Echoing the words of Madonna’s song You Must Love Me, Cookie Boy wonders, “Where do we go from here?”… 48 hours after the lights dimmed out and the curtain fell on Earth Hour.  

By Cookie Boy

In an ironical twist on Monday 30 March, Sydney, the place where Earth Hour began, had another reason to celebrate Earth Hour when parts of the CBD and Eastern Suburbs were hit by a power failure which sent the city into a blackout. 

That same night at 8.30pm, I observed my own Earth Hour of sorts.  I switched off my lights and all other electrical products in my room except for the fan.  I left the lights in the living room on for my mother who was watching television as it would be unreasonable to demand an elderly woman suffering from glaucoma to watch television under candlelight.   

The first ten to fifteen minutes were fine.  But as the clock slowly ticked away, I got fidgety and restless.  There was nothing I could do with the lights switched off in my room.  I could sleep…but I wasn’t tired.  I couldn’t read.  I couldn’t write.  I couldn’t get onto the internet to do some research.  I couldn’t get any work done.  I couldn’t get productive…  

And if you had watched the series Californication or the movie Confessions of a Shopaholic, you’ll understand perfectly the difficulty of weaning off certain things.  In this case I’m a ‘light-up-aholic’.  Just as Rebecca Bloomwood the protagonist in Confessions could hear store mannequins urging her to buy, buy and buy, I could hear my room light telling me: “Turn me on.  Turn me on.  You know that you need me!”

After 20 minutes, I finally surrendered.  I didn’t turn on the lights.  I simply fled with a book into the living room but not without first turning off the fan.  At that moment I understood how Hank Moody (David Duchony’s character in Californication) and Bloomwood felt.  Meanwhile, the lights to my room and the other parts of the house sans living room remained off at least until 930pm. 

It was a failed experiment on my part.  And for those who turned off the lights during that one hour on Saturday 28 March, I must say: “Good for you!”        

I was chatting over MSN to a fellow Singaporean D who is studying at the University at Sydney and the conversation veered towards Earth Hour.       

“Nobody cared about Earth Hour except me,” D said. 

“What did you do?” I asked. 

“I did the whole hour exercise and everybody was still partying away.  I just stayed in perpetual darkness with a friend who joined me, and we played Scrabble in candle light,” D replied.

“Why did you do that for?” I continued. 

“To show my support for Earth Hour,” she said.  “You know how much we can save if everyone on earth actually does it?  Tons of fuel.”

I don’t have any exact statistics to support D’s claim.  But as Carine Seror, Corporate Responsibility, World Wildlife Fund (WWF) Singapore and the campaign manager had in an earlier article pointed out, Earth Hour was just a “symbolic gesture” and that the world could not be saved just by turning out the lights for just that one hour a year en masse. 

What happens after 2130: 59 then?  Do our efforts to fight climate change end here?  Where do we go from here?

As Rove McManus, host of the Australian variety show Rove, stated on his Sunday 29 March show: 

“I think…I happen to think Earth Hour is a great idea cause it can help the environment because you switch off the lights for an hour and I think that cataracts three days of burning rubber and Formula One exhaust fumes.”

That’s some food for thought. 

While we let scientists and researchers figure out new means to harness alternative energy resources such as solar or wind power which would help cut down on carbon emissions, perhaps we could consider some of the suggestions Seror had given, or continue to follow your own energy conservation methods at your home or office.  I’m not a die-hard environmentalist, but I try to do my tiny wee bit for the environment by re-using paper and printing on two sides.   

On another front, corporations too have joined in the bandwagon to help fight climate change as part of their Corporate Social Responsibility efforts.  One of TOC’s reporters, Teng Jingwei, noted that corporations such as Singtel, Philips, Nokia, Starbucks Coffee and Coca Cola were present at the Green Carnival. 

Starbucks Coffee?  Wait a minute!  Weren’t Starbucks accused of wasting water by leaving their taps running to wash utensils in a method known as a dipper well?  The Straits Times report on 8 October 2008 highlighted that Starbucks Coffee Singapore had admitted that they had indeed employed this system to meet health standards.  To be fair to Starbucks Coffee Singapore, they did clean up their act by discontinuing this practice.   

Then again, how could a company who claims to be committed to the environment engage in such a wasteful act of resources?  This is Starbucks’ commitment:

“By taking steps to reduce waste from our operations and recycle, we can preserve the earth’s natural resources and enhance the quality of lives around the globe.  Starbucks actively seeks opportunities to minimise our environmental impact and help create a healthy planet.”

And in another surprising discovery, Nadine Well of Heart of Green found out that the Starbucks cups aren’t recyclable.  According to the author, the cups are made up of paper fibre and low density polyethylene plastic for the liner which renders the cup unrecyclable.    

In a form of indirect admission, Starbucks Coffees in its FAQ on Starbucks Shared Planet states:

“Our ability to recycle varies among neighborhoods and communities.  Every town or city has different requirements for what is recyclable or compostable.  That is why we need to find cups that work for everyone to meet our goal of having our cups be 100% reusable or recyclable by 2015.  In the meantime, you can help by using reusable cups.”

Let us examine our own green practices before we quickly accuse Starbucks of ‘greenwash’.  Notice how the company shifts the duty of care back to the consumer!  What’s our responsibility then?  A complete consumer boycott of Starbucks isn’t realistic.  Bringing our own mugs which we will later have to wash is perhaps a lesser evil compared to the unrecyclable Starbucks cups if we don’t use too much water to clean them.    

Meanwhile, in an interview with TOC, Doctor Brendan Mackey of the Climate Change Institute, Australia National University, warns of the grave situation of runaway climate change and its threat to people living in low lying areas due to rising sea levels.     

Anyway, I don’t think a return to a primitive lifestyle would help arrest the problem of climate change since we have become over-reliant on the conveniences brought about by electricity thirsty modern technologies.  However, the few minutes of sacrifice in darkness has taught me something – to appreciate lights even more. 

Although I’m a ‘light-up-aholic’, I guess I’ll try to make some changes to my lifestyle…maybe I’ll shift my activities to the void deck!

 ———–

Subscribe
Notify of
0 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
You May Also Like

Call for accountability on financial lapses before GE is held

A statement seeking support from the public has been posted online as…

维权人士鄞义林抨击我国政府不为低薪劳工设立最低薪资标准

目前旅居台湾的部落客兼维权人士鄞义林,于周一(26日)在脸书上抨击我国政府仍不主张提高本地人工资,即使他们可能只能勉强维持生计。 日前《今日报》的一篇文章名为《The Big Read:低收入家庭无法维持生计,需另寻出入》,作者讲述低收入无法在新加坡生存,因为他们的开支比月收入更高。 根据一项家庭调查指出,家庭收入最低20巴仙者,每月的开销达2570新元,但其月收入仅达2235新元(含政府发放的福利),足足差了335新元,因而导致入不敷出的现象。 作者也引用了数名人民行动党议员的言论,如裕廊集选区议员玛赞(Rahayu Mahzam)曾表示,低收入户之所以面临财务问题,,是基于积欠长期的债务。她说,尽管目前未有立即性的解决方案,但政府仍然会持续关注课题,以寻找最适合的解决方法。 其次,义顺集选区议员黄国光(Louis Ng)也曾向《今日报》强调,经过多年的努力,养育孩子的开销已变得更加实惠;而马林百列集选区议员谢健平(Seah Kian Peng)也曾以奶粉为例,解释现在的奶粉只需30新元可轻易购买,形容如今的生活开销更实惠。 惹兰勿刹集选区议员梁莉莉医生(Lily…

Big Brother in cyberspace – anonymously

“He (Mr Brown) should come out from behind his pseudonym to defend…

不只是打理选区琐碎事务 郑庆顺:议员应反映民意

新加坡国立大学建筑系客座教授郑庆顺认为,国会议员的主要职责,乃是作为在国会立法的代议士,所以针对一些攸关国家和民生的课题,能够确实反映选区选民的观点尤为重要。 遗憾的是,他认为多年来人们对议员扮演的角色产生很大的误解,“国会议员从来都不只是管理每日市镇事务的管理人。这大可聘请全职经理来做。” 他直言,对于那些直接影响选民的法律、政策,例如新印全面合作协定(CECA)和禁止电动滑板车上路等,议员理应去征询选民的意见。 故此,他认为要求穆仁理为了选区内被锁的消防栓负起全责并不对。 对于选区内组屋消防栓被锁、救火时水管喷不出水,武吉巴督单选区议员穆仁理在上周五表示,作为民选代议士,“政治上需对居民负责”( politically accountable)。“这些事件不该发生,我必须道歉。我将与我的民选与受委市镇会同仁检讨此事,并保障加强消防安全系统的可靠。” 郑庆顺认为,会见选民活动本来就是让选民针对政治和政策议题反馈意见,可惜如今却矮化成微管理环节,议员则代表选民和官僚机构交流。 “尽管这有助收集反馈以改善行政规则和程序,但都不是当议员的主要职能。”而他认为,如今议员们在国会立法表现差强人意,可能正是因为职能的定位错位。 对此,人民之声党领袖林鼎赞同郑庆顺的观点,也直言国会议员不仅仅是当“社区管理人”,更不讳言即便在管理选区方面,行动党议员的表现也不如反对党。 已故建国总理李光耀,在2011年大选前曾指若投给反对党,就会变成贫民区。不过林鼎对比工人党秘书长毕丹星管理下的惹兰达迈,以及行动党管理下的兀兰,指后者反而成了李光耀口中的“贫民区”。 回溯1988年6月,国会提呈《市镇会法》,时任副总理的吴作栋解释,该法把属建屋局的权力,转移到各选区民选国会议员和基层领袖手上。 他认为此举让议员和居民们更大权力和责任,管理和参与选区的事务和发展。…