The Death and Rebirth of "50 Simple Things You Can Do to Save the Earth"

50 Simple Things You Can Do to Save the Earth is back in print, updated for the 21st century.

If that doesn't send a mild shiver down your spine, then you are under 25 years old.

If you somehow didn't catch the early 1990s, 50 Simple Things, published a few months in advance of Earth Day 1990, was a cultural phenomenon. It caught a wave of interest — notably, media interest — in all things green, which propelled the book's sales to cult-like status. The book sold 5 million copies in all, about a third in one of the 20-odd languages in which it eventually appeared.

The principal author and publisher, John Javna — who the first time around hid behind the anonymity of "The EarthWorks Group," basically himself and some helpers — eventually got discouraged and cynical about the book's impact. By the mid 1990s, he had taken the book out of print and took his family, and his newfound wealth, to rural Oregon, where he's been ever since.

I first met Javna in 1988, when green books were just a glimmer in both of our eyes. By 1990, we were both working on our respective tomes — his 50 Simple Things and my book The Green Consumer. I distinctly recall him sitting in my office in early 1990, explaining how his book would succeed because it would be "first, cheap, and simple." And it did. His book was a blockbuster; mine was merely a bestseller. (In 1992 I penned one of the books in the series, 50 Simple Things Your Business Can Do to Save the Earth, which was attributed to, and published by, the EarthWorks group.)

In the wake of the original 50 Simple Things, Javna began to understand that his "first, cheap, and simple" book may have had an unintended consequence: While it made environmentalism more accessible to the masses, it may have lulled readers into thinking that snipping six-pack rings or choosing paper over plastic was all they needed to do to address pressing issues like climate change, water and air pollution, and the squandering of natural resources.

"I had this sense that the simple things that we talked about in the book were not the way to go," Javna told me recently. "I just thought, this is not solving problems, and in some ways it's even creating problems because people think that they're addressing an issue in a deep way when they're just skimming the surface. You could say that that book was a mile wide and an inch deep.

It turned out that there weren't 50 simple things we can do to save the earth — just a half-dozen or so rather difficult ones.

Eighteen years later, the book is back. It looks pretty much the same — Javna recycled quite nicely the look and feel — but the concept is different. The new edition of 50 Simple Things was written by Javna along with his two kids, 18-year-old Jesse and 14-year-old Sophie. Indeed, it was Sophie who inadvertently inspired the project. "After the green-washing and stuff in the '90s, people just sort of wandered away and lost interest and went back to buying their gas-guzzling cars and not voting for the environment at all. And it just became a sub-issue, even though the environment itself was getting worse and worse.

"For years I thought about it — what would be a way to engage people in a simple way? People did buy and use the book, and a lot of people were pretty encouraged by it, and so I thought, 'What's a way to engage them in a way that really would make a difference?'"

"Then Sophie asked me, 'Why don't we compost anymore? And I started to give her my real answer — you know, about how you can recycle all you want. It's not going to take the mercury out of the air, so don't bother.

"And I just sort of stopped myself, and I thought, 'This is crazy because she is in fact the future generation I was talking about when I was talking about 'Let's try to protect the planet' in 1990. And I had really turned my back on her, on the effort to protect her. So I made the decision that I really couldn't afford to be cynical — not if I love my children. I decided that probably the most powerful thing I could do was find a way of engaging people in environmental actions through a new version of 50 Simple Things, but in a way that really mattered.

In this new edition, each of the "things" is an entire issue chosen and developed by an environmental group — 50 in all, from the Alliance to Save Energy to the Wilderness Society. Both large and small groups are represented — the Sierra Club and Environmental Defense, but also Green for All and As You Sow. Each of the "things" has its own page on the book's website (slated to go live on April 1), with additional information and resources.

The book in some ways raises its sights by asking readers to lower theirs. Javna's hope is that everyone who reads the book will do at least one of the "things." Says Javna: "A simple thing is a commitment to an issue. The book says pick one of these issues, not a whole lot of them. Pick one issue and commit yourself — an issue that fits in your life, an issue that feels comfortable to you — and then make that a part of your life. That can be your commitment to trying to change the shape of the world, to protect the life-support system of the planet."

It will be interesting to watch the book unfold anew. A lot has changed — but in some ways not much has. People are still looking for answers — and simple ones are pretty compelling.

Of course, Javna's book will have to compete with all the others — a recent issue of the book industry bible, Publishers Weekly, listed no fewer than 70 green books coming out this spring and summer, many advocating easy ways to live an eco-friendly lifestyle. They include at least one derivative title — Go Green, Live Rich: 50 Simple Ways to Save the Earth and Get Rich Trying as well as a spate of eco-fabulous titles: the Eco Chick Guide to Life; Green Chic: Saving the Earth in Style; Green, Greener, Greenest: A Practical Guide to Making Eco-Smart Choices a Part of Your Life; Green Is the New Black: How to Change the World with Style; and Gorgeously Green: 5 Simple Steps to an Earth-Friendly Life.

Oh, right: and Green Living for Dummies.

With this abundance of green-is-chic books, will it be enough to merely "save the earth"? We'll see.

Comments

[Arlene Fairfield]

I may not make a big dent in the 70 green books coming out in the next few months (I've found that if recent history is any indication, they tend to say the same thing) but I'm encouraged by the attention the environment's still getting. Not to mention the potentially prime real estate space on the shelves and tables of Barnes & Noble and priority placement on digital booksellers' sites. I'm still waiting though, for the green People, US Weekly or OK. I'm sort of kidding but the point is that I don't think green books will take us a whole lot further towards mass mainstream behavior change.

[Judy Plapinger]

I'm one of those "helpers" who worked on this book with John Javna. The difference between this book and the other titles you mention, is they are talking about individual actions to be "green." The new 50 Simple Things is trying to get people involved as activists. As you say, there are about half a dozen "big" environmental issues that are too overwhelming to do anything about. What this book does is to break those "big" issues into 50 distinct issues, and then provide both information about each one, and offer ways for us to get involved. Instead of just saying: "global warming is bad, we should stop it; change your lightbulbs," this book explains about Wetlands, and landfills, and pesticide runoff that goes down our drains right into local streams and rivers. And then, in addition to changing our lightbulbs or bringing a cloth bag to the market, it shows us which environmental groups (local and national) are working to protect Wetlands, to stop pesticide runoff, and shows us ways we can get involved in that effort.

It's easy to be cynical; I'm cynical. But there's a difference between cynicism and hopelessness. So I hope folks will take a look at the book, and join us on the website www.50simplethings.com after April 1st.

Thanks,

[Jack]

Number 11 - don't use these brands

[Guy Champniss]

To go out on a limb a little, I am really unsure that what we all need is another slew of manuals on how to be green, chic and generally a better person.

I am not knocking anyone's efforts to reduce their environmental impact - I recognise we all have a responsibility to act. And I also recognise that individuals cannot solve the problem alone.

But there is something worse than this. We continue to feed the argument that when people - consumers - are aware, then corporates have to take notice and we'll see significant changes that help reduce our impact on the environment. The problem with this argument is that it reduces the climate change issue to something like a Lowest Consumer Denominator rhetoric. In other words, it has a tendency to turn into a simplistic, shallow discussion, which detracts from what really needs to be done. It's a bit like watching a telethon here in the UK.

In some ways though, the argument holds true - corporates are indeed reacting, but for all the wrong reasons and in predominantly in the wrong ways. I have been to more climate change conferences than I care to remember where I have seen someone from P&G, Unilever or another mega-band owner, stand up and tell me how smaller packages of more concentrated washing powder has reduced the number of trucks on the road and so helped the environment. It has also helped their financial bottom line as an effective cost-saving exercise regardless of climate change. And as long as we keep trying to empower the consumer to take action, this sort of 'initiative' by the most powerful brands in our lives will feel pretty OK. But it isn't, for the reason that it presents its actions as a solution and suggests we can motor on with business as usual.

In short, we of course all have to do our bit. But we've all only got so much green space in our brain and I'd rather keep some of it clear for the bigger stuff, that doesn't come as a Top 10 or is listed alphabetically.

G

[Bob Difley]

I think the whole idea of green awareness and how that is perceived by the general populace is the key. We have all tried to "set a good example" with our kids by doing ourselves what we tell then is the right thing to do. If people accept that "the right thing to do" is the green alternative, and they feel guilty when they don't follow that example, ultimately it will spread to the point where we are electing green officials, goading companies into green practices, and setting an example to those around us. All of that, taken together, is far more important than a single act like taking a cloth bag into a supermarket--the example is far more potent.

[Brian H]

This is all drivial. ;)

Check out the efforts of a smallish non-profit and allied for-profit organizations, focusfusion.org and LawrencevillePlasmaPhysics.com .

If their progress continues on its present course (and it appears to be doing, technically, better than hoped so far), a very cheap (~1-2% of current costs), waste-free, radiation-free, highly efficient (~85% overall, so very little waste heat, see 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, etc.) power source will begin coming on-line within the decade. The source generators will be small (housed in home garage-sized buildings) and almost trivial in capital outlay (~$¼M ea.), and able to generate ~5-25MW each. That's about $50M/GW, as opposed to ~$1-2B/GW for current plants. Power will sell at $0.001-2 / kwh. Yes, 1/10 to 1/5 of one cent.

Raw input materials are hydrogen and Boron11; the latter is the limiting element -- it is estimated that supplies for ~10X total current global power production would deplete supplies in about 1,000,000,000 years.

Just to be explicit about the effects, the Oil Economy would shrink to a minute fraction of current volume and value (especially in conjunction with ZEV developments, etc.; see teslamotors.com, and new nanowire battery developments with 10X the capacity of current LiIon versions), global warming and pollution would become non-issues (the economics would force rapid mothballing of every other power plant type on the planet), and eliminating poverty and shortages of almost any kind would be easy (given almost unlimited access to ultra-cheap energy.)

But composting makes for great gardens.

[Steve Salmony]

Dear Dr. L. B.,

I am imagining that your questions are rhetorical ones.

You ask,

“Why are politicians and skeptics so willing to risk their future and everyone else’s future on blindly clinging to a course of action that has a high probability of leading to a seriously crippled future? If you even suspect that global warming represents a serious risk to your survival (and we have far more than suspicion these days), why wouldn’t you do everything protect and conserve your planet?”

It would please me to hear from others; but from my humble perspective the “answers” to your questions are all-too-obvious.

First, the leaders in my generation of elders wish to live without having to accept limits to growth of seemingly endless economic globalization, of increasing per capita consumption and skyrocketing human population numbers; our desires are evidently insatiable. We choose to believe anything that is politically convenient, economically expedient and socially agreeable; our way of life is not negotiable. We dare anyone to question our values or behaviors.

We religiously promote our shared fantasies of endless economic growth and soon to be unsustainable overconsumption, overproduction oand overpopulation activities, and in so doing deny that Earth has limited resources upon which the survival of life as we know it depends.

Second, my not-so-great generation appears to be doing a disservice to everything and everyone but ourselves. We are the “what’s in it for me?” generation. We demonstrate precious little regard for the maintenance of the integrity of Earth; shallow willingness to actually protect the environment from crippling degradation; lack of serious consideration for the preservation of biodiversity, wilderness, and a good enough future for our children and coming generations; and no appreciation of the understanding that we are no more or less than human beings with “feet of clay.”

We live in a soon to be unsustainable way in our planetary home and are proud of it, thank you very much. Certainly, we will “have our cake and eat it, too.” We will fly around in thousands of private jets and live in McMansions, go to our secret clubs and distant hideouts, and risk nothing of value to us. Please do not bother us with the problems of the world. We choose not to hear, see or speak of them. We are the economic powerbrokers, their bought-and-paid-for politicians and the many minions in the mass media. We hold the much of the wealth and the power it purchases. If left to our own devices, we will continue in the exercise of our ‘rights’ to ravenously consume Earth’s limited resources; to expand economic globalization unto every corner of our natural world and, guess what, beyond; to encourage the unbridled growth of the human species so that where there are now 6+ billion people, by 2050 we will have 9+ billion members of the human community and, guess what, even more people, perhaps billions more in the distant future, if that is what we desire.

We are the reigning, self-proclaimed masters of the universe. We have no regard for human limits or Earth’s limitations, thank you very much. Please understand that we do not want anyone to present us with scientific evidence that we could be living unsustainably in an artificially designed, temporary world of our own making…… a manmade world filling up with distinctly human enterprises which appear the be approaching a point in human history when global consumption, production and propagation activities of the human species become unsustainable on the tiny planet God has blessed us to inhabit….. and not to overwhelm, I suppose.

Third, even our top rank scientists have not found adequate ways of communicating to the family of humanity what people somehow need to hear, see and understand: the reckless dissipation of Earth’s limited resources, the relentless degradation of the planet’s frangible environment, and the approaching destruction of the Earth as a fit place for human habitation by the human species, when taken together, appear to be proceeding at a breakneck pace toward the precipitation of a catastrophic ecological wreckage of some sort unless, of course, the world’s colossal, ever expanding, artificially designed, manmade global economy continues to speed headlong toward the monolithic ‘wall’ called “unsustainability” at which point the runaway economy crashes before Earth’s ecology is collapsed.

Sincerely,

Steve

[La Fayetteville]

Great reference, i'll definitely look into it. Some people don't realize it's just little things to help, even if you don't believe in global warming you don't have to go out of your way to contribute.