Somehow I doubt that Sheryl Crow is going to make much headway with her suggestion that people limit the amount of toilet paper they use, in order to save tress.
Why is it that these environmentalists can never think their way to the next logical step? If you are concerned that there be more trees, the best means is to boost the consumer demand for paper, and thus provided an economic rationale for planting more trees, which, after all, are a renewable resource. Tree huggers should be promoting more, not less, toilet paper use. In contrast, if you really hate something and want it obliterated from the planet, the surest way is to reduce its economic value to zero.
