That last comment is interesting. Shows how people lack vision, I guess.

The 100-mile diet experience is indeed interesting. I already wrote about the first of their article on TreeHugger and plan to keep an eye on how it turns out.

I suppose that real progress will come when it becomes easier to live on such a diet, though. We need to go back to polycultures - and we won't have a choice with peak oil - and putting more emphasis on local food production.

--
SUVs are squared-out minivans.

Actually I think I first learned about the piece on TreeHugger. Thanks Mike!

Support Grist: http://www.grist.org/support

This series on local eating is the slant we need in environmental writing:  a fresh, light-hearted approach to a serious issue.  It's important to talk in personal, concrete terms -- we're all interested in food, no matter what our differences in ideology.

I saw the stick-in-the-mud comment too ("the 100 mile diet seems to be the flakiest, most absurd new concept to emerge from the Luddite Left Coast").  One of the skills I'm trying to develop is identifying trolls and spoilers.  Notice how the poster was able to sidetrack the discussion, using a few outdated concepts and much name-calling.  I think we've got to be tougher on spoilers who add nothing to the discussion -- not let them set the direction of discourse.

BTW, did anyone catch this weeks "30 Days" by Morgan Spurlock, in which he brought two fossil-fuel guzzling New Yorkers to an eco-commune?  http://energybulletin.net/7204.html .  The show had a light-touch similar to the 100-Mile Diet series.