Environmentally Friendly Toilet Habits

It's not without surprise that I read Christian Wolmar's column in the Guardian this week.

After a revelation that America's usage of soft toilet paper might be worse for the environment than their love for 'SUVs' and other petrol-guzzling vehicles, plus a revelation that if everyone on earth used as much toilet paper as the US and UK there would be no trees left on earth, Wolmar has the solution.

We should, er, clamp down on the usage of toilet paper.

How?

Well, by following the example of the Indians and installing toilets which come with special spray attachments.

The good news is this is slightly more palatable than their previous example of using a jug and their left hands.

The bad news is it's pure idiocy of the first order, and the kind of double standard you get used to seeing in environmentalist types.

Firstly, many other environmentalists are always harping on about conserving water. Just a few years ago, then Mayor of London 'Red' Ken Livingstone urged Londoners not to flush after urinating in order to help conserve water.

Also, how much power would be used when the models of toilet used inevitably progress to the kind seen in Japan and elsewhere?

Different settings, warm water, seat warmers, etc etc etc.

Generating power is probably more 'harmful' to the environment than using toilet paper. Yet Wolmer seems to have totally overlooked this aspect - who wants to wash themselves with freezing cold water?

Wolmer suggests this could be overcome with technology, as with the '10 second hand-driers' found in most public toilets. Problem? Well, I for one have to use them at least 3 times to get my hands properly dry - and not being properly dry after using the toilet can lead to problems and embarrassment.

I recognise that there's no point wasting natural resources, and perhaps certain people and certain countries could be slightly more careful.

But why is it that all proposals to conserve this or save that have to be so hypocritical and self-defeating?