The theme of Cradle to Cradle is the rethinking of the way our entire industrial economy functions. The authors imagine a future in which every product, from packaging to cities full of buildings, operate in a way that is in harmony with natural processes and significantly reduces degrading anthropogenic effects on the environment. While this revolution would require many changes in the way our economy is organized, they authors do present a world that allows for sustainable industrialization and overall maintenance of modern living standards. Along these lines, the authors take great care to highlight the side effects of every step in an industrial product's lifespan, from manufacturing to use and eventually waste. These are consequences that engineers rarely consider though they are imperative when considering human and ecological health.
I greatly respect the authors' point of view laid out in Cradle to Cradle. I feel that critiques of the contemporary state of human civilization with respect to the economy and the environment are excessively antagonistic and fail to advance realistic alternatives. Instead, the authors carefully criticize the modern economy and proceed to show how the system could be reformed to adequately provide for humans while simultaneously protecting and even enhancing natural environments. While drastic action is certainly needed, the new modes of design put forth in the book are viable suggestions that could have a positive impact on the human condition.
The manner in which the authors propose their changes is also admirable. Instead of seeking to shutout entrenched corporations and go about wrecking the industrialized economy we all have come to know, the authors propose working with a diversity of actors. Such an inclusive approach is more likely to succeed and though it may not stir the passion of activists, it is the only way anything actually gets accomplished. The experiences detailed in the book offer ample support for this assertion.
On a more personal level, I feel the authors provided a very rational point of view based on sound research and thought. Too often, I have heard critiques of modern society and its environmental degradation by people who need to have the latest Apple product or other industrial product. The authors avoid this hypocrisy successfully. Finally,their approach is based on robust scientific inquiry and expertise, something I feel is often missing on both sides in political and environmental debates.
Sunday, November 21, 2010
Once Upon a Time...
McDonough focuses on changing the way we live. While it is no surprise that we have been living cradle to grave for so long that change needs to occur. It is difficult to have hope that it will. McDonough makes claims and proposes ways to change, but I cannot help but think that it is to idealistic. I want to believe that people, companies, governments all want to change, and protect the future of the planet, but it seems a little too far-fetched.
McDonough's ideas are on the right track, I just do not believe they are on the realistic track. Asking people to change their consumer preferences is a feasible goal if you have years to wait. Introducing a new Industrial Revolution makes sense if you are a developed country and have the resources to implement a change. But even then, getting already successful companies to change their business model to be more planet friendly may be asking too much. I want to believe that people will read Cradle to Cradle and take the appropriate steps to begin living differently, but there is a big sliver of skepticism.
The five steps McDonough offers to put eco-effectiveness into action provide a plan, but no realistic way to it implemented by everyone. Step 2 which focuses on following informed personal preferences is a good stepping stone, but assumes everyone will have the same smart personal preferences. You can't forget the fact that some people just won't care. Some people will not think twice about informed personal preferences and will not change their ways. According to some, their personal preferences are doing no harm and they will continue to make the same choices. While I understand the importance of individual choice, some individual's can't be given that choice.
Moreover, McDonough's step of reinventing works on paper. Time has been wasted for so long, that there is not much left to reinvent. While reinventing the system would be the best solution, alternates must be established to slowly curb the effect until a full reinvention is possible. McDonough constantly references that "less bad is no good" but maybe for now its good enough. It is not the best case, but being over idealistic maybe worse. It is a false hope that everyone will change. Being less bad is not perfect but neither is being idealistic. Being 100% perfect is the dream, but reality is "less bad" is better than really bad.
McDonough's ideas are on the right track, I just do not believe they are on the realistic track. Asking people to change their consumer preferences is a feasible goal if you have years to wait. Introducing a new Industrial Revolution makes sense if you are a developed country and have the resources to implement a change. But even then, getting already successful companies to change their business model to be more planet friendly may be asking too much. I want to believe that people will read Cradle to Cradle and take the appropriate steps to begin living differently, but there is a big sliver of skepticism.
The five steps McDonough offers to put eco-effectiveness into action provide a plan, but no realistic way to it implemented by everyone. Step 2 which focuses on following informed personal preferences is a good stepping stone, but assumes everyone will have the same smart personal preferences. You can't forget the fact that some people just won't care. Some people will not think twice about informed personal preferences and will not change their ways. According to some, their personal preferences are doing no harm and they will continue to make the same choices. While I understand the importance of individual choice, some individual's can't be given that choice.
Moreover, McDonough's step of reinventing works on paper. Time has been wasted for so long, that there is not much left to reinvent. While reinventing the system would be the best solution, alternates must be established to slowly curb the effect until a full reinvention is possible. McDonough constantly references that "less bad is no good" but maybe for now its good enough. It is not the best case, but being over idealistic maybe worse. It is a false hope that everyone will change. Being less bad is not perfect but neither is being idealistic. Being 100% perfect is the dream, but reality is "less bad" is better than really bad.
The Cradle to Cradle Challenge
The main premises of the book, Cradle to Cradle are similar to the themes in the video "The Story of Stuff" that we watched in class. The authors argue that the current system of production is inefficient, unsustainable, altogether unhealthy for humans and the environment. They make the point that it does not make sense to have products complete the production cycle, from resource extraction to a landfill, in less than 6 months for most products. Their "lifespan" then is only a few months long because the products go from "cradle to grave" so quickly. Therefore, the authors suggest that the production system needs to be completely overhauled. In order to make the system efficient and sustainable, they offer the idea that products should be 100% reusable hence going from "cradle to cradle." This idea expands on the current recycling system. The authors say that while recycling is a worthy cause, it will not help prevent resource depletion in the long run. It will only delay the inevitable. This is because products are usually only made from a small percentage of recycled material while most of the product is new and straight from the resource extraction step. Therefore, while recycling slows down the depletion of resources, it does not prevent it.
Personally, I agree wholeheartedly with the message of the book. I do try to recycle everything that DC allows people to recycle but the fact that not everything is reusable makes me understand that new resources are always being used. For example, at the Davenport in SIS, the options for cups are either the "eco-friendly" paper cups, or one of the mugs that are there to use and be returned and washed for reuse. The eco-friendly cups are made from something like 21 percent post consumer waste and they proudly advertise this on the outside paper of the cups. Everytime I get one of them I read the cup and my first thought is to be happy that 21 percent of the cup used to be something else. But then I always come back to the thought that the other 79 percent of the cup came from a freshly cut tree. So while the cups are helping a little bit, they are still causing resource depletion. Since hundreds of those cups are used by students and faculty each day, and each cup is likely in a trash can less than an hour after it was taken out of the packaging, it is clear that something needs to change in the system. The option of using the mugs available is the only 100 percent reusable option that the Dav offers. However, oftentimes there aren't any mugs left. Additionally, I regularly hear people saying they would use the mugs if they could trust that they were washed properly because they don't want to get sick from drinking out of a cup that was used and not washed. This is understandable during the winter months I suppose but it still seems a bit odd as you can clearly see that the mugs are clean. Ideally, the Dav should allow, and actually require, that people bring their own reusable mugs if they want their morning coffee. I've heard that this option is currently being debated so hopefully in the future, it can be implemented.
One other example of an item actually going from cradle to cradle is the reusable grocery bags sold at most stores. I recently bought another bag from Super Fresh that claims (and I do hope it's true) to be made from 100% post consumer waste. While grocery bags won't solve the environmental problem altogether, they are a good example of how things can be completely reusable. I have no idea what kind of post consumer waste the bad used to be but at least it shows that it is possible to make something that came entirely from another product without any new resources being used. If that same concept could be applied to more products, and eventually all products, we may be able to prevent total resource depletetion and provide a sustainable world for future generations.
Personally, I agree wholeheartedly with the message of the book. I do try to recycle everything that DC allows people to recycle but the fact that not everything is reusable makes me understand that new resources are always being used. For example, at the Davenport in SIS, the options for cups are either the "eco-friendly" paper cups, or one of the mugs that are there to use and be returned and washed for reuse. The eco-friendly cups are made from something like 21 percent post consumer waste and they proudly advertise this on the outside paper of the cups. Everytime I get one of them I read the cup and my first thought is to be happy that 21 percent of the cup used to be something else. But then I always come back to the thought that the other 79 percent of the cup came from a freshly cut tree. So while the cups are helping a little bit, they are still causing resource depletion. Since hundreds of those cups are used by students and faculty each day, and each cup is likely in a trash can less than an hour after it was taken out of the packaging, it is clear that something needs to change in the system. The option of using the mugs available is the only 100 percent reusable option that the Dav offers. However, oftentimes there aren't any mugs left. Additionally, I regularly hear people saying they would use the mugs if they could trust that they were washed properly because they don't want to get sick from drinking out of a cup that was used and not washed. This is understandable during the winter months I suppose but it still seems a bit odd as you can clearly see that the mugs are clean. Ideally, the Dav should allow, and actually require, that people bring their own reusable mugs if they want their morning coffee. I've heard that this option is currently being debated so hopefully in the future, it can be implemented.
One other example of an item actually going from cradle to cradle is the reusable grocery bags sold at most stores. I recently bought another bag from Super Fresh that claims (and I do hope it's true) to be made from 100% post consumer waste. While grocery bags won't solve the environmental problem altogether, they are a good example of how things can be completely reusable. I have no idea what kind of post consumer waste the bad used to be but at least it shows that it is possible to make something that came entirely from another product without any new resources being used. If that same concept could be applied to more products, and eventually all products, we may be able to prevent total resource depletetion and provide a sustainable world for future generations.
Saturday, November 20, 2010
Living Cradle to Cradle
The basic premise of the book Cradle to Cradle is that the modern production system is poorly designed. Industrial production is environmentally damaging, planned out of sync with the landscape around it, and extraordinarily expensive and resource intensive. The products that we create are made to be used up and discarded, leaving their value in a landfill rather than passing it on. While attempts to make the system less harmful (such as recycling) are admirable, McDonough claims that they will never be effective in the long term, because the system will still be driven towards the Earth’s limits, albeit more slowly. Instead, he calls for a system that uses all resources and creates things that can be reused infinitely. According to McDonough, the extra effort is the only way to create a system that is “100% good.”
I agree with McDonough completely. His claim that “less bad is not the same as good” struck me particularly. One of my biggest complaints is products that claim to be environmentally friendly because they use less resources, such as the 15% recycled paper coffee cup that celebrates its ecological benefits, or the water bottle with a smaller cap to “save plastic.” Such claims are absolutely ridiculous. While it is better to recycle what we can, we should not be producing things like plastic water bottles in the first place, and should be looking for products that will last and be re-used rather than melted down into a self-righteous grocery bag from Whole Foods. I know I’m not perfect, either, though; my metal water bottle will probably wear out one day, as well, and I will get rid of it and be required to buy a new one.
I also love his comments about production spreading unnaturally across the planet. When I consider civilization as a whole, I cannot help but think of us as a cancer, spreading our asphalt and pipes under and above natural processes. The idea of a society that works within natural processes and even tries to model itself after them is one of my personal fantasies, and seeing it articulated in a popular book is incredibly encouraging. His thoughts about the potential of waste are particularly beautiful, because he sees value in even things that most people consider to be valueless. My family composts, and I have a newfound appreciation for fruit peels, rotten vegetables, and earth worms. Using things we no longer need to create things we do need is not only natural, it’s also beautiful.
I agree with McDonough completely. His claim that “less bad is not the same as good” struck me particularly. One of my biggest complaints is products that claim to be environmentally friendly because they use less resources, such as the 15% recycled paper coffee cup that celebrates its ecological benefits, or the water bottle with a smaller cap to “save plastic.” Such claims are absolutely ridiculous. While it is better to recycle what we can, we should not be producing things like plastic water bottles in the first place, and should be looking for products that will last and be re-used rather than melted down into a self-righteous grocery bag from Whole Foods. I know I’m not perfect, either, though; my metal water bottle will probably wear out one day, as well, and I will get rid of it and be required to buy a new one.
I also love his comments about production spreading unnaturally across the planet. When I consider civilization as a whole, I cannot help but think of us as a cancer, spreading our asphalt and pipes under and above natural processes. The idea of a society that works within natural processes and even tries to model itself after them is one of my personal fantasies, and seeing it articulated in a popular book is incredibly encouraging. His thoughts about the potential of waste are particularly beautiful, because he sees value in even things that most people consider to be valueless. My family composts, and I have a newfound appreciation for fruit peels, rotten vegetables, and earth worms. Using things we no longer need to create things we do need is not only natural, it’s also beautiful.
Sunday, November 7, 2010
The Climate Debate
Firstly, it is clear that this debate is so fraught with tension in this country because anthropogenic climate change is a serious condemnation of the American way of life. Our suburbs, SUVs, processed foods, cheap oil, et cetera are the reason that the United States is such a huge emitter of greenhouse gases. Accordingly, many individuals and corporations have a vested interest in maintaining the system as much as they possibly can. Artfully, these opponents of efforts to mitigate climate change have preyed on American sensitivity to criticism from abroad and on the anti-elitism and anti-intellectualism that have always had strong presences in our politics. In addition, the myopia that has continually marked American politics again makes it easy for climate skeptics to exploit the short-term costs that mitigation efforts would likely entail to garner opposition to climate change.
As an aside, I think not enough attention has been given to the idea that efforts to "green" the American economy should be undertaken regardless of whether carbon dioxide emissions are driving climate change. In the end, the United States is going to have to move away from fossil fuels and towards renewable, domestic sources of energy. Green technology represents a way for the United States to revitalize its long-suffering manufacturing industries. And cutting consumption, in a country with millions living beyond their means through credit cards, is not really such a bad move for the economy overall.
Coming with a science background that is only tangentially related to the debate these two websites take part in, I tried to evaluate these sites by taking a look at the sources cited. While these articles often soon exceeded my understanding of climatology, in general the Grist site seemed to present a greater range of scientific evidence, from peer-reviewed articles, to support its claims about climate change. Through Friends of Science, the sites I reached generally did not provide further citations to support their criticisms of "mainstream" climate science. Additionally, Grist actually discussed competing claims about climate change and even went so far to concede that in earlier periods of warming, carbon dioxide was not the initial cause but instead an amplifying feedback mechanism. Such a treatment of the science was not demonstrated by Friends of Science. I must admit that I am likely biased towards the Grist message, but overall I do believe it was the more robust source for climate change science.
As an aside, I think not enough attention has been given to the idea that efforts to "green" the American economy should be undertaken regardless of whether carbon dioxide emissions are driving climate change. In the end, the United States is going to have to move away from fossil fuels and towards renewable, domestic sources of energy. Green technology represents a way for the United States to revitalize its long-suffering manufacturing industries. And cutting consumption, in a country with millions living beyond their means through credit cards, is not really such a bad move for the economy overall.
Coming with a science background that is only tangentially related to the debate these two websites take part in, I tried to evaluate these sites by taking a look at the sources cited. While these articles often soon exceeded my understanding of climatology, in general the Grist site seemed to present a greater range of scientific evidence, from peer-reviewed articles, to support its claims about climate change. Through Friends of Science, the sites I reached generally did not provide further citations to support their criticisms of "mainstream" climate science. Additionally, Grist actually discussed competing claims about climate change and even went so far to concede that in earlier periods of warming, carbon dioxide was not the initial cause but instead an amplifying feedback mechanism. Such a treatment of the science was not demonstrated by Friends of Science. I must admit that I am likely biased towards the Grist message, but overall I do believe it was the more robust source for climate change science.
Grasping at Straws
The competition is so fierce around climate change science because of the massive sacrifices that will be necessary if the science is true, and also because the thought of what is at stake. I really believe that many people would rather live in denial of what will happen than accept that the Earth is changing. Although I do not necessarily agree with this, many people fear the economic losses we will experience if we lower our carbon emissions. While I do not know the origins of the Friends of Science website, I know that many arguments that are skeptical of climate change have been developed by fossil fuel interests, who also work with the media to twist evidence and make the scientific community appear less certain than it actually is. The combination of social and economic factors with the simple fear of the truth is my explanation for the “scientific” competition surrounding climate change.
To really evaluate these two websites, I would have to read each article on the site, analyze who wrote it, and why they did so. On the “Friends of Science” website, many of the papers seem to come from the same source, the “Science and Public Policy Institute,” which is biased towards finding arguments against climate change. To me, even the arguments the Friends of Science present do not answer all the questions I have. I do not come from a scientific background, but climate skeptic arguments have always seemed like they were grasping at straws to explain away a phenomenon, rather than a comprehensive explanation.
The Grist website does not give clear evidence of its sources, either, but it does have a more comprehensive approach. From what I remember of the Scientific Method, we are told to look for theories that are elegant and beautiful, meaning that they offer a simple explanation for the phenomenon. Applying this standard to the two websites, arguments in support of climate change science are much more straightforward than arguments against, which tend to piece together many smaller theories which often seem unrelated or are based on unclear evidence.
Obviously my reading of the science is biased, since I am already pretty invested in fighting climate change. However, given the sacrifices that are associated with accepting climate change science, I feel that the response of the international community, as well as a growing voice of individuals, is evidence enough of which scientific data is the most convincing. Even though UN climate negotiations inevitably result in conflict, every country that attends is there because they believe that climate change is a serious problem. I do not think that countries would be so willing to engage in negotiation or reductions if they felt there was any significant doubts that the problem was real. The same can be said for grassroots level climate activists, U.S. domestic climate policy at the state level, and similar domestic policies around the world. To me, climate change skeptics seem to be trying to push against an overwhelming tide of opinion.
To really evaluate these two websites, I would have to read each article on the site, analyze who wrote it, and why they did so. On the “Friends of Science” website, many of the papers seem to come from the same source, the “Science and Public Policy Institute,” which is biased towards finding arguments against climate change. To me, even the arguments the Friends of Science present do not answer all the questions I have. I do not come from a scientific background, but climate skeptic arguments have always seemed like they were grasping at straws to explain away a phenomenon, rather than a comprehensive explanation.
The Grist website does not give clear evidence of its sources, either, but it does have a more comprehensive approach. From what I remember of the Scientific Method, we are told to look for theories that are elegant and beautiful, meaning that they offer a simple explanation for the phenomenon. Applying this standard to the two websites, arguments in support of climate change science are much more straightforward than arguments against, which tend to piece together many smaller theories which often seem unrelated or are based on unclear evidence.
Obviously my reading of the science is biased, since I am already pretty invested in fighting climate change. However, given the sacrifices that are associated with accepting climate change science, I feel that the response of the international community, as well as a growing voice of individuals, is evidence enough of which scientific data is the most convincing. Even though UN climate negotiations inevitably result in conflict, every country that attends is there because they believe that climate change is a serious problem. I do not think that countries would be so willing to engage in negotiation or reductions if they felt there was any significant doubts that the problem was real. The same can be said for grassroots level climate activists, U.S. domestic climate policy at the state level, and similar domestic policies around the world. To me, climate change skeptics seem to be trying to push against an overwhelming tide of opinion.
Saturday, November 6, 2010
Who's Biased?
First of all, I'd like to make a disclaimer that I was definitely biased when exploring the websites. Since I have always thought it's foolish to discount the claims of human impact on climate change, I went into the Friends of Science website with a somewhat closed mind and a predisposition to roll my eyes at everything it said. Then again, the organizations behind both websites are just as, if not more biased than me. Even still, despite my irritation at the arguments made in the Friends of Science website, I had to admit that they did make a few good points. For example, by showing several charts and graphs about the cyclical nature of the climate over time, they prove that the current global warming is not completely unknown territory for the planet. However, I felt that their claims that it's not caused by human activity whatsoever were pretty ridiculous. I was even more disgusted at the section that said "The Earth is Cooling." I didn't think the graph it showed even remotely proved that the Earth is cooling and I was under the impression that most people now agree that the climate is warming, they just dispute the causes. So the website had a few halfway decent arguments but for the most part, I thought it was just an excuse to blame climate change on something else so that we don't have to change our lifestyles.
As for the "How to Talk to a Climate Skeptic" site, I thought it was far more convincing but not very user friendly. It was more convincing in that, if you took the time to go through all the links, it had much more hard evidence and unrefutable fact. It also provided adequate responses for many of the claims made by the Friends of Science site. However, it was tedious to look through all the articles and the layout of the site wasn't pleasing to the eye and didn't make me want to read more. That's more of a design flaw than anything else, but even still, design can make a difference in a technology communication world. I think I was also more biased towards that site because since I agreed with everything that was said, it wa sless interesting to read so I didn't feel like continuing. It's much easier to read things I disagree with because there is something to keep me interested. Overall, both sites made good points but I naturally felt that the latter was more convincing. Whether this is because of my own bias or because it is actually more truthful is disputable.
In general, I think a lot of the debate over the causes of climate change exists because the information we have is fairly new. The study of environmental science is recent and the focus on global climate change has only gained significant international salience in the last 10-15 years. In addition, differing political and economic motivations have caused corporations and governments to look for evidence that supports the claims that fit their interests. Since the science behind climate change is so ambiguous at this point anyway, it is not difficult to find evidence that supports opposing claims. Furthermore, some of the claims are not even opposing. The sun may be a cause of climate change and human activity may be as well. These causes are not mutually exclusive. The fact is, the climate is changing, so does it really matter what is changing it if the effects will be negative?
Lastly, I thought it was kind of a cop out that the Friends of Science site kept claiming that, since CO2 may not be a main source of climate change, we should continue polluting the atmosphere and destroying natural sinks. Even if human activity has nothing to do with climate change, we are still pouring pollutants into the air every minute of every day and we are still using up non-renewable resources. Whether or not human activity is the cause of climate change, it is definitely a cause of resource depletion. Therefore, shouldn't we change our energy source just so that we can provide energy for future generations? It seems ridiculous to say that we can continue on our path to destruction just because the sun may be affecting the climate patterns. As an innovative species, shouldn't we want to be more efficient and clean just because we can?
As for the "How to Talk to a Climate Skeptic" site, I thought it was far more convincing but not very user friendly. It was more convincing in that, if you took the time to go through all the links, it had much more hard evidence and unrefutable fact. It also provided adequate responses for many of the claims made by the Friends of Science site. However, it was tedious to look through all the articles and the layout of the site wasn't pleasing to the eye and didn't make me want to read more. That's more of a design flaw than anything else, but even still, design can make a difference in a technology communication world. I think I was also more biased towards that site because since I agreed with everything that was said, it wa sless interesting to read so I didn't feel like continuing. It's much easier to read things I disagree with because there is something to keep me interested. Overall, both sites made good points but I naturally felt that the latter was more convincing. Whether this is because of my own bias or because it is actually more truthful is disputable.
In general, I think a lot of the debate over the causes of climate change exists because the information we have is fairly new. The study of environmental science is recent and the focus on global climate change has only gained significant international salience in the last 10-15 years. In addition, differing political and economic motivations have caused corporations and governments to look for evidence that supports the claims that fit their interests. Since the science behind climate change is so ambiguous at this point anyway, it is not difficult to find evidence that supports opposing claims. Furthermore, some of the claims are not even opposing. The sun may be a cause of climate change and human activity may be as well. These causes are not mutually exclusive. The fact is, the climate is changing, so does it really matter what is changing it if the effects will be negative?
Lastly, I thought it was kind of a cop out that the Friends of Science site kept claiming that, since CO2 may not be a main source of climate change, we should continue polluting the atmosphere and destroying natural sinks. Even if human activity has nothing to do with climate change, we are still pouring pollutants into the air every minute of every day and we are still using up non-renewable resources. Whether or not human activity is the cause of climate change, it is definitely a cause of resource depletion. Therefore, shouldn't we change our energy source just so that we can provide energy for future generations? It seems ridiculous to say that we can continue on our path to destruction just because the sun may be affecting the climate patterns. As an innovative species, shouldn't we want to be more efficient and clean just because we can?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)