21st September 2018
Established 1872. Online since 1996.

SIC to switch lights off for Earth Hour

16 comments, , by , in News

The SIC will support Earth Hour again this year by switching off the lights on Saturday 28th March.

earth hourThe campaign is said to be the world’s largest grassroots movement taking action against climate change and encourages people to switch off all unnecessary lighting and other electrical equipment, both at home and at work.

The council – which was awarded the prize for the highest level of community sign-up and support in 2011 – will switch off the floodlights at the town hall and a number of schools and other public buildings will also be getting involved.

Last year millions of people in 162 countries and 7,000 towns and cities took part, including all Scotland’s local authorities.
This yea’rs lights switch-off will be between 8.30 and 9.30pm.

SIC environment and transport committee chairman Michael Stout said: “Earth Hour is more than just an hour of darkness, it represents an international community of people coming together to bring a brighter future by limiting the damaging effects of climate change. By taking one simple step to switch off, you will be joining millions of people, businesses and organisations to focus the world’s attention on one of the biggest problems facing the world today.”

16 comments

  1. Steven Jarmson

    Why are the flood lights at the Town Hall turned on at 8.30 in the morning???
    Why are they even on at all when there’s nothing on there??

    Reply
    • John Tulloch

      Because it’s a beautiful building which draw the attention of vistors and Shetlanders, alike.

      “Earth Hour” is a truly quixotic gesture which nobody has any interest in except organisations which imagine it must be part of their PR steategy to look “caring” about the environment.

      The same crowd, notably, the SNP, want to cover our beautilful wild lands with industrial-scale wind farms which won’t make a jot of difference to global warming or, even, keep the lights on – enough said.

      I won’t be switching off lights or anything else.

      Reply
  2. John Tulloch

    Perhaps, Michael,Stout will regale us further with exactly what he inagines the “damaging effects of climate chamge” will be and when we may expect to encounter them?

    Reply
  3. iantinkler

    What a load of utter nonsense. how about a 50MPH speed limit on all roads? not only safe a massive amount of fuel but save a few lives. What, inconvenience the few in such a hurry they would rather burn the planet than slow down, no votes there. Bluddy load of hypocrite.

    Reply
    • Chris Johnston

      The climate change zealots (formerly known as global warming zealots and earlier as global cooling zealots) have formed their own religion. Meaningless exercises like this are sacraments to them – outward and visible signs of what they consider their inward and spiritual grace.
      If you do not practice their religion, you are the enemy.

      Reply
      • John Tulloch

        @Chris,

        An important new paper has continued the trend of lowering the “best estimates of “equilibrium climate sensitivity’, this time to 1.45C (for those who don’t know,mthat’s the expected temperature rise for doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide).

        There’s a very interesting write-up on by a top climate scientist, Nic Lewis at:

        http://climateaudit.org/2015/03/19/the-implications-for-climate-sensitivity-of-bjorn-stevens-new-aerosol-forcing-paper/

        The air is steadily hissing out of the global warming bandwagon’s tyres.

        Once it’s all over WWF will be able to go back to saving polar bears, instead of OPPOSING(!) – yes, opposing – export bans on polar bear skins and othe parts, in order to ensure their global warming icon doesn’t come off the allegedly ‘endangered species’ list.

        “Adopt a polar bear”, ‘my posterior’ – pure humbug!

      • Brian Smith

        I have always been interested in the fact that UKIP adherents rubbish the ideas that human beings are responsible for climate change. They could just as well have concluded that the scientists are right. Presumably the reasoning is that everyone should be able to do whatever he or she likes, and hang the consequences for our grandchildren.

      • John Tulloch

        Brian,

        Quaa med da climate cheenge da time at da alligators whet bidin a Spitzbergen.

        Or quan dey wir ice sheets a Eengland?

        I doot da humans didna hae muckle ta duy wi dat?

    • Robert Duncan

      Driving at 50mph is typically less efficient than driving at 60mph. Most modern cars are at their optimal efficiency around 60mph.

      I’m not a huge proponent of Earth Hour, mind. It’s a nice idea that it will raise awareness, remind people how much electricity they use, and all the rest, but I’m not sure the theory is borne out in reality.

      Reply
  4. David Spence

    Although this has not been highlighted by the media as a whole, the largest impact of global pollution and environmental damage has been this of agriculture. Agriculture produces more greenhouse gases into the atmosphere than all modes of transport put together. As well as this, it is also agriculture which has been responsible for the largest destruction of natural habitat, extinction of species and the increase of green house gases as well as a reduction of the production of oxygen.

    It is a bit of a Catch 22 scenario some people may say in terms of providing food for billions but as the same time not wishing to perpetrate further the issues of global warming. The human population is increasing at an uncontrollable rate, and the demand for food production has never been greater. However, the premiss for the increase in agriculture is based on economics rather than necessity. In other words, the over-production of foods, meats and other associated products. The weak link in this industry is directly related to transportation, World Trade Organisation and, in many cases, political favouring with some countries and not others. Even although we are producing more food than we can handle, there is still millions starving and living in atrocious conditions. In most cases, this is not due to natural conditions but more related to human based activities like war, conflict and favoured and controlled economics.

    To say that human activity is not responsible, despite the huge amount of scientific data, for global warming or the increase of global and ocean temperatures is ignorant to the extreme, and selfish and destructive to the level where, if the scientific data is to be believed, economics are driving and dictating what measures, if any, are being used to tackle the problem.

    As long as people put greed, profit and monitory wealth (Capitalism) ahead of anything else, then the issue of the destruction we are causing to the planet will never ever be resolved.

    Hopefully nature will takeover and force humans to adapt and change or for the lives of millions if not billions of human lives to be annihilated for the greater good of life and not the selfish needs of homo-sapiens.

    Reply
    • John Tulloch

      David,

      If you’re going to spout about ‘global warming’, it’s best to have the scientific evidence to hand so people can refer to it, so here it is – there’s an excellent graph showing how close the average of 102 climate prediction models has performed versus real world temperature measurements.

      Do have a look at it, it’ll give you some ammunition to fire at US politicians.

      because the article also covers what US politicians are getting up to in order to silence top scientists who point out the “Uncomfortable Truth” that the IPCC’s prophecies of doom are well wide of the mark.

      http://www.thegwpf.com/climate-expert-john-christy-on-funding-no-one-is-paying-me-to-have-my-view/

      Reply
  5. Robert Wishart

    RE John Tulloch’s “alligators” in Spitzbergen (sic): what has this to do with “climate cheenge”?

    Reply
    • John Tulloch

      Everything, Robert.

      The climate has been changing, continuously – often spectacularly – during the five billion years the earth has existed. The climate has varied from tropical creatures such as alligators and tapirs inhabiting places like Spitzbergen and Ellesmere Island, in the High Arctic, to ice sheets over England.

      These climate scenarios occurred long before humans appeared and the point is that the natural forces that drove the changes haven’t gone away.

      Furthermore, if you check out the links I’ve provided to Chris Johnston and Davis Spence, above, you will see how the “catastrophic man-made climate change” myth is falling apart, at the seams. i.e.

      1. The test of a theory is to make predictions and check how they stack up versus real world observations of (in this case) global temperature. The average of 102 climate model predictions suggests we should have had 0.8C rise since 1979, whereas, in the “real world’, temperature has risen by about 0.2C.

      Like Baldric’s poem in Blackadder, they “started badly, got worse in the middle and tailed off towards the end.” 🙂

      2. Paper after scientific paper finds that the level of rise expected for a ‘doubling’ of atmospheric carbon dioxide is less than that previously claimed, the latest one now has it down to 1.45C, a level which, especially, with CO2-enhanced plant growth, would actually be benficial, not harmful, for the world.

      Who knows, if we double CO2 levels two or three times, we might be able to “reintroduce alligators” to their former home?

      Reply
  6. r.wishart

    Well John,when did these ‘alligators’ enjoy the balmy climate of Spitsbergen?

    Reply
    • John Tulloch

      During the Eocene Period, about 55million years ago.

      Reply
    • laurence paton

      Newton said ” for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction”

      With that in mind then there must be some noticeable effect when you strip away millions of acres of ancient rain forest and replace it with grazing cattle.
      I remain sceptical about how slight variations of CO 2 levels in the atmosphere bring about climate change but it most likely does have some effect.
      But the problem is with 7 billion and counting people to feed, what can you you really change ?

      Reply

Your Comment

Please note, it is the policy of The Shetland Times to publish comments and letters from named individuals only. Both forename and surname are required.

Comments are moderated. Contributors must observe normal standards of decency and tolerance for the opinions of others.

The views expressed are those of contributors and not of The Shetland Times.

The Shetland Times reserves the right to decline or remove any contribution without notice or stating reason.

Comments are limited to 200 words but please email longer articles or letters to editorial@shetlandtimes.co.uk for consideration and include a daytime telephone number and your address. If emailing information in confidence please put "Not for publication" in both the subject line and at the top of the main message.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.