All I’ll say is, yak yak yak, but thanks for all the traffic!

About the photos in particular, well, you may be right, especially when looking at the two pictures in high res here and here. The consistency in which lights on in the second are also on in the first indicates that they were taken on the same night. But in my own defence, this was the conclusion of MediaWatch and their talks with Fairfax.

All in all, my point was a selfish one: It didn’t seem to me to be a dramatic difference between, say, 7pm and 8pm. From the frame of reference of the Quay the situation may well have been different, but at Milson’s point it looked decidedly uninspiring.

Have you noticed though, and I have no real evidence to support this, that the bridge appears to be dimmer at night than usual? Perhaps they’ve finally seen the folly of needlessly blanketing the thing in floodlights for every moment of darkness.

The photos you show seem to me to be both taken on Earth Hour night – note the lack of signage in the first photo. If it were taken Thursday night, wouldn’t there be many more signs visible in the shot?

Regarding your thoughts about the event being underwhelming, according to the survey/stats that the SMH published over 50% of Sydney-ites participated. That would mean around 50% didn’t, accounting for the many lights left on you noted.

Is 50% participation rate across a city in the first year of an event a success or failure? I suppose it’s a bit of a “glass half empty/half full” thing.

I was in the Quay on the night and it was visibly darker – and I noticed a number of buildings and shops in the CBD with the lights out – the AXA and IAG buildings were standouts.

But ultimately, as you note, the dimming of the city was a statement not the end goal – and it’s the longer term goal of the campaign (5% reduction in emissions in 2007) that we should be focusing on – now /that/ would be an achievement methinks…

Globally though, I think trading would work best, though I’m always skeptical about the power of the ‘free’ market. Why wouldn’t the US subsidise local oil refineries or something to better their international interests like they currently do with agriculture. And what happens if there’s some market crash and the price of carbon plummets? Will there be a pollution free-for-all until the market corrects?
That said, it’d clearly be better than nothing.

If it’s publicity you want, it’s publicity you got!

Republican Governator style.

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,21545716-2,00.html

I think you’re definitely right about the tax vs trading issue, though surely a tax is a necessary part of a trading scheme, in order to get the carbon-credit economy?

Anyway, from what I can discern, he seems opposed to a non-tradeable carbon credit, which as you say is less pallatable (particularly to business, I think) but probably more effective.

Also, carbon trading and carbon tax aren’t the same thing. A straight-up tax is the way to go, but due to its potential unpopularity among narrow-minded Australians, a trading scheme will be more pragmatic, but less effective.

http://www.smh.com.au/news/National/Carbon-trading-still-under-scrutiny-PM/2007/04/12/1175971241443.html

‘The prime minister said he supported having some form of emissions trading.

“What I have said, and I stand by it, is there is a place for a carbon price.” ‘

Slow steps but inexorable nonetheless. He just wants to appear friendly to big business in the process.

Cheers chaps