Environmentalists Hit Bottom
Somehow I doubt that Sheryl Crow is going to make much headway with her suggestion that people limit the amount of toilet paper they use, in order to save tress.
Why is it that these environmentalists can never think their way to the next logical step? If you are concerned that there be more trees, the best means is to boost the consumer demand for paper, and thus provided an economic rationale for planting more trees, which, after all, are a renewable resource. Tree huggers should be promoting more, not less, toilet paper use. In contrast, if you really hate something and want it obliterated from the planet, the surest way is to reduce its economic value to zero.
Comments (14)
David C
I think we need a federal but-wipe camera in every bathroom to ensure compliance and conservation of this precious national resource. A new federal department to carry out this essential service would be a grand idea - the department of Homeland Anal Security, an efficient centralized but-wipe monitoring institution. Of course, there are always those who are incapable of efficiently wiping their own butts, so we must have a federal butt-wipe program to wipe those who can't wipe themselves. May I suggest, that as a finishing touch to ensure that people are using properly approved toilet paper - it be mandated that a copy of the constitution over an EPA watermark be printed on each and every bio-degradable wipe.
(PS: perhaps I should say "just kidding", lest some statist actually take it seriously)
Published: April 23, 2007 10:48 AM
David White
David C,
No need to wipe anymore; I laughed my butt off!
Published: April 23, 2007 10:57 AM
Mathieu Bédard
"haha, she doesn't know how to use the three seashells!"
Published: April 23, 2007 11:06 AM
Bill
I have seen societies that do not have toilet paper and they do not appeal to me as being one of the 5% of us that are LEFT HANDED.
I like my left hand for all sorts of things and would have to waste it for something like replacing my toilet paper.
Published: April 23, 2007 11:51 AM
Rob
I have a better idea:
Why don't newspapers go 100% online? I honestly cannot think of a larger single waste of paper on the planet (I am I the only one who see's the silly irony in a Sunday NY Times article on global warming?).
Since Ms. Crow is asking me to clean my naughty bits with a single 4 inch square of TP, I'm sure she would be happy to forgo those over sized flat-folds and get her daily reinforcement of anti-market propaganda from her lap top instead.
Published: April 23, 2007 12:48 PM
Michael Hargett
The toilet paper suggestion doesn't affect Crow's cronies because their homes are equipped with paper-saving bidets. Therefore, her per-wipe average is likely already 1 square.
Even if her home weren't so plumbed and she continued to utilize a minimum of 6-8 squares, as a typical eco-crite she would undoubtedly cite other offsetting factors for her carbon and timber "footprints." For example, movie and pop stars are largely functional illiterates, so she and the others have wasted no paper on books. The volume of their ignorance alone is enough to justify each of them in the use of half-a-roll per wipe.
Finally, let's remember the earth-healing power of good feelings, heartfelt music, and idealist socialism. By that measure, Crow has already repaired the damage to 1000 acres of rainforest with her one concert!
Published: April 23, 2007 2:35 PM
Geoffrey Plauche
I blogged on this earlier today.
Many environmentalists apparently aren't aware that trees are a renewable resource that tree farming firms replant after each harvest.
The crazy woman thinks one square is enough for most bowel movements...two or three tops.
Reminds me of a scene from Seinfeld:
"Can you spare a square?"
"Sorry, not a square. I haven't a square to spare."
And did you catch the bit about her new invention? The "dinner sleeve"? It is apparently a detachable shirt sleeve for wiping our mouths. How barbaric!
Published: April 23, 2007 4:04 PM
Brad
What seems to be forgotten or ignored is that such logic of supply and demand doesn't fit in the primordial purity that is nature unsullied by man. They don't want just trees, they want "free" trees. They want the randomness of chance that is unbounded nature, not the speficity of enslaved trees, measured and valued, brought under some degree of useful control.
What they want is the extermination of man and his values.
Published: April 23, 2007 5:00 PM
Adam
"haha, she doesn't know how to use the three seashells!"
This is the second best comment ever posted on this blog.
The best was David Gordon feeling comforted that Mr. Machan is not a vain mman.
Published: April 23, 2007 5:28 PM
James
Who cares?
I'm going to go back to watching the 24 hr ANS/Imus/VT news channel.
Published: April 23, 2007 5:45 PM
Tony Brown
This gives a whole new meaning to the expression
Shitty-Arsed Environmentalists
Published: April 23, 2007 8:34 PM
TokyoTom
With the squirting toilets that are increasingly standard in Japan, a square or two will doo, without any chafing.
However, it is about $500 to install one of these, and they do use water.
Published: April 24, 2007 2:34 AM
Yancey Ward
Damn it, David White, you stole my joke before I could use it!
Published: April 25, 2007 12:08 PM
justakim
Wrong kind of trees. Environmentalists value forests far more than tree farms. Why would environmentalists want to encourage the expansion of tree farms at the expense of more diverse ecosystems and less homogeneous tree species?
Published: April 25, 2007 9:26 PM