I spent Earth Hour furiously driving my fossil-fuel-guzzling SUV around my locale, outracing various Luddites and supporting the efforts of hard working Americans who wrest petroleum from beneath the ground all over the world, creating shareholder value and uplifting the human race from immobility.

Not to be a kneejerk contrarian (see comment above) but has conservation ever worked? It's an honest question, and if it has, I'd like to know. I suppose we've slowed the extinction of rainforests and whatnot, but whenever consumer focused campaigns come up, I think of Carter in a sweater telling folks to turn down the thermostat. Note: I wasn't there, I just heard about it, and on Rush Limbaugh no less (in the folly of my youth, of course). I think this was shortly after W took office when Cheney was touting a "conservation is nonsense" line, saying innovation is what we need. Anyway, the take home message is that I'm not sure it's realistic to expect us to give up convenience once we've tasted it. Were you really blogging in the dark? We were watching the Kid's Choice Awards, and I guess I thought it would be silly to dim the house with all our screens ablaze.

The organizers of "Earth Hour" convinced about 30 million people and a few large cities to turn out the lights for an hour over the weekend. That's a good thing, right?

Wrong. This paltry, symbolic gesture may make about 30 million people in countries that have electricity 24 hours a day feel good about themselves, but it does absolutely nothing to change the behavior of anyone. Those 30 million people are already recycling their newspapers, driving economical cars and bathing less often to save water.

What does turning the lights off for 60 minutes mean to someone in Nigeria where 1/3 of the homes don't even have electricity? Or what about Chad, where 9 out of 10 homes have no electricity?

Even the event organizers admit that turning off the lights would have minimal impact, as reported by Reuters. Talk to someone who has traveled to someplace like Bangledesh, where there are no lights at night in many places. Ask them how wonderfully safe they felt stumbling around a strange city in the dark.

When measuring the output and level of development in a country, the ability to generate power is a key indicator. Turning out the lights is regressive. It is giving up on our ability to make life safe, better and more civilized. It is idiocy. The next time Earth Hour rolls around in 2009, I will make a point of turning on every light that I have the power to illuminate.

Maybe this wasn't clear, but my original post was intended to be ironic. I thought the image of someone "blogging in the dark" would evoke a few chuckles, especially given the controversy over the energy required by Google's black screen.

"Were you really blogging in the dark?" Yes. Otherwise, I would be lying in my original post, and my mother taught me never to tell a lie. I kept the lights off for about two hours because once they went off, I got lost in my reading and blogging.

Mark, I assume everyone knows that this was a symbolic gesture, but isn't your plan for the next Earth Hour also a symbolic gesture? Given that you don't seem to object to symbolism as a matter of principle, I wonder why you take the modest symbolism of Earth Hour and attempt to turn it into a radical act against civilization?

Well Gordon, for what it's worth, I think I got your original meaning.

Had to chuckle more at seeing such intense responses to such a light post, however...

Hope no one took my response as "intense," as it was not so intended.

While not entirely on point (nor too far away for that matter), what is truly intense is the feeling of wonderment I get from having to flush my toilet twice each morning because certain wise persons in our Government believed that Americans were using too much water by flushing poop with a toilet that could do the job with only one tug on the handle.