Rocket Talk: Can Sunday Subway Service Start Sooner?
Newsstand: November 19, 2009
Gender Studies Coming to a High School Near You
Please Insert Station and Try Again
The Art of Not Knowing
We are, just to be clear, very fond of Planet Earth. Big fans. Huge. We are, likewise, fond of initiatives which safeguard our environment, and also in favour of consciousness-raising efforts that promote such initiatives. Therefore, when we say that many of the events being held to celebrate Earth Hour tomorrow are vacuous publicity exercises that insult our intelligence and with which we want no truck, we are not doing it because we think this whole environmental crisis we've been hearing so much about has been overblown. We are doing it because they are so vacuous and so insulting that we have been rendered awestruck by their inanity, and find our consciousness to be depressed, angry, and frustrated rather than uplifted.
About a week ago, a press release arrived in our inbox:
At 8:30 p.m. on Saturday, March 28, 2009 all of Toronto will join over 1000 cities worldwide in darkness for sixty minutes in honour of EARTH HOUR. Guests of The Fairmont Royal York hotel will have a chance to “green” it up by checking in by candlelight while enjoying a Greater Toronto Area (GTA) resident’s rate of $99 (exclusive of taxes, based on single or double occupancy)…Throughout the EARTH HOUR evening, The Fairmont Royal York’s Library Bar welcomes lounging guests to candlelight service and a special Earth Hour drink menu created just for this year’s cause: the Polar Cap, a cool drink in a highball glass; the Organic Globe, an icewine martini; and the controversial Carbon Footprint.To which we could only say: are you fucking kidding??
The thing which drove us crazy about this release in particular (we've received many others) is that the Royal York's parent company, Fairmont Hotels and Resorts, has actually has been working on some legitimately praiseworthy environmental initiatives over the past few years. The Fairmont Chateau Lake Louise gets half its energy from wind and run-of-river electricity generation; the Fairmont Winnipeg banned styrofoam in 2007; the Fairmont Hotel Vancouver donates four tonnes of leftover food to those in need each year; and the Fairmont Royal York has a rooftop garden in which it grows its own herbs and from which it collects its own honey. This is not a company which needed to concoct a cocktail list (a cocktail list!) to demonstrate its interest in the environment.
So why did it? Even if you think that Fairmont is merely nibbling at the edges with its initiatives, they actually do at least some small bit of good—as opposed to an Organic Globe icewine martini, say, which only makes you dizzy when the lights come back on. Fairmont could have simply trumpeted what it has measurably accomplished to date, and invited guests to tour the roof and learn how they might install some new green spaces in their own homes. What is with the suggestion that we all take a sustainability-themed trip to the bar? Is it possible that they are using the occasion to try to sell us stuff, more stuff than we'd otherwise consider purchasing, under the guise of celebrating our shared love of the planet?
The Royal York is hardly the only culprit. During Earth Hour you will be able to browse the artful particleboard arrangements at a 30% dimmer IKEA (shopping's sustainable if you can't see what you're buying!); pick up a free Brita water filter (filtered is the new bottled); eat numerous candlelit dinners; and catch a flick minus the annoying glare of backlit posters.
Coca-Cola is a major Earth Hour sponsor, an odd partnership if ever we saw one. Since the best thing Coca-Cola could do for the environment would be to cease operations entirely, we simply fail to understand how its involvement is supposed to help matters. That Coke rated a spot on the official poster at all is worrisome evidence that Earth Hour is suffering from a severe case of greenwashing. Of course, Coca-Cola's sponsorship is just an instance of the broader problem. In general, the environmentally friendly choice is almost always to consume less, but that is hardly a winning business strategy and so no corporation will ever advocate it seriously. As soon as Earth Hour ventured into the world of corporate sponsors it became almost inevitable that its message would become diluted and undermined.
And what of the organization that launched Earth Hour in the first place, the World Wildlife Fund? In a move that boggles our already frustrated minds, WWF Canada is giving away a vacation for two, airfare included (courtesy of Sears Travel). Yes sirree, you can now exercise your environmental conscience by winning the chance to burn fossil fuels you otherwise couldn't afford. (Estimated carbon emissions: 1.59 tonnes.)
We realize that all of this might make us sound churlish. Slamming Coca-Cola is one thing, but the WWF is a bona fide conservation organization that is sincerely committed to improving the state of our environment. This we do not dispute. And there are many smaller Earth Hour events worth checking out. But here's the problem with all this consciousness-raising (or one of them, at least): our consciousness has already been raised. We know that the planet is in peril and that we need to drastically revise our lifestyles if it is to survive even somewhat intact. At some point we need to back up our awareness with concerted and increasingly aggressive action. At some point, we need to raise the bar on what counts as an environmental feel-good moment. Ten years ago—five even—these kinds of events and promotions might have served a real purpose, might have shifted public discourse in the right direction. Today they have nothing left to teach us.
Last year Toronto's electricity demand dropped by 8.7% during Earth Hour. While that is no small feat, what we really need is to learn how to permanently reduce our demand for energy. Let's have an Earth Hour by all means, but a real one, one which involves activities that actually help the environment and offers education that actually teaches us how to maintain that effort the other 8,764.8 hours of the year.
add to stumble upon
add to reddit
tweet this
post to facebook
Despite your arguments and rationale, I say you are a poopyhead. Neither the abuse of an event by corporate numbnuts, your own elevated state of consciousness, nor the need for greater and more effective actions makes Earth Hour useless. Rather, it is simply imperfect. Plenty of folk less environmentally mindful than you (and I) may become more aware. They damn well need to be. This simplistic approach might put them on the path, so I shall not join your disparagement.
Agreed.
Cheers to you for calling out this nonsense. I'm sure more energy is spent advertising this useless event than it saves, and you can hardly say at this point that we need to be made aware of environmental issues. How about making us aware of the complexity of them? The need for REAL solutions?
And hey, let's not forget that last year, even David Miller couldn't be bothered observing Earth Hour.
I completely agree. You are preaching to the converted here, so instead of complaining about everything wrong with Earth Hour, why not make some real suggestions about how people can take the idea of Earth Hour and apply it in a more relevant way? There is a lot of negativity floating around this blog lately...and it's annoying.
"There is a lot of negativity floating around this blog lately...and it's annoying."
I can see why someone who works for the Design Exchange and is using their work e-mail address to comment on this article would think that!
I'm not sure how the two things are related, or why it was necessary to share a commentator's private employment details with the rest of us.
seriously?
why would you reveal someones personal info with the public like that... what does that have to do with any of the above?!
I think it is significant that the source of a complaint about Torontoist's editorial policies comes from someone who works for a company that we pretty explicitly called out a few days ago; I think that "consider the source" applies as much for comments as it does for our content (and that people don't actually realize that a healthy number of the people who criticize Torontoist do so with some noteable personal conflict of interest). But I definitely didn't intend to publish information (i.e. the domain of the e-mail account) that there was any significant expectation of confidentiality about, and I don't think I did—all Torontoist staff members can see the e-mail addresses of every user who comments on their articles, and anyone (reader or staff) interested in the source of any comment could have reasonably inferred the rough conclusion I drew (i.e. that the commenter is a Design Exchange employee) from one of the few past comments from the user associated with their public profile, coupled with their chosen username...
But I'm really not mad, and I didn't intend to be confrontational or pick a fight. I just thought it was worth considering where a comment like that comes from, because I think that it is important.
You're only going to chill people's inclination to comment with petty stunts like this. Listen to yourself: "consider the source…notable personal conflict of interest." What is this about, no-bid contracts and patronage appointments? No, it's an opinion about an opinion:
I would totally have fallen for that subtly underhanded remark if I hadn't known whom the commenter worked for! Thank you, Mr. Watchdog.
But, unsatisfied with exaggerating the importance of a personal disagreement, you then become downright disingenuous, gassing on about a "reasonable expectation of confidentiality" as though you knew what you were talking about and weren't just spewing ex post facto defensive verbiage.
I think you're probably safe from PIPEDA for various reasons, but not on the strength of a dubious claim like, "Well, I knew this unpublished piece of information, so it wasn't private." And you keep digging, claiming that I can guess whom this commenter works for based on this history of comments, which is ludicrous.
Face it: your remark would better have been made privately, and would best not have been made at all. Bite your tongue like a grownup.
David, I think the link you've made between the commentator's alleged conflict of interest and her comment here/the subject of this article is pretty tenuous. This article has nothing to do with the Design Exchange, and her comment was not an unreasonable one to make (whether one agrees with it or not). If there is a pattern of posts that suggests that the commentator has a problem with Torontoist itself, then call her on the content of her posts (or, frankly, delete the posts if you think she is violating your commenting policies) - don't go telling the world where she works. Her employment information does not represent the smoking gun you think it does.
What's a bit more troubling, however, are your views on expectations of privacy. Your suggestion that people might infer where the commentator works from past posts is speculative at best, and even if true, it does not justify your release of private information. And I am not sure why it is relevant that such information is available internally at Torontoist. At issue is making the information publicly available on your site, not how it is handled internally. Your home address, your email address and other particulars are available to the staff at a number of companies with which you deal -- because it is available to staff internally at those organizations, does that mean that they can publish it on their respective web sites (absent disclosure or consent enabling them to do so)? Of course not.
E-mail addresses (and information that can be gleaned from them) are not published on posts or profiles on Torontoist. I think it's a pretty big leap to assume that none of the persons registered on this web site have any legitimate expectations of privacy with respect of that information. I also think you should be a bit more cautious, given the federal Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act, which governs the collection of personal information by all commercial organizations. It contains rules for the disclosure of such information, and for getting consent for disclosure. Unlik EricSmith, I'm not so sure that it doesn't apply. In any event, I don't see anything on your registration page, or the site's terms of service, whereby users consent to the release of this information.
Having said all that, I assume good faith, and I can't imagine that any privacy violation was intended. All I am saying is be careful. This is serious stuff.
I do understand, and I definitely don't want to chill future comments—and while I think what I did is defensible (and legal), I probably would have been better off, as Eric put it, biting my tongue. I was a spur of the moment thing and I was trying to be vaguely funny and "gotcha"-y, and honestly thought that if I didn't say what I said that a commenter would have suggested what I said first (honestly! the commenter profile pages/recent comment pages get a totally respectable amount of hits; the readers of Torontoist in general seem as curious as its staff as to comment histories and stuff like that).
Maybe if we all turn off our computers tomorrow for one hour everything in the entire world, including this, will be okay again.
Very uncool -- there's a big difference between what Torontoist employees can see, and what is suitable to expose in the comments. Besides, you think every employee, down to the receptionist, is taking your shots at the company personally?
I think you should clarify your privacy statement, and live up to it.
Good article. "Green" is the new bandwagon and it's very irritating to see how many environmental offenders have jumped on it in an effort to shore up their image. Maybe when it stops being trendy, when the next bandwagon comes along, there will be some meaningful action on the environment by those who really do care.
Ohfergoodnesssake. As someone who has been reading, supporting, and commenting for the Torontoist for much longer than I've been working for the dx I think my argument still carries weight (I'm basically just agreeing with malmo, you know).
But wow! I'm officially really sorry that I didn't use my personal email address when I set up the account some time ago. (Maybe a slight invasion of privacy?) I'm not picking a fight, and moreover it has nothing to do with where I work. Can we stop this now?
I think I agree with the complaint about the CO2-licious vacation prize, but the rest of this article is churlish and largely misses the point. Congratulations, yes, you've broken the secret code, it is a gimmick. Was it only the novelty cocktail menu that gave it away?
Earth Hour is an audience participation event for people who spend the rest of the year dismayed at pollution and keen on conservation. It's held in observance of a shared interest, and you might as well condemn New Year's Eve because 00:01 January 1 is indistinguishable from 23:59 December 31 and it's "really" just the tail end of the Leon's Boxing Week Sale.
Yeah, everybody's aboard the pro-environment bandwagon, and people are just spontaneously changing their practices for the better left and right. Even if that were true, it would be entirely appropriate to observe our shared commitment to a pro-environment attitude. Since it's not true, this is advertising, man.
Just as you're pretty sure that the Coke logo on the Earth Hour poster is an insidious consumerist influence, so is the big ol' call to action against climate change an environmentalist influence. It does work in that direction too, you know.
I don't understand your point.
The lack of prosody in email makes sarcasm hard to decipher at times.
Either way, a gimmick is viewed as a cheap and disposable attempt at grabbing attention. It is often irrelevant to the item it promotes. The absolute worst thing one can do for a serious issue is use a gimmick to promote it because that is like saying the issue itslef can draw no attention unless something snazzy or attention-grabbing is added to it.
I agree with the article, if you don't have "awareness" of global climate change concerns then you are most likely dead since this topic is everywhere. Anyone too ignorant to even be aware of it will most certainly miss the point even with a gimmick.
Companies bringing awareness to a subject that they themselves create and exacerbate is like a burglar calling the cops after he robbed your house; an empty gesture to appear magnanimous.
A better solution would be these sponsor companies making a commitment to stop bad practices and only buy from suppliers who meet new stringent requirements. A very large company has a lot of power over the suppliers and when they demand a change, it happens since a supplier either falls into line or falls out of business.
I agree with EricSmith. This was always a gimmick, and when it first started a few years back when I was struggling to get my friends and family to reduce, reuse and recycle, I thought it was ridiculous. Just a way for my polluting friends to feel like they've done their part, and go back to their consuming ways once the hour's up... However, like all gimmicks for a good cause (ie:climbing the CN tower, bike riding, running, or walking in large groups, and so on) it has the ability to shed light on an issue, and remind the government that a large population want change and the appropriate laws put in place to affect that change. So yup, it's a stupid gimmick, but the purpose it serves is a good one.
Yeah, I don't think it's cool to "out" any part of a commenter's non-public identity. I've seen it happen before on Torontoist, and it makes me nervous that if I tick off the wrong person I could lose my anonymity.
Anyway, I think Earth Hour is kind of like the average political rally. It's a symbolic gesture and social activity for activists. But by no stretch of the imagination is the hour itself oriented towards achieving a goal or making change, nor does it acknowledge that meaningful environmental protection might require more us than the usual tripe about using less electricity, conserving water and riding a bike in the summer. We might have to make substantial sacrifices to our convenience, comfort and pleasure that goes beyond turning the tap off while brushing our teeth. When environmentalists say "it's as easy as turning your lights off!" they're making a sales pitch to the reluctant masses, not realistic demands.
As with "breast cancer awareness", there's only so much you can change by shopping, entering contests, and sipping martinis. And awareness - admitting you have a problem - is just the first, and easiest, of myriad steps.
I agree with Torontoist's stance, if we point out the worst examples of greenwashing it might spur those corporations to do better on future initiatives.
Harnutal, nice provocative entry. You have brought further attention to Earth Hour and the press release i issued as chair of our environmental team. We are proud of the environmental stewardship we demonstrate every day of the year. Because we mix a little drink in with our rooms over Earth hour doesn't make us any less committed to enviro protection and sustainability. I would like to personally invite you for a back of house tour of our operations. Then, can our green team come to your house and help you audit your blue box? http://radioroyalyork.ca/
I will gladly take you up on both of those invitations!
Next year, for Earth Hour, let's see Toronto Police Service give all patrols the order: pull over every Hummer, Range Rover and other fuel-sucking machines, and ticket their drivers for being too douchey for public consumption. Also, maybe the city could switch off those ridiculous globular street lights at Old City Hall, that place was like the surface of the sun.
Interestingly, a few days after Earth Hour Fairmont announced that it was joining the World Wildlife Fund's Climate Savers Program, in which corporations commit to reducing their carbon emissions (in Fairmont's case, by 20% below 2006 levels by 2013). Treehugger has some thoughts on this.
Coca-Cola is also a partner in this program, and has two emission reduction targets:
Whether these measures count as further instances of greenwashing or as substantive environmental initiatives (a whole separate debate), they are at minimum great improvements over the Earth Hour antics.