Sierra Club Home Page   Environmental Update  
chapter button
Explore, enjoy and protect the planet
Click here to visit the Member Center.         
Take Action
Get Outdoors
Join or Give
Inside Sierra Club
Press Room
Politics & Issues
Sierra Magazine
Sierra Club Books
Apparel and Other Merchandise
Contact Us

Join the Sierra ClubWhy become a member?
Sierra Main
In This Section
  May/June 2003 Issue
Perilous Gardens, Persistent Dreams
All They Need is Wolves
Consider the Lilies
Restoration Art
Ways & Means
One Small Step
Lay of the Land
The Sierra Club Bulletin
Grassroots Update
Sierra Archives
About Sierra
Internships at Sierra
Advertising Information
Current Advertisers

Sierra Magazine

Printer-friendly format
click here to tell a friend


I was stunned by the results of your quiz "Are You Big Foot?" (January/February). Although I’m a carless vegan living in a green-redesigned home with my wife and daughter, my footprint was 6.5 acres, 2 acres more than the world’s 4.5 biologically productive acres per person. Although my score was just 27 percent of the average U.S. footprint of 24 acres, if everyone on Earth had my footprint, we would still need 1.44 planets!
Mike Weinberg
La Mesa, California

How wonderful to find in "Are You Big Foot?"
(January/February) that the more children I have, the smaller my environmental footprint! But of course it’s obvious that the more Americans there are, the more we damage the planet.
Olivia Eielson
Berkeley, California

Diana Deumling of Redefining Progress, the organization that designed the "Big Foot" quiz, replies: The quiz measures each individual’s demand on nature, and more people in a household decreases the per-person housing footprint. But Ms. Eielson’s point about overall population numbers is well-taken. Adding another American makes large demands on the planet: for example, 20 tons of meat and 4.5 cars over an average life span. Furthermore, if world population keeps growing at the 2001 rate of 1.3 percent per year, it will more than triple by 2100, meaning that the resources now available to one person would have to be shared by more than three. Clearly, we must address population size to keep our planetary use of natural resources in balance, but that was beyond the scope of this quiz.

Please publish the citations for the studies that led you to say that it makes no difference whether people use cloth or disposable diapers ("Now, for the Good News . . . ," page 44, January/February). I find that virtually impossible to believe.
Becky O’Brien
Lafayette, Colorado

Editor’s reply: Our source was The Consumer’s Guide to Effective Environmental Choices, a book produced by a group noted for its sound technical information, the Union of Concerned Scientists. A passel of impassioned letters have convinced us that parents might want to dig further, however. Readers pointed out that an article in the March 22, 2001, Ecologist came down firmly on the side of cloth. The British magazine cited a 1991 study by the Women’s Environmental Network ( that found cloth diapers use 3.5 times less total energy, 8 times less non-regenerable material, and 90 times less renewable material, and produce 2.3 times less wastewater than disposables. For a good summary of the controversy, see "The Politics of Diapers" in Mothering magazine’s January/February 2003 issue.

Thanks for the excellent article "When Uncle Sam Wanted Us" (January/February). It should be the patriotic duty of every American to conserve. In Greenburgh, New York, we recently approved legislation mandating energy conservation in new residential construction. We’re considering adopting tough mandates in the future so that our town can lead by example.
Paul Feiner, Town Supervisor
Greenburgh, New York

It is puzzling that you so infrequently write about overpopulation. In Carl Pope’s most recent column ("Ways & Means," January/February) he discusses various international agreements that President Bush has abrogated, without mentioning his backtracking on Cairo or his freeze on funding for the United Nations Population Fund.
Jim Hufnagel
Wilson, New York

Carl Pope replies: Mr. Hufnagel is right.

I missed an opportunity. In 1994, the United States signed on to the Cairo accord, a model international agreement aimed at improving women’s health and helping to slow population growth. I didn’t mention it because it didn’t appear to be a treaty Bush was targeting. Of course, about the time the column appeared, he went after it anyway, by refusing to reaffirm U.S. support for Cairo at a meeting of Asian and Pacific nations in Bangkok. I winced during the State of the Union when the president proclaimed an exciting-sounding initiative to deal with the AIDS crisis in Africa, knowing that his administration promotes abstinence-only for planning families and preventing AIDS. President Bush’s war on the environment clearly includes his family-planning policies.

On page 12 of "Lay of the Land" in January/February, we should have stated that the Santa Rita Jail in Alameda County, California, produces 1.4 million kilowatt-hours of electricity per year with its new solar roof panels (not 1.4 million kilowatts).

We welcome letters in response to recently published articles. Letters may be edited for length and clarity. Write to us at 85 Second St., 2nd Floor, San Francisco, CA 94105-3441; fax (415) 977-5794; e-mail

Want to be the first to find out what’s happening at Sierra–in print, on the Web, and behind the scenes? We’ll send you periodic e-mail updates if you sign up at

Up to Top

HOME | Email Signup | About Us | Contact Us | Terms of Use | © 2008 Sierra Club