Earth Hour was organised as a strike against climate change but was it a serious statement against climate change or just a publicity stunt?Earth Hour was an hour which Sydney businesses and households cut off their electricity supplies to try and ’save the environment.’ Earth Hour taken on by SMH evident through the numerous articles and co-sponsored by WWF (Australia).
The SMH’s sponsorship of Earth hour was obvious as the countdown begun several weeks before and the numerous amounts of positive articles which appeared in the paper. Such an example includes “Thanks, Sydney; it was a big turn-off” on 3rd April which obviously gave a positive response to the event whilst newspapers such as The Telegraph only mentioned one small article on the day which earth hour occurred. SMH sponsorship was further evident as they provided such a flowery account of the event as it “provided the imagery that spread the news of Earth Hour around the world.” The article continued to account that the event was reported across the world with pictures of the bridge and the Opera House in darkness, and was to spread across other Australian cities. There was a reduction in 10% in electricity demand for the hour of Earth Hour.
However it did take a realistic approach noting that;“…it will not reduce global warming. It is a tiny fraction of what is required if greenhouse gas emissions are to be permanently reduced. What Earth Hour does, though, is to lift the profile of greenhouse issues. It tells politicians and business leaders that people care about the health of the Earth’s environment, and that they are willing to change – more than willing”
The article finished questioning what will be the response be to Earth hour….which seems to not to be anything following the week or two after the event.Whilst many have been critical of Earth Hour however it did hit international news it has not been the first attempt at such an event. The Eiffel tower was one example.
The Australian on 20th April in ‘Its had to see real outcomes when we’re left in the dark.’ The feature takes an ‘aggressive’ skeptical view on Earth Hour comparing it with the mass walk across the Harbour Bridge in the cause of Aboriginal reconciliation in May 2000 which “enabled walkers and switchers-off to feel superior while engaging in self-indulgently pleasurable activities.” The author of the article Frank Devine cynically stated “…an hour didn’t seem long enough to build up a rewarding store if self-satisfaction. Why not an Earth Weekend? or Earth Month?”The article narrates “turning off the lights is a loser’s gesture. Climate Change needs to be managed within existing social, economic and governmental structures. And we can’t afford to let anybody keep us in the dark.”He further notes that Earth Hour is seen as an “act now, think later” ideal.
Other newspapers in Australia did not take the positive approach as the SMH did, The Australian article Our Darkest Hour which appeared in newspaper a few days after the event of Earth Hour, which took a cynical stance. The article opened with the line ‘self denial is one strategy for reducing carbon emissions.’ The article interestingly went on that many prominent people such as Malcolm Turnbull have agreed to the notion that we don’t need to cut measures which contribute to gas emissions rather we need to use for efficient measures which seems to contradict the general view that as individuals we need to take on both measures in cutting emissions. The tone continued to be skeptical as the last line read ‘Simply reducing consumption is not an answer. Irrational self-denial belongs to the Middle Ages, so we should think twice about simply turning out the lights.’
The majority of articles devalued the purpose of Earth Hour as fighting climate change, a prominent issue in society today and made it more a publicity stunt than anything.
