This is the third write-up in this node, and is in response to the above. Please read the above write-ups by AspieDad and Hazelnut first in order to understand all the references.
Hazelnut's view is certainly more cynical. It is not, however, very well reasoned. Putting aside irrelevant opinions regarding the personal grooming habits and level of understanding of the demonstrators at the April, 2009 G20 Summit in London, Hazelnut's main thrust is that Earth Hour participants are deluding themselves by believing that their action is beneficial, either as a direct impact on power plant emissions or as an consciousness-raising event to help increase public awareness of the dire need for revised energy policies. He is wrong on both points.
An electrical generating station does not operate at the same level constantly, but varies its output depending on demand. A good analogy is an automobile cruising along a high speed motorway with the cruise control set at 120 km/hr. When the car has to go up a hill, the motor works harder to maintain the set speed, using more fuel. Conversely, going down a hill, less work is required and less fuel is consumed.
The generator is set to operate at a constant speed of 50 or 60 Hz, depending on your location in the world. When load on the power grid is constant, fuel consumption is constant. As load is reduced on the grid it takes less power, and therefore less fuel, to keep the generator spinning at its set rate. Lower fuel consumption means lower CO2 emissions. While it is true that power plants don't respond well to large sudden fluctuations in load, as AspieDad points out, the power generating companies are well aware of impending load changes, and the idea is to make the reduction permanent.
I don't know who Sweet Fanny Adams is, but if she used less electricity during Earth Hour, she did help lessen pollution.
Now to digress into Hazelnut's digression on hydrogen powered vehicles. It is true that hydrogen is not a panacea as a fuel, and it is true that it takes energy to produce hydrogen. However, like electrically powered vehicles, hydrogen fueled vehicles put no greenhouse gases directly into the environment. Rather, they transfer any pollution to centralized power and manufacturing plants where they can be more easily contained and use less harmful fuels. The greatest source of hydrogen is water, and if a non-fossil fuel source is used to produce the electricity for electrolysis, then a hydrogen fueled vehicle has no carbon emissions at all.
Technical issues aside, Hazelnut has a great disdain for any action that may be taken because it is "the right thing to do", or because the intent may be to "raise awareness" of an issue in society. His cynical viewpoint is that these motivations are disguises for personal aggrandizement and that society has reached saturation in its awareness of environmental issues. He asks "what positive, economically viable and politically realistic steps can be taken?" In a democratic society, in order to make any solution politically realistic it must be seen as having a potential to affect votes, and that means raising awareness.
I agree that if we are to implement effective solutions to the imminent environmental crisis, they must be done on a large scale, and that requires political will. No matter what the motivation of the individual, any action that helps convince politicians that their re-election depends on action on global warming is helpful. So what if it makes you feel good while you do it?