The result is a slight reduction in power usage, which of course is good for the planet. But is it anywhere near enough?

Seeing the well-orchestrated TV news shots of cities turning off their lights for Earth Hour, the question that immediately springs to mind is this — If it works so well, why does it have to be just once a year? Surely those who are truly committed to the entire green philosophy would not think twice about sitting in the dark for an hour, say once a month instead of once a year. This would naturally lead to more reductions in energy consumption, and as the program continued and caught on with more and more people, significant reductions might one day be reached.

And if that was successful, once a week is certainly not unreasonable. I could certainly see myself doing without electricity for 60 minutes on a weekly basis. It would become part of our routine, and most of us could use the time away from the computer screen.

A global gesture is fine. It is indeed very heartwarming to see people of so many nations coming together in one unified gesture of environmental concern. But once a year is not likely to have much of an impact in practical terms.

On a personal note, I would like to thank everyone who wrote or left phone messages to offer congratulations on last week's April Fool's issue. While admittedly a risky venture, the overwhelmingly positive response from readers has been gratifying.

It proves that Westmount is definitely lampoon-able, if done with care and reverence. I hope our readers had half as much fun reading it as I did writing it. The success of that issue has prompted plans to do it all again next year, with a whole new batch of issues to poke fun at and, possibly, with a municipal election in the meantime, perhaps some new characters to write about. The ideas are flying around already, but they'll all have to wait.