The No Impact Experiment

The way I see it, waiting for the senators and the CEOs to change the way we treat the world is taking too long. Polar bears are already drowning because the polar ice is melting. In fact, research shows it’s worse: they are so hungry, they are actually starting to eat each other.

I can’t stand my so-called liberal self sitting around not doing anything about it anymore. The question is: what would it be like if I took the situation (or at least my tiny part of it) into my own hands? I’m finding out.

For one year, my wife, my 2-year-old daughter, my dog and I, while living in the middle of New York City, are attempting to live without making any net impact on the environment. In other words, no trash, no carbon emissions, no toxins in the water, no elevators, no subway, no products in packaging, no plastics, no air conditioning, no TV, no toilets…

What would it be like to try to live a no impact lifestyle? Is it possible? Could it catch on? Is living this way more fun or less fun? More satisfying or less satisfying? Harder or easier? Is it worthwhile or senseless? Are we all doomed or is there hope? These are the questions at the heart of this whole crazy-assed endeavor.

You might be thinking, Colin Beavan is cracked--no one can cause literally NO impact on the planet, right? Well, what I’m talking about is no NET impact. If you don’t get it, or you want to know more about how we’re proceeding? Check out the The Year-Long Plan.

Comments

[Lori V.]

Hi! I just found your blog today. I, too, am working to reduce my family's carbon footprint. We have three teenagers. You thought getting your wife on board was hard! LOL!

I'm wondering why, instead of no A/C, no TV, etc., you didn't choose to switch your energy provider to one that offers fully renewable energy.

[Walter Jeffries]

Umm... You live in NYC. That is a bomb blast of an impact. I encourage you to reduce your footprint but the very fact that you live in a totally unsustainable environment makes your goal seem odd. Puzzling... :}

[Rebecca]

Walter, in fact NYC has a lot going for it in terms of sustainability. Cities are far better than the suburbs or rural areas, where houses have large lots of land (frequently with lawns ridden with pesticides, mowed by gas guzzling lawn mowers, etc) and people drive everywhere. In NYC on the other hand, buildings are close to each other and many are apt buildings, we have an excellent public transportation system and people walk far far more than in most suburban areas. High density may seem to be less environmentally friendly but in fact saves significantly on resources. There are of course issues and we're nowhere near as eco-frienly as I'd like us to be, but if you look into it you'll see that NYC is actually a pretty good place for an environmentalist.

[susannah eanes]

cities are better in sustainable terms than rural areas --how in the WORLD can anyone say that, rebecca?

have you EVER even been to a truly rural area?

excuse me, but i'm wholly with walter on this one. and i am a land-use planner, so i think i should know what i'm talking about. i've lived in chicago, tampa, and a few other large cities, and there is just no comparison to how simple life is where i live now. we'd have never been able to make it with just one vehicle anywhere else. here, it's not uncommon for it to sit 5 or 6 days without moving. oh, and i do live in a truly rural area --on 5,000 acres worth of rural. my home was built in 1810 of one of the most eco-friendly resources available --rammed earth. here in our "rural area" we practice sustainable forestry and wildlife management, we raise historic breeds of farm animals, give historic house & garden tours, and our kids play outside all day long in the woods, meadows & climbing trees unless it is pouring down rain. we dry our laundry outside in the wind & sun. we enjoy visits & walking outdoors with our neighbors --in a neighborhood that covers about 30 square miles. there is always something to do.

i feel so sorry for urban people i don't know where to begin. i don't know how they breathe living on top of one another like they apparently do. then again, lately they've been moving nearer & nearer to our part of the county & cutting up the farmland into 1-acre plots. THAT is not rural. It's wasteful, ugly, and environmentally heinous. but to them these 1-acre plots seem HUGE. but they're too big for just a house, yet not big enough to anything useful with, like raise sheep or have a decent garden, or even much of a play area for the little ones.

when is the last time you saw someone in NYC --or any urban area --go to the store on horseback --or on foot? here, "take out" means "take out the garbage." people take care of one another --black and white.

suffice it to say, please either make your opinion clear (giving you the benefit of the doubt that perhaps you didn't mean it quite the way it looks) or by all means, educate yourself as to what you're actually talking about.

also, we had some cousins from the sacramento area visit for the first time last summer. they had 2 children under the age of 6. those boys stood with their parents for about 1/2 hour just looking down at the valley, a spectacular view. but when i went up to them, the first comment was, "it's so green. we never see anything green where we live. just concrete, unless we go several blocks away to the park."

abominable. that should be criminal. people should never get that far from a real environment.

regards,
susannah

[Tony]

I have to side with Rebecca on the fact that smart urban living and planning can go a long way to reducing the collective environmental footprint (a loaded term to be sure) of an economy built on exploiting comparative advantage (i.e. collective sustainability combined with commerce in lieu of self-sustainability). Clearly, a bonafide and comprehensive land use model is infeasible and simply ridiculous to postulate. Ditto an overwhelmingly suburban one comprised of McMansions and long commutes. We will return to our cities and create new ones. Thus, I look forward to following this evolving experiment.

[AmericanInfidel]

This is the silliest thing I have heard since I have seen people openly weeping about how they are killing the planet. First...the polar bears are not drowning. The picture that everyone is using as proof is of two polar bears PLAYING on an ice flow and actually swam away. There is also a large increase in the polar bear population in other areas larger than those areas that are "disappearing". WHile one side of the polar ice is melting, it is actually extending and thickening on the exact opposite side, thus it is actually equalling out. As for as this "climate change" being brought on by humans, I must remind the Liberals who believe in evolution and laugh at Christians and others who don't, that once the oceans reached many places that are now mountainous and/or desert like...such as Utah and the Sahara Desert for instance. Also, once the planet was lush and tropical...until suddenly it became a great big glacier. Such glaciers then, without the benefit of mammoths driving SUV's or using toilet paper, started to melt and recede and left such beautiful places as Yosemite. In fact, we have been exiting the last Ice Age for over 10,000+ years. How do you explain such things as these? Humans were not even around for any of it. Also, there are more trees today in the United States than ever in it's history. Since trees and other vegetation FEED on C02, it stands to reason that these gasses actually BENEFIT trees such as those found in the rain forrest. Now, what about the Global Average Temperature? Since it has only been measured for about 50 yeas, it is absolutely impossible to say that what is going on now is any different than what happened say 100-200-300 or more years ago. Since there are no records, no one ever once has concluded that "hey...maybe this is normal". Weather conditions and patterns have only been recorded for about 100-150 years. How is it that you think you can say one way or another what is right and good for the weather and environment with that much time out of millions and millions of years?

And finally...though there is so much more to list...why is it you people fail to state how the Earth's temperature has been rising at EXACTLY the same rate and temperature as the sun and Mars? There is no way that man has had any impact what-so-ever on either of those two places. Should we then have Congress do something about the sun and maybe fine it for daring to grow hotter?

You people are a joke. Your "Sky is falling" foolishness is absolutely insane and doing nothing but creating bigger businesses and industries around it as well as needlessly scaring people and children without either giving or knowing all the facts. Ommitting facts is equal to lying about them. And as for how you are living, I hope the New York Public Health Department fines you for the unsanitary conditions you are providing a city filled with rats, roaches and other purveyors of disease with your fecal compost and CPS comes and fnes you and removes your children once the heat and humidity hits and your child is forced to suffer without proper cooling off. Just remember what it was like without all of today's "Modern Conviniences". Plague and starvation was so much fun, wasn't it?

[Ben Murphy]

Here's a suggestion. My family and I are as carbon-dioxide neutral as possible. One thing we do, which my wife came up with, is brilliant. Instead of buying wrapping paper, which only enriches the rich wrapping paper companies while deforesting and contributing to killing our Mother Earth, we had a friend make a very colorful cloth for us. What we do is give the gifts at birthdays one at a time, covered with the "present cloth." The children get the thrill of "opening a present" by pulling the cloth off, and we impress on them that they're doing so without contributing any harm to our Earth. For Christmas, we each use our own cloth to give gifts to each other. They don't enrich wealthy wrapping paper companies and their friends in the Bush administration, and they're much more attractive than that wrapping paper, too. We soon hope to have a website up, www.presentcloth.com.

Ben Murphy

[Phil Brady]

I think there is a question whether cities such as New York do not cause problems for the country as a whole. They, Boston, Providence, New York, Philadelphia are large metropolitan areas on a coast with not much cultivable land nearby in relation to population; located in a part of the country which has only a short growing season; and their residents are at the tail end of the retail chain.

For instance, I looked into NY agriculture. (The state's agricultural statistical service.) The state has 35,600 farms on an average of 212 acres. These are not big farms and farm income is understandably low. The state's top 3 crops are hay, hay, and hay. (3 types.)

Thus, several things are necessary: 1. there must be a large agricultural industry which will be some distance away and, 2. there must be a massive, complicated and expensive distribution system in operation at all times.

A New York City resident who wishes to "lower his impact" would probably do better to move to western New York and take up canning. If he chose to remain in New York he should purchase a wheelbarrow and go to a Sam's Club every two weeks for any product that has been brought to town by train. (Still cheaper than truck.)

As to highrise apartments: a. this state (Alabama) is covered by 35,000 square miles of pine forest. Pines produce oxygen. High rises do not. High rise dwellers are consuming oxygen produced in this state which we are not being compensated for. They should remember that. As it happens, I have 18 pine trees in my back yard. I do not know if they produce all the oxygen I consume. But maybe.

[Devo]

This issue is far more complex than urban vs. rural. For example, there are over 8 million people in New York City. If you divide the entire state of Alabama by the number of people in NYC, you get about 4.2 acres per person. Take out roads, rivers, lakes etc. and it becomes pretty unrealistic. You couldn't farm enough of what's left to live on and there would be no forest.
A small note about urban living: most people in NYC walk far more than suburbanites and farmers because everything is within a few blocks. In fact, most don't even own cars.
It is also important to remember that while some people prefer to live in a rural environment and live off the land, the goods, medicines, and materials they use everyday are produced elsewhere at a significant global cost.
The problem is complex and large. We need urban and rural living. We depend on manufacturing and farming. We depend on natural resources that are diminishing. The key to the future is to develop methods that reduce our impact on the earth, and, in my humble opinion - using less, being less selfish, sharing more, and opening our minds to the GLOBAL picture.

[Michael Fleener]

>>most people in NYC walk far more than >>suburbanites and farmers because >>everything is within a few blocks. In >>fact, most don't even own cars.

Which is only possible because everything is shipped to those thousands of convenient locations via diesel trucks, ship, and trains... which means the convienience of being able to walk for most of their needs does not come free, but at the price of all the fuel needed to transport things to a convenient walking distance for them.

This is a silly and useless game to play, trying to decide who relies less on fuel to live the way they do. We could argue it in circles forever. We all rely on a vast network of fuel-powered production and transportation for all our needs, and trying to nit-pick over who uses a little more or a little less is a waste of time and energy.

This is the new "how many angels can fit on the head of a pin" argument, and frankly, unless you're ready to go back into the caves and kill your food with a pointy rock tied onto a stick, you're going to use more than some neighbors and less than others.

[Full Impact Woman]

For the next year I will counterblance you

[ptamaro]

Great ideas, but where have you folks been for the last 30+ years? I remember starting recycling programs in the early 70's with my folks -- and have continued to do so ever since. All of this needs to be tempered with reason, and it's becoming all the rage to be green.

My hope is that people begin to take responsibility for their "impact" on the planet, but do so in such a way so that their changes in behavior and lifestyle are manageable and sustainable -- rather than just another passing fad.

BTW: It is worth noting that there is scientific evidence which suggests (and or proves) that global warming is not a direct result of our impact on the environment.

That said, let's try and reduce our negative impact where we can -- what's the harm?

[Lucy]

As I already wrote in another comment, I think what you're doing is great and admirable.

Here's a practical tip for the world:

"In large parts of the world the mounting pollution of water and a sewage system which is becoming impossibly costly, are big issues. What are we going to do about this problem? We’d like to make some suggestions!"

I quoted this from a great site that shows many examples of how to live a less damaging life. For instance they have developed an odorless toilet, the Nonolet, that works also with composting and they've come up with ways to reuse rainwater as drinking water etc.

[Greg]

This is a fantastic idea. Sure, there would probably be problems if everyone in NYC lived this way, but they don't. Thanks for picking up the slack.

[Jesse Brody]

I'm amazed at how hostile people can get when confronted with something like this. Are they afraid if one family goes to such extremes they may eventually be asked to stop going to the opposite extreme? Or do they spend so much time disparaging something they call silly because it may, in some small way, make their life styles look ridiculous?
Please forgive one more observation about NYC... its not only a more environmentally responsible place to live, its more socially responsible than most places in this country. New Yorkers are face to face with the best and worst of humanity every day. Instead of being sequestered in sprawling houses and isolated cars, they are confronted daily with the problems of others... and so are aware that we are all in the same boat.
Keep up the good work no impact man!

[Kimberley]

I too would like to commend you for this fantastic undertaking! I'm so happy that I heard you today on NPR. Great stuff, very inspiring.

[Jackie]

I heard you on the radio tonight, too, and can only admire you for taking actions that most people would find incredibly inconvenient. Also, to the people who criticize what you are doing, they should remember that you stressed this was a year-long EXPERIMENT-- testing how low-impact you can possibly live, but would probably live less strictly when the experiment is over. We have way more power over our own health and the health of our planet than we know, and you are showing how. Thank you!

[Maria]

Well, write a book and destroy a tree. Just saw your interview and you said re your book, "...I hope that the material is made out of recycled material..."

Hope is not an answer.

Hell, I would give up anything if I am paid.

[Christa Hinchcliffe]

I am so impressed with you and your family's commitment to the environment. I listened to your interview on NPR. I am wondering if you have ever considered "elimination communication (EC)" or "diaper free" instead of cloth diapers. This helps decrease the load on the environment even further.
Thank you for all you do!

[Tom]

"If you divide the entire state of Alabama by the number of people in NYC, you get about 4.2 acres per person. Take out roads, rivers, lakes etc. and it becomes pretty unrealistic. You couldn't farm enough of what's left to live on and there would be no forest"

Why Alabama? That's pretty arbitrary. How's this...

World Population - 6.5 Billion
Area of Texas - 695,000 square kilometers

So, if we put the whole world into Texas, the population density would be...

= 6.5 Billion / 695 Thousand
= 9,352 people per square kilometer

Population Density of Paris = 24,775 people per square kilometer

So, theoretically, we could fit the whole world into Texas, have 37% of the population density, and leave the rest of the world for forests, farming, etc.

The environment isn't a rural/urban problem. It's a city-suburb-exurb-rural planning problem.