Now then, I’ve had an incredible amount of support for the project from all over the world the last few days, and I’ve had rather a large amount of, well, hate mail. Someone wants to spray Michelle and I with an Uzi and get Isabella adopted by Angelina Jolie, for example.On the other hand, there have been a number of helpful criticisms and questions. I’ll get to them as time goes on. One I want to answer–again–is about the fact that I write books and am making a film. I’ve pulled a comment and my response from an earlier post for that purpose.
Before we get to that, though, I just want to say this–again. No Impact Man is a year-long experiment to do with me and my family trying to see what will happen if we really put our money where our mouths are and try to live in a radical way according to our values. It is not an attempt to convince anyone else to live according to our values (unless of course they want to). In the spirit of full disclosure, I have to admit that I do hope that our project might inspire other people to live more closely to their own values (which is one reason for the book but more on that below).
At the end of the year, we will assess and see what changes we’re willing to keep and discard those we decide are trivial. But how can we know what is trivial and what is worthwhile if we don’t try the whole range? We are = dismantling a lot of the life we inherited from the culture and then putting it back together in a more deliberate way. A lifestyle redesign.
Also, people say “this proves environmentalists are nuts.” I am not and have never been an environmentalist. I did once give money to Greenpeace. What I am is a schlub who got tired of despising himself for doing things that didn’t jibe with his political and philosophical beliefs.
Not all the changes we’re making are in place, which is why, as some commenters complain, we don’t use TP but still use a laundry machine. If you want to understand how we’re progressively working things into and out of our life, read the posts on the left under “What it’s all about.”
But enough. The critics aren’t going to set the agenda on this blog. This is one of what will be an occasional concession to the naysayers.
What I really want us to discuss are the solutions to the inherent problems of trying to green our lives. If you really believe reduced consumption would cause the economy to collapse and ultimately hurt the poor, for example, instead of just calling me an idiot, how about suggesting other alternatives that would both ensure the well-being of the planet and its people?
Anyway, onto the comments to do with my book and movie, and after this, we’ll be moving on:
I love that you guys are doing this, but why not get the word out through word of mouth? Wouldn’t that be more non-impact? What’s with the public display of non-impactness? Getting people to read a blog on their 50-watt LCD monitors and buy a bound volume of post-consumer paper and show the filmed doc in a heated/air-conditioned movie theater, etc. sounds like non-impact man is leading to a lot of impact. And how are you going to measure your non-impact, except in rather self-centered ways like weight loss and better sex? (wait, maybe I should stop there.)
Posted by: bruce | March 07, 2007 at 01:09 PM
Bruce–
Thanks so much for your comment. I hope you will come back often and keep me on my toes!As for how we will measure our impact, there is a rather trivial way to measure it at http://myfootprint.org and a much more detailed way that can be downloaded at http://redefiningprogress.org/programs/sustainabilityindicators/ef/ef_household_0203.xls. I’m sure there are other ways too but I’m not there yet in my research.
At the moment, apparently, if everybody lived the way we live, one and a half planets would be required to support the population. We have a way to go! On the other hand, there are things we are responsible for that we can’t change, like the environmental cost of NYC’s infrastructure. I think we’re doing pretty well though. The average American lives, I think, a seven planet lifestyle.
As for the your reference to “self-centered” ways of measuring our non-impact, part of the experiment is to ask whether people in general might be able to live in a less impactful way and what benefits there are to it. So, if I find and can persuade other people that saving the planet has its personal benefits, wouldn’t you applaud me for appealing to self-interest in a positive way?
As for the book and the film and their impact. I know. I know. I wrestled with this. But each of us has what they are willing to give up for the environment and what they are not. I am not yet willing to give up being a writer. But I am using my position in media to try to change it some little bit. FSG will publish the book in Tyvek, same as Cradle to Cradle, which is a reusable material [actually it’s not Tyvek but another completely reusable material, I’ve since been told], unless we find something better. If you believe things change incrementally, that’s a little something, no?
As for the film, I originally told the film-makers who approached me no. I was very worried about the issues you raised. But then I told them that if they were willing to try to change their lives and the way they make movies to be less impactful, I would consider it. And they agreed.
It’s a question of whether you change things from the inside or the outside. I believe in both. It takes all types. Are you one, Bruce, who changes things from the outside? If so, I applaud you and support you. Maybe I will one day too.
Could I ask you one little friendly question? You wondered why I was encouraging people to spend energy looking at the blog on their “50W monitors.” My question for you is, if you believe your own logic, what were *you* doing spending energy looking at the blog? ;)
All the best and please comment away a lot more, Colin
Posted by: Colin Beavan | March 07, 2007 at 04:08 PM