For myself, i indeed do save energy all the time and not 1 hour in a year. And i do it by saving 45W at a time by switching off a light i dont need, not just 5W by using a "grrener" light then leaving it on when its not needed

The amount of energy saved in earth hour itself is tiny. But what earth hour is hoped to do, is raise awareness of others to lights that can be switched off when they are not needed. If somebody, as result of seeing earth hour, thought "hey, i allways leave the light in the back garden on for no reason, i can instead switch it on when i actually need it", this is where significant amount of energy will be saved

Its the greenies who came up with earth hour, but the intention is raise awareness of eveyone. The true greenies themselfes save all the time and not just 1 hour in year, they dont actually need earth hour for themselfes. The false greenies (and unfortunately they are the majority) just make earth hour into a show (and it does not make them save any power at all), while all the rest of the year they are behaving just like the SUV guy just with a Prius instead

While i am to some extent a greenie myself (i just know how to be green silently and efficiently and not just shout about CFLs like way too much other greenies), i see and i am outraged by some other stuff done in the name of "green". But it is not all evil. When being green is done properly (it's just too rare....) it will save the earth (and the earth does need it) without harming anything we do or want to do

Earth hour is just a stupid slacktivist stunt that ecoidiots can use to claim that they are doing 'something' about a problem that does not exist in the first place, namely gorebull wormening.  Just sit around in the dark for an hour steeped in delusions.
If they really wanted to do something, they should go without ANY real source of energy.  No coal, no nuclear, no oil, no natural gas, NOTHING.  Make them subsist on just solar... wait... solar requires mining in order to get the silicon or other semiconductors for the cells, and then there is all the glass that is needed.  And oil is needed for the plastic for the backing, junction box and wiring insulation, so solar is out.  So they can live on wind only... but mining is still needed for all of the needed metals and wind kills birds by the ton, so wind is toast.  Well, there is microhydro... that may harm fish (and that cursed mining for the raw materials again), so that is dead.
The whole bloody movement was from the beginning about nothing less than the destruction of modern society as we know it.  Der Fubar barry soetoro the magic Kenyan said as much when he said that (and I quote) "energy prices must NECESSARILY SKYROCKET."  Modern society cannot exist without cheap and reliable energy.
As the many members of this forum who are from the former Eastern Block know, socialism always destroys societies and countries and has this nasty habit of killing hundreds of millions of people.

The problem does exist and it is a big one. Claiming otherwise is closing your eyes on singns that are shouting that. And it is a problem that should be dealt with

Perhaps in you area greenies are all about sitting in the darkness in earth hour. Well earth hour IS NOT about that. It is about switching off lights that you dont need, not all of the lights. Because some people don't do that, and its them that earth hour is trying to change. If there is opposition to that, then either the lights in question are ones that earth hour is not even asking to switch off, or are unneeded but the user considers it important to waste just for the fact, now this is another problem

Not all energy is going to go solar and wind THIS SECOND. Untill then, it makes sense to save as much as possible from it. And given that with every day of consumption you need deeper mining, drilling more in places that have lower oil yield etc. it can explain why non-renewable energy is going up in cost. There are overblown government taxes on it, but even if you subtract them, the cost of energy and resources really is going up for the very reason that they are not renewable

Even when energy will be "green", it will still make sense to save - For example, to reduce wear of batteries used to store energy from the solar panel, and if it is saved all the time then save on the capacity of panel and batteries installed

You cannot compare the resources that are needed "one time" (for manufacture of "green" energy generators, wiring etc) to "constantly" (for manufacture of energy from non-"green" sources). The quantities just dont compare. It takes several months to over a year for a solar panel to return the resources needed to manufacture it, but its life is at least about 5 years - So there is a  4-5 times cut down use of resources

Saying that "I cant save 100% of the resources, so i will not bother saving even 75% of them" - now THAT is an attitude. That attitude may outrage the "greenies", but it won't actually harm them. Instead, it will harm our planet on which i and my kids are koing to live too. And i really dont appreciate that others, back in the day, intentionally wasted more than their fair share for no reason other than protesting against some idiots, which will be gone at the first sight of something really happening

I can agree with PART of what you say, the part is that too much of the "greenies" are false (they dont even do themselfes what they call for), stupid (duing harmfull stuff, enforcing impossible stuff). But there is some stuff they say which is correct and applicable. It is no big challenge to filter that out, and voluntarily apply where possible. Its little change to do and won't affect you, but if done by significant part of the population it will have only positive effect

Greenies, hippies, and other "green" themed activists and such, climate change "stoppers" and such are a HUGE LOAD OF BULL.

There are facts about climate change, and disputes whether it is dependant of human activity, many of them not entirely neutral. So if "we" (actually few generations later) want to be sure that we keep living on this planet (also without breaking it for other life), we must be on the safe side

Thinking of this, it is tempting to call this BS because otherwise some action is required and we are lazy. In our generation, the estimated severity of the problem require to take some steps that can be inconvenient, but not unreasonable. If left to go on, the next generation will have to take more harsh steps to keep up. Is it our right to leave the snowball to them ? probably not



First mistake that you made, and a critical one : When you say greenies you include the CFL greenies, hippies, PETA, and others. In fact, you include a social movement which is not even directly related to the topic, a group that works for animal wellfare rather than ecology in general, and others. This grouping is what changes verifiable claims into personal flame attacks against a wide group. Instead, i will break up your "greenies" into 5 distinct levels. to actually understand whats going on

In the 1st level, we have scientists that proved that there is a climate change for the worse, and real dangers for the future of humans and all life. There is research going on whether it is depending on human activity (i am pretty sure it does as matter of fact, but i will keep this as assumption just to be reasonable with you)

In the 2nd level, we have a VERY SMALL group of REAL greenies. They think, and they find possible ways to solve the problem. Some of the found steps are not comfortable but are reasonable - This include switching off stuff when it is not in use, changing to more efficient light sources where reasonable, not using animal products (milk, meat etc), and other things. The common is, that many of the conclusions are about changing habits

In the 3rd level, we have the main society which is unhappy with the suggestions, typically with BS of excuses : "but the light must be on all the time", "but fluorescent light color is harsh", "but people can't survive without eating meat", but... (yes, if it was not clear then just now said that going vegetarian is in the group of "reasonable" steps. In fact, this alone would save way more resources than everything attainable with lightbulb changes alltoghether, as well as solve some more problems which are not directly ecological)

In the 4th level come the MASS of wannabe greenies, which are who make bad name to all of them. They want to make green into something the society will BUY. They are the ones to come up with all the "green trend" - Have you ever noticed, that too much of the "green trend" is about changing products in use, but NOT about changing habits, in contrast to the conclusion of the real greenies ?. There are 2 reasons for that : There are a lot of businessmen who take a ride on this trend. And there are stupid masses who think they do good, while in fact their effect is marginal and can be to either side

In the 5th level, come the government. It uses its force on people, sometimes with good intentions, and sometimes with selfish intentions. The 2nd level conclusions dont appeal to it, as much as they dont appeal to the 3rd level either. However, the 4th level "conclusions" are attractive, since they can all be enforced by regulation. make everything appear "green". and shockingly even make levels 3-4 happy with the dictated acts



Here some explanation regarding the bulb bans

Incandescent ban - Level 3 uses lots of incandescents, in places where they really ARE waste of energy for no reason, and it is good idea (of leve 2) to focus on changing this. In the bottom line, the incandescent ban IS good for the planet. But there is more to it. I think that the ban came as result of level 3 not changingthe lights voluntaily, due to BS excuses like "harsh light" - Google it, the internet is flooded with pathetic whining of homeowners about the "wrong color" of CFLs, dating as much as 12 years ago when the bans were not even thought of. If the adoption of level 2 suggestions would be faster, perhap we would not have a ban now. I do dislike the ban, but i can totally see how come it happened and why. Now, in ecology we made good to the planet with this ban, but in society, this is a very dagerous and scary step - that the government can regulate what we manufacture, have and use. And surrender like this is among the worst that can happen on the planet, screw ecology

Ballasts / mercury / whatever bans - They actually have nothing at all to do not with level 2 and not with level 3. It is buisness within level 4, followed by crowds from levels 4 and 5 which are tricked into thinking that this have significant ecological impact. I for one dont see how a ballast you have to replace 2x in a year is greener



And here about earth hour

One of the finds of level 2 are, that in level 3 (actually so true for 4-5 as well....) people have wastefull habits, which have no justification. One of them i mentioned above with the SUV "show", the other is with leaving on unneeded lights - which often also are incandescent. One of the targets are also street lighting, not because it is bad in itself but because it is very often overused

Earth hour is a suggested way to make a showcase, and get us THINKING : What would we look like without light at all, what problems would we face, what problems WE WON'T and can stop worrying about, and what is the minimum use of lighting we actually need and not used to. It is opportunity to evaluate which lights, and when, can be turned off. If somebody somewhere, after earth hour, thought about a light "i seen that i can do without it most of the time, and i'll better use it on a switch instead of keeping it allways on just in case", this was the purpose of earth hour

Dont expect from level 4 (and obviously not from 5,,,) anything that encourages thinking. Thinking is what levels 1-2 encourage

I am against hippies, animal rights organizations (peta), and such.
All the 1-5 levels are BS as that such concept is stupid.

The climate does change, but by far not only on the Earth, but exactly in the same timeframe e.g. on the Jupiter as well (it's eye is shrinking over the last century). Indeed, very "powerful" to desdtroy anything, but I think changing climate on the Jupiter is still a bit out of their reach. So apparently there is something else, what have the power to do that. And of "that" we know only very little about, even if it gave us all the energy for the life here...

 But what worries me a lot is the huge damage done to this planet as the consequence of the hysterical effort "to reduce the global warming", mostly with opposite net effect than the aim. The "biofuel" effort to reduce the human CO2 footprint eliminate the nature's capability to extract it (of all origins, so not limited to human origin) from the atmosphere (planting fuel crops in the original place of the equator forests) is the prominent example.
 I think there are way better ways to spend the limited effort budget the world economies have than this...
 And I have very strong impression, then the "War against the climate change" is only a PR fog created to hide all the real harms.
These are the reasons, why I hate these "Earth hours" or similar, as these are only the aids to make the fog even denser, so the real threads are not visible...

I can agree with some of that, but i am not grouping things together

There is a climate change which is at least partially affected by human activity. It may be mostly natural or not (too disputed, and i won't make any claims here). What human activity can sure determine, if it will give the extra small "push" to reach the tipping point. Whether it will be CO2, plantation change (and here is where veggie's affect the most btw), or extinction of species

So looking at stuff separately, some things will not have a desired effect but are harmfull (as : bans on reasonably efficient lamps like halophosphate fluorescents), and some will have the desired effect even if marginally tiny (as : earth hour). Evaluating each separately, one being a failure does not mean the other is

There is one clue however : There are green trends toward changing habits, which are usually harder to implement, and they usually are the most effective. In their mass they oppose the consumer society behavior. And there are trends that are going "too well" inline with the consumer society, like CFLs and "green plastic bags". Those are to be picky about - they are the highest concentration of "false green"

As for me i am definitely following this and doing separate decisions on each topic. Thats how i ended up being for earth hour, animal rights (vegan), etc while at the same time against bulb bans and some other stuff which i know that is falsely "green".

The climategate thing a few years back was just more proof that the whole gorebull wormening scam was just that: a scam.
In fact, the earth has been cooling since the late 1990s.  And the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is too low relative to historical levels (up to 7,000ppm/0.7%).  Plants die if CO2 levels drop down to 170ppm-250ppm.  We should be doing everything we can to get atmospheric CO2 up to at least 500ppm, as the more CO2 in the atmosphere the better off plants are.

the only thing "green" about this "movement" is the flow of greenback$.
all the fuss about lightbulbs while we still drive cars that throw away 80% of the energy in fuel as waste heat.
but banning cars or making them too expensive to operate would cause a revolution so not much is done.allowing an oil company to buy battery technology that would work well in electric cars and then lock it away is what has to stop.
look up nimh battery.

Animal rights movements are a load of bull as well, as humans were DESIGNED to eat meat (we have canine teeth, which are used to chew meat-so we shouldn't be "vegan".

Animal rights movements are a load of bull as well, as humans were DESIGNED to eat meat (we have canine teeth, which are used to chew meat-so we shouldn't be "vegan".

You are wrong. Animal rights are a MUST. Many species and types of animals became extinct or are In danger of extinction, because of hunting. Also, there are many cases that are an abuse at animals such are animal exhibition in circus, bullfighting and other sports that involves attacks with animals, etc...
Animal rights movements shouldn't be disparaged like the bulb ban.

You are wrong. Animal rights are a MUST. Many species and types of animals became extinct or are In danger of extinction, because of hunting. Also, there are many cases that are an abuse at animals such are animal exhibition in circus, bullfighting and other sports that involves attacks with animals, etc...
Animal rights movements shouldn't be disparaged like the bulb ban.

Environmentalists are Bull. They waste my time, and What is wrong with animal neglect, etc.???

Environmentalists are Bull. They waste my time, and What is wrong with animal neglect, etc.

Be careful what you say! Neglect of animal is invalid and shouldn't be occured.
The humen, hunts more animals than any other animals in the earth, and is the world only creature that hunts animals for other things than food (Sport, fun, industry, etc...).
I'm very serious about this part of animal neglect and degradation of the animal rights movements. If I would hear such a thing from you again, this WILL be reported to LG admins!

Animal foods are extremely resource wastefull to make. With animal foods, you have to grow all the food to feed to the animal throughout his entire life (of which the absolute most is lost in the form of the animal's crap), and when you eat it for 1 meal, you get tiny amount of what you put into it through its entire life

Growing all that crops to feed the animals take up earth surface area and water. Thats why forests are cut down to grow more crops (and depriving the sources of oxygen), water required to water all that is in shortage, and so on

Keep in mind that the human population on the earth is in a blaze fast grow. Hence the demands for food, water, area to grow the food, water to water the food, and area for cities for the babies to live in. And we can't just continue using up all of the earth's available surface - there must be forests left

So with animal foods, we are running out of earth surface, and of water, And this runaway process is only accelerating

Vegetarian foods (which means, growing crops that are suitable for direct consumption by humans and not to feed animals) take a fraction of that needed surface and water for the same nutritional value



Raising animals in holocaust like conditions is not okay either. We took the pledge to be humans, so take it all the way. Tigers and alligators dont raise their prey in overcrowded stinking farms, they go and hunt it out in the wild for a change. And we used to think of alligators as example of evil, have a look at ourselfes

Are humans carnivorous ? This is disputed. As matter of fact i dont have the same fangs that my cats have - this is a hint to me. My opinion is that humans are fully suited to eat vegetation as the only source of nutrition, ability to eat animals is no more than "a feature". I think being vegan for several years now (since i was teenager) and totally fine does support it