I am puzzled by Ross McKitrick's diatribe, ‘Earth Hour: a dissent’ in the March 30 Gazette.
He spends the whole article telling us all the benefits that we have because of cheap energy and that for most of us, becoming hermits in the wilds of nature is not an option. So what does any of this have to do with Earth Hour? Surely Professor McKitrick is not so naive as to believe that the organizers of local Earth Hour events are advocating that we stop using energy? Earth Hour is meant to heighten our awareness that energy should not be squandered just because it is so cheap. We are not being asked to give up energy, but to stop wasting it so shamelessly.
What is the rationale for leaving one's car idling in the shopping centre parking lot during the winter while one is in the store, heating one's house in the winter to a temperature permitting the wearing of short-sleeve shirts, or in southern climates, to refrigerate one's home so that one actually shivers when entering from outside? What about holidaying in RVs that are bigger than transcontinental Greyhound buses at a cost orders of magnitude greater than staying in a hotel or B&B?
I could go on and on and on, but the main point is: why do so many people waste non-renewable resources just because they can afford to? I remember once reading that President Richard Nixon used to crank up the air conditioning in the White House during the summer just so that he could have a cheerful wood fire blazing away without it getting too warm. Aren't acts like this literally sinful?
Yes, each of us can declare, “My contribution to global warming is trivial.” But if everyone were to just cut back on how much energy we waste, the total saving would certainly be significant. Earth Hour is one way for us to celebrate, along with McKitrick, the abundance we enjoy because of the energy we have. It amazes me that a professor at any institute of higher education could miss the point so completely.
Reuben Kaufman, St. Albert
