The Instigator
Pro (for)
0 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
0 Points

THBT Earth Hour is useless

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/7/2013 Category: Society
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,571 times Debate No: 38604
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (0)
Votes (0)




Defintion of Terms

Earth Hour is a worldwide event organized by the World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF) and held towards the end of March annually, encouraging households and businesses to turn off their non-essential lights for one hour to raise awareness about the need to take action on climate change(Wikipedia)

Useless means that the objective is not really achieved effectively, that it creates more harm than good.

Contention: Although Earth hour has noble intentions of raising environmental awareness, I believe that it lacks effectiveness of achieving its said goal, thus I believe that it is useless.

I will expand my arguments later.



I would first like to say, is this hurting anyone? And also, what is the point? You say this is useless, but do you know that for sure? What are your facts? Your prof that this is pointless?
I would like to say that at this point anything to help the environment is worth it. Though this may be "useless" it helps, and thus is worth it. Plus, what harm is it doing to others? Is it hurting anyone? No. Is it insulting people? Bringing riots? No. So why get ride of it? If people want to do this, then i say let them. We have no right no matter were you are in the world you simply just cant make someone do something when it is not hurting you or anyone else.
Thank you
Debate Round No. 1


Thank you for your questions.

I will focus on your question as to why earth hour is useless.

Firstly, I recognize that Earth hour has good intentions in changing the attitudes of the people towards climate change. But those intentions are not actually realized. According to Jeremy Clarkson, host of the BBC motoring programme Top Gear, confessed to switching on all electrical items in his home as a protest against the perceived impact of Earth Hour, claiming the event would have little to no effect on attitudes towards climate change.[1]

Secondly, there is an increase of carbon dioxide emission because of people using candles instead. In fact The Christian Science Monitor said that most candles are made from paraffin, a heavy hydrocarbon derived from crude oil, a fossil fuel, and that depending on how many candles a person burns (if one uses candles during Earth Hour), whether or not they normally use compact fluorescent light bulbs, and what source of energy is used to produce their electricity, in some cases, replacing light bulbs with candles will cause an increase, instead of a decrease, in carbon dioxide emissions.[2]Also, In March 2010, the Daily Telegraph quoted electricity experts that "it could therefore result in an increase in carbon emissions" due to complications related to rapidly lowering then raising electricity generation.[3]

Lastly, accidents often happen during the celebration of earth hour. During the 2010 Earth Hour in the city of Uusikaupunki in Finland, a 17-year-old female motorcyclist hit a 71-year-old man, who was walking on the street instead of the sidewalk for an unknown reason. The man died from his injuries, while the motorcyclist and her passenger were uninjured. At the time of the accident the street lights had been turned off as part of the Earth Hour. The police stated that the lack of street lighting may have played a part in the accident, while the mayor believed the city's street lights would have been too dim to prevent it even if they had been on.[4]

I am not here to prove that Earth hour does not have a single benefit, rather I am here to show that even if it has good intentions for the environment, it has not been materialized and that it creates more problems.


1 ^ The Times (London) |url=missing title (help).

2 ^ McKitrick, Ross (2009). "Earth Hour: A Dissent". Retrieved March 31, 2012.

3 ^ "Earth Hour 'will not cut carbon emissions'". The Daily Telegraph (London). 2010-03-27.

4 ^ "Kaupunki sammutti katuvalot Earth Hourin ajaksi – Mies jäi moottoripyörän alle pimeällä tiellä ja kuoli". Aamulehti (in Finnish). 28 March 2010. Retrieved 2010-03-28.



very interesting i must say. first off, i would like state that again, what do you propose to stop this? Its not like we can fine people for turning there lights off and using candles. And if they want to turn out there street lights, we can recommend against it and maybe force a light or two to stay on for safety, but in the end what is the point of this? Besides of course debating which i am perfectly fine with. And also, as far as the man that was hit by the bike, that is his own fault. He should never have been in the road. And although maybe having light on would have saved him, or could also not have. In the end, it does not matter if someone votes for or against this, in the end it does not matter. We cant stop people from turning there lights off and using candles. No matter how hard we try.

Thank you :)
Debate Round No. 2


Thank you.

I made clear in this debate that I am not proposing to stop Earth hour, but only to devalue it because I stated that its purpose is not really achieved. Yet I am not saying that it does not have good effects, but then again as I have provided expert opinions and statistics proving that earth hour is not that effective, well this debate must go on.

Please vote.


Orion12 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
No comments have been posted on this debate.
No votes have been placed for this debate.