Laughed at the opening line.

Of course it is all just awareness; switching off lights and burning candles is unlikely to make a big difference, especially as a not insignificant amount of electricity is generated from hydropower.

Far from being "unlikely to make a big difference", it will most likely INCREASE carbon emissions as all the greenies burn parrafin wax candles (oil) for lighting instead of clean electricity, or use torches (toxic batteries), or drive their cars to concerts...

It's not "just awareness". It's a complete load of nonsense, even if you believe 100% in global warming.

Ah, so it's tonight then.

I've been ignoring it, mostly.

Might do a post after dinner.

Mr Dennis, my comments were how they see it. I think a lot of the supporters see it more as a publicity stunt than a genuine saving in carbon.

Myself, I would like to see another coal fired power plant. Very cheap electricity and CO2 is a good fertiliser.

Next year, instead of calling our protest Edison hour we should move a bit closer to home, Rutherford hour sounds good to me.

As I wrote in my post Nuclear Freedom, nuclear power rates higher on factors such as clean, green, efficient, reliable, affordable.

It is ridiculous that we are considering ruining our landscapes in the pursuit of noisy, native-bird-killing, ugly windfarms that produce stuff all power anyway. Hydrodams are ecologically unfriendly and coal is a bad pollutant. Geothermal power sources wrecks natural wonders. And none of the above is going to solve our power crisis.

The ridiculous knee jerk reactions to the mantra "nuclear" have to stop. More people have been killed by oil and battery plant accidents and the auckland motorways are more of a menace to human life than a nuclear power plant would be.

Go green. Go nuclear.

I think it would be funny to take a leaf out of Richard Dawkins' book (figuratively speaking of course), and refer to those of us who boycott earth hour as - quite appropriately (both literally and figuratively) - "the brights."

Don't forget to walk around your garden, hugging all the trees as you go. You could even bow down and pray to them if you prefer.

Our Mother of Earth,
Hallowed is thy name,
Your end will come,
When our lovely sun,
Turns into a Red Giant.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_giant

Give us this day,
Our daily dread,
And reduce our excretions of carbon,
as we abort our populations.

Lead us not to our vehicles,
But deliver us back to the good old days,
Where life was sweet and easy,
And light bulbs (and women) weren't yet invented.

For thy Earth is our temple,
Our will is our destiny,
Until the Red Giant comes.

Amen.

Madeleine Hydrodams are ecologically unfriendly and coal is a bad pollutant.

Hydropower can be done well, diverting a portion of water is a useful mechanism, and once built have their fuel cheaply supplied.

I think the best way to have a good environment is to manage it. Farmers do better with their own land than just leaving it all to "nature."

I dispute that coal is a pollutant. We agree about CO2. Acid rain is turning out to be a non-event and modern burners have adequate scrubbers anyway. With the amount of coal NZ has, and the huge amount of energy it produces (significantly more than water) I think a few more coal plants are the way to go.

I am not opposed to nuclear, but there is the issue of waste.

And I would like to see these built here. Deals with the rubbish problem and supplies fuel. More on thermodepolymerisation at wikipedia.

Maybe I need to think about it some more. My issue with hydropower is that dams need to flood a large area usually.

I thought coal was not clean burning - I suppose there are ways of burning it a lot cleaner.

The waste with nuclear is an issue but it is a very small amount and there are ways of managing it.

Recent blog post: MandM is the 7th most read Blog in New Zealand