Personal tools

Debate: Earth Hour

From Debatepedia

Jump to: navigation, search

Should we have regular "Earth Hours" and should they become compulsary?


Background and Context of Debate:

'Earth Hour' is when environmental organisations decide one hour (usually 8-9pm) and on what day to hold an event where they encourage as many people as they can to turn off their lights during the time. Previous Earth Hours have been great successes and many people used the hour to visit observatories and had a spectacular view of the stars during their visit because most people participated and turned off their lights. The last Earth Hour in Australia saved so much energy and was so much fun, people are wanting another one.

If an environmental organisation is reading this, here is some information you can consider and this should help you think about whether or not to hold another one, and if you haven't already held one, you might want to think about holding a national or global one.

Currently 'Earth Hour' is an annual event in Australia. There are plans for an "earth hour" in Australia in March, 2009.

Does "Earth Hour" help the environment?


Of course it does - everyone is turning off their lights! With the majority of people turning off their lights during Earth Hour, it is saving quite a lot of energy. A lot of people take part in the initiative and decide to turn off their lights.

Having a candle for an hour is worse than having one light on for an hour, but not worse than two lights. During Earth Hour, most people do use candles and that is worse for the environment than having a light on. But if you think of how many lights people have in each house, and how many would be turned on if it wasn't for Earth Hour, one candle is not worse than twenty electric lights. In fact, it's a lot better! One candle is much better than twenty electric lights with twenty non-environmentally friendly light bulbs.


During Earth Hour, a lot of people use candles. Candles are actually even worse in creating carbon emissions than electric lights. During the hour of no lights, many people use candles instead and those are even worse for the environment. These emissions are what cause global warming.

So when people think they are doing their part for the environment, they are actually causing more carbon emissions and are destroying the ozone layer.

People also use torches. During the hour, most people used candles or torches instead of electric lights as a source of light. Candles are bad for the global warming issue, and so are batteries. Dead batteries produce carbon emissions and are bad for the environment and global warming. Most people who weren't using candles used battery-powered torches and that is still bad for the environment.

While Earth Hour does save energy and help the environment, environmental groups who organise the event need to realise that it also creates carbon emissions, so it is not all good, what's going on during the time of Earth Hour.

Is turning all lights off for one hour convenient for people?


Most people have a lot of fun with the lights off for just an hour. It is certainly convenient for people to turn off their lights for an hour. Some people have candle-lit dinners, some go for a walk and some simply go to bed for the night. A lot of people during the hour look at the stars because they are so clear since all of the lights are off. People have a lot of fun and I know most people want another Earth Hour because the last one was so fun.

It is only for one hour and most people don't mind. It really is only for one hour, which isn't very much time at all. Earth Hour is just a bit of fun and helps the environment at the same time. Most people don't mind doing something that doesn't need electric lights for the short amount of time Earth Hour goes for.

Modern social trends are shifting towards looking after the environment. Nowadays, a lot of people care about the environment and want to do their part. Earth Hour is not compulsory but most people do choose to participate. Because people today care about our plant and global warming, they choose to do their part and help the environment. It is a choice that most people make to participate.


Having no light is not convenient. It is not convenient to have no lights on at all for a whole hour. Most people would get bored quickly and can't really do anything. You can't say that it's convenient to have no source of light whatsoever. A lot of people find it inconvenient to have to turn off their lights and you can't really say that it's convenient not to be able to see.

Should we have regular "Earth Hours"?


It would save more energy. Earth Hour is a great initiative that lots of people get involved in. To have them regularly would not destroy interest for Earth Hour. Regular Earth Hours would save as much energy as the number of Earth Hours - the more, the better. More Earth Hours would mean more energy saved and therefore regular Earth Hours is a positive thing.


Having them too often would be inconvenient and annoying. We can't have 'Earth Hours' too often because an hour without light can be annoying, boring and can be difficult for some people.

People would start taking Earth Hours for granted. If we had Earth Hour too often, eventually people would not think of it as a special event, but a routine event. It would start not getting as fun and people would take Earth Hour for granted. If we had Earth Hour too much, it would get more boring each time and eventually would not save much energy because people would start to ignore them if they happened too often. Just once in a blue moon is enough.

Should we make "Earth Hour" compulsory?


Earth Hour is a great initiative to reduce carbon emissions.

With Earth Hour currently optional, it does save some energy, but it would save so much more energy if everyone participated and turned off all lights. It would save much more energy and people would have to follow because the government might want to issue small fines for people who leave on their lights.


It is not practical to make Earth Hour compulsory.

It is not possible to get everyone in the entire universe to turn off all lights at the same time. It would be highly unlikely even to get half the world participating in Earth Hour. This is not practical and never will be.

It is not appropriate to force people to turn off their lights.

If the ridiculous event happened and everyone was forced to turn off their lights, it would be impossible to track down everyone who ignores Earth hour and authorities wouldn't be able to issue on-the-spot fines anyway without using light.

There is no suitable punishment for someone using light.

If Earth Hours were compulsory, for a start not everyone could be aware that it was even on, let alone choose to participate. If people were punished for using electric lights during this hour, there is no suitable punishment because it's not really a proper and fair law to have to turn off your lights, and there is no suitable law enforcement.

If Earth Hour was compulsory, everyone would have to be aware of the event, and that would be bad for the environment.

If Earth Hour actually was to be compulsory, which is a silly idea, everyone would have to be aware that it was on and when. They would have to publicise by either TV commercials or writing letters to everyone. Each of these methods are bad for the environment and would actually create more carbon emissions than Earth Hour would save.

Would it be more sensible to have Earth Hour during the daytime?


Daytime Earth Hours would be more convenient because if there are no lights, there is still a source of light without using candles or battery-powered torches.

Earth Hour would be more convenient during the day time because it would create more carbon emissions and there is still light, therefore more to do without light. It would be more convenient for the people participating.

It would still save energy - you'd be surprised how many lights are on during the day.

This may surprise you, but statistics show that a lot of energy is wasted during the day from electric lights. Most people, whether they're in an office, public building, school or even at home, for some reason have lights on, even though there is a good source of light outside. Earth Hour

Earth hour during the daytime would still save carbon emissions and would be much more convenient.


It wouldn't save as much energy.

Having Earth hour during the day would not save as much energy because a lot of people don't have their lights of during the daytime anyway so it would not be effective in helping the environment and reducing carbon emissions that aren't created anyway.

Having Earth Hour in the daytime is not an effective solution to helping the environment and it would be more effective during the night time.

Should Earth Hour go for more than one hour?


Just one hour without lights has proven a success - two hours would save double the energy.

It has proven to be a success and has saved a lot of energy just by the majority of people turning off their lights for one hour.

After the hour is up, a lot of people just choose to leave them off anyway for the rest of the night, to save even more energy. To encourage everyone to go the extra hour would have double success and even better positive effects on the environment. It would be a positive step and save even more energy in this current time when global warming is a big problem.


Just one hour without lights is enough to drive people mad.

After one hour, people are bored and eager to turn back on the lights. Running Earth hour for two hours would get really boring and drive people insane! (not literally)

The name states Earth HOUR.

Earth hour gets it's name because we are helping the planet for an hour. Have Earth Hour run for two or three hours would go against the name. If it went for two hours we would have to change the name to 'Earth Hours' and that doesn't sound as good.

Related pages on Debatepedia:

External links and resources:

Problem with the site? 

Tweet a bug on bugtwits