Haven't heard this much buzz about toilet paper since former Tonight Show host Johnny Carson joked about a national shortage in the early 1970s. Americans literally emptied store shelves in response.

Carson later went on the air to explain it had all been a joke. One toilet paper maker aired a video of its plants in full production to help allay public concern. But it took a full three weeks to restock shelves, which finally calmed the hysteria.

In 2007, there's a different tack on toilet paper consumption. Rock star Sheryl Crow, fresh off a tour to promote awareness about global warming and other green issues, has recommended on her blog that a "limitation be put on how many squares of toilet paper can be used in any one sitting."

She goes on to write, "Now, I don't want to rob any law-abiding American of his or her God-given rights, but I think we are an industrious enough people that we can make it work with only one square per restroom visit, except, of course, on those pesky occasions where 2 to 3 could be required."

I've always been a big fan of Crow. Her CDs are practically a staple on family road trips. I have admired her courage in fighting breast cancer. She's one of the few women I can think of with sufficient presence not to disappear amid the aura of seven-time Tour de France champion Lance Armstrong, Crow's former fiance.

But one square? It's not enough to do the job, Sheryl. Even the plush, two-ply varieties. Two or three for "pesky occasions?" Don't just think so.

But Crow is on the right track. Americans are wasteful consumers. We rely too much on technology and government policy to save us from ourselves rather than to change our habits to consume less and conserve more. Our cars get better gas mileage than ever. Our household appliances are increasingly energy efficient, likewise for our heating-cooling systems. Our plumbing fixtures conserve water. Yet we prize trophy houses and big, gas-guzzling automobiles. We demand super-sized fast food combo meals but we tend to shun and disparage super-sized human beings. We want it all. We want it now. And we don't want the downside that accompanies it.

Will Crow's proposal get any traction? I seriously doubt it. It's a bit extreme, I think. But she raises a good point about our collective lifestyle and how we treat our Mother Earth. Seemingly insignificant "personal choices" have a multiplier effect. That can be for the good or for the bad, depending upon the action. More emphasis on recycling? A definite good. Running our central air full blast on the hottest day of the summer while also doing laundry and being glued to the Internet? Bad karma.

And increasing the use of compact florescent light bulbs? I still think it's a good idea.