SEP 03

While every little cutback helps, I hardly think Paris has that much to worry about when lighting a world famous monument. (Especially when it appears to be little more than a token gesture.)

Okay, I write a blog about caring for the environment, so it might seem a strange thing to say, but we have to have some pleasure in our lives and I imagine that illumination provides it to both Paris's residents and it's millions of tourists. An extra 5 minutes isn't going to doom the world when you consider the waste we all put out that we could do something about, but most people simply can't be bothered.

You could argue that this sets a fine example.

The Eiffel Tower? 5 minutes?

Anyone looked at Las Vegas lately? The waste there is unbelievable. And it's 24/7! Now that would set an example!

Or how about Times Square, NYC, or Piccadilly Circus, London, or Tokyo, Shanghai, Bangkok...?

Or how about leaving the things lit that give people pleasure and cutting back on those that are pure waste - how many office blocks are lit all night every night for no reason at all?

I don't usually come out in favour of wasting energy, but there's waste and there's 'waste'. You could argue that TV viewing is 'wasting' energy as it achieves nothing but to give the viewer pleasure - should we ban them?

Steve N. Lee
author of eco-blog http://www.lionsledbysheep.com
and suspense thriller 'What if...?'

Just to correct a slight imprecision: Eiffel tower was lit for ten minutes each hour from sunset to 2am.

France sets an incredible example with its ~59 nuclear power plants that produce ~87.5% of its electric power generation. We all should be so "green".

and... nuclear energy is the most 'green' source of energy.

Are you guys serious ?!! Nuclear Energy isn't green, my God do you folks not know what Nuclear Waste is ? Do you like having caves filled with crap that an kill you and contaminate the soil and water supplies it comes in contact with.

The only green solution that is presently viable for the masses is hydro and even that drastically affects an eco-system, as does solar and wind farms.

If you think Nuclear energy is green I suggest you do some real research on just how green it is.

"Do you like having caves filled with crap that an kill you and contaminate the soil and water supplies it comes in contact with."

No. But I like having a disappearing permanent northern icepack, shifting seasons, acid rain, mercury outfall, airborne particulates, biogeographical changes, heat waves, perfect storms, dead zones, water shortages, disease epidemics, droughts, precipitation shifts, and decreased agricultural productivity less.

Waiting for the one perfect energy source that emits absolutely no carbon, doesn't make any of the wrong people rich, isn't radioactive, isn't noisy, doesn't piss off people looking for the perfect view, isn't much more expensive expensive, doesn't require us to change our consumption habits, doesn't disturb any ecosystem in the slightest, saves the whales and stops nuclear proliferation is a pipe dream at best, and the fantasy of idiots at worst. It's time for rational, scientific-minded people to sack up, get out of the lab, slough off the failed antinuclear hysteria of the boomers, stop letting industrialists argue with hippies about the future of the planet, and stop perpetuating useless fantasies like the above.

And, I'm sorry to say, even though it might contaminate some of Nevada's groundwater, nuclear energy is a DAMN sight cleaner and better for the environment than fossil fuels. As such, it deserves a place in our future energy portfolio, because if you're under the impression that hydro, solar, and wind can cut the mustard, you're out of your ever-loving mind.

Great article. Thanks for the inoformation.

I also read that they are going to start to change the bulbs for a greener option, what do you know about this ??

@ #6

i agree... just had to say it.

but nuclear waste is green ... isnt' it? and doesn't it look bubbly?