Taking away the maid's vacuum

Some yuppies have decided not to wipe for a year as a stunt to promote a book and I'm supposed to care.

The idea of lessening your impact on the environment is not noble, it's necessary. But the way they are going about it does more to hinder actual conservation than help it, and it's not like they can even pretned that they are doing it for altruistic means- they are doing it to promote a book, a blog, a New York Times article, they are doing it for fame. And the hook- the gross out factor that will make people want to pay attention is the silliest part of it: no toilet paper.

So they are trying to not make an impact on the environment by not using anything disposable: no more take out- good, canvas bags for groceries: good, but they don't live in the woods, so they make waste- I'm sure they still get mail, I'm sure the woman still uses tampons. And the ban on using any energy? Again misplaced. No cars: good, No TV: good, no elevators and no mass transit? silly (does 10 people instead of 9 on an elevator or 209 instead of 210 people on a subway make a difference? Hardly) And the candles don't make much of a difference when you are still running your washer and dryer.

Beeswax candles and smelly bums are not only a gimmick (used by people who still spend 75% of their days in front of energy sapping computers) but they make people think that changing your habits to consume less and contribute more are crazy hippie ideals that regular people can't/would never do. It makes for less flashy headlines, but Amanda Park Taylor's weekly "Conscientious Objector" column in the L Magazine regularly offers advice on things that people can actually do (like using less water and reusable bags for shopping).