New York Times Article on Beaven

I think that Kolbert's argument about eco-stunts, although very well written, was overly judgmental about Beaven's experiment. However, Kolbert, at the end of her article, did present some good, and possibly more productive ideas that could be taken that Beaven may have let slide, for instance the heating in his building, and simply not worrying about taking the elevator, and instead taking the elevator up to his office floor to tell them how to be more green. Although much of this article seems to have a tone of mockery, it still makes some good points in regards to some of the errors of Colin Beaven, but over all is overly judgmental.

I do agree with some aspects of Kolbert's article, although I do feel she is overly critical of these eco-stunts. I agree that, even though what Colin Beaven and others such as the Green as a Thistle website are trying to do, which is to promote going green and at least try and do one green thing a day, that they often turn out to be hypocritical, going green in some aspects and yet allowing the heat to be on even in warm days in their offices, or let other things slide to live a comfortable life while they go green in easier more suitable aspects. Kolbert's statement that many people all over the world, especially those in poor areas of the world, live much greener lives than Colin Beaven also shows that the way he is living is still luxurious and causing pollution and harm to the earth, even if he is cutting down on his impact a little. However, I do feel that he does a good job of making no impact, and his effort and documentary have produced some good effects in the green movement.

Although it can seem foolish of Beaven to even try to go green, the fact that he is does help the global community and the green movement in ways that Kolbert undermines. Beaven's documentary, although highly criticized, did make many people aware of what he was trying to do and what many people should be aiming to do which is to go green and cut down on their impact on the environment. He was able to go onto tv shows, have radio interviews and also write a book, touching on several areas of media and spreading his message, definately leaving an impact on how not to make an impact. Also, websites like Green as a Thistle help make people not only aware of the problem, but present easy ways, easier and less drastic than Colin's at least, for people to go green and make less of an impact on the environment.

Colin Beaven did have some flaws in his plan to go green as Kolbert points out, but he did make much less of an impact on the environment and also created a healthier living environment for his family at the same time. His wife's pre-diabetic state was cured by how healthy they were eating and this also in turn supported the local farms. He definitely cut down on his electric bill and refusing to use certain means of transportation also cut down on his gas emissions and his bill. Over all, I feel Beaven created less of an impact than Kolbert gives him credit for.

Kolbert does raise some good arguments against Colin, claiming he is slightly hypocritical and that his no impact goal was not all that "non-impactful" but I still feel that she is too judgmental of these so called eco-stunts and that they are more than just stunts. These people such as Beaven and websites such as Green as a Thistle help not only in ideas to go green but also get more and more people to create less of an impact by making them aware of the situation. I think Kolbert's article is well written and makes some good statements but does not fully appreciate what Colin Beaven and other people are trying to accomplish in creating less of an impact.