Nathan has left a new comment on your post "A second look":

I found your last post inspiring not hard core! I am working on my chart right now. What you are doing is appealing at least to me. You seem to be a likeable person who is as concerned about healthy family and community dynamics as you are concerned about fitting sustainable into you home ecosystem. Keep up the fun. I do want to take issue with your statement, "We are not going to change the world by trying to get people to give up things." That is a tough one for me. On the one hand, it seems that you are right; people are not likely to get excited about giving up the extravagant life that most of us live. On the other hand, giving up some (or perhaps a lot) is probably the only way to achieve the goal of local sustainability. It seems to me that "sustainable" means not using up more energy than is being input into your home range. The main source of energy input for most of us is the sun. The sun's energy is then transferred and stored across the web of life and in the environment, which makes it more accessible to us. But, the bottom line is we can't sustainable use more energy than is being input into the system. Right now I use far more and so do most Americans. Right now there is a lot of excitement in the general public about going green and addressing global warming. But there is no one saying we need to consume less. Every report I hear puts a lot of faith in technology. As a culture we believe that there is an unlimited source of energy out there that we can use with no restraints and to no ill-effects. We believe it so strongly that no one is even talking about there not being one. The problem is that this kind of thinking simply defies the laws of nature and the laws of physics.

Here is a quote I like from Paul Molyneaux. “All the technology in the world could not compensate for a damaged ecosystem.”

I think that changing the world does require asking people to give up things. I think the trick is doing it in a way that is not shrill or condescending. I think you are on the right track. I like your humble approach and your genuine affection for humankind.

I stand by what I said. Here is an example. One of the biggest energy users in the home is providing hot water. I have been to a number of energy efficiency workshops where the emphasis was on reducing how much hot water was used. That would save energy, but the only way to do it effectively was to have guard with a stopwatch timing peoples showers, baths, and every other hot water activity. Anna Eddy, a writer from Martha's Vineyard, was designing a new home for herself. She wanted to lower her energy impact, but she didn't want to have to time her showers or give up her bubble bath. She designed a system that used only energy produced on her property that provided the amount of hot water she needed to maintain her lifestyle. She didn't give anything up, she just met her need a different way. Another thing she did was design a "composting" toilet that functions just like a flush toilet. If you have ever used a composting toilet you would realize that the masses are not going to adopt them unless they are forced, but a flush toilet that processes waste in a more eco-intelligent way could easily be sold to the public. Ideas get adopted by the masses because they make life better (or create the perception that life is better). You can't expect the people in developing countries to stop their march toward "development". What we need is a new way to get there.