Sunday, February 12, 2012Cloudy -7°C
Environment

Earth Hour 2010 a disappointment in Toronto

Posted by Derek Flack / March 28, 2010

Earth Hour Toronto 2010Earth Hour 2010 was a bit of a disappointment in Toronto. Those hoping to catch a glimpse of the city shrouded in darkness were instead treated to a modest display of energy conservation. Even a quick glance at photos from last night reveal a waning interest in the hour-long ritual.

Earth Hour Toronto 2010Toronto Hydro reports that the city experienced a 10 per cent power drop between 8:30 and 9:30 p.m. last night. In 2009, on the other hand, Toronto recorded a 15 per cent drop. The temperature, which was 10 degrees colder this year, certainly played a role in this discrepancy.

But, as the photos below show, there just wasn't as much participation in 2010 (for photos of 2008 and 2009, check here and here, respectively).

Even buildings and institutions one would assume to be willing participants -- like the University of Toronto -- remained mostly bright.Earth Hour Toronto 2010

But, of course, that's not to imply that there wasn't any evidence of an effort being made to conserve energy. Still, one can't always trust the camera. With short exposures, almost anything can be made to look dark.Earth Hour Toronto 2010

The Royal York Hotel was on board, and seems to have nailed the romantic mood.Earth Hour Toronto 2010

And even if the Roger's Centre and many of the major bank buildingss were mostly lit, the CN Tower was down to only emergency lighting.Earth Hour Toronto 2010

The photo below tells most of the story: Earth Hour 2010 saw a bit of a drop in city lighting and power consumption, but was ultimately a disappointment for those who hoped Toronto would keep pace with former efforts.Earth Hour Toronto 2010

Photos (in order) by denmar, makeupanid, JY:), Orijahnal and a&t photography, all members of the blogTO Flickr pool.

Discussion

31 Comments

choppery / March 28, 2010 at 04:01 pm
user-pic
We've really got to ratchet up these symbolic efforts. Maybe next year we can use even less energy for an even tinier percentage of time. I just don't think we're doing nearly enough to raise awareness of awareness raising.
James / March 28, 2010 at 04:22 pm
user-pic
I think the Media didn't cover it as much this year, I only remembered the event because I saw it on twitter.
CC / March 28, 2010 at 04:30 pm
user-pic
Yes I agree, many people had no idea about earth hour so they should really step it up promotion wise next year.
Becky / March 28, 2010 at 04:41 pm
user-pic
Considering how bad Earth Hour is for both the environment and for the Environmentalists' cause, you'd think we'd all be happy that participation was down. Humans sure are wacky.
Mark Dowling / March 28, 2010 at 04:43 pm
user-pic
A complete pain in the ass. I had to do time-sensitive work at my office but the building turned all the lights off (and they already have an automatic timer after hours). Bah.

Earth Hour is a load of rubbish. The 52" flatscreen and PVR people are watching by candle light probably uses more energy than a CFL overhead light, but if watching it by candlelight makes you seem right on then that's ok.

Newsflash - the time for Earth Hour is when we have PEAK CONSUMPTION. 8.30 on a Saturday night in March isn't it. Try 8.30 on a weekday night in July when the airconditioners are going full blast. Time Of Use Billing will save (or move to offpeak) far more power because it will hit people in the pocket.
Becky replying to a comment from Mark Dowling / March 28, 2010 at 04:45 pm
user-pic
Not to mention the fact that unless those candles were beeswax, made from local bees, they had a bigger carbon footprint than the CFLs did.
Johnny blaze / March 28, 2010 at 04:54 pm
user-pic
I was at yonge and dundas square for the free concert and man it was bright!!! some building next to the stage had all its lights turned on.
Kieren / March 28, 2010 at 05:17 pm
user-pic
Well, it's now apparently popular public opinion that global warming is a hoax. So no surprise for me.
Neil / March 28, 2010 at 05:47 pm
user-pic
It's hard to call a double-digit drop in energy consumption in Canada's largest city on a Saturday night a "disappointment." As you point out, this Earth Hour was colder than last year's, so there was bound to be a lower drop than in 2009 just because of that.

And it seems pretty trite to on one hand note that Toronto Hydro reported a 10 percent drop in power (a figure much higher than the 4 percent drop recorded across Ontario, incidentally), and then claim that on the contrary, photos seem to indicate that participation was pretty minimal. The Earth appears flat to the naked eye, and people believed it was flat until they were eventually proven wrong. There's a reason that quantitative evidence is generally more desireable than empirical.
James / March 28, 2010 at 05:55 pm
user-pic
Earth Hour is a ridiculous exercise. The electrical drop every year appears to be exaggerated. Lets drop these silly events that teach falsehoods. After all, going back to the dark ages isn't a desirable outcome.

Want some practical action on the environment? Maybe our government shouldn't be funding GM to build gas guzzling large cars in Oshawa.
Ron Salzer replying to a comment from Neil / March 28, 2010 at 06:28 pm
user-pic
Given that Earth Hour is a symbolic exercise -- i.e. the actual energy conserved is basically nothing in the grand scheme of things -- I would have to disagree with this diagnosis. Turning out lights may be one of the least effective ways to reduce power consumption, but it demonstrates enthusiasm for the program (or whatever you want to call it). So, the pictures should be disappointing -- because it would appear participation really did decrease. When I look at the split photo in particular, I have difficulty noticing any difference other than the CN Tower, whereas in years past, the city was much dimmer.
Becky replying to a comment from Ron Salzer / March 28, 2010 at 06:39 pm
user-pic
If it weren't for the fact that every Earth Hour convinces people that "saving the planet" is too hard, or too much of an inconvenience, then you might be on to something.

The only "awareness" Earth Hour is raising is that the way to save the world is by severely inconveniencing yourself. The people who don't come away with that message are the same people you didn't need to convince in the first place.

Considering that that is the opposite reaction we'd like to see... I'm baffled as to why we keep trying to do this every year.
Neil replying to a comment from Ron Salzer / March 28, 2010 at 07:05 pm
user-pic
Ron, I'm not sure I understand what you're arguing. A 10 percent drop in power in a city the size of Toronto, even for an hour, is not "basically nothing." As the IESO pointed out, the 4 percent drop witnessed across Ontario last night represents enough energy to power Brampton during a peak period.

On the other hand, looking at lights of a downtown skyline and deciding that people aren't participating is missing at least 50% of the story. What about all the people who marked Earth Hour by turning off their stereos, computers and idiot boxes? Who held off on doing laundry or running the dishwasher?
Ron Salzer replying to a comment from Neil / March 28, 2010 at 07:23 pm
user-pic
What do you think is meant by the "grand scheme" of things? As other commenters have pointed out, consistent conservation is what we should be aiming for. The idea of Earth Hour -- so far as anyone with even a basic knowledge of marketing would understand -- is to encourage people to take such steps by highlighting how enthusiastic people are during a once-a-year event. So sure, the 4% drop might be meaningful in a temporary sense, but it's nowhere near as significant as you would have it. Earth Hour itself isn't going to prevent or reverse climate change, but its message might.

And that, of course, is why the lights matter. Accurate or not, images like the ones in this article are bound to give people the sense that enthusiasm has waned. Not only that, despite your desire to convince us all that a drop in energy savings over last year isn't a big deal, the fact remains that a successful Earth Hour should see conservation efforts on the rise rather than in decline. So, colder temperatures or not, this year can't realistically be considered a success for organizers or people paying attention to these types of things.

Is that clear enough for you?
Steve / March 28, 2010 at 07:39 pm
user-pic
People need to remember to turn the lights off when they leave the room!

This simple lesson we learned as kids is more important than earth hour. I don't need someone telling me what to do and when to do it.

I left my lights on during earth hour, thanks
choppery replying to a comment from Ron Salzer / March 28, 2010 at 07:52 pm
user-pic
Are you saying that turning off lights during Earth Hour is important because if the media decides to use images of the event, a "dark Toronto" or otherwise visible display of green-wankery will be more inspiring to media consumers? And this in turn will further popularize (rather than merely publicize) the conservation of energy?

Personally, I don't think we'll make any real progress towards planet-saving unless our failures to conserve become illegal and devastatingly expensive - for both individuals and corporations. The problem isn't that it's hard to conserve, it's just too easy to waste. We need to be punished, but no government wants to slap its own constituents unless we mobilize for it. It's like seatbelt laws, smoking laws, and anti-discrimination laws. Nobody liked them at first, but after fifty years of propaganda and legislation we're grudgingly allowing ourselves to evolve.

Earth Hour, I think, will do fuck all.
Loopt / March 28, 2010 at 08:21 pm
user-pic
Most ppl know that these symbolic gestures are useless. Instead of wasting time and energy on useless publicity pursuits; there should be real policy that allows real gains in energy reduction.. like FUND MASS TRANSIT. Earth Hour is a farce that i refuse to participate in.
Fern / March 28, 2010 at 08:32 pm
user-pic
This is a much discussed topic on all of the Toronto websites today. Most people do not seem to be in favour of earth hour from what I've read.

Also, you can see these photos and camera settings on each users Flickr site. I have to say, 1/6 of a second is not really a "short exposure" for that downtown one.
picard102 / March 28, 2010 at 11:17 pm
user-pic
Earth Hour is a joke. I turned on as many electronics as possible.
Larry / March 29, 2010 at 12:20 am
user-pic
Somehow this earth hour is just a bunch of propaganda.
Turning off the power for 1 hour will do absolutely zipp
for changing the climate. Scientific data to back this up.
Some glaciers are melting fast. But others are growing in
size up to 7 feet in a day. The center of Antartica just had the coldest winter on record in the center. Global warming,
look st all the facts not just the propaganda.
This is just a justification for a large number of taxes.
Justin / March 29, 2010 at 06:10 am
user-pic
I postponed my Earth Hour festivities 'til bedtime when I shut everything off for *8* hours. In fact, I do it every night.
DS / March 29, 2010 at 07:18 am
user-pic
I believe that a greater impact can be made by turning off lights and devices that are not needed all the time, versus shutting everything down once a year for an hour.

Buzz Killington replying to a comment from Johnny blaze / March 29, 2010 at 08:28 am
user-pic
Speaking of the Yonge/Dundas Square event, someone should tell them that its not only lights that use up electricity--I found it a little ironic that they announced the start of Earth Hour over a giant PA system and then went right into a Chantel Kreviazuk concert, which was performed in the dark. Seriously?
Cristina / March 29, 2010 at 09:24 am
user-pic
I'll participate in Earth Hour when all my government officials, city councilors, civic buildings and corporate offices in my city participate and set the example. For now, I'm with Justin, Earth Hour is when I go to bed. Btw, it would help if Toronto Hydro also did its part for once.
Jim replying to a comment from Fern / March 29, 2010 at 10:21 am
user-pic
Although it's all relative, a 1/6 second exposure at night is actually very fast, and the author is right that it's clearly underexposed. For that scene, I would estimate an exposure of about 5 seconds at ISO 200.
Zed / March 29, 2010 at 11:21 am
user-pic
really bad promotion and advance media coverage certainly didn't help. also, why have only one hour? what's wrong with earth day, then people could participate as little or as much as they want and the overall drop would be quite more significant than this one hour token gesture which amounts to basically nothing.
Tom / March 29, 2010 at 12:52 pm
user-pic
Just to get this clear, the last two images that are posted here, I used ISO 100 and had a 25 second expose on both of them (obviously). I hope you guys don't count 25 seconds as underexposed.
Derek replying to a comment from Tom / March 29, 2010 at 02:25 pm
user-pic
If I read it correctly, the earlier comments refer to the photo immediately below my comment regarding a short exposure making the scene look dark. The fact that you had the shutter open for 25 seconds and JY:) used a 1/6 second exposure serves to underscore why the former looks so dark and the latter (yours) looks correct. Great shots!
Lori / March 29, 2010 at 04:27 pm
user-pic
I am with Steve, people need to remember to turn off lights when they leave a room. This is more important a lesson than Earth Hour. My mom turned off the lights but had I lived on my own they all would have been on, plus this day when it started was spent with my ex (bad memories).
Santangeloo / July 28, 2010 at 01:04 am
user-pic
Lolwut? the arrogance we have to call it Earth Hour. It should be Earth Hour every hour. The Planet is doing just fine in my opinion It's a self correcting system like every other species were entitled to be phased out of existence into fossilized history like the dinosaurs ( not to mention the other 99.9% of prehistoric species that left) it's just how far along are DNA gets so it can evolved further more to withstand the future conditions of this planet. as species Genes shuffle and become adaptable to it's environment. Takes allot of luck to because homo-sapiens are prehistoric compared to what we will be in future times.
Assubsantana / January 2, 2012 at 10:22 pm
user-pic
you love this? london ugg store for more detail london ugg store and get big save

Add a Comment

Other Cities: VancouverMontreal