"Given the Middle East situation, housewives' spirit of energy conservation should be emphasized even more from now on. (...) Don't turn on all the light bulbs. Save tap water. Reduce the power consumption of home appliances."
This was from a newspaper article published when international oil prices surged during the Gulf War in August 1990. Like the "reuse and save" campaigns and gold-collection drives of the era, newspapers and women's magazines at the time were filled daily with tips on how to be "patriotic" by saving electricity.
More than 35 years later, the Ministry of Climate, Energy and Environment has dusted off the same old campaign playbook. As a crude oil supply crisis loomed due to a war between the United States and Iran, the ministry rolled out "12 National Actions for Energy Conservation." The list included reducing shower time, turning off unnecessary lights and using home appliances efficiently — measures unchanged from decades ago, laid out without any apparent deliberation.
This is not to say that efforts to save every little bit during difficult times are wrong. It is self-evident that amid the unprecedented crisis of a Strait of Hormuz blockade, households — not just the government and corporations — face a moment that demands collective action.
Yet the climate minister's public appeal to turn off unnecessary lights at home rings hollow when massive media facades across downtown Seoul, consuming the electricity of thousands of households at once, remain fully lit. The message that citizens can overcome an energy supply crisis by shortening their showers sounds equally empty while data centers — voracious consumers of electricity — run around the clock generating heat. The ruling party and government have asked households to reduce plastic use, but the reality is that naphtha-based campaign banners are already being hung in droves ahead of local elections.
Demands for individual sacrifice within a community must evolve with the times and be linked to a sense of efficacy. It is not enough to impose small inconveniences without presenting concrete evidence of what effect each action can produce. Nor should the government rely on the stale frame that "following the government automatically makes you a patriot." In these grave circumstances, the public deserves weighty alternatives that can genuinely earn their support.
