Buried deep in the linked article is this statement:
Critics gleefully pointed out that the total amount of power saved was the equivalent of taking about six standard cars off the road for a year.
If this is supposed to be reporting, what is the word 'gleefully' doing in that sentence? Isn't it possible that some critics were not gleeful at all, but 'soberminded' or 'thoughtful'?
But this is a minor quibble.
The real question is, given the massive amount of energy (literally) expended in publicizing and promoting the event, is it really worth it on any terms? Aren't we teaching people that a small and essentially ineffective action that saves virtually nothing, and yet has taken a massive amount of organization and publicity to achieve, is enough to establish their green credentials and salve their consciences?
It seems to me that anyone who has a genuine concern for the environment will want to reject this piece of unhelpful tokenism for what it is.
I have questions along similar lines about churches that spend massive time, people-power and sometimes money organizing evangelistic events that almost no outsider turns up to. But that is for another day.