Cradle to Cradle

Cradle to Cradle is definitely different than all of the other pieces that we have read so far this semester. While many of the other pieces focused heavily on what was wrong and only gave a small view into what we should do about it, this book focuses more on the future and what can be done to truly create positive change in our society. The way that the authors go about explaining the different topics is also very interesting, discussing the two separate nutrient cycles and the 3 key points to master in order to understand their ideas. They make extremely valid points in an easy to understand way. As I read through the book, I kept feeling like "oh yea. Why hasn't someone thought of this before?" Their ideas seem so simple in theory, but I do worry about the implementation of these ideas any time soon.

I think that in order to actually convince any producers to start creating their products as "cradle to cradle certified" or to create buildings in the way that McDonough and Braungart suggest, we must make sure that there is something in it for them. As much as those of us in this class may hate it, our society today is built on the economy and big business is not going to be willing to simply sit back and take massive cuts for the sake of the environment. However, if there can be quantifiable measurements on items such as worker productivity that coincide with the move to a new, greener building with more fresh air and natural lighting, more businesses may be likely to move to these buildings. It will be both benefiting the environment as well as their own business. For individual products, I think that these "cradle to cradle certified" products will remain a niche market for those of us who already believe it is important to buy green. That being said, legislation needs to be passed in order to make these ideas necessary. If the government regulates the amount of waste that is allowed in a final product, the industry will have to comply, and going to the cradle to cradle method is probably the most feasible choice. Overall, I think that these ideas are great and do seem like wonderful theories. However, there still needs to be a change in the mindsets of both producers and the government in order to truly see a change to this "2nd industrial revolution."

I found McDonough and Braungart's Cradle to Cradle to be enjoyable and interesting for many reasons. Firstly, it was such a novelty that the cover was waterproof; it was nice to be able to read a book while waiting for the AU shuttle in the rain. Secondly, my interests, and hopefully my future career plans, are in green chemistry, and scientific fields. The work that the authors have done was inspiring, and their innovative ideas about how to redesign society to create a system that mimics nature got my wheels turning about sustainable design and the future of technology in the environmental solution. While most of the articles we have read for this class have condemned the use of science and technology in addressing climate change, it was refreshing to know that there is a place for human intellectual creativity in the debate that does not aim to just increase our growth and repair as we go, but completely overhauls our current paradigms of consumptions.

Cradle to Cradle was optimistic, but not overly so. It is the healthy dose of optimism that makes the solutions proposed in the book more likely to be implemented. While most of the readings in the class have identified the problem, but not the solution, or have presented a solution so impossible and futile that it depresses the readers, McDonough and Braungart lay out answers that are completely feasible and sensible. This provides an outlet for action, without having to change the environmental ethics of a considerably anthropocentric population.

Cradle to Factory

The optimism of McDonough and Braungart when it comes to improved industrial methods and materials is palpable. And some of their successes are very impressive, especially the fabric that is completely organic and can be tossed on a compost heap to decay naturally. The idea that waste equals food is a seductive one for environmentalists, and it holds a lot of promise for the world of manufacturing and industry, if not global society as a whole.

That being said, and I hate always sounding like the pessimist, its not the only solution, nor is it practical for all things. The fact is our entire consumer economy is built on consumption of hazardous chemicals and petroleum. Everything from computer chips to cosmetics requires petroleum in its production, and not just to produce energy to power the industrial process. Some of these products can be made safely, others will probably have to be eliminated altogether. Whether we can live without the more dangerous products is not clear, especially given the absolutist nature of the waste equals food paradigm.

None of this means we shouldn't adopt the whole waste equals food paradigm. In fact, I wholeheartedly endorse it. It's just that it's not so easy when it comes to the more backbone products of our industrial society, and there will be much resistance to change, not least from the industries that make these products, but also possibly from the public at large.

Cradle to Cradle

It was great to read such an optimistic book before the class comes to a close. As with everything we have read there are some pros and cons but over all. I think the way of thinking about the environment they introduced was pretty revolutionary. They argue against what they call down cycling and and call for making products for their reuse in mind. Waste equals food, respect bio diversity, and use current solar income are also great concepts they emphasize.

One idea that struck me as really simple but at the same time beautiful, was to design after the greatest architect of all time: nature. Everything in nature has a use and can be reused and have another function. He also mentioned how shelter in nature is multifunctional. Not only does a tree provide shelter but it also provides food, reproduces, and creates oxygen among other things. I loved how his buildings tried to replicate this with the incorporation of plants and producing their own energy and filtrating their own water.

Another thing I thought was great was they seem to place the responsibility on the industry, which I think is a better idea because they have the funds and can reach so many different people that they can make a difference.

One problem though is just how feasible these ideas are. I thought about why hasn't this book been replicated, then I remembered what the price was. It's almost 30 dollars. Also the buildings and other designs sound amazing but how affordable are they. I think there still needs a lot of work that has to be done to make these more available to the general public.

I obviously don't think this is the end all be all solution to the environmental problems we have been facing but I think this approach of building for reuse rather than recycle could have a significantly positive effect.

Circles of Life

I definitely appreciated the optimism and hope outlined in Cradle To Cradle. In contrast to many of our other readings, McDonough and Braungart did a good job of providing much more specific answers and solutions to our environmental problems. Rather than dwell upon the complexity and overwhelming nature of the situation, the authors provided a realistic and logical approach to moving forward. I also agreed with their emphasis on waste and nutrient flows. It really makes sense to focus on the discrepancy between the linear nature of human economy and the cylical nature of the environment. It is certainly true that humans and our economy are firmly entrenched within the environmental systems that dictate life, and trying to force a linear model upon simply will not work in the long run. Learning from nature is always a good idea, since Mother Earth usually beats human ingenuity for form and function, and coming up with truly renewable resources and solutions is a perfect example of this.
On the other hand, I think the implementation of this trend needs to lose some of its rosy idealism. Like I mentioned in class, I think the fundamental problem with this pattern is the inequal distribution of sources and sinks throughout the world. Since the international community is broken up into nations that do not cooperate at a very high level, the closing off of loops could easily end up benefitting some at the expense of others. This could be especially possible in terms of the split between developed and developing nations. In addition, I feel that there are certain global populations that, by the very nature of their surrounding geography, are incapable of truly ending the concept of waste and resource degradation. The number of people that live in island nations without any discernable natural resources can never be truly sustainable, because they require the support of other countries for their wellbeing.
However, these challenges are not enough to prevent the Cradle to Cradle economy from functioning. I think the authors have prompted an important revolution in the environmental community, with their tenets of respecting diversity and not simply doing 'less bad' things. I hope we as a global community can ultimately understand and appreciate their genius and begin adopting more and more cyclical resource flows that foment real sustainability.

The Trinity of Despair

Before having the video conference with Prof. Maniates, I admit I was a bit skeptical about his ideas and his belief that individual action really doesn't account for that much. After all, that is what the "environmental" movement is all about in our country. When I read his articles for class, I thought that it just seemed almost as though he was against any type of individual action, but during the conference, he explained that individual action should be something as commonplace as personal hygiene. I still believe that individual action should be stressed, since in the collective, the action will start to actually matter. So I guess in this way, I am still a bit skeptical of his Environmental Strategy standpoint. I think that encouraging individual action is a good place to start getting people to think about environmental issues. By giving people some examples of things that they can do in their own lives, you are getting the ball rolling for more substantial change at a higher level. If people do not believe that changes on a grand scale will actually benefit the environment or themselves, they will most likely disagree with the changes.

Overall, I really liked the "trinity of despair" diagram. I think that the most important part to take from is the Social Change aspect, saying that we don't need 100% of people to be with us. I think that a lot of the time, we get too caught up with the climate skeptics, wondering how they can still be against the idea of climate change even when all of the science points to these anthropogenic causes. But as illustrated on the hand out, the number of people who believe in it/are worried about it far outweigh those who are in complete disbelief. I think that by keeping this fact in our minds, we can start to move away from the feeling of despair that we can't get anything done and instead focus on those that are with us. We have it by the numbers, so we just need to get going with it.

I think that all major social changes have to start somewhere. They have all begun at a grassroots level, convincing people on the street of what they can do to help the cause. It is time now, however, for us to start to move from the individual to the collective. By encouraging those who are with us to come together and ask those in charge to make real change, we might actually see something important happen soon. And as we all know, it needs to happen sooner rather than later.

The Trinity of Despair

After last class, I think the thing that most resonated with me was the discussion about social movements. It really does only take a committed minority to make great change. The key word there is committed. We have to really want the change, at the expense of other causes, and we have to be willing to make sacrifices in order to bring that change about. With climate change, I believe we have an issue to galvanize public opinion to the point where changes can be railroaded through. The sticking point is always Congress, and some serious politicking has to be done in order to get the government to change, but we can always lobby state governments and follow the example of California, which is pushing ahead on limiting emissions, leaving the Federal government behind.

As far as the little things are concerned, we have to be careful about how we use them. We shouldn't totally abandon advocating them to the public, but I feel that we've gotten carried away with extolling the virtues of little solutions because they're easy and tangible. And its true, that if everyone in the world did little things, we could make great strides toward solving our environmental problems. But the fact is that you'll never get enough people on board to enable you to combat environment issues just through little solutions alone.

For the last corner of the triangle, I don't believe that people are inherently selfish, but they are lazy or too busy to care when it comes to environmental and political issues as a whole, which often has the same effect. Whether people are selfish or lazy, it doesn't matter because its still a herculean task to get them to do anything to put pressure on private business or the government. However, I do believe that there will always be enough people who care to mobilize social movements to enact change, for the environment but also for other political issues as well.

After reading Maniates' article, I wasn't convinced about the futility of individual action. True, an even greater indebtedness to consumerism isn't going to solve any of our environmental problems, but could it really hurt to ask people to take small steps to helping the environment? This was my mentality before Maniates' video conference; it seemed that by convincing enough people to make the environmentally-sound decision, there would be an eventual shift in paradigm and mindset by the general public, swinging popular opinion in favor of stricter legislation. I was of the opinion that it was actually irresponsible to eschew responsible, personal lifestyle choices in favor of government action. It seemed dangerous to leave such an important issue to bureaucratic institutions, especially if it gave people an excuse to continue wasteful practices.

Now, I am entirely convinced of Maniates' point of the need for larger actions in place of individualized environmentalism. The most powerful example was that of the compost demonstration. Sure, changing the hearts and values of people is ideal and would definitely lead to change, but that's impossible, thanks to the "knuckleheads" Maniates so affectionately described. It would be simpler, and more effective, to completely overhaul the rules and force the system (or, The System, to extrapolate) to be more environmentally friendly. Intentions are great, but not necessary. I posted the Billion Trees Campaign to the blog earlier this week without realizing how perfectly it related to Maniates' presentation, but the ridiculousness of "encouraging" everyone to plant a tree as a solution for climate change is well, silly. It's not related to environmentalism, but I can see the future of environmental action to be a lot like taxes. You might not like paying taxes (I don't mind them, but that's for another post), but you don't have much of a choice. Taxes are not only necessary to a functioning society, but they're legally required as well. Today's environmental movement appears similar to the "optional taxes" option on IRS forms, which I'm sure do not garner much revenue. I am now completely with Maniates' in his opinion that we need to make change happen first, and then worry about shifting society's environmental values.

Video Conference

I was not able to make it to class on Monday but I did my best to read the discussion answers my fellow bloggers wrote so I think I have a grasp on his triangle theory. I think Professor Maniates' "trinity of despair" is a great model but not absolute. I can even say I've felt the despair triangle freshmen year when I was involved with trying to green up my own life. Having to micromanage every meal I ate, every pruchase, and every car ride was really starting to get to me. I was convinced that nothing I did was enough because so many people around me did not do anything. That only a disaster would get people to change their minds about the environment maybe not even that. I eventually gave up for a year until I took this class. I think his triangle theory is correct. It can be very useful in analyzing the current movement and how move pass the trinity of despair. I read Collin's post and I would have to agree also with paragraph on social chagne. I had never thought about it this way but Professor Maniates is right about the fact that we don't need a majority of environmentalists to change policies. Small interests group lobby congress all the time and are able to accomplish what they want because they are small and concise about what they want. An example of this would be American farmers.

Of course his theory is not absolute but it is definately a good analysis tool to see what we can do better and to motivate activists.

I think the aspect of Professor Maniates' approach to the environmental movement that gave me the most insight was his perspective on social change. I confess that until his videoconference, I had a preconceived notion that social change did require at least a large majority, if not the whole population, in order to be truly effective. I think his analysis showed that real change can be brought about by a motivated minority, and that so many people in the world are passive or ambivalent enough to go along with it. This perspective has given me a new sense of optimism and positivity about the environmental movement. If we can continue working through governmental and local initiatives to essentially force people into making the right choices, there might be a way out of this mess.

However, I find myself remaining skeptical about the idea as well. I think that the graph that Professor Maniates used to emphasize his point about who is with us and who is against us was not fully indicative of social trends. Although a large majority of Americans may either believe or not have an opinion on global warming, a great deal of those people are also firmly entrenched in the economic system that they are accustomed to. When it comes to creating a wide-reaching compost system that essentially changes nothing about people's behavior, Maniates' idea of social change is very accurate. However, if we try to make systematic changes to the economy in order to slow down global warming emissions, or reduce our practices of deforestation and biodiversity loss, these changes will come with economic costs to the greater population. A certain percentage of Americans may be ambivalent enough to go along with a general trend towards sustainable practices, but when we start making their energy bills higher, I worry that we will lose their support rather quickly.

That being said, I think the 'trinity of despair' concept is extremely useful. The problem mentioned above is no doubt an important one, but it is something that we can perhaps overcome with proper education and policy implementation. If we get stuck in the current trend of environmental change, we wont even approach the solutions we are looking for.

Plant A Tree

This isn't for an official post, but just thought it was relevant to our past few classes, and funny in a sort of sad way. With impeccable timing, GOOD had an article today about UNEP's Billion Tree Campaign:

"Billion Tree Campaign
Posted by: francesco.franchi on November 10, 2009 at 12:27 pm

The United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) has launched a major worldwide tree planting campaign. Under the Plant for the Planet: Billion Tree Campaign, people, communities, business and industry, civil society organizations and governments are encouraged to enter tree planting pledges online with the objective of planting at least one billion trees worldwide each year. In a call to further individual and collective action, UNEP has set a new goal of planting 7 billion trees by the end of 2009. The campaign strongly encourages the planting of indigenous trees and trees that are appropriate to the local environment."

The best part of this is that they "encourage" tree planting. That sounds effective.

People soon started gathering 'round

and the message of the Lorax began to resound.

The more that they heard, the more they were moved

by the fate of the Truffulas and how they were removed.

A general consensus rose up from the crowd,

"This destruction of Earth- it should never be allowed!

We've had it up to here with this market-based liberalism,

what we need in this world is a dash of biocentrism."

Individually, they would have just gone on their way,

But together, the people decided to stay.

They made plans to talk, and plans to petition,

Changing social constructs became their sole mission.

The Lorax stood proudly and looked at the boy

Saying, "The voices of these people brings me such joy.

I'm so glad you looked past the power of the dollar

And saw that what people need to do is stand up and holler."

Continuing the story...

"You have finally come" he expressed with such glee
"Someone has cared enough to come and find me!
But just you alone cannot tackle this issue,"
the Lorax expressed, wiping his tear with a tissue
"We'll have to start now, we must go right away,
And tell all in the world what the Tuffulas would say."
They walked down the road, creating their plan
Deciding what they would say to "The Man."
They held a big rally in town as a call for attention
About the Tuffulas and the issue of environmental protection.
"If we do not act, the Tuffulas will be gone forever!
Please don't turn back now, we must all act together!"

I'm not good with this rhyming thing but here's my attempt.

The boy left the Onceler alone in his sad lonely shack
He decided he needed a plane of attack
So he went and looked around for a long while
But when he found the Lorax he couldn't help but smile
The Lorax looked sad and quite grim
But then he learned why the boy had come so far to find him
He hugged the boy and let out a big sigh.
He was so happy he had a tear in his eye

"Good luck," said the Once-ler, as he sat alone in his chair.
"Good luck getting so many people to care.
People like to buy things, and make their bank accounts grow.
Making changes like yours would deal them a huge blow.
You should relax, just be patient and wait,
Until the newest technology can determine our fate.
The systems not broken, its working just fine.
All our problems can be fixed with just a little more time."

Best Dr. Seus Appendix Ever

You think you can solve this with one little seed
But we must show everyone that they don’t need their thneeds.
One person alone can not make this happen
We need a world full of people, a big call to action
It won’t be easy with the systems we face
So brand new ideas must become common place
A tree would be nice but its not the solution
The problem arises from our warped institutions
I won’t take the seed but I will take a stand
Against the capitalist forces destroying our land
Grassroots campaigning, we’ll take to the streets.
And share the tale of the Lorax with all that we meet
Using truffula trees to make ourselves happy
Has turned our whole world into something quite crappy