If you don't trust the politicians, take matters into your own hands--repost

I'm away, but here's a recycled post some of you newcomers to the blog might not have seen and might want to discuss in the comments.

Winston Churchill said that "Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all thos other forms that have been tried from time to time." The question is, though, whether we still actually have a working democracy here in the United States.

The film Unreasonable Man, about Ralph Nader, which I saw some time ago with my writer friend William Georgiades, discusses how the Democratic party abandoned liberal ideology in the 1970s in order to get a slice of the big business campaign contribution pie that the Republicans already feasted on. The result is that we have two parties, both funded by corporate interests, neither of which will do anything to threaten the size of their war chests (which is why Nader ran for president). Whether you pull the lever for big business party number one or big business party number two, big business still wins.

The conservative Pat Buchanan, in the film, sat there and said--and I was so shocked to hear it coming from his mouth that I wrote it down--€”that democracy in the United States is a "€œfraud, €”it'€™s a consumer fraud." The politician who wins is not the one who is best for the people but the one with the ideology big business is most willing to support.

You start to worry that cleaning up the world will only come when business tells the politicians it'€™s okay, that they've finally figured out a way to rake in money in an environmental way. But I think it will be a long time coming before, for example, business finds a way to profit from reduced resource consumption. And let's face it, one way or another, we're going to have to face up to a reduced consumption scenario. But if big business doesn'€™t embrace it--and why would they?--the political parties won'€™t consider it.

So what options does that leave us schlubs--€”the voters--€”with? Take matters into our own hands. Don'€™t wait until the Government tells us to stop driving gas guzzlers. Just stop driving them. Don't wait until the Government says not to use your air conditioner all the time. Just stop using it.

Waiting for the Government to tell us to save the world is just ludicrous. Let's just save  it.

Comments

[Danielle]

I completely agree with you that we must all do everything we can on a personal and collective basis. There are many organizations, I imagine, that are trying to push our politicians to represent us. Here's one: http://www.publicampaign.org/
As frustrating as politics are, Americans that want change need to take interest, become informed about political issues and make our voices heard.
Thanks for an awesome blog, Colin!

[deliberately]

Right on, Colin. Very consistent with the message I've been trying to get across on my blog. Everyone wants to blame government and corporations for all the problems of the world, but in the end it's really an issue of personal education and accountability. Which only goes to show that my sixth grade teacher was right after all: If you want to change the world, change yourself.

[Andrew Griffiths]

I agree, that if an enviromental / ecological revolution is to happen, yes, it's is a revolution, and yes, it needs to happen now, the educated and informed minority will have limited impact without governments and/or big businesses on board. Unfortunately the people who can make the big changes need to realise that finacial profit should not by be the only goal.
There is a shining light within the corperate world that has seen this and have taken action. Patagonia. They run their business ethically and ecologically and still make a huge profit. They are not perfect but better. Shows it can be done.
Read "Let My People Go Surfing: The Education of a Reluctant Businessman" by Yvon Chouinard.
I'm still going to what I can, because I believe we can make a difference. Enough voices will move the deaf politians.

[Patrik]

Well yes and no to your first question Colin. We don't have working democracy per se. In one of their flashes of brilliant foresight, our forefathers did not establish our government as a true democracy. This is, I think, one of the greatest misunderstandings about our government out there. In a democracy each person votes on essentially all actions. Now although this would probably have been possible with the small numbers of voters at the time our nation was founded, I think we can agree that today it would be a significant burden if not impossible. Instead what we do have is a representational democracy, or democratic republic as it should be called. And therein lies the problem. Because of the fact that we elect persons to vote and take action on our behalf, we are subject to the fact that some of our elected reps will pull the wool over our eyes. Unfortunately, I think that our (and I say this as a collective nation) penchant toward soundbite news, pretty people and slick advertising campaigns have allowed us to be readily duped into believing just about anything that's on TV a lot of the time. Essentially the same issue that we run into with rampant consumerism. We're told we need it, and we are conditioned to believe it. Why should politics be any different?
In one of your previous posts "A little on political action, a little on TP", you talked about the power of electing local officials with the same views and ideas that we hold dear. I agree whole heartedly. That is where it starts. That is the field that our future national level leaders will come from. I think that to a great degree, our national disability to think for ourselves and to take deliberate actions rather than conditioned ones, is a root cause in many of our problems today. Good post Colin, I hope your enjoying your outing.
P~

[James Chen]

If you really care about the earth, then donate the profits of your upcoming book to a worthy charity. Otherwise, stop pretending that you care about the environment more than the almighty dollar.

[Patrik]

James,
Since when have the two things been mutually exclusive? Why can't someone care about the environment and make a buck? I think that far too often a lot of people that are pro-environment seem to have this idea that poorer is better for some reason. The only reason that I would see a problem with Colin making money off a book, movie, or whatever would be if that were his sole motive from the start. I don't believe that. I may be wrong, and if that turns out to be the case, then I'll have to change positions at that time. But in the meantime, I prefer to believe in the good that is coming from this effort, and if he can make a buck from it while preserving the experiments integrity, good for him. All I would ask is why if people believe as I have read so many times here, that Colin is only doing this to promote a book or make money, why do they frequent the site, and add to the interest of the project?
P~

[James Chen]

Basically, I am accusing this blog’s author of performing a year-long stunt (“a feat performed chiefly to gain attention or publicity”) whose primary purpose is to sell books in the future. Case in point: No toilet paper. Is that a realistic goal for most people? What lesson does using no toilet paper teach us? Instead of forgoing toilet paper, why doesn’t Colin set up a paper and aluminum recycling program at work?

Another case in point: Not buying anything. Even clothes and underwear. Is that a realistic goal for most of us? How about buying used goods from the Salvation Army or a consignment shop?

Why is it wrong for a city-dweller to use the subway, or to buy vinegar from a supermarket? Shouldn’t we be encouraging people to use mass transit, or to buy goods from stores or business people who are honest and hard-working?

My point is that the author has very little intention of maintaining this lifestyle after this experiment”. His actions are primarily intended to provoke disbelief, thus drawing attention to him. However, the vast majority of people will learn very little from the lessons of this blog.

The positive impact on society of someone who teaches others to live within their means, and yes, to save a buck-or-two through thriftiness, is potentially much greater than the so-called “No Impact Man”. But “Thrifty Man” won’t sell books.

[Sharon Astyk]

Having given Colin a hard time about precisely the question of where he intends to take this, I still also feel inclined to defend him. I suspect this is a stunt, to a large degree.

However so were many of the actions of Abbie Hoffman or Mother Jones. The stunt as call to action is not necessarily a call to perfect imitation, and it has a long and valuable political history. The stunt is not something that can be imitated by everyone - it is designed to make an impact, draw attention, and lead to more subtle action later.

I have little doubt that Colin acts from real conviction here. Nor do I doubt that he'd like to make some money. And I think there is a real contradiction between wanting to make more money than anyone minimally needs and wanting to live an environmentally responsible life. I think the deep conflict here is between the comfortable middle class New Yorker life and the environmentally sustainable one.

But I think the stunt has some value in and of itself - the bottom line is that environmentalism doesn't get on Good Morning America without someone talking about how they wipe their asses. Playing to (and with) the lowest common denominator is simply a reality - and publicity stunts are part of that. There's such a thing as too pure to get your hands dirty. We need more dirty hands, and less perfect purity, IMHO.

Sharon

[James Chen]

Sharon,

You said: "The bottom line is that environmentalism doesn't get on Good Morning America without someone talking about how they wipe their asses."

I completely disagree. I'll bet they mention global warming or gas-guzzling SUVs at least every other day on that program, and hundreds of times each week on all the TV networks. These days, I can't turn on my 20-year old TV for 15 minutes without seeing Al Gore or Laurie David stepping out of a limo or private jet (the irony of which is never mentioned by the talking heads).

I do agree on the concept on getting by with less, but not solely for the sake of conservation and feeling good. I do "it" (recycle cans & kids' clothing, mass transit, etc.) to save time and money. And I need to do "it", as I am not wealthy enough to buy an iPod or flat-screen TV, or even hire a baby-sitter more than once a quarter.

Most Americans are like me. I don't want to pay five dollars for a light bulb, especially one that is made in China and contains 5 milligrams of mercury. When the cost of electricity is high, I'll just simply use less of it. When the cost of gasoline is high, I’ll conserve by driving less or buying a smaller car.

We don't need stunts to shock us into changing our habits. Just a little bit of common sense, economics and real-life examples that ordinary people can relate to. Numerous "bottle bills" (5 or 10 cent deposits) in many US states are a perfect illustration of this concept.

This "call to action", as you put it, needs to be real in order for it to have an effect on the "great unwashed". Otherwise, its message will be clear only to the white, upper-class New Yorkers and San Franciscians, who will continue to drive their SUVs, send their kids to private schools and drink Evian as they try to persuade us that global warming is around the corner and spells doom for our civilization.

[Jenikyula]

I love you. Enough said. <3

[music]

right on! The liberterian wing of both party died sometime ago. Now we have fake liberals pretending to be Democrats and fake conservatives pretending to be Republicans. The only honest person left in Congress is Rep. Ron Paul.

We cannot not go on pretending a growing GDP is a good thing when it is fueled by consumption. GDP is a measure of consumption, not our well-being. For example, 17% of US GDP is healthcare. let's say if we all embrace the no-impact way, and let's say if we all become healthier and reduce the healthcare GDP by 90%, our GDP will shrink dramatically. We won't need all these healthcare related jobs, which really make us much much better off. But the healthcare industry will send in their lobbyists...

Bottom line is, we cannot eliminate so much waste from society, thereby reducing pollution, better our family and health, but decrease our GDP. That's perfectly fine with me, but not so fine with our fat pigs in Washington.

[P~]

James,
First, I have to say that I may be misreading your comments, but you seem to have a magnificent lack of faith in the "great unwashed". The likes of which I have not often seen so blatently displayed. And to insinuate that only upper class and white coastal dwellers are capable of understanding the message that Colin is tryig to put forth does great diservice to vast and great number of people living in the "Flyover" country. I assure you that any message that may be missed from Colins "stunt" will certainly not be conveyed through condescention and bigotry. As for your inability to afford a "five dollar light bulb". I can only point to your Day at Six flags, Day at the zoo, or six hour drive for a Disneyland vacation. I don't point those out to fault you for them. On the contrary; my family and I are getting ready to head out to CA for a long family vacation and Disneyland is on the agenda. Rather my point goes to the glass houses theory. We can all do something to help and to reduce our impact. It may be something as small as budgeting in for some CFL's, or it could be excecuting a grand "stunt" to bring greater awareness to an issue that needs it. Either way I agree with Colin in that whatever we do it should be a personal action; one that works for us. At the same time I don't think criticizing someone elses's choice in implemtation does anyone any good.

On another note James, while checking out your blog, I was struck with what a good father you seem to be. I enjoy seeing that.
Namaste~
P~

[Denise]

Something you said in a previous blog, along with this blog has prompted me to make the decision to permanently unplug my t.v This is not because of the impact of running the thing, although that is good enough reason to do so. On a previous blog, you mentioned how we have come to believe that doing household chores, traditionally considered women's work, is somehow inferior to anything else we might do, because the appliance industry has fed us this idea. Likewise, we have all(well many of us), have come to believe that something is only worthwhile if it turns a profit. My husband grew up in a culture where tv was something really special, a drama was on each evening and the family sat down and watched it together. It is interesting to see how tv has shaped my views in comparison to his.

[Uma]

Believe me living simply is really simple! I am telling you this from my own personal experience. Moving to plentiful America from India in the late 80’s did not make me more consumerist. In fact I was shocked to see so much being wasted unnecessarily. My husband would often joke about my not contributing enough to the American economy! But I stuck to my mantra of “buy what you absolutely need and use it till it is of no use or beyond repair” and found I had more time, more energy, more happiness and better health than others living a fast paced “earn and spend” life.
Recently I had the honor of listening to a talk by Mr. David Gottfried, founder of US Green Building Council at the first meeting of the Indian Green Building Council in New Delhi, India. He is supposed to have started his career as a successful real estate developer in Washington, D.C., pursuing wealth and maximum consumption. There is a lot for us to learn about changing ourselves from his book “Greed to Green.”
Colin, lets not wait for governments, let us like-minded people work in whatever ways we feel fit to save the earth. A yogic way of life is what suits me.

[Julie]

I love you, Noimpact Man. You're my hero.

[Bryce]

James,

NIM strikes me as completely sincere and committed, and I'm hard pressed to understand why you think otherwise. It's one thing to say that the possibility of profit necessarily injects some amount of bias into any discussion. But by the reasoning you're using, we should automatically reject anyone paid for their activism, because they can't mean a word that they say.

Yes, NIM is conducting a year-long experiment, rather than a permanent lifestyle change. That's hardly proof of insincerity, much less the outright fraud you seem to be claiming. Do you think that, the moment the year is over, NIM will take his royalty advance and buy himself a McMansion, two hummers, a coal-powered toaster, and a huge flat-screen so his daughter can watch TeleTubbies for fifteen hours a day? It seems unlikely.

It's obvious that the experiment was driven primarily by a concern for the environment and a deep-seated dissatisfaction with our consumer culture. I'm sure NIM could have found a dozen other paths to wealth, given the effort he's shown he's willing to put into this project. Most of them would involve far less personal discomfort, and far more toilet paper. There has to be something appealing about the lifestyle itself, other than the fact that living it for a year will allow him to make some cash.

Reading this blog, it's clear that living this way is deeply satisfying to the author. But it's also hard. A year's deadline makes perfect sense for such an endeavor. It's long enough to give it a fair shot, but not so intimidating that he never actually starts (a likely outcome without an end in sight).

Say that you had a stated goal of trying to switch entirely over to mass transit. If you start out by throwing your keys into the lava pit, denying yourself the car forever, then you'll soon find that you've cut yourself entirely off from the places only your car can take you, and regret sets in. If you only try it for a day, your first attempt may go so poorly that you never try again. But if you tried it for a month, you'd have time to get used to the bus schedule, get used to the things that seem initially unpleasant, and figure out what to do with yourself while waiting for the bus. If you find that some of your favorite places are simply unreachable, you've only denied yourself the pleasure for a short time (but long enough that you might find more accessible substitutes). Once your mandatory month is over, you may throw out the no driving rule, but much of the city will seem more accessible without the car, so you'll probably end up driving far less anyways.

You've painted a false dichotomy. It's not like the experiment must be either a pure, greedy publicity stunt or a rational plan implemented to maximize the amount of environmental good done. It could also be seen as performance art, cultural critique, social protest, an experiment to shed light on green living techniques, psychotherapy, an investigation of the dominant social order, a quasi-religious pilgrimage, and an exercise in extreme penny-pinching. Maybe the overall environment might be better served by pulling extra hours at work to save up money for solar panels, or investing the effort in encouraging recycling programs as you suggested. But as simple economics would tell us, this is what NIM finds most satisfying, because it's what he's actually doing.

[P~]

Bryce, well put. I agree whole heartedly. I blogged on this topic today, as it seems to be a recurring theme.

P~

[Susan Och]

I bought compact fluorescent bulbs at Sam's Club this week. A blister pack of six bulbs was $12. You can get a similar deal at walmart.com.

We save the old ones in the box in the basement with the spent batteries and take them in on our county's Hazardous Waste Disposal day. It's sort of a pain in the butt, but we've probably saved that much rime by not changing bulbs every two months.

I understand that Walmart has set an ambitious goal for selling compact fluorescents and they are looking into setting up in-store disposal for old bulbs.

We're running out of excuses. Just switch the bulbs already.

[Lawrence Walker]

We're proud and protective and sentimental about our efforts to tread lightly, but unfortunately overall consumption of ALL things is going up. Even with recycled paper and renewable energy making some headway, the consumption of EVERYTHING is still rising. So we do NEED government to get into the act big time. We also need more pressure from outside the U.S. to get this country to reduce it's consumption per capita at least to about even with other more enlightened and less greedy yet very modern countries in Europe and the Orient.

In 1975, as a teenager, I chose to: not have children, not own stock (capitalism itself, rampant as ours is, is inexcusable), not own a television, and to not buy a NEW car (keeping an efficient used car is a big contribution to recycling). I'm 49. So far, so good, and those are big things.

Small things matter, but they can never be more important than the big things. To all, please keep your priorities in perspective. Thanks to all who are making any and every effort!

[Cynthia]

Toilet paper.

That seems to be the biggest hurdle for the nay-sayers of the project. Can't seem to get past it. Can't overcome the issue. You're talking about the toilet paper more than he is! You seem to think Colin is telling YOU don't use toilet paper. Where he is telling YOU to stop using toilet paper.

Okay. I DID IT to go along with this project. In case you are wondering, since Colin isn't talking about it: a portable bidet and soft washcloths. SO THERE. Can you FINALLY get past the toilet paper issue? concentrate on some of the other projects COLIN has taken on himself?

So what if Colin and Michelle don't wish to buy anything new this year for the project? Are we such a brain-washed society that we HAVE to buy NEW! and ALL OF THE TIME???

Putting away the car and using the bike for the last month has saved me money, and lost me 7 pounds. Going to the library to borrow books instead of buying new: saved money, made new friends met there, and signed up for a class. Taking cloth napkins to local paper napkin-serving joints: brings up discussions with my co-workers and restaurant workers about the environment, and my napkins are cute! Makes it a more personal experience.

Bottom line: I feel more in touch due to the changes being made along side of this project, or stunt. Whatever it is, it is working.

[Katy]

Anyone who has taken the time to read through the entire blog will know that Colin's motives are pure and that he stresses over and over (and over) that this is an experiment to see what, if anything, is really necessary in life and what is not.

Anyway, someone willing to live w/o toilet paper deserves to make a buck or two.

[Helen]

I had also started to wonder if there is a power broker behind both our parties. Doing the right thing on your own is not only a gift to society but something that gives you peace of mind. The comments were interesting to read. Changing your lifestyle is a difficult thing. There are so many things to rethink - and then implement. It may be even more difficult to realize that what you do (or don't do) contributes to a problem. If you get to that point and find you view the necessary changes as impossible, then you'd have to live with a guilty conscience. Maybe that's an undercurrent that leads to some of the criticisms of this benevolent project. A quote comes to mind. "Ideas are first ridiculed, then violently opposed..." (Then accepted as self-evident!) I admire the experiment and am inspired by it. But I think anyone who does anything that benefits the environment, on any scale, deserves credit. Colin's just taking it further.

[Mary Anne Davis]

Hey. All these I love yous! Me too, btw. Paul Hawkens new book, "Blessed Unrest" is total inspiration about all you are doing and have said here. Yup, it starts with us, the people. And guess what, everybody? It started. I heard the bell just this morning. Again! Hooray!

[James Chen]

I just bought some incandescent light bulbs at Wal-Mart this weekend. Four bulbs (40, 60 and 100 watt) cost $1.09. They are made in the USA. The CF bulbs for sale next to them cost $4.69 each and they are made in China. Did I mention that each CF bulb contains 4-5 milligrams of mercury?

My electric bill averages only $15 per month, of which 2/3 powers the fridge and the water pump that keeps my basement dry. So our monthly bill for lighting is only around $5 per month. Based on these figures, it makes little sense for me to buy these newfangled light bulbs that cost nearly 20 times what they are replacing.

On the other hand, if you are an energy hog, and like to keep the lights burning in many rooms throughout your home, then these light bulbs might be right for you. You'll feel better about yourself as you waste energy, and drive up the nation's trade deficit in the process.

[cynthia]

$15 / month!? where on earth do you live? I unplug everything. Work nights so the lights are out (the dog can use his nose), turn lights out in rooms I am not in, I do not have a tv, yet my bills are ALWAYS no less than $55/month.

As to the mercury. It is so very slight as to cause you any harm, (unless you decide to injest it), and you can drop it off at your local county house-hold waste center for appropriate disposal.