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.
