Why I Won't Be Turning Off Any Lights for Earth Hour

Earth Hour is founded on a metaphor—turning off the lights—that does the climate movement more harm than good.

This Saturday, environmental and climate campaigners will symbolically come together, and "lights will switch off around the globe for Earth Hour." My house will not be participating.

Like George Marshall, founder of the Climate Outreach Information Network and the author of Carbon Detox and the blog, I think Earth Hour is "one of the most misguided and counterproductive actions" the environmental movement has seen. It does more damage than good to the climate cause.

My criticisms of earlier Earth Hours—which debuted in Australia in 2007 and went worldwide the year after—are many. First, the fleeting nature of the event makes it all too easily forgotten. Like Earth Day (see here and here), it's a commitment that one can make for a short, set amount of time and then abandon. Second, the hour itself doesn't have any real impact. Utilities don't cut their power production for such a short and slight drop in demand, so no energy is really saved. Third, and most importantly, the symbolism itself of powering down for Earth Hour gets it all wrong. I thought Joel Makower of got it right when he wrote:

Turning off the lights for one hour seems a meek and hollow gesture, a feel-good measure that may fleetingly raise awareness, but does little to educate or change long-term habits, let alone “take control over the future of our planet.” It is, simply put, a media event in search of actual content.


If Earth Hour's value is just as a symbolic action, we should at least expect that that action doesn't play perfectly into the hands of the opponents of climate action. But "Turn off the lights" is practically cliché as something a hard-line, out-of-touch environmental miser would tell you to do. Conserving energy means sitting around in the dark. They want us to sit shivering in the dark!

Marshall's op-ed, written in advance of Earth Hour 2009, gets to the core psychological problem with the symbolic action.

Repeatedly in focus groups, people adopt a defensive stance against people who – they feel – are using the issue to take away material benefits. Asking people to sit in the dark plays very well to a widely held prejudice that “the greens” want us all to go back to living in caves. And if we examine the deeper symbolism, things become far worse...

Light has a vast range of positive and aspirational associations: civilisation, truth, health, intelligence, safety, hope, life and salvation. Those opposing action on climate change understand this well and frequently use images of electric light at night in their publicity as a metaphor for excitement, civilisation, and progress

So it is hard to think of any image more destructive to our cause than turning off lights. The metaphors of darkness are overwhelmingly negative: danger, decay, and death. We see the dark ages as a time of brutality. Poets such as Dylan Thomas call on us to “rage against the dying of the light”. Sir Edward Grey on the eve of the first world war said “the lamps are going out all over Europe”. Really the cultural resonance could hardly be worse.


It drives me nuts how backwards environmentalists continue to get this messaging. With so many positive metaphors on our side, why do we choose darkness?

Now, credit where credit is due. Organizers at WWF have tried this year to address the concerns of the fleetingness of the event and the lack of tangible impact. This year, they're saying that the actions will go "Beyond The Hour" (see the video below), and asking people to pledge actions that will cumulatively have some measurable impact.


I'm glad WWF has decided to do something to take it "beyond" Earth Hour, but forgive me if I'm not too optimistic about the impact of some pledges will really have.

In case you're curious, on Saturday night at 8:30 p.m., I'll be watching King Kong (the original) at the Paramount Theatre. Gathering with community to share the joys of an illuminated screen: Now there's an action I can get behind.
Illustration by Sara Saedi\n

Two years after its opening in 1914, the Baltimore Museum of Art acquired a painting by Sarah Miriam Peale — its first work by a female artist. More than a century later, one might assume that the museum would have a fairly equal mix of male and female artists, right? But as of today, only 4% of the 95,000 pieces in the museum's permanent collection were created by women.

The museum is determined to narrow that gap, and they're taking a drastic step to do so.

Keep Reading Show less
via Chela Horsdal / Twitter

Amazon's "The Man in the High Castle" debuted the first episode of its final season last week.

The show is loosely based on an alternative history novel by Philip K. Dick that postulates what would happen if Nazi Germany and the Empire of Japan controlled the United States after being victorious in World War II.

Keep Reading Show less
via Alan Levine / Flickr

The World Health Organization is hoping to drive down the cost of insulin by encouraging more generic drug makers to enter the market.

The organization hopes that by increasing competition for insulin, drug manufacturers will be forced to lower their prices.

Currently, only three companies dominate the world insulin market, Eli Lilly, Novo Nordisk and Sanofi. Over the past three decades they've worked to drastically increase the price of the drug, leading to an insulin availability crisis in some places.

In the United States, the price of insulin has increased from $35 a vial to $275 over the past two decades.

Keep Reading Show less

Oh, irony. You are having quite a day.

The Italian region of Veneto, which includes the city of Venice, is currently experiencing historic flooding. Venice Mayor Luigi Brugnaro has stated that the flooding is a direct result of climate change, with the tide measuring the highest level in 50 years. The city (which is actually a collection of 100 islands in a lagoon—hence its famous canal streets), is no stranger to regular flooding, but is currently on the brink of declaring a state of emergency as waters refuse to recede.

Keep Reading Show less
The Planet

Since the International Whaling Commission banned commercial whaling in 1986, whale populations have been steadily recovering. However, whales in the wild still face other dangers. In the summer of 2018, four Russian companies that supply aquariums with marine animals captured almost 100 beluga whales and killer whales (aka orcas). After a public outcry, those whales are swimming free as the last of the captive whales have been released, the first time this many captured whales have been released back into the wild.

In late 2018 and early 2019, a drone captured footage of 11 orcas and 87 beluga whales crammed into holding pens in the Srednyaya Bay. The so-called "whale jail" made headlines, and authorities began to investigate their potentially illegal capture.

Keep Reading Show less
The Planet