Earth Hour is more talk and less action. It’s more of being with your friends and family rather than concerned about environment. If it would have been, it should have action related to environment in its itinerary. So rather than just switching your non essential lights for just an hour, you should give a thought of replacing them with more efficient lights. It could save electricity round the year. Is it not more relevant to the Name “Earth Hour”?
Currently Europe is mulling to ban the Yellow Edison Bulbs which emits more heat than light, but it is met with resistance from people. I read somewhere that people in Europe are purchasing those incandescent bulb in bulk which could last their lifetime. So effectively the ban on incandescent bulb will be of no effect to them.
If we come to home, India, we always make very ambitious plans. We thought of replacing some of the incandescent bulbs with CFLs with the cost recovered from selling CERs. We don’t know the result of this scheme yet.
The Earth Hour takes care of just 0.01% (1/ (24*365)) of the time in the year. Do you know that it takes hours to power down a coal fired plant and hours more to power it up back again? World over the contribution of the coal fired plants is maximum. So during the Earth Hour, they maintain the frequency in the grid even if the demand is low, but the production is never changed.
Another thing is with the candles people burn during the Earth Hour. These candles are made from paraffin, a component of crude oil. So they emit those CO2 (or even more) supposedly lost by less usage by powering down the lights for one hour.
If you will search the net, regarding the benefits ( or loss) of the Earth Hour, you will find many links. Now what do you think
No comments:
Post a Comment