class A Hypocrite
3 to 6– Typical “Progressive”; all show no go
7 to 9– Genuine Believer ... take pity
10 to 13– Paranoid Schizophrenic ecophobe
13 to 20 – Eco-terrorist; or Hobo

1. Live in as small an abode as possible
2. Bath or Shower only once a week
3. Have only one or two hot meals per week
4. Don't use Restaurants, coffee shops, or bars
5. No carbon emitting recreation
6. Drive an electric car (only if grid is Hydro or Nuke)
7. Car pool or use public transit only
8. Do not purchase imports (food, dry goods, hardware etc.)
9. Refuse to have children
10. Read only in the daytime or
11. Use only one fluorescent light at a time; live in the dark
12. Have no freezer or refrigerator
13. Ride a bike or walk
14. No vacation travel … ever
15. Don’t use electrical products (blow-dryers, shavers, toasters etc.)
16. Keep house temperatures at plus 10C in winter
17. No AC in the summer (home, car)
18. No powered yard equipment
19. No air travel … ever
20. Buy Carbon Credits and/or donate all surplus savings to Africa
21. Live in a Cave

Earth Hour crashes to Earth

Andrew Bolt
Sunday, March 30, 2008 at 11:01am

Credit the public with sense. Earth Hour, hysterically promoted by The Age, the Sydney Morning Herald, the ABC, SBS, Sky News and the federal and state governments, resulted in no significant fall in power usage.

[...]

More than 1000 people braved the chill and the rain to see Premier John Brumby and Lord Mayor John So lead the countdown to 8pm… At the top of the Rialto, a small crowd had a sense of anticlimax when there was no widespread blackout at 8pm. In fact, across the CBD rows of illuminated office windows, with little sign of beavering workers behind them, showed not everyone had read the memo.

The organisers will say never mind, this was about raising awareness ( Yeah, right) (although not of raising awareness of the facts). But here’s the awareness it should raise: how difficult it is to get even a tiny cut in just electricity use for one lousy hour, in a country responsible for just 1.5 per cent of the world’s emissions.

And then think what the Rudd Government is promising: a 60 per cent cut in all emissions, all year. And it’s to be matched by every country around the world.

[...]

Reader Sally points out that the hundreds of Brisbane residents who drove to Kangaroo Point, choking the roads, to see the lights go down sure made up for any cut in emissions:

[...]

Some warming worshippers just didn’t get that this was about cutting warming gases, not adding to them with a bonfire:
At Giuseppe Arnaldo & Sons, celebrity chef Maurice Terzini ensured diners were not left in the dark in spectacular fashion by lighting 1000 candles.

[...]

Reader Jessica spots more warming lunacy:

We watched at least 7 helicopters flying around the inner Brisbane skies. I sent a leftie friend of mine an sms at about 8:15pm asking her if she could hear them too - she was very perplexed as to why they were there until I explained it was the Earth Hour people filming the lights so that they could go home and watch their “success” on their plasma televisions.

LINK for full article