There are problems with the No Impact Man idea, though not with Colin's project in itself, which is very interesting.

Suppose you found yourself and your family isolated on an island after your private plane crashed there. You'd be deprived. You might very well grow more strongly bonded to each other and make discoveries about who you are both individually and as a family. You could (if you survived) find life quite enjoyable in ways you had not thought possible.

A ship would arrive. Would you take it? Yes, with rare exception, people would.

How would you feel about the island experience looking back on it? Great! You might write a book about it and even make a movie. There would be lots of attention on you, you'd make the circuit of TV shows, interviews etc. There's nothing wrong with that. It's fascinating because all the human interest elements are there for all of us to savor. How would WE handle the situation? How would WE change?

The question that hangs on it all is: will people voluntarily take on adversity, even when a successful model is placed before them. No, a few might but the great majority won't.

The best we can hope for is that people will exchange something they have or do for something else that does it as well or better for less cost (either directly in dollars or to the environment in general)

For example, Joe Public will not give up his gas guzzler except under one of two circumstances - 1) gas prices go up so high he finds himself made poor when he buys gas or 2) a better alternative, such as the Prius, comes along that deprives him of nothing he values in a car yet delivers something extra over his former ride.

So it will go with all the things we use. The great thing about Beth's approach is that she offers such alternatives. Why NOT use Tiffany's cloth Swiffer substitute instead of generating more plastic trash? I do. There is no down side to it.

But, get rid of air conditioning with nothing to substitute? Use a candle instead of an electric light? Walk up stairs instead of use an elevator?

We already know people can do without these things because they did do without them and they did so only because they had no alternative. People jumped on (literally) elevators, light bulbs and air conditioning, and TV as well because they brought something people wanted - less time or effort spent, comfort, convenience, entertainment. There is no going back and we are fooling ourselves if we think it can happen. Few to none would trade our present consumer items; clothes, shoes, food, for those of the year 1900, or even 1960, let alone give them up entirely.

Remember the movie Supersize Me where it was clearly demonstrated that fast food is not good for you? What was the effect of that movie? What are the statistics on fast food consumption before and after the movie? McDonald's goes from strength to strength! But the movie was wonderful, very entertaining, scary!

Do you know about "No TV Week" in which people are encouraged to turn off the TV? What are the stats on TV watching during all the years of No TV Weeks? Hours watched continued to climb (unless the Internet draws folks away). But the stories of those who went through the week have been great reading.

How about the "National Night Out" where we are encouraged to get out at night on the sidewalks. After it is over, the sidewalks are empty as always.

Why is this? It is because people have an idea of what would be good for them and then they have their real desires. The latter take over when the former has been momentarily exercised.

So, I applaud Colin's year of abandoning consumption but I seriously question that anyone will follow him in more than the most minor way. But, it is a fantastic story and the book and movie will likely do very well, though, ironically, that is more consumption.

Once Homo Sapiens knows comfort, convenience, speed, there is no going back voluntarily.

Substitution of newer, better, more efficient things may (and only may) save us.

For the Earth, No Impact Man (or woman) would be the person who decided to have no children, because the pledge to the future would be: The consumption that I cause ends with me; I am one now, none will follow at my doing.

That would make a very sad book or movie but it would make clear our only substantial, real choice for the environment of the future - replace yourself and your spouse at the most. Consumption is in the nature of human life. Whatever wealth and ease we enjoy has come because that has been stimulated. What we have to cut down on is the number of "us" there will be tomorrow.