I was hoping that this would provoke an immediate and massive response, but this has not happened. I think that Wendee raises a very important environmental issue here. Although the public is indundated with messages to "think globally, act locally" they receive little guidance on what local actions are useful. I am often reminded of the couple in Nova Scotia who drove to a recycling depot 10 km away to recycle two wine bottles from a dinner party. People simply do not know what to do that is environmentally and ecologically beneficial.
Above all we seem to have forgotten Garrett Hardin's warning that we can never do just one thing. Although it is probably obvious to the subscribers on this list that driving 20 km does more environmental damage than dumping two bottles in a landfill, there are many other situations where careful accounting is needed. For example, the EU has a campaign to get people to turn off appliances rather than put them in sleep mode (TVs, computers, etc.). If you live in a house which is being heated with electricity this does no good, since the heat generated by the appliances reduces the need for electric heat. A recent TV news program showed people how to improve fuel economy in their cars by methods which are likely to lead to more enviornmental damage than the fuel savings can balance. I think it is time to move on from simply making people aware that their actions affect the environment to providing quantitative information on what they can do and what the benefits will be. At present we see a lot of people investing a lot of time, money and effort in doing things that seem green but which accomplish very little. Bill Silvert Portugal ----- Original Message ----- From: "Wendee Holtcamp" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Monday, March 19, 2007 7:41 PM Subject: Consumer Choice & the Environment > Is anyone familiar with the book "The Consumer's Guide to Effective > Environmental Choices: Practical Advice from the Union of Concerned > Scientists"? (circa 1999)? It analyzes the environmental impacts (air and > water pollution, global warming impact and habitat/land consumption/use) > for > various consumer choices and says which ones are having the biggest > impacts, > and which are not so much making a hill of beans of difference (paper > napkins, disposable diapers). > > They used a computational model to analyze it all, but I wonder if there > is > any more recent study that may have come out or of anyone reviewed their > methods etc and found them faulty? I talked with Brower and he has not > done > a more recent model and is working in a different field now and so was > unfamiliar with current work. > > Deadline next week. > Wendee
