Stunts

In Kolbert's New York Times article, it sounds like she does not like what Beavan is doing in his No Impact Man project. She talks like everything he is doing is a waste of time. It seems like she thinks his project is just a stunt for a book to try to get attention.

Beavan's project was to go a whole year having no impact on the society. By this, he made no trash, used no electricity, didn't use washing machines or dish washers, didn't buy anything new, and only bought food that came from 250 miles or closer. Kolbert said, "Yet most people are in no mood to read about how screwed up they are. It’s a bummer. If you’re the National Academy of Sciences or the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, or the Pope or Al Gore, you can try to fight this with yet another multivolume report or encyclical. If not, you’d better get a gimmick." I disagree with her statement. I think that a lot of people would want to read Beavan's book to see what he went through to try better the planet. Once people realize that it is possible to live the way Beavan did for a whole year, then it is possible for someone to change their own ways as well. If people realize that they can make a difference, then society will actually change.

I think that Kolbert is bashing Colin Beavan, a man who is trying to benefit the planet, for no reason, and instead of bashing others' lifestyles, she needs to reexamine her own.

In Beavan's project, I think the two best things he did for the society were either not making trash or not using any sort of transportation. Both of these two acts really benefit society because reduction of trash would save the sea turtles in the middle of the ocean for example. No transportation means less carbon pollution into the air, which would definitely benefit society. After this project ended, Beavan went back mostly to how he used to live, but he still continued some of the things he did throughout his year as No Impact Project.

Likewise with the Green as a Thistle woman, she went 366 days, doing one thing every day that would benefit the planet. I believe that both of these projects were not stunts, but honest acts of courage. Neither project was doing it for the attention, but they both were to better the planet. Kolbert refers to both acts as stunts for books, and I disagree. I think both projects were brave, honest acts, and the people involved should not be picked on for trying to do something that would benefit the planet. Both projects could potentially have the ripple effect, so if people read their books, then they may realize they want to do anything to better the planet as well.

Overall, I do not agree with Kolbert in saying that these two great, brave projects were just for attention and to use as a stunt for a book. I think these people involved actually believed that what they were doing could better the planet. Kolbert should reexamine her own life instead of bashing others for how they are trying to help the planet.