It seems when it comes to the environment, the idea of simply using “less” is often replaced by technical solutions involving more objects created to allow a more effective ways of producing the “same”. We can’t seem to think of “less” as a strategy to decrease our global impact on the environment but as an, “Oh yeah” side note.

While we rarely do it, I'm starting to notice that it can be valuable to think of "less" as a commodity. It may sound confusing since we typically think of commodities as objects that exist. While the word “less” appears in several “parts of speech”, when it comes to the environment, it’s useful to think of it as a noun for decision making.

For example, which is better, using renewable energy or using “less”? I can’t think of a situation where consuming “less” isn’t always better. Even saying (a phrase), “we should consume less” views “less” as a commodity.

“Less’ is a dirty word for capitalists since you can rarely make money selling the idea of “use less”. The use of “less” has even been transformed into “useless”. The definition of “useless” is someone or something that has no function or purpose or that is not helpful in any way. As a result, our language even diminishes the word as having no function or purpose.

I think we need to have more respect for “less”. I agree it’s not as flashy as “other”, but it does the job on environmental impact with more eloquence and predictable effect then any other solution.

Maybe we don’t like “less” because we would have to accept that doing less is an act of omission. There is not much to talk about, or make decisions on what to do, since “less” almost says it all.

What are the “road maps” for doing less? Maybe just experiment and pick something. Lower your furnace temperature a bit and see what happens. Turn off lights that you don’t need. Combine driving trips into one outing or use a bike.

Can our culture ever get excited about less? I think we can.

Bob Hope, Owen Sound