Whatever else you may think about climate change, much of the effort to cut emissions is, in fact, a total waste of time - designed to make the participants and organisers feel better than to actually do anything.

The bulk of the green energy programs can be put in this category. they may not even cut emissions - at least not in Australia - but they make it look as if the government actually cares.

Yes it is tokenism! The power station turbines still spin and coal is still consumed. And the huge surge that heralds the return of lights etc, negates any energy savings.
What we need is carbon free power.
Cheaper than coal thorium would suffice. We have enough thorium to power the world for six hundred years.
That said, there are other even cheaper options, like converting all our biological waste, via smell free closed cycle digesters, into virtually free methane and then using that, (scrubbed), to power (an) on demand whisper quiet ceramic fuel cell(s). [The exhaust from this process is mostly water vapour.]
As long as we humans produce waste, this process not only remains endlessly sustainable, but produces free hot water as well.
The energy coefficient of the methane powered ceramic fuel cell is 60%, which compares very favourably with coal-fired power, at 20%!
It is said, we could produce enough methane to power a nuclear family's house, or a residential high rise, just from this material. Adding in food scraps or wastage, produces a saleable surplus.
Currently, we inject energy into this material to pump it wastefully out to sea, where it does endless or untold harm! When we could extract enough energy from it to power our homes, apartments, office towers and all manner of public buildings.
By-products include sanitised carbon rich organic fertilizer and reusable water.
Why aren't we already doing this?
A good question, which ought to be directed at the fossil fuel industry and all those who "serve" it? Including, it would seem, some high profile politicians/power brokers?
Rhrosty.

Rhosty, sounds like a great plan. In fact it sounds even better than the last one and the one before that.

All you have to do now is convince 119 nations to sign up for a Kyoto replacement to cap and govern CO2 emissions, then create an international emissions trading market and then breath some economic life into some sort of international renewable energy industry. Simple really.

Don't forget to let us know how you're getting on.

Rhosty - it is even worse than that. The generators in temporarily backing off do not reduce coal consumption. The temporarily reduced power output is obtained by altering the load angle of the generators so that the same amount of fuel is used with less efficiency. The fuel now excess to generated power requirements is only partially burned and in fact goes up the stack as increased solid atmospheric pollution. Earth hour is not only a farce, but in fact increases pollution without generally decreasing fuel consumption. Even so, the real danger of earth hour is the implantation in naive minds that turning off lights can solve the carbon problem.

A place where Earth Hour is practised 24/7:

http://www.google.com.au/imgres?imgurl=http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/dprk/images/dprk-dmsp-dark-old.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/dprk/dprk-dark.htm&h=722&w=974&sz=119&tbnid=X6jHCUNCmXhDmM:&tbnh=90&tbnw=121&prev=/search%3Fq%3Dsatellite%2Bpicture%2Bof%2Bnorth%2Bkorea%2Bat%2Bnight%26tbm%3Disch%26tbo%3Du&zoom=1&q=satellite+picture+of+north+korea+at+night&usg=__evTfRWsIBiI6bKb5DSMRBjN6jqw=&docid=mV1EzqMWCRx2mM&hl=en&sa=X&ei=DxNMUfLRD4mIkQWBkIDACg&sqi=2&ved=0CDgQ9QEwAw&dur=502

fits well with the party that claims that climate change is the biggest moral challenge of the century. All spin and no substance.