On the evening of March 27, around 8 p.m., I went for a walk in downtown Kyiv. It had been a hectic weekend, combining the usual workload (weekends are always the busiest part of my week), with the laborious task of having to move all my belongings from one end of the city to the other, and then arranging everything in my new apartment. After around two hours, during which I covered a good deal of the historic city, I came back home and turned on the news. Apparently, Earth Hour, during which all lights and electric appliances were to be turned off in sign of support for environmental protection, had just come to an end. Truth be told, I was surprised. I may have missed the slightly elevated number of dark windows, or the fact that some street lights were off on purpose, but I doubt that either occurrence had been significant. While the Eiffel Tower was switched off, the “Motherland” monument continued to shine bright the whole night through.
Not that turning off the lights for an hour does much for the environment. According to some experts it is actually counter-productive, as turning so many appliances on and off actually uses up more energy. Electric plants continue working, as switching them off for an hour is not an option. Thus, the whole Earth Hour project does not have much of an effect on CO2 emissions, nor is that even the real issue. Contrary to what one may take away from ecological sermons, whether of the academic or theological inclination, CO2 emissions are just one of many problems. Although there are a few success stories, such as that of notorious ozone-destroying CFCs (found in everything from refrigerators to deodorant) which have been all but phased out, many toxic byproducts of industry are overlooked. Just one example is sulphur hexafluoride (an insulating substance used in electrical equipment), one kilogram of which causes as much warming as 23 tons of carbon dioxide. While public pressure in many countries has lead to reductions, or at least stagnation, of CO2 emissions, other gases continue to be released unchecked.
Ever since the social movements of the 60s and 70s, people around the world have been gradually giving up the belief systems of their forefathers, be they based on religion, ideology, or even racial segregation. While this has led to a number of positive developments, notably a decline of social conflicts, it has also left a void in people’s lives. Over the past decade or so, people have been filling that void with ecology. It certainly meets all the necessary void-filling criteria: it is dedicated towards a greater but formless (and poorly understood) being; strict adherence to its guidelines provides one with a sense of moral superiority; it is a conversation starter for strangers, as well as an equally important means of legitimization, it can even be split up into an infinite amount of sub-groups over contentious interpretations of dogma.
Needless to say, the results of Earth Hour evidently show that this new craze has not swept through Ukraine yet. However, despite all the misgivings that one can have towards ecology, there are several irrefutable points in its defense. Firstly, economic activity has to become more efficient, if only to increase productivity and stimulate economic growth. It is also wise to anticipate the upcoming shortages of many of the world’s commodities by making better use of what we have. This is especially true in the case of Ukraine, whose economy is one of the most energy-intensive in the world. The second argument is that respect for our natural environment is important for its own sake. People should appreciate what they have and not use it recklessly. Besides, such an attitude does spill over into other spheres, notably interpersonal contact. Finally, despite recent scandals involving the veracity of studies about global warming, rising temperatures in the world’s atmosphere and oceans are a fact, and they will cause serious problems in the future.
Although it may be a good publicity stunt, turning off one’s lights for an hour will not solve much. A respectful attitude towards nature, is something that stems from one’s upbringing, and hence has to be inoculated from an early age. In Australia, the continent most immediately threatened by environmental ravages, kindergarten children are sent for walks around the countryside (or parks, if more convenient) to pick up pieces of trash (using the appropriate hygienic precautions of course). In order to make the whole project more entertaining, the kids are divided into teams competing for prizes for most garbage collected. The advantages of having a thus educated populace can be clearly seen when comparing the cleanness of Ukrainian and Australian cities (arguably sanitation services also play an important role).
While poor infrastructure and lack of public initiative can be blamed for a lot, individual responsibility remains a major factor behind the mountains of trash that litter the streets, parks, and other public places across the country. On the public side, however, the government should regulate and supervise pollution caused by industry. Apart from being its own reward, such initiatives could also serve as an argument for maintaining, at least in some respect, the advantageous position stemming from the Kyoto Protocol. Ironically, the collapse of Soviet industry has left Ukrainian emissions at half the benchmark level of 1990, allowing it to sell them for millions. If active efforts are made, and the money is really re-invested in efficiency-improving green projects (as the Kyoto Protocol dictates), then other countries may be more inclined to maintaining such favorable conditions beyond the 2012 expiration date. If not, it will be scraped. Dogmatic strains of ecology, as any fundamentalist philosophy, are likely to do more harm than good. However, this does not mean that we should shun away from reasonable and pragmatic respect for our planet.
