When, early in the book, Colin Beavan lays out the seven stages of his “No Impact” experiment, it is striking that all but one are framed negatively:
Stage one was trying to figure out how to live without making garbage: no disposable products, no packaging, and so on. Stage two involved traveling only in ways that emitted no carbon. In stage three, we would figure out how to cause the least environmental impact with our food choices. Then we’d proceed through stages involving making as little environmental impact as possible in the areas of consumer purchases, household operations like heat and electricity, and water use and pollution. (14-15)
It’s only after all those no’s, not’s, without’s, least’s, and little’s that he mentions the seventh stage: making a positive impact on the environment by cleaning up the local riverside, planting and caring for trees, giving money to charity, etc.
A recurrent critique of environmentalists is that they’re all about renunciation, rigidity, and rules. And, in fact, Beavan is constantly saying no to things: to plastic diapers, airplane travel, takeout food, electric lights.
And yet, he claims that his experiment is not about “asceticism,” about “renouncing worldly pleasures.” He wants to pursue a way of life that brings more meaning, more happiness, more love to his family and the world. He wants to enjoy the fruit; he just doesn’t want to kill the tree (26). As he writes towards the end, “environmentalism is not about trying to use less but about trying to be more. It is not about sucking our tummies in but pushing our hearts out” (202-03).
But it is about less, isn’t it? “The trick to environmental living might not be in choosing different products. Instead – at least for profligate citizens of the United States and Western Europe – it might partly be about choosing fewer products. It might not just be about using different resources. It might be about using fewer resources” (23-24).
And yet, later, he admits that “there is a level of non-resource use below which things just get miserable” (190) and that “living for a year under the yoke of so many rules” (212) has taken a toll on him and his family.
So what do you think? Is this a book about less, more, or something else?