The No Impact Philosophy

None of the practical questions about no impact living would be relevant if my wife Michelle, my daughter Isabella, our dog Frankie and I intended to approach the challenge by becoming ascetics. Until now, we have been your typical convenience-addicted, New   York City take-out slaves. Asceticism is not a realistic way forward, not for my family and not for the world.

Saving this planet depends on finding a middle path that is neither unconsciously consumerist nor self-consciously anti-materialist. The idea for No Impact Man is not to be anorexic but to be abundant, not to be eco-efficient but “eco-effective,” in the words of the environmental scientists William McDonough and Michael Braungart.

In their book Cradle to Cradle, McDonough and Braungart discuss the Menominee tribe of Wisconsin, who have harvested wood for sale from their forested land for many generations. In 1870, the Menominee inventoried 1.3 billion standing board feet of timber on their 235,000 acres. Since then, they have harvested nearly twice that amount—2.25 billion board feet. Considering the “clear-cutting” methods of the corporate lumber merchants you hear about, which completely strips land of its trees, you’d expect that the Menominee would have barely a single tree left, not to mention any forest wildlife. In fact, they have 1.7 billion board feet left, more than they had in 1870, and a thriving forest ecosystem.

That’s because the Menominee tend to cut only the weaker trees, leaving behind the strong mother trees and enough of the upper canopy for the arboreal animals to continue to inhabit. They have figured out what the forest can productively offer them instead of considering only what they want to take from it.

This is largely how every other species on earth lives—in harmony with the environment. Lions neither starve themselves nor gorge to the point of wiping out the gazelle population. Instead, they promote the health of the gazelle herd by culling its weaker members and preventing herd overgrowth which in turn prevents overgrazing of the savannah. Animal waste does not poison the ground but fertilizes the soil so that it can produce more vegetation for the animals to eat. Bees feed on the pollen of flowers but far from damaging them they provide the crucial service of pollinating them.

This is what I mean by “eco-effective.” The philosophy is based not only on restricting consumption but on changing what is consumed so that it actually helps or at least does not hinder the world. If bees had the idea that they wanted to save the planet, they would not go on crash diets and start eating less pollen. They would continue to live their lives abundantly, because their lives are already eco-effective.

That is the philosophy Michelle and I hope to realize during our no impact experiment. The emphasis will ultimately not be on tightening our belts so that our consumption does not poison the earth—although there will certainly be an element of that—but on trying to change our consumption patterns so that our abundance helps or at least does not harm the planet in the first place. We will, like the Menominee, figure out what our world can productively offer us rather than considering only what we want.

Comments

[humberto]

first: let me point out that humans have have impact. but you offer a definition (negative impact+positive impact=zero impact), which is there to simply sell. it should be a balance impact: put in what you get out. with your definition you seem to dismiss what you are-- a new yorker. heck even thoreau (yes i just read the times piece) had negative impact.
second: "Saving this planet depends on finding a middle path that is neither unconsciously consumerist nor self-consciously anti-materialist."
it does require an anti-consumerist lifestyle. it is just like a liberal--or to put it better, one ignorant of problem-- to speak as it is not too late. you yourself point out that polar bears are dying. but by too late you are thinking "no new yorkers are dying." you cant mean that no humans are dying.
this failure i think goes to the heart of your problem--modern cities and eco-murder. can new york be an eco-city. certainly not. then, can new yorkers be eco-friendly.yes, (e.g. Mr.Beaven)but to what extent. you do seem to have a very nice apartment--by which i mean location, location, location.
it's a shame that article (times piece)makes you out to be a follower of al gore. first there are no leaders (as your way is showing and challenging); second, as we know al does not live that style; he cannot live the life, he is a mainstrean citizen/politician. leaders often find loopholes in message to live lives counter to message saying "all for cause." but we know that it's media that writes al as leader;third, reduction of carbon is too easy an answer/recomendation (yes im aware of demands it requires);
i bid you good luck on your al gorian, yuppie experiement.

[Stuart Hodes]

Assume you inspire 1 out of 100,000 extraordinary individuals to adopt the No Impact plan. Assuming each saves one full unit of despoilage, by example you will have saved 100,000 units. But if you can also describe a Light Impact plan, one that saves, say 10% of No Impact and is commensurately less arduous, it could inspire 1 out of 1,000 who collectively would save the Earth 300,000 despoilage units. So I respectfully ask you to include a Light Impact plan for us folk who lack what it takes to go No Impact, but with your guidance and inspiration would gladly make a try for Light Impact.

[Stuart Hodes]

[I think I just posted but my math was wrong. I believe it is correct in the following.)

Assume you inspire 1 out of 100,000 extraordinary individuals to adopt the No Impact plan. Assuming each saves one full unit of despoilage, by example you will have saved 3000 units. But if you can also describe a Light Impact plan, one that saves, say 10% of No Impact and is commensurately less arduous, it could inspire 1 out of 1,000 who collectively would save the Earth 300,000 despoilage units. So I respectfully ask you to include a Light Impact plan for us folk who lack what it takes to go No Impact, but with your guidance and inspiration would gladly make a try for Light Impact.

[Amy Shavelson]

You mention "Cradle to Cradle". I am curious if the book published on the No Impact Man will be published using the same "plastic-paper" used for McDonough and Braungart's book?

[JR]

Amy, not to excuse the use of "plastic-paper" on McDonough's book, but I think (too) often the publishing companies just do as they want, no matter what the author wants or is writing about.

[Malcolm McColl]

Thank you for the excellent interview on Colbert Report this morning. Somebody has to stand up to people like him. You did well.

[Mack]

Interesting environmentally conscious projects in North America to read about by clicking on my name

[Riane]

To Stuart Hodes who wrote above:

I think you make some great points in your numbers and realistic math.

However, it would seem to me that Colin is vey busy going "no net impact" and inspiring the 1 in 100,000, you mentioned.

Rather than challenge him to change his focus and inspire the "light impact" folks, I challenge you, Stuart, to glean what you can from Colin (and other's) experience then you yourself could write the book that will inspire the 1 in 1,000.

We each inspire many others, like ripples in a pond.

To Colin and family, I wish you the best of luck, patience, inspiration, humour and simple rewards as you journey through this year of challenge and gifts.

May each of us answer the call to live with more balance on this finite, precious and incredibly beautiful planet that we have been gifted with.