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.