environmental movement

Human Achievement Hour

by Michelle Minton on March 23, 2009 · 18 comments

in Energy, Environment, Global Warming, International, Odds & Ends, Private Conservation

This week CEI announced the creation of Human Achievement Hour (HAH) to be celebrated at 8:30pm on March 28th 2009 (the same time and date of Earth Hour).

Our press release described ways people might celebrate the achievements of humanity such as eating diner, seeing a film, driving around, keeping the heat on in your home—all things that Earth Hour celebrators, presumably, should be refraining from. In the cheekiest manner, we claimed that anyone not foregoing the use of electricity in that hour is, by default, celebrating the achievements of human beings. Needless to say, the enviros in the blogosphere didn’t take to kindly to our announcement.

Matthew Wheeland, an environmental journalist called the holiday “mind-blowingly strange” and pondered if Earth hour folks are including in their numbers people in countries that don’t have enough electricity to make the choice to turn out their lights. Of course, they don’t have the choice to acquire electricity whereas anyone can choose to stop using human technology if they wish.

In fact, one might even say that they are seething about it–lighting up the various green-oriented blogs with comments such as this sarcastic gem from Jon Petherbridge:

Human achievement hour. Another great idea. I’ll remember how great we all are as I watch the heat mirages rising from the surrounding hoods as my arm hangs out the window during my next July traffic jam.

Or maybe I’ll remember it the next time an American attack aircraft blows up a wedding party in Afghanistan. At least in that example we don’t have to feel bad for the dead Afghanis as they have a sexist culture that we are morally obligated to obliterate, quite literally if necessary. I reckon I’ll celebrate human achievement hour when everybody’s divorced or bisexual and drinking coca-cola in traffic jams on their way to work folding sandwiches for the lawyers and the bankers who we will worship for allowing us to support them by paying on our credit cards.

Go human achievement hour. Pile it on. Diversify, equalize, refinance and over qualify.

I’m feeling better already.

I love and will not give up my electric toothbrush.

They are also attempting to erase any attention directed at HAH, such as the Wikipedia article.

Of course, there are people out there who appreciate what we are trying to say. For example, Rajesh in India writes on his blog:

Coming from India where we routinely suffer power cuts due to mixed-market policies of the government, I found this post from The New Clarion fantastic…Lets use the wavelength of both light and philosophy to keep darkness at bay.

Green and private conservation are fine. We have no problem with an individual (or group) that wants to sit naked in the dark without heat, clothing, or light. Additionally, we’d have no problem with the group holding a pro-green technology rally. That’s their choice. But when this group stages a “global election” with the express purpose of influencing “government policies to take action against global warming,” we have every right as individuals to express our vote for the opposite

If our Human Achievement Hour is at all a dig against Earth Hour, it is so only by the fact that we are pointing out what Earth Hour truly is about: it isn’t pro-earth, it is anti-man and anti-innovation. So, on March 28th I plan to continue “voting” for humanity by enjoying the fruits of man’s mind.

Gore Rebuffs Press, Admits Failure, Still Adored

by Iain Murray on November 11, 2008 · 2 comments

in Energy, Environment, Global Warming

Paul Krugman once accused me of Gore Derangement Syndrome. In response, I suggested that he and others suffered from Gore Blindness Syndrome. Here’s another example of that at work, where a reporter manages to write an adulatory piece about our former Vice President despite said paragon having completely rebuffed him when he asked him a question. As he indicates, Gore has made a habit recently of refusing to allow any interviews. Given that he’s the undoubted leader of a worldwide political movement, one would have thought that the press might be as annoyed about this as they were when another potential Vice President didn’t appear to be giving interviews.

Anyway, perhaps the most interesting thing about the event Mr Gore was attending was his admission of failure:

Mr. Gore said that he feared that his advocacy work, spearheaded by his documentary, “An Inconvenient Truth,” has not done its job. “I feel, in a sense, I’ve failed badly,” he said. “Because even though there’s a greater sense of awareness, there is not anything anywhere close to an appropriate sense of urgency. This is an existential threat.”

It appears Mr Gore will not be content until we are all, every last one us, as completely dedicated to global warming mitigation as he is. Yet how is he to instill his required sense of urgency without resorting to shriller and shriller alarmism? His acolytes will almost certainly take up senior positions within the new Administration, but the nation is still likely to balk at the price tag of his solutions. The environmental movement was spending about $100 million on global warming before An Inconvenient Truth came along. With his vast resources – about $300 million, he suggested – and a probable increase in parallel efforts, plus foreign campaigns, it’s quite possible that the climate alarmists are spending half a billion dollars worldwide on the issue annually. Is it possible we’ll see that increase? And if that doesn’t work, what then? One thing’s for sure, Gore isn’t going away, except from reporters.