As you may have heard, thousands of people have now signed up to participate in the No Impact Project's week-long experiment in environmental living, which begins on October 18, hosted here on Huffington Post. That so many people are willing to make such a deep commitment demonstrates to themselves, to their neighbors, and to their elected officials that the American people are concerned about our climate crisis and are willing to participate in solving it. I hope that the senators currently considering the climate bill might take note and consider the possibility of leading the world politically the way participants in the No Impact Experiment are willing to lead culturally.
By the way, I choose the word "lead" deliberately, because to lead implies an aspiration, and ambition. And the aspiration and ambition embodied in attempting to live environmentally--on both and individual and a cultural level--is the possibility of a life that is better for the people as well as the planet.
Let me explain.
In my own case, back in 2007, I embarked with my little family on a yearlong quest to live as environmentally as possible. The central question was, How many of the resources used in our typically American, consumerist lifestyle actually contributed to our happiness? And where were we using resources--bad take out food in plastic tubs, more carbon-emitting business travel than we wanted, too much time working coupled with too little time with loved ones--that didn't improve our happiness?
In other words, since the average American's per capita emission of carbon dioxide, a greenhouse gas, is five times that of the average Chinese, were we, as typical Americans, really getting our happiness bang for our carbon buck? These questions are explored more deeply in my book No Impact Man and the documentary film by the same title, but suffice to say that the answer seemed to be no. In many ways, we lived just as happily and sometimes even more happily maintaining a lifestyle that weighed way less heavily on the planet. Good lives, in turns out, need not cost the earth.
What I didn't initially realize while exploring these themes was that thousands of other Americans had already begun experimenting with their own lifestyles. I had unwittingly joined a movement. These thousands of Americans were tired of waiting for the government to do something about the crisis in our climate and other environmental systems. They decided, rather than simply waiting for elected officials to catch up, to take matters into their own hands.
They decided, in other words, that they would make a difference. They decided, as I've said, to lead.
Those of you who have chosen to join them by participating in the No Impact Experiment this coming week have also decided to lead. For one week, you are going to experiment with your own lives in the hopes of enlarging the discussion about how we Americans might find a way to live that is both better for us and for the planet. We know we are in a climate crisis. And if we aren't getting that happiness bang for that climate buck, that means we are in a quality of life crisis, too. What can we do to change? This is a huge discussion that has been taking place in lofty halls of Congress. But it is a question that must be taken up in the cultural arena, too. Thank you for helping to start it!
To Sign Up For HuffPost's No Impact Week which starts October 18th, Click Here!
It's nice to see that more and more people are taking initiative and having a slightly more "going green" lifestyle to help reduce trash in many ways. I am a junior in college and I have taken a few environmental classes and became very interested in this topic. After going through all the classes and seeing countless slide shows and videos on how much our environment has suffered it really put things into perspective for me. Even though it isn't much, I try to do my part everyday in reducing my carbon footprint. I have replaced all of my light bulbs with energy efficient fluorescent bulbs, I'm very big on recycling, I turn off lights when I'm not using them and I unplug all unncessary cords and electronic devices.
I do believe that if more and more people get involved in having "greener" lifestyles we could easily slow down the effects of global warming and save our environments.
I ask whether this is an inevitable consequence of capitalism.
As to your question Chip W., capitalism is one of numerous economic systems. "More stuff equals better life" is one of many philosophies of living. Would you consider the despotic economic system of say, Zimbabwe or Myanmar, a system the men "elected" by gunfire, slaughter and rape to accumulate stuff, to be superior to capitalism. You're missing the point. You are blaming a means of production with moral philosophy.
A couple following all the suggested actions with three children has far greater impact that one with two even if they follow none.
Like Chip above, you are attempting to link a concept to a practice. Perhaps your concept of lesser children has merit. But your concept, in a free society, can be a measured result, not some type of adoptable plan. The casualness of how you write about a topic like this is frightening.
Just that keeping a stable population will not only improve the environment (less pollution, less waste, less CO2) but also less crowding, hunger, water issues etc..
People just need to be aware of their actions and having a lot of children has a huge impact. If people thought of families of five or more the same was as Hummer owners...ie. slightly selfish...it would begin to help.
"Man is a creature of almost pure sensation, his life passed either satisfying the cravings of the common appetite, or in apathy, or in slumber. Unable to discover causes, he is either harassed by superstitious dreams, or quietly and passively submissive to the mercy of nature and the elements. But woken by science, man is capable of connecting hope with an infinite variety of ideas. Science enables him to shape his future, actively and to interrogate nature with power, not simply as a scholar, passive, but rather as a master, active with his own instruments."
Davy was a man of action and a man of science, heroic in a way none of you could contemplate. Rigor, research, testing, and submission to the world's eyes--that is bravery. That is science. You represent those "unable to discover causes, harassed by superstitious dreams."
Man as a factor in climate change has never passed a test of statistical significance. There are too many variables at play. You have a premise, nothing more. In acting on premise, we risk great harm over benefit by responding to unproven expectation.
Show me your science. Until then, do not ask that I participate in an act of self-loathing where running from a problem is considered a contribution to its solution.
Unfortunately, people like you ignore this Fact.
Talking with you would be like talking with a dining room table.
Go and bury your head in the idealism of your stupid scientist and continue to your denial of the Real world that exists outside your sheltered life
I guess you never read much about the Bubonic Plague. I think that might alter your "more polluted than before...." You are correct in you dining room analogy. Since you present opinon stated as Fact, I would be as responsive to you as would a dining room table.
I actually do thank you for putting me in the same idealistic state of Humphry Davy, That is an undeserved honor on my part.
Lastly, you have capitalized the word "real." Interesting that the 2 words you choose to emphasize, "fact" and "real" are what is lacking in this week of fear and in your argument herein.
The only shelter in my life is me--my mind, my work--to the benefit of my family and to the world. It is a solid shelter built on truth and action, not myth and hiding.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x4105617
Right now only six states have it. Why not all fifty?
Turns out the only ones against this are utilities that would have to learn new ways to make money. Call your representatives and ask them to demand decoupling from their state's Public Utilities Commision.
Oh, my 5-year old just told me that California has a little problem. Wow, what happens if there isn't anyone to run the plants? What motive would anyone have anyway? Wait a minute, I think I have a solution. Why don't we let private citizens put their own capital at risk to invest and innovate? And if they're successful, they should earn a return on what they invested. And.............Oh, sorry Patrick, I got wildly capitalistic on you.
How is California?
Given the very small percentage of total atmospheric CO2 that anthropogenic CO2 represents, "No Impact" is a very fitting title.
I know this is asking a lot of those will little curiosity beyond their local Walmart, but have you noticed the melting of the ice at the North Pole. Does this not register?
I suppose there's no point is trying to explain that global warming can be manifested in cooling in some areas? Like when ocean currents are disrupted and don't bring warm water to warmer climates?
Just wondering, do you also want the government out of your Medicare?
Your post, perhaps inadvertently, reveals that you are intelligent, as I noticed that you carefully avoided using the word, "consensus." As I'm sure you're aware, most of your leftist cohorts have grown too fond of this word; ironic given that few other words are more antithetical to true science.
Back in 1976, I think it was, many leftists were celebrating the first Earth Day, and the coming ice age was all the rage. "Time" and "Newsweek" both ran cover stories heralding the phenomenon. Would you assert that your liberal buddies back then were operating in perfect contravention to the scientific community of the day?
Where I grew up, the remedy for the fallacy ad hominem was roughly translated as "Stand up on your own 2 feet and fight your own battle."
Take the now government owned well known Pontiac name, empty facilities, idle work force, and abandoned dealer network and begin to manufacture, market, and distribute one of over 30 electric cars available for production and getting 200 miles between charges in plants that have been converted to operate on clean energy. The benefits to the economy and the environment will be enormous. http://bit.ly/4R5Pd
Given that the UN concluded in 2006 that raising cattle produces more greenhouse gases than driving cars, one great way to reduce your impact is to go vegan.
You think the McDs of the world are all that's wrong? They are the most visible symptom of the cancer. Your take on meat is correct, so what''s the issue with vegan? Seriously, you need to talk to vegans before you make blanket assumptions not reinforced by evidence.
By the way, do you know any other way that doesn't produce GHGs that will also produce flesh products?