no impact man

So I watched the movie.

I have a lot to say.

First, the title:  He made an impact.  I think he did a lot of good by saying he didn't - otherwise he would not have caught so much attention and passed a lot of info on. 

On the plus side:  I think he did a good thing for himself and his family.  And he exposed a lot of cool stuff to a large audience.  I think that this is a great story along the lines of "man attempts to climb mount everest without leaving new york."  I think he blazed a great trail.  And he got about 90% of the way there.  It would be a lot easier to do in the country, but he did it from NYC. 

So ... he used water, gas and new candles.  He used what looked like a new solar panel.  It looks like cell phones were still used.  And when he used those candles, what was the carbon footprint?  And the pollution?

The best part was a part that almost happened.  The wife complained an awful lot.  She does make some good points along the way, but I think they are negated by what I thought was going to happen, but didn't.  More on that in a moment. 

I thought one of the best points she made was something about it being called no impact man, but she was doing this stuff too.

Now for the negation:  For a moment, I thought she was going to think of something to add to the no-impact pile.  I thought she was going to come up with a way to reduce their impact even further.  Sorta beat her husband at his own game.  But that didn't happen. 

Another point is their attempt to have a baby.  I think having a child is the greatest impact one can have on the planet.  I suppose if one could live a feral or advanced permaculture life and somehow be certain that all of your children will be equally so, then it would be okay.  But that is not / was not the case.  I think it would have been good to mention that during the movie.

I **really** liked the part where they pointed out how NY was made so much for cars. 

I saw him talking to a legislator about stuff.  It got me thinking that if I could push for a law, what law would I push for?  And I think I would say that the whole "organic" law needs to be inverted:  instead of labeling things as organic, non-organic foods should be labeled to say why it isn't organic:  "may contain pesticides", "contains genetically modified organisms", "fertilized with petroleum products" etc.

i esp loved your  last comment....just think how much less we would use stuff that was labeled with warnings on how awful it is..just like cigarettes..the minute they put the label on them that they could cause cancer..etc...people started trying to quit smoking.

i admit that i look for the labels that tell me what has been left out..like "hormone free"