Wednesday, April 25, 2007

Putting the “Mental” Back in “Environmental”

I hope she was kidding. But it’s really hard to tell. So if it’s a joke, it’s not really funny because we can’t tell whether she’s kidding or just demented. Like most people, I’d like to think Sheryl Crow is pulling our collective legs when she says we should reduce toilet paper use down to one square per visit to the [insert euphemism here].

One square? Talk about minimalism. Even the folks on “Lost” probably use more than that on their deserted island. Granted, that’s fiction. I mean big Hurley hasn’t lost any weight yet either and they’ve been on that island for months. On the other hand, if island living made you thinner I wouldn’t have to go jogging tomorrow and I’d probably eat every food that was bad for me for every meal.

When I was growing up (as I’ve said before, I’m a Recovering Catholic), we gave up certain things for Lent. You know, things we really enjoyed, like television, candy, chocolate bars, teasing our younger sister, or giving the babysitter a hard time. Besides, it hardly ever lasted anyway. And rightfully so. Giving things up is an exercise in self-control that might be put to better use by just trying to be a better person or volunteering in the community or something like that.

Still, maybe self-denial is good for the soul. But Sheryl Crow isn’t talking about any forty days and nights in the desert here. She’s saying cut your toilet paper usage back gradually until eventually you are using the very bare minimum…forever. I assume she means for “one” to be the bare minimum, because I don’t think that most of us are ready to live in a world without toilet paper. It would be Communist Russia all over again, where the lineups for toilet paper were longer than those at Motor Vehicle Registration in Mount Pearl (which reminds me: why is the DMV in Mount Pearl and not in St. John’s? Shouldn’t there be one in both cities? And if CBS, Gander, Corner Brook, and Lab City don’t have one, they should be there as well). But I digress.

Sheryl says it’s “a good thing just that we’re all talking” about this issue. By “this issue,” I assume she means the environment and not just toilet paper.

It’s her way to get us thinking about the things we use every day without thinking about how we are destroying the environment, leaving a legacy of devastation behind us for our children, so to speak. Something to think about next time you use the toilet.

I also heard this week that the frequency from cell phones is destroying the ability of honeybees to produce honey, which is not only creating a shortage of honey (no more Honeycombs! Oh, the humanity!) but driving up prices of the honey that’s been made. First oil and gasoline, and now honey. What’s next?

I know, I know: toilet paper. I’m willing to bet there’s going to be a toilet paper tax eventually just like there is on cigarettes—and the more you use, the more you pay. I’m not kidding. So if you’ve got a bad addiction to Cottonelle or that luxurious White Swan stuff, you’re really in for a tough time of it in the Brave New World. I mean, it’s worse than crack (pardon the pun)—you can’t just give up the soft stuff overnight and start buying that cheap budget t.p. that can be used to sand down the walls before plastering. It’s going to take serious time and effort to wean yourself off your current habit.

It just seems to me that we’re being asked to give up everything or cut back on everything. It’s like those medieval monks who were into self-flagellation and self-denial—no sex, no wine, no speaking, nothing pleasurable at all until all you’re left with is the bare minimum.

But I’ll bet they never gave up toilet paper. (Or whatever they used to vanquish their holy crap.)

I’m all for helping out the environment in any way I can. But if this is what it comes to, I’ll voice my opinion in the next election, and if this becomes a political (t)issue, I know exactly what I’ll do.

I’ll vote the bums out.

Gerard

No comments: