Is Sheryl crow Righ? (Reduce Toilet paper=less GW)?

[Sunrazor]

@Kalhoun

Dude, she wasn’t doing stand-up. It was an innocuous little quip that shouldn’t have whooshed anyone but the most severely mentally impaired. Rove and his rag-tag team of morons use that sort of thing to try to make their opponents look bad. But it usually only makes Rove, Inc. look stupid. And humorless.

Wow, you’ve just indirectly insulted a helluvalotta us severely mentally impaired folks, Kal. Reading her blog, it’s pretty hard to tell – she goes from nattering on about this tour stop and that tour stop and then dips into la-la land for a suggestion on TP and snotty sleeves, and then goes back to nattering. Al Franken she ain’t. Any high school smartass can tell you that you don’t just drop stupid stuff in the middle of unstupid stuff and hope people will sort it out without some kind of setting or visual cue that “this is not serious.” I’m with **Revenant ** on this one, and add this twist: She may not have been completely serious at first, but I’m betting at least she was thinking, “Let’s run this up the flagpole and see who salutes,” or something to that effect.

[Kalhoun]

M’kay…let’s look at what she said:

Although my ideas are in the earliest stages of development, they are, in my mind, worth investigating. One of my favorites is in the area of forest conservation which we heavily rely on for oxygen. I propose a limitation be put on how many squares of toilet paper can be used in any one sitting. Now, I don’t want to rob any law-abiding American of his or her God-given rights, but I think we are an industrious enough people that we can make it work with only one square per restroom visit, except, of course, on those pesky occasions where 2 to 3 could be required. When presenting this idea to my younger brother, whose judgment I trust implicitly, he proposed taking it one step further. I believe his quote was, "how bout just washing the one square out."

I also like the idea of not using paper napkins, which happen to be made from virgin wood and represent the height of wastefulness. I have designed a clothing line that has what’s called a “dining sleeve.” The sleeve is detachable and can be replaced with another “dining sleeve,” after usage. The design will offer the “diner” the convenience of wiping his mouth on his sleeve rather than throwing out yet another barely used paper product. I think this idea could also translate quite well to those suffering with an annoying head cold.

This next idea I have been saving but I will share it with you if you promise not to steal it. It is my latest, very exciting idea for creating incentive for us all to minimize our own personal carbon footprints. It’s a reality show. (I feel pretty certain NO ONE has thought of this yet!). Here is the premise: the contest consists of 10 people who are competing for the top spot as the person who lives the “greenest” life. This will be reflected in the contestant’s home, his business, and his own personal living style. The winner of this challenging, prestigious, contest would receive what??.. a recording contract!!!

(Bolding mine)

Seriously…this may not be comedy gold, but does anyone really think Sheryl Crow is interested in rinsing out toilet paper, wiping snot on her sleeve or awarding recording contracts to people who live green? Her biggest crime here is that she’s a lousy blogger.

[Sampiro]

I gave up toilet paper some while ago to be more environmentally conscious and I now use the same thing my grandparents and great-grandparents used: vintage 1890 through 1920 Sears & Roebuck catalogs. It gets expensive after a while, but ebay and Powells and other antique papers dealers help reduce the cost, and it’s educational. (Did you know that you could buy and furnish an entire house from the catalog for just $1400 in 1905! And they’re attractive houses too. And pump organs cost a nickel.) Also it clogs the toilet a whole lot less than the corn cobs did.

[lowbrass]

@Mr. Moto

Was it a joke? Or is that just backpedaling now?

The more self righteous and radical environmentalists propose things as ludicrous as this all of the time, and they sure aren’t joking. Indeed, the more strident among them are a pretty humorless bunch.

So when a proposal like this is, well, floated, how on earth are we to know whether to laugh along or laugh behind their backs out of politeness?

@Revenant Threshold

Count me in as thinking it’s just backpedalling. Of course it’s a moronic idea. But moronic and activist come together quite often these days. And it wasn’t funny.

Wait, let me get this straight. You guys honestly believe this was supposed to be serious?

Although my ideas are in the earliest stages of development, they are, in my mind, worth investigating. One of my favorites is in the area of forest conservation which we heavily rely on for oxygen. I propose a limitation be put on how many squares of toilet paper can be used in any one sitting. Now, I don’t want to rob any law-abiding American of his or her God-given rights, but I think we are an industrious enough people that we can make it work with only one square per restroom visit, except, of course, on those pesky occasions where 2 to 3 could be required. When presenting this idea to my younger brother, whose judgment I trust implicitly, he proposed taking it one step further. I believe his quote was, “how bout just washing the one square out.”

I also like the idea of not using paper napkins, which happen to be made from virgin wood and represent the height of wastefulness. I have designed a clothing line that has what’s called a “dining sleeve.” The sleeve is detachable and can be replaced with another “dining sleeve,” after usage. The design will offer the “diner” the convenience of wiping his mouth on his sleeve rather than throwing out yet another barely used paper product. I think this idea could also translate quite well to those suffering with an annoying head cold.

So you actually believe that she was seriously advocating washing out and re-using toilet paper, as well as wiping ones mouth on ones sleeve during dinner, and now she’s just backpedaling?

I’m speechless…

[Lamar_Mundane]

@Sampiro

I gave up toilet paper some while ago to be more environmentally conscious and I now use the same thing my grandparents and great-grandparents used: vintage 1890 through 1920 Sears & Roebuck catalogs. It gets expensive after a while, but ebay and Powells and other antique papers dealers help reduce the cost, and it’s educational. (Did you know that you could buy and furnish an entire house from the catalog for just $1400 in 1905! And they’re attractive houses too. And pump organs cost a nickel.) Also it clogs the toilet a whole lot less than the corn cobs did.

Is Sampiro right?

I’m puzzled as to why someone would spend good money to buy old magazines to use as toilet paper.

[Revenant_Threshold]

Hey, like I said, I don’t disagree it’s incredibly stupid. I just happen to think that stupidity of that level isn’t that uncommon, especially when it comes to activists. And I didn’t find it funny. That’s pretty much just a personal reaction, but it doesn’t seem written to indicate joking, either. There’s nothing besides the subject matter that says “Of course, i’m kidding!” to me.

[Mr.Moto]

He’s joking. He just uses Farmer’s Almanacs like the rest of us.

They even punch a hole in 'em so’s you can hang them on the nail.

[lowbrass]

@Revenant Threshold

Hey, like I said, I don’t disagree it’s incredibly stupid. I just happen to think that stupidity of that level isn’t that uncommon, especially when it comes to activists. And I didn’t find it funny. That’s pretty much just a personal reaction, but it doesn’t seem written to indicate joking, either. There’s nothing besides the subject matter that says “Of course, i’m kidding!” to me.

So the “washing out toilet paper” comment didn’t cause you to bat an eye?

[elucidator]

You know, someday one of us simply must start some kind of outreach program for the humor impaired. I would, but the struggle against Cognitive Dissonance (which is *not * going all that well, as you probably have noticed…) takes up so much of my time.

[Mr.Moto]

I don’t know. There was just a big article in the New York Times about a family in New York City who didn’t use the stuff at all, choosing to only consume products grown within a short distance of the city. And this bunch was treated seriously by the reporter. Hardly any jokes at all.

The title of the piece? “The Year Without Toilet Paper.”

Now, in this environment, how can a pronouncement like Crow’s be taken as a joke right off? There may be some wacko somewhere washing out toilet paper for reuse.

[Kalhoun]

@Revenant Threshold

Hey, like I said, I don’t disagree it’s incredibly stupid. **I just happen to think that stupidity of that level isn’t that uncommon, especially when it comes to activists. ** And I didn’t find it funny. That’s pretty much just a personal reaction, but it doesn’t seem written to indicate joking, either. There’s nothing besides the subject matter that says “Of course, i’m kidding!” to me.

Can you show me an example of an activist who promotes something this stupid? And where did you find that giant brush you’re painting them with?

[What_Exit]

@Mr. Moto

I don’t know. There was just a big article in the New York Times about a family in New York City who didn’t use the stuff at all, choosing to only consume products grown within a short distance of the city. And this bunch was treated seriously by the reporter. Hardly any jokes at all.

The title of the piece? “The Year Without Toilet Paper.”

Now, in this environment, how can a pronouncement like Crow’s be taken as a joke right off? There may be some wacko somewhere washing out toilet paper for reuse.

Of course you realize that there is no way to wash out Toilet Paper. Perhaps if it said a rag or washcloth, it could be taken seriously, but who is doing the back-peddling now?

Jim

[What_Exit]

@Kalhoun

Can you show me an example of an activist who promotes something this stupid? And where did you find that giant brush you’re painting them with?

I’m a green, I witness this level of stupidity all the time, just less often then I do from the other side of the aisle.

Jim

[Mr.Moto]

@Kalhoun

Can you show me an example of an activist who promotes something this stupid? And where did you find that giant brush you’re painting them with?

“The Year Without Toilet Paper”

Penelope Green, New York Times, 3/22/07.

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

Reading the original comments in context, it’s fucking OBVIOUS that she was being tongue in cheek. Where are people getting this “backpedalling” crap? No clarification or backpedalling is necessary. All you have to do is read the original comments. No one could possibly think she was serious.

Moto, do you think she was serious about washing the one square out?

[Kalhoun]

@Mr. Moto

I don’t know. There was just a big article in the New York Times about a family in New York City who didn’t use the stuff at all, choosing to only consume products grown within a short distance of the city. And this bunch was treated seriously by the reporter. Hardly any jokes at all.

The title of the piece? “The Year Without Toilet Paper.”

Now, in this environment, how can a pronouncement like Crow’s be taken as a joke right off? There may be some wacko somewhere washing out toilet paper for reuse.

I can’t get the article without subscribing. What did the family use? Whatever it was, I’m sure they used more than a square’s worth of it.

Not that that’s pertinent to this conversation. She’s not an isolated extremist. The blog was littered with sarcasm. She may not be a great writer, but she’s also not a known member of the Tin Foil Hat Club.

[flickster]

“I think we should do all we can to save the planet, reduce greenhouse gasses and only use one sheet of TP” in my best insert celebrity name here voice. “What’s that? Oh pay no attention to that mega thousand square foot mansion I live in …”

[Lamar_Mundane]

@Diogenes the Cynic

Reading the original comments in context, it’s fucking OBVIOUS that she was being tongue in cheek. Where are people getting this “backpedalling” crap? No clarification or backpedalling is necessary. All you have to do is read the original comments. No one could possibly think she was serious.

Moto, do you think she was serious about washing the one square out?

It’s pretty obvious that nobody bothered to read the actual quote in context before just running with the story. This is what hapens when you get your news from Rush Limbaugh.

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

@Kalhoun

I can’t get the article without subscribing. What did the family use? Whatever it was, I’m sure they used more than a square’s worth of it.

You can read the article on this blog.

As to what they substitute for toilet paper:

Nothing is a substitute for toilet paper, by the way; think of bowls of water and lots of air drying.

So they use water, which actually gets the bunghole cleaner than TP anyway.

[mswas]

Any reduction in consumption will reduce your ecological footprint. So technically it is 100% true that a reduction in toilet paper will reduce your impact. This probably doesn’t really matter unless you are one of those people that wraps half a roll around your hand every time you wipe.

You’d have a much greater impact if you stopped driving distances less than a mile, than reducing your toilet paper consumption. You’d be healthier too!

What Exit? is pointing in the right direction, but is slightly off track about the effect that reduction in toilet paper would have on global warming. He would be right if the mere existance of toilet paper were what was relevant, but it isn’t, sitting on a shelf doesn’t change anything. It is the production and distribution of toilet paper that increases global warming. It is the fuel that powers the factory, and the fuel that go into the trucks delivering it that matters. It is the plastic bag that encloses the package of toilet paper that matters, considering that a plastic bag is made of petrochemicals. Whether it is recycled paper, discarded woodchips or trees grown specifically for that purpose, it’s irrelevant to the actual warming, because it is the action of production that causes warming. This doesn’t mean that the methods he described are not good for the environment, Global Warming isn’t even the most important things in terms of environmental thinking. It is a big scare tactic that mostly gets in the way of getting people to recognize that the cornerstone of civilization is sanitation, and that we are polluting our air and waterways, living in our own industrial sewage.

Most of our waste and excess goes into the things we don’t even want. Reducing your toilet paper consumption is a silly way to reduce your footprint, because there are so many areas where you consume passively such as plastic grocery bags, things that most of us don’t even want or care about, that could more easily be excised.

However, in aggregate, reducing our consumption of toilet paper as described would have an impact on the human ecological footprint that contributes to global warming. So while she was joking about what you should do, she was factually correct that it would have a net impact.

If you want to significantly reduce your net impact, and save money in the long run, buy LED bulbs, they use a fraction of the wattage for the same light output compared to an incandescent, and they last for more than ten years. They are superior to flourescents, as they can be put on dimmer switches and don’t cause eye strain by flickering. The buy-in is expensive, but not having to buy a new bulb and a cheaper electricity bill will make up for that within a year, leaving the next decade much cheaper.