apartment therapy changing the world, one room at a time

I believe it is always more difficult to do these things in moderation over a long period of time. If you always used public transportation, ate organic food, recycled efficiently, minimized chemicals in your house, used energy efficient fixtures etc. for 20 years, you would most certainly achieve more than this couple. BUT you would not be getting a book deal or even an article in the local newspaper.

If you've ever lived in Berkeley or SF — and haven't we all — you know that they print these stories annually along with a picture of a family holding a small bag full of their total "garbage" output for the year. Not my style, but I salute them.

These people on the other hand just scream "book deal". Ah, NY!

You just had to know that toilet paper would be winner in the "can't live without it" contest, even though I think it's the easiest on the list. Bidets not only save paper usage, they are MUCH healthier for you -- but to poor americans they're just so icky . . .

I find this experiment noble, but a bit extreme. I could not live my current life without trains and elevators, and it would be very hard to restructure it to try to do so. And I find some aspects of it misguided -- for example, using a dishwaser consumes less water and energy that doing them in a sink.

Nonetheless, a great conversation starter, and a challenge to accepted ( and unquestioned ) daily notions.

The problem I have with the people who are doing green "stunts" is that I am worried about the effect that their efforts might have on the general public--i.e., i think that that extreme behavior as an example would make people think that it IS an all or nothing situation. (which, in some way it is, but i don't think most americans are up to this kind of sacrifice, period, realistically).

in giving the most press to the most extreme examples, we don't give more do-able solutions to most people.

god i can't write today.

Robin -- your point is excellent. The public needs to understand that little steps go a long way, e.g. a little less driving, energey efficient appliances and lighting, better insulation, etc. etc. We can still lead "the good life" (including toilet paper!) while having a much smaller carbon footprint.

I am buying toilet paper offsets from this couple so that I can use more toilet paper than the average person.

maxwell is just jealous that he didn't think of the idea himself. maxwell would have loved the publicity. a big piece in the times is much better than a bit part on oprah.

Good point Robin. While I'm truly awed by the effort these people went to, and inspired to try and make some small changes in my life (recycle more, eat local, consume less power), I find some of it extreme. If you live in a building with an elevator, why not wait until someone else comes along and 'car pool'? There are ways to coexist with the NY lifestyle while still reducing your impact considerably.

I think that point will be lost on people who read this and just view it as another example or granola birkenstokers going to extremes, rather than thinking maybe they could turn the AC a setting warmer, and burn a little less fuel over their lifetime without material discomfort...

In some cases it seems like they are embracing the more extreme elements (though obviously this ups all the marketing curiousity aspects...)

Uh oh -- here we go again . . .

"Let's see, can I add something meaningful to the dialogue, or should I just be a negative annoying bozo?"

...that's for nnn, of course.

AKA "dd" methinks

Got to love the condescension and arrogance from the Enviro-Fascists. How sadly predictable.

Thank God the majority of the country sees you people for what you are: a bunch of hypocritical pharisees hell-bent on telling other people how to live.

Americans are "icky."
Bidets are cool.
Toilet paper is killing Mother Earth.

Pathetic.

What's with all the anger? Good for them for going to the extreme and evaluating their lives to see what is and isn't necessary.

And I don't think their point will be lost on the "average American." I think their experiment opens up a conversation which we desperately need to be having.

The "anger" is a natural response to the kind of epic arrogance that presumes to tell other people how to live.

If you want to give up toilet paper for a year to assuage some sense of personal guilt, be my guest.

Just don't pretend that it has anything to do with "saving the planet" and don't foist your nonsense on other people.

I commend anyone who wants to clean up their personal environment, goodness knows I do my part, but fanaticism at any level with anything is of concern to me. But extremism is easier to do when you don't have 4 kids to feed and a competitive field to contend with.

The world did not become the mess it is by large leaps of garbage; it became that way with small decisions on a daily basis, selfish ones I'm sure. As I see it, the way we will clean up the current world problems is in small decisions on a daily basis, non-selfish ones, by every citizen on the planet. Not one family.

One family's trek into the eco-obsessed currently popular tag will not cure the world's ill. Doing without toilet paper isn't going to do much for anyone.

Robin is soooo right. It's not an all or nothing thing. And we don't give more doable solutions to other people. We need to. I would think that would be the better way to go.

Also, having lived just about everywhere in the US (it feels that way...), it is so much easier to do all of this in California (which I love) than here in NYC, or even Chicago. There are different factors. Besides, we're human. We will all leave a footprint. Shrinking it is a wonderful goal, removing it is impossible.

So every individual could/should be doing something small and building toward a better life for all. And, yup, sounds like a book deal.

angus_laird_mcangus:

how the heck are they telling you how you should live???? i have my reservations about their intent as well as the feasibility of this lifestyle being translated into a standard of living (most due to financial concerns)... but at the heart of it - they are doing research.

THEY are doing research. Do you live in their apartment?? How does their life affect you? Other than they are trying to figure out a way to live that can preserve resources for your children and other decedents if for some unfortunate reason you decided to procreate and continue your selfish and arrogant line of dna.

You people are the problem.

What says "publicity stunt" is the illogic of the family's choices. It's okay to eat food that was trucked 250 miles, but it's not okay to use the subway?

True -- if they don't eat trucked-in food, they'll starve, as Manhattan is not exactly the farm belt. But the whole point of mass transit like subways is that they reduce the impact of transporting any single person to a tiny fraction of their energy use. Getting people out of private cars makes an environmental difference; getting them off subways, not really.

What I really want to know: is any publisher buying the maid's story?

Yeah, I thought about the comparison between him and Spurlock from “Supersize Me.” But the thing is, the living radically (either by stuffing your craw with Big Macs or forsaking TP) HAS BEEN DONE. Editorially, I don’t see what is fresh about this – it is the same shtick!

With “Supersize Me” you knew what the punch line would be when you started the movie – everything in moderation, junk food is bad. With this guy, it is going to be the same with his book and film – we went radical, but now we’ve decided to make small changes every day so we can live with small luxuries (like TP and a cab). I mean, it would make for a really interesting story if at the end of the year this guy hauled off and decided to really live off the grid in Idaho shooting deer and skinning it with his bare hands. But I don’t see his wife trading in her Chloe boots for overalls and a lean-to, do you?

I might have more respect for this project if this guy is planning to get all Michael Pollan on this book and do the real journalism to figure out exactly how many calories it costs (literally, how much energy) now that he’s made all these hyper-environmental lifestyle changes. Like, is he really using fewer calories, overall, by baking his own bread and is that a necessary change, environmentally? Or, would we all be better off environmentally, on the whole, if we just bought our bread from a supplier with a bigger oven who comes to the Greenmarket? If he’s planning on focusing on the real science instead of all the “dramatic” hardships, well, that might be a book.

Otherwise, why do I care if these two losers who are too lazy to make their own coffee, with their maid, fancy apartment, showy boots and generally disgusting yuppie lifestyle have to clean their butts with water?

I think most people didn't read into this - they aren't trying to be NO impact, rather they are trying to be no NET impact.

Essentially, reduce where you can, do something proactive to make up for that which you cannot eliminate entirely: one bad ecological action + one good ecological action = no net impact.

The less bad they do, the less good they have to do.

They aren't trying to say this is a way of life, they are doing research for how it CAN be done and figure out what methods work best. Realistically, no one could live like this and work and raise a family of four and make it past a year before committing suicide - which is why this project is only for a year! Not a lifetime!

I'm sure after a year, they are going to go back to some normalcy, but I would put money on the fact that they will continue to live extremely green in comparison to the rest of society now that they have found how to reduce their impact on the planet so dramatically.

I'm not mad at this guy but to me it's just another patriarchal power trip--let's see how I can torture my family.

I am all for living green but jeez. No TP? I rather turn my lights out when they are not necessary, run my air-conditioner less, read my newspaper on line, seal my windows, recycle my trash, re-use my grocery bags and ride to work on the subway.

I don't get the no toilet paper and hence the NYTimes article says they have to use lots of water and air drying. Uh... it's not for me, but you can get "family cloth" just like the cloth diapers and wipes they're apparently using on their toddler. If you're already washing diapers, why on earth would you go no wiping whatsoever on the adults? Are they just clueless that such a thing exists? They don't seem too knowledgable about the cloth diapers either with the "giant boiled wool covers" since there are a lot of much thinner and easier cloth choices out there, albeit not as sensationalistic photo worthy.

I am torn by this experiment. I think it potentially promotes interesting discussions about how we live and the waste we now consider standard and acceptable.
However, I do think the Times article makes them appear very self serving -- the choice is about a book deal, they never even made coffee but had it delivered and the wife went on a huge shopping spree before hand -- blech. They came across as consumers and much of what they are giving up - shopping - is required by all of us when we are on something called a tight budget. And finally - it's so hard to take them seriously as they haven't lived this way for even a quarter of the year.
However, it is still an interesting experiment and I will be following their progress (ironically on my computer powered by electricity) but I won't buy the book (because that's too ironic even if they publish it on 100% post consumer plastics or sim).
They do seem to go to extremes. I agree with Robin that the toilet paper could probably go the easiest in my life ... well except during that 'time of the month' and I am curious about how long his wife is going to put up with that rule at the office where I'll bet there is no bidet.
I personally think the food and transportation issues are more difficult to give up.
I don't understand the no subway rule - I can't begin to understand why is bad to use public transportation .. considering I prefer to walk the three miles to work rather than take the metro I still don't get it. Perhaps someone can help me out there.
And I don't know how you get to the 2nd or 10th floor of a Class A Office Building without getting on an elevator - many building, including the one I work in, lock their stairwells for security reasons.
And I'd be fired from my job if I was unwilling to get on a airplane. period.
In terms of food - I live in Washington DC and I have investigated trying to get just 30-50% of my food grown within a 500 mile radius and it's not all that easy to achieve.

Does anyone see the irony of this experiment getting so much attention on a site devoted to the consumption of luxury goods? I'm not sure how you can reconcile living green with lusting after Jonathan Adler decor and investing in spa bathrooms and Sub-Zero refrigerators.

On a tangentially related note, I once read an artice about "outhouse archeology," which is exactly what it says - an archeological dig in backyards where outhouses once resided. Particularly in the NY area, these digs uncover lots of oyster shells.

Why? Oysters were once plentiful and cheap, and the shells were, according to the article, used as a primitive form of toilet paper! By comparison, a bowl of water sounds like a spa treatment.

Li, you beat me to it.

I find it odd that the idea of consumption is being denounced on a site that seems devoted to consumption. How is it possible to reconcile conversations about buying empty bottles to transfer your existing bottle of shampoo into, the neverending presentation of products to buy, and the ever present "oh my god I love that lamp where did you get it" emphasis on hip and trendy?

I'm not knocking consumption. I'm not knocking conservation. It just seems quite a conflict to try to take the environmental high road here.

Toilet Paper: Is it Hot or is it Not?

If adults want to live like this that is one thing, but to me this is pretty close to child abuse. I seriously pity those kids.

Does anyone think me comment was funny?

Thanks Desk. This "experiment" has desperate writer publicity stunt written all over it.

I stopped taking them seriously as soon as I read that they weren't using the subway, but were buying food carted from 250 miles away by internal-combustion engine.

I figured, anyone using that kind of "logic" where electrically powered mass transit was bad, but carbon emitting semis were good must be a complete moron.

They lost me when the wife was talking about her last shopping spree consisting of boots costing well over $1000 for each pair, the keeping of their maid, and their abundance of Eames furniture. I'm all for conserving and helping out the environment, but I'm getting a very self-righteous vibe from this whole situation. That, and the food getting trucked in with a gasoline engine.

"Can you spare a square" takes on a whole new meaning here.

what is wrong with "publicity stunt" when brings attention to an issue that affects all of us.
however that said, no one mentioned the garbage compost in the apartment, yeechh!

sheesh. The can cut out traveling via any method other than their own two feet, but they still need to eat. Buying organic food from privately own farms in PA is a hell of a lot better than buying food from Shop Rite being shipped across the globe just so they can have a bright and juicy red apple in the middle of March.

They are making the best choices possible. They aren't saying to stop using cars entirely, but stop when and where you can.

Again... I have my reservations, but lets nick pick on the sticky parts ... not the parts that actually make sense.

i think it's impossible not to make an impact. what about meds, antibiotics?
i admire anyone who tries to do good, but my goodness! i think the key is moderation in everything.
personally, i would find it more encouraging if it was a tad more realistic. i want green solutions that i can fit in my apt & MY BUDGET. i'm sorry but i can't afford $4 paper towels. i'd love to have one of those japanese compost things, but i can't.

i carry my own bags, use eco friendly cleaning products, & eat organic food. how do you be green when you are on such a limited budget you worry about affording gas, rent, & food?

You’re right Patrick – nothing is wrong with a publicity stunt if it brings some focus on something important to all of us. In this case, I assume you are talking about what we all should be doing to reduce our environmental waste, energy usage, etc.

But...

I’m cynical. And I know you aren’t naive, Patrick. In the publishing industry, it is seriously all about what will sell a book. He’s doing this experiment because his job is to write books. If one of the other three book ideas he'd pitched to his agent/editor had worked out, I'd bet he'd be doing that. And, maybe at the end of this year, the world would have a boring history book that nobody would give a rat’s *ss about. You seriously, seriously, can’t really believe that the focus of the publicity stunt is to bring attention to the environment. It’s about bringing attention to the BOOK!

(BTW, I’m sure the cleaning lady is chucking that compost when they aren’t looking. And I really, really, hope the Post manages to get an article with her, or catches his wife eating Doritos.)

I agree with "Desk" that I'm tired of this kind of experiment. The book deal prior to the experiment also really bugged me. I read Julie Powell's book about cooking all of Julia Child's recipes in one of her classic books in one year

Judith Levine's Not Buying It: My Year Without Shopping was a great read, and she and her partner were way more down to earth than this family. They weren't buying Chloe boots, Wendy's lunches and actually cooked to begin with. Judith's more modest lifestyle made it easier to relate to them and think about my ideas about what I "need." (And not shopping really meant not going out to eat, movies, etc. as well.)

She and her partner (?Paul? I can't remember his name) were regularly talking about what expenses were allowed. It wasn't so much her creating the rules for both of them.

I have to say though that I think some of the problem was with the reporter being overly caught up with some aspects of the experiment and not doing a very good job overall.

Some of the NYTimes comments included things that said well, why didn't they go live off the land somewhere. I don't think that would be as potential relevant to many folks.

There are some aspects of city living (like in NYC, Boston, Chicago or other cities with great public transportation and that are walkable) that make it easier to be green. And chances are your home and work are closer together than in other cities.

And I think they should have gone for recycled TP so that all the discussions wouldn't have focused so much on the TP.

MG, you might consider making your own worm composter for under the sink... Just a thought.

They have a cleaning lady. They took the paper towels away from her and, so far, have *let* her keep the vacuum.

They have a cleaning lady.

okay so....he's going to write a book about how he's lived sans TP for a year? That book better be pulished on 100% post consumer waste paper and printed in the USA, otherwise, just use the TP so you don't appear lacking logic.

And not using public transportation? Odd.

I agree with those above that Robin hit the nail with her head: the issue is that this makes being environmentally conscious seem like torture--stinky torture--rather than something that a lot of people could do without too much trouble.

Thinking, perhaps we can hope that -- in a moment of perfect Manhattan irony -- their cleaning lady is Barbara Ehrenreich, working on a sequel to Nickel & Dimed.

Why are only two other people stuck on the cleaning lady part? That's the thing that leaped out at me -- I was totally with them until I read the part that "thinking" just referred to. They let her keep her vacuum? How did that conversation go? Did they try to persuade her that her contribution to his book deal would be scrubbing the floor on her hands and knees? Is she the one washing all those cloth diapers? It's two white people who sound as though, in their fairly short lives up until now, have probably consumed more crap than this woman will ever buy in her entire life. It's so godawfully patronizing. And how can the guy go on and on about all the extra time and effort they have to put into this lifestyle, when they don't even do their own housecleaning?

Like I said, I was way, way with them until I read more background in the Times. And I still think it's good to be having a conversation about our personal, everyday impact on the environment. But... ick.

Lara, Amen.

Yep, lara, that got me, too. Are they taking away her rubber gloves, too?

That part made them just sound like condescending jerks. Imagine your boss coming up to you one day and explaining that because she'd just signed a new book deal, she would no longer be reading email from you, and would expect you to communicate with her only by feather pen and inkwell.

Did they at least like triple her pay? Or give her a choice between "clean without paper towels" for extra pay or "clean the way you always have" for the same pay?

It's an experiment with a book deal. So what. it's extreme. So what. They're self-involved. So what.
Do I want to live like that? no. Can I get some ideas from them? perhaps.

One thing it is not is child abuse: get real. I worked with abused and neglected children for many years; child abuse is not wearing a thick diaper.

thanks desk iforgot about the book deal. and after reading the comments by thinking and lara, i wonder are they the new pseudo- bohemians?
i'm sure they will be on television soon, like the today show or rachel ray.

But otherwise, I, too, was pretty much with them, and found the story intriguing and even inspiring up to that point.

I hope there's a better explanation to the cleaning lady issue that the times didn't include.

There's something still missing from this conversation. It's an interesting experiment for the Beavan family is into, if nothing else, and it might even teach us something over time (I like that they're already learning to relish life without television) and yes, there's a book deal -- but the whole endeavor perpetuates the notion that the answer to the world's environmental woes rests with each of us individually.

*Certainly* we can all make choices that have a greater or lesser impact on the earth, the atmosphere, water ways, labor practices, etc. But let's consider just the issue of garbage. Let's say the Beavans manage to achieve 'zero waste.' In fact, let's say through their example we all learn how to achieve zero household waste, so much so that everyone in the entire US achieves zero household waste.

You know how much that would reduce the national waste stream?

Two percent.

Two percent!!

I have a sociologist colleague who did a very careful analysis of all forms of trash generated in the US -- including things like industrial, agricultural, mining, medical, various kinds of hazardous, and a few other categories of waste that I forget. She used EPA data, mostly, and was meticulous in her calculations. She demonstrated that these culprits account for 98 percent America's waste.

I am *not* saying that each of us shouldn't do our part, but each of us also shouldn't assume that even if we lived with no impact, even if we recycled perfectly and never used fossil fuels and etc., that by itself would turn the tide.

There's a serious political and economic aspect of this problem that isn't discussed very often, except in business section articles about things like carbon credit trading. The real activism each of us could embrace that would perhaps bring about real change includes learning more about environmental costs of extraction and disposal practices of industries and businesses that keep such things carefully concealed.

I don't mean to sound preachy. But I'd love to see this opened up to point to sources beyond each of us as individuals. It includes us, and we can make more responsible or less responsible choices. But if we think that by itself will save the planet, we're deluded.

Robin -- Much of that other waste is a byproduct of producing all the crap that we consume, so I think the Beavans are addressing that by drastically reducing their consumption. Maybe they don't say it outright -- but for instance, while buying organic produce won't really reduce their household waste, it'll reduce agricultural waste somewhere back in the production process. I definitely believe consumers are the final and most important link in the pollution chain.

That said, I still have an issue with the cleaning lady.

I'm not saying we don't have a role, but I don't think we wield as much power as we think. According to Heather Rogers, author of the wonderfully readable and very smart _Gone Tomorrow: The Hidden Life of Garbage_ (pub'd by the New Press and recently out in ppbk), every pound of household waste is predicated upon 70 pounds of industrial and manufacturing waste. Surely there's a way to create the products we buy without such extravagant trash-generating side-effects. But as consumers, we can't very well advocate for different and less ecologically damaging extraction, manufacture, and distribution systems if we don't know what they are in the first place, right? It's about considering the larger picture and holding accountable those entities that are contributing significant harm, not thinking that we ourselves as consumers hold all the answers.

I find it hilarious that anytime a person or group tries to live better, make a difference & save money (and you all know you curse prices for things when you go to the store and say you could make those products yourselves!!), hellish words and near curses drip from people's lips. Your jealousy announces you.

I applaud Bevan family for what they and thousands of others are trying to do. We are all accountable for the waste and misuse that occurs in this country. Why not find more essential and simplistic ways to do what you normally do yet not waste half a forest, a bed of oil or the precious ozone? I mean, really. You have common sense, employ it!

Amen Lara. Amen.

When I read the NYTimes article, I thought certain parts sounded like "spin" generated by the reporter in order to exaggerate the contrast between their former lives and the one they're beginning to experience. i.e. the designer shoes, cleaning lady, etc.

While I can't even begin to imagine giving up TP, and composting my own shit, the experiment has inspired me to research the little ways I can make a difference. We already compost our kitchen scraps in an icecream bucket in our fridge, recycle all plastic containers/tins/paper, ec. "No Impact Man" has gotten me interested in reducing the amount of electricity we draw from the grid.

I'll be reading the blog, but won't bother buying the book.

our math is delightfully flawed due to the fact our observation of time and aging is linear.
growing young and perceptive is nothing more than a time equation.
bide/buyed your time: who if not you.

http://ted.com/tedtalks/tedtalksplayer.cfm?key=c_honore

It's late, but spurred on by the the no TP man, I have been online reading green tips.

Here's the question to all of you who refuse plastic bags at the grocery store and carry your goods home in cloth ... What do you use for trash bags? (This is a real question, not a challenge, so please don't take it as such.)

I recycle my grocery bags and use them as trash bags. Is there a better option since I won't be composting (and I'm keeping my TP)?

Leslie,

I do the same: use my grocery bags as trash bags. At the store, I get as many of my items into one bag as possible (strange how many tellers want to put just three items in a bag and then start a new one...) - so I don't collect a lot of bags to begin with - and those get used up fairly efficiently as gas bags.

Reminds me of a time many years ago when a dinner guest (!) decided to 'teach' me to tie a garbage bag closed without using the twist-tie, in order to not use the plastic in those. My unanswered question to him was: what's supposed to happen to those twist ties - throw them out??

Leslie-

Finally someone on this thread has captured the spirit of the experiment. Book deal or no book deal, forthcoming fame and fortune or not, it all really doesn't matter. The point is to raise awareness about what everyone can do. Instead of all of you complaining about toilet paper, why don't we all engage in a helpful conversation, such as the one Leslie has raised, to talk through strategies that can help all of us make a difference in our own lives, to whatever extent each person is comfortable.

Leslie, I keep really light weight re-usable bags in my purse all of the time for my groceries and purchases. I do, however, happen to have a small stash of grocery store type plastic bags in my kitchen which I use for collecting and disposing of my own trash. The reason I have a small stash of plastic bags is because every once in a while I might buy something that is likely to leak, or perhaps it is raining and I have purchased something that needs protection, or I buy more stuff than happens to fit into my bags on a particular day, necessitating use of a plastic bag. That said, I make very little trash (probably one little grocery bag of trash every two weeks) so my small stash of plastic grocery bags lasts a long time.

Another very interesting dialogue here on AT! I don't live in Manhattan any more, and when I did, I did not employ someone to help with household chores (aka a "cleaning lady.") But I knew people who did, and they weren't rich. It was more a matter of it being more valuable to take some of the money they earned and give it to someone else to help while they a. made more money or b. enjoyed some free time. Perhaps they should have fired the cleaning person before taking on the experiment?

The whole tp thing--it's part of the family's effort to use no paper, and of course the reporter is the one who chose to bring this to the fore. And no, I don't think our ancestors (of less than 120 years ago) were, ah, challenged enough to use oyster shells as tp--I'm not sure but I believe something in the shells helps the earth "digest" the waste.

Publicity stunt? Well, yeah, the guy made no bones about looking for work. Try writing a book without publicity.

We all indulge in overconsumption, whether we like it or not. Even when we decide to move as much as possible "off the grid." So yeah, anyone that rides a bike to work or composts or recycles can be considered a hypocrite. But that's pretty harsh. And I assume those passing judgement don't need toilet paper.

I'm all over recycling and reducing my impact in practical ways, but I'll save "doing without toilet paper" for after the nuclear holocaust, thanks.

Leslie, we re-use our grocery bags for cat litter. We still buy little kitchen catchers for the kitchen garbage. About half the time when we go to the grocery store, we take our own canvas bags.

Someone said earlier that they thought it was the small choices we make every day that can really make a difference, and I agree. So while some (or most) of us might not be perfect echo-friendly angels, we can change at least a handful of behaviours. When we all make little choices, they can add up to one big change.

It's all moot.

Maybe this experiment will bring attention to this cause but I don't really care what NoImpactMan does or doesn't do. Actually I would much rather read about Impact Man who works toward the greater good by helping others.

So if Mr. NoImpactMan wants to impress me he will consider leaving all this behind (including $1,000. boots--my own boots cost $10 on clearance) and doing something with his money, time and talents to help others instead of simply calling attention to his "wonderful sacrifices" in the name of the environment.

http://www.un.org/events/tenstories/story.asp?storyID=400

i have a $1,000 dollar pair of boots also, i wear them almost every day.
i have meticulously cared for the boots over the 'last' 18 years (Bathed in distilled water, carefully washing the abrassives out of the stitching, bathing the salts out of the foot bed, replacing degradating natural protective oils with massage.) they look and feel like the day they found my feet.
they dont displace my sole as i prefer baresole in any environment, then again...

i only envy money in the company of philanthropy.

What they're trying is an interesting concept, but does seem primed for another 'year without' book deal, and I'd be more impressed if it weren't just for a defined period. Still, when I read articles like that, it does challenge me to think of things I could give up (for the planet's sake) and simultaneously improve my life (like giving up the TV in order to read more and focus on artwork). As for toilet paper, as an avid gardener you learn all about the weird background of plants, and here's a picture of what used to be planted around outhouses in those days before indoor plumbing and toilet paper, a plant called lamb's ear:
http://www.mountainvalleygrowers.com/stalanata.htm

Seems very appealing in contrast to that oh-so-woody recycled-content toilet paper!

Leslie,
I try not to pick up plastic bags when i shop. My daily bag has enough room for stuff, and i usually bring fabric bags when i go for the big weekly shop..i still seem to acquire enough bags over the week to take care of trash.....

The thing I don't like is that the pressure to make our usual daily life more green is lost when you do everything at the extreme.

Let NYC restaurants buy more local food and TPmakers use recycled paper so we can continue to eat in restos and use TP!!

That's what I say.
Also - they are cheating - they are likely using what I assume is a lot of heat from their building to heat their sans-heating apartment-- rather than changing the consumption of the whole building and using less themselves -- would be a bigger impact.