Cradle to Cradle 406
| Cradle to Crade: Remaking the Way We Make Things | |
| author | William McDonough & Michael Braungart |
| pages | 186 plus notes |
| publisher | North Point Press |
| rating | 10/10 |
| reviewer | Matt Rosenberg |
| ISBN | 0-86547-587-3 |
| summary | Changing how humans relate to our environment |
According to the authors, current human technology is a product of "cradle to grave" design. We pull resources from the Earth, shape them into a product, use it, and throw it away. The problem, we've noticed as we've spread all over the planet, is that there really isn't any "away." This is certainly not the first time our endless cycle of resource destruction and waste creation has been brought to light. But the whole point of this book is to show why the usual responses we've developed are useless, and what to do instead.
Consider the typical "recycling" program. What is presented to the public as a way to endlessly reuse raw materials is in fact a downward spiral of degradation in material quality until, just as before, it becomes unusable. Sometimes the recycling process itself produces additional toxic waste. Most Americans have probably heard of "the 3 Rs": Reuse, Reduce, and Recycle (to which the authors add a fourth, Regulate). These are measures that only aim to slow the destructive cycle. In the end, the result is the same. As the authors put it, Less Bad is No Good.
McDonough and Braungart's proposed strategy is called "eco-effectiveness". It revolves around the idea that in nature, waste equals food. Other than incoming energy from the sun, our environment is basically a closed system. Whenever (non-human) life on our planet uses a resource, it is left in a form readily useable to other life. Humans must do the same. The authors envision a world where, when a material item gets worn out, you simply throw it on the ground to decompose. Buildings should produce more energy than they use. Eliminate the concept of "waste" entirely.
The authors put their money where their mouths are. In 1994 they started a design firm that puts these principles into practice. Examples of their work are downright astonishing. The firm was once hired to design a compostable upholstery fabric. According to their principles, not only did the finished product have to be environmentally neutral, so did the production process. In the end, an entire line of fabrics was put into production using a total of 38 chemicals (selected from a list of almost 8,000 commonly used in the industry). Water leaving the factory, originally drawn from the local water supply, tested cleaner than when it went in. And the fabric, of course, could be readily disposed of by tossing it onto the ground where it would decompose back into the soil without leaving toxic chemicals behind. They include plenty of other cases that illustrate how eco-effectiveness can both improve the quality of life and make for a more profitable business.
We live in a complex world, and it is absurd to think that every product and production process could be converted to produce similar results overnight. What about items that consist of metals and other elements that organic life doesn't usually process? There is a whole section of the book to address such issues. The authors also go beyond pure chemistry and physical health to discuss how environment affects the intangible quality of human life, and how applying these same philosophies to architecture and urban planning can produce amazing results. Unlike many environmental advocates, McDonough and Braungart both acknowledge the difficulties and provide a clear path for reform. They include a framework for eco-effective planning and decision-making so their ideas can be implemented as much as is practically possible at any given time, always with an eye for continued improvement down the road.
The writing in this book is extremely clear and articulate. The authors provide explanations of their ideas from historical, scientific, and business perspectives. They even manage to rip apart typical corporate and environmentalist thinking without pushing blame on anyone. And of course, the book is far more detailed and comprehensive than I could cover in a short review. It's hard to read it and not come away convinced, and I think that's a good thing.
One final note for anyone thinking it hypocritical to waste trees so these ideas could be distributed: the book is not made out of paper or printed using a conventional process. It's plastic -- waterproof, resilient, eligible for recycling in most locales, and an early step towards what the authors hope will be infinitely recyclable synthetic book-making materials.
Links: McDonough's architectural firm; the design firm mentioned in the review; a webcast of NPR's National Press Club at which McDonough talked about their ideas far more eloquently than I have."
To go through your own hard times, you can from Crade to Cradle from bn.com Slashdot welcomes readers' book reviews -- to submit yours, read the book review guidelines, then hit the submission page.
Yes, but... (Score:3, Interesting)
Wonderful... but people aren't going to jump for it unless it costs the same or less. Look at how hard factories fight things like filters on smokestacks, because it'll raise prices a few cents per item.
Didn't here the E or T words.. (Score:2)
I'd like to see an energy comparison on which process is more efficient and what the total energy consumption from each was - including, for example, all the energy used to make those chemicals in use.
The point these people miss is that it isn't raw materials and gargage that does us in. It's going to be the supply of energy.
Re:Didn't here the E or T words.. (Score:4, Insightful)
It's the chemistry that's important; the material cycle must be closed.
I quibble with a couple of the reviewer's (or maybe the author's) points: life has not evolved so that waste products are inputs to other reactions; it's the other way around. Life has evolved to make use of whatever resources are available; frequently, another creature's waste is exploitable somehow. And recycled paper, even if it degrades, is still part of a closed cycle: eventually, someone or something burns (or metabolizes) the cellulose back to CO2 + H2O, and trees photosynthesize that back into "high grade" cellulose.
replenishable energy (Score:3, Interesting)
actually, there is some evidence that oil reserves may be self replenishing [radiofreenation.net] if you wait a reasonable period of time.
The source would be microbes buried deep in the hot rocks of the earth.
Re:Didn't here the E or T words.. (Score:2, Insightful)
Solar energy in it's current form is not concentrated enough. Nobody has proposed a solution that can change that, and ALL environmentalist solutions don't discuss potenital yields vs. current consumption.
The planet is BIG. There is near infinite room to put garbage and waste, and there's so much aluminum and silica on this planet it will never come close to being all used. What will run out is the energy to process that material. Of course, it's easier to toss that can in a bin than it is to give up a car, now, isn't it.
Everything! is about energy. How much energy does X consume. If it takes less energy to throw something away, we should do that instead - because it's the energy consumption (oil, coal) that's ruining the environment.
The real environmental saviour is safe nuclear (fission and fusion) power. The lobby did a good job on that on in the 70's, though.
Re:Didn't here the E or T words.. (Score:2)
These points need repeating because most people just don't know this. Most people have the few that resources are scarce and getting scarcer. In fact, resources have become more plentiful and cheaper throughout recorded history and there's no end in sight to this, as long as we have cheap enough energy to process them.
Garbage is, for the most part, an economic problem, not an ecological problem. The only pollution problem that's both ecologically significant and hard to solve (carbon dioxide) again involves energy.
BIG != infinite (Score:2)
Dude, our planet is not "near infinite", and spelling "big" in all caps does not make it any more so.
Re:Didn't here the E or T words.. (Score:2)
Sure it can. Solar energy flux (at peak generation) is 1 kW/m2. You get a gigawatt per square kilometre. Even with a 10% duty cycle, the area of (ideal, perfect) solar arrays needed to power a city is much less than, say, the farmland required to feed that city.
The best photovoltaic panels currently in the laboratory are about 15% efficient. Commercial panels are 5%. Photovoltaics will be a lot more practical in the next 20 years or so, when thin-film photovoltaics reach high enough efficiency (thin film cells also require far less energy/materials to produce, before you bring up those arguments).
For a more practical solution, you can build arrays of aluminum or steel mirror-troughs to focus light on pipes and use a conventional heat engine to extract energy.
This isn't even touching space-based solar power generation, which has the potential to be a lot cheaper (you can make big concentrators very thin and light, as structural stresses are far less).
IMO, we're likely to go with fusion instead of solar, but solar is still capable of running the world (it's just cheaper for the time being to use fossil fuels).
More ways of harnessing solar energy. (Score:2)
Both are manifestations of the weather system, which is a giant solar-driven heat engine. While it's doubtful that wind power could provide a reasonable amount of energy on a continental scale, hydroelectric power certainly can. Both of these forms of solar energy harvesting are quite efficient, because you get a lot of the energy concentration for free.
Re:Yes, but... (Score:2)
The ethical part of the argument needs to be heard, of course; but pragmatically and immediately, this plan makes sense.
-Billy
Re:Yes, but... (Score:5, Insightful)
People must understand the complete cost of their actions, as this book tries to point out. If you harvest a tree, you have gained some wood and removed from the world some habitat and a carbon sink. You should have to pay to harvest that tree, because a cost is incurred by society. The same principle applies to clearcutting 100 acres, except the cost is much greater. The same principle applies to polluting bodies of water, paving land, taking game, etc.
If you carefully consider my point, you will see that it actually fits best with libertarian free market philosophy. The market is the best system, but our current market is imperfect because it cannot account for externalities.
Re:Yes, but... (Score:2)
If you carefully consider my point, you will see that it actually fits best with libertarian free market philosophy. The market is the best system, but our current market is imperfect because it cannot account for externalities.
It fits with the philosophy, yes, but implementing it in reality would be pretty tricky. How do we prevent market players from "externalizing costs" whenever possible, given that it's to their benefit to do so? It's done right now (when it's done at all) by badly-designed and poorly-implemented government regulations, but it seems like anything other than that would be subverted even faster than Whitman subverted the EPA.
Re:Yes, but... (Score:2)
Re:Yes, but... (Score:2)
Re:Yes, but... (Score:2)
You clearly have never worked for an actual manufacturer, nor do you have any idea of the damages that one lawsuit can do. Most companies are extremely careful about how they dispose of wastes for the simple reason that they do not want to be held liable for damages. Just look at what is happening to the tobacco industry and they even printed right on their cartons that their product was dangerous.
I know that when the EPA folks nose around our facility it is all "Yes Sir! Right Away Sir!" We know they could shut us down in a New York minute.
Revise the business case (Score:2)
That is because the people doing that bitching are only concerned with their own immediate interests, and nothing more. If your eyes do not look beyond the next quarter's financial statements, effective and intelligent planning for the future is next to impossible. "Why implement Kyoto? It will have a negative effect on our profits - and our stock options".
It would be in everyone's best interest to maybe look at the big picture once in a while. I suspect that if you take the long term view, the question is no longer "How much is this going to cost us?" Instead the question becomes "What is the cost of not doing this?" In that case, the filters on the smokestacks should be a slam dunk because their relatively trivial cost more than offsets the enormous costs of not cleaning up the environment.
Hmmmm... (Score:3, Insightful)
Actually, I thought trees were a renewable resource, and when disposed of properly, paper can be biodegradable.
The only problem I see is the bleaching in some papers.
Re:Hmmmm... (Score:3, Insightful)
DennyK
Re:Hmmmm... (Score:4, Insightful)
[nod] Yup. Unfortunately, a good possible alternative -- hemp -- makes the people who benefit from the War on Some Drugs freak out. And given that some of them have used the WoSD to get and/or stay in power ...
Re:Actually hemp would work better... (Score:2)
You need to check your facts [paperloop.com]. Trees planted for pulp/paper do not take "hundreds of years". It depends on the tree and the location, but it ranges from 20-50 years for North American softwoods, to 3-5 years for eucalyptus in Asia.
Perhaps hemp is still preferable, but let's do an accurate comparison...
Wow, a plastic book. (Score:2, Insightful)
Finally someone makes a book it is safe to read in the bathtub.
I wonder how a plastic book would stack up against a paper book for longevity?
And just to keep on topic here, I think that looking at the way we manufacture things with an eye to increasing the potential for recycleability is a good thing. Landfill space is finite and we definitely don't want to wind up living in a sea of disposable diapers, plastic 6-pack holders, discarded hot-dogs and stale twinkies.
Re:Wow, a plastic book. (Score:2, Insightful)
Plastic (at least most plastics) do not biodegrade. There are exceptions to this, such as plastics made from corn/soy/(and if many people would pull thier heads out of their collective arses)hemp which can biodegrade.
Also, most plastics are petroleum based, so when the oil runs out, so does our gross overuse of plastic (back to the basic conservation of resources debacle...).
To make a general point, maybe we should be more concerned with auditing our resource usage and pollution than with creating a book one can read while wasting water by taking a bath.
(I'm just bitter because I live in a desert and people waste water which they shouldn't. These people in the hills with their lawns and swimming pools are going to be sorry when they have a pretty lawn but nothing to drink...)
Re:Wow, a plastic book. (Score:5, Funny)
"Hey Jim! We hit the motherload, there's diapers from here all the way through! We're RICH!! RICH!!"
Kintanon
Re:Wow, a plastic book. (Score:2)
Hmm... (Score:3, Insightful)
Not to mention how wasteful the rest of the world is...
Now I don't want to come off as some Tree-Hugging Hippy, but there is a lot of substance to this whole conservation thing. Just look at LA. If they don't find another way of getting water, there are going to be a lot of thirsty people in the near future. (This is the case with much of the west/southwest US).
There is more to be said for clean technologies too. They may be more expensive to implement initially, but in the long run not only do they save money, you're saving the planet so future generations don't have to clean up you mess (fuel-cells and fusion anyone?)...
*Glares at the baby boomers...*
Re:Hmm... (Score:2)
Smelly, maybe, but not thirsty. I believe that bathing and irrigation take up the bulk of water use.
D
Re:Hmm... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Hmm... (Score:2)
Things would get awfully expensive very fast.
--
Garett
Re:Hmm... (Score:2)
So in this way, the invisible hand continues to jerk us off.
Re:Hmm... (Score:2, Funny)
No worries, when the sea level rises, I expect the people in the LA basin will have plenty of water.
You think the couch you have now is rotten... (Score:2, Funny)
Just think of what your unwashed geek body would do to this one.
We only learn from disaster (Score:4, Insightful)
The affects of environmental damage are incremental, so it will take an enlightened authority to force these changes on society.
Re:We only learn from disaster (Score:3, Insightful)
There's no need to "force" changes on anyone, in fact that's probably the surest way to garner further resentment and skepticism toward your cause. In fact, I don't think you can find a single example of an authoritarian government with a good environmental track record. Russia's littered with toxic mistakes, China's building the world's largest dam project depite lots of protests, and the formerly communist and socialist countries of eastern Europe are only now recovering from the messes they made. Abuse and neglect are the inevitable result of granting that kind of power to anyone, no matter how "enlightened" they might allegedly be.
You simply can't force people to do anything really worthwhile, at least not for very long. Yes, businesses can be regulated, but the costs of each regulation have real-world impact that must also be weighed.
You have to use persuasion. The only enlighted authority that will make individuals change their behavior for the better is good old fashioned enlighted self-interest.
Re:We only learn from disaster (Score:2)
Our society being what it is, I think it's a question of profitability rather than enlightenment. Enlightenment (in regards to environmental well-being) generally means nothing to anybody's bottom line and thus, in terms of capitalist society, is meaningless.
Corporations and / or government will do something about environmental damage when it becomes profitable, or when it becomes too expensive NOT to do anything about it, or when it's too late. Not before.
Re:We only learn from disaster (Score:2)
So, I'm assuming you'd commit suicide before someone forced you to be more ecofriendly?
Re:We only learn from disaster (Score:2)
To some people freedom is not an abstract concept but something that they would give their lives to uphold. Perhaps you have heard of the slogan "Live Free or Die" some of us actually believe this to be a good motto to live (and perhaps die) by.
In other words, for me to go along with this sort of approach to environmentalism I would have to be convinced that it was in my own best interest. If I could not be convinced personally then the proponents of the plan would have to convince a large enough percentage of the community where I live so that laws could be passed that would oblige me to act in a certain way. If I thought that the plans were stupid I would do my level best to oppose the passage of these laws, but I would abide by the laws passed (assuming that they didn't infringe on my constitutional rights).
Unfortunately, many zealots believe that their cause is important enough that it warrants short circuiting these procedures.
Re:actually not a dictator (Score:2)
Maybe I'm missing something, but... (Score:3, Insightful)
And the fabric, of course, could be readily disposed of by tossing it onto the ground where it would decompose back into the soil without leaving toxic chemicals behind.
What's to stop the fabric from decomposing in my living room? It doesn't matter whether I leave a steak outside or in my living room, the steak is going to decompose.
What seems to be a missing point is durability. I would think that something that easily decomposes would be less durable than something that "lasts forever", almost by definition.
Re:Maybe I'm missing something, but... (Score:2, Informative)
Not really a departure from the status quo, fabric furniture nowadays still need to be reupholstered every decade or so.
Re:Maybe I'm missing something, but... (Score:4, Interesting)
Some people have also scoffed at the idea that eco-friendly could be cost effective. But if you look at just the one example above - taking a material that could be made from thousands of chemicals and producing a similar product with only thirty eight - couldn't it easily be argued that the manufacturing equipment, cost of supplies, cost of training, cost of development, etc. would all go down using this methodology. While initial retooling and design costs might be up the end result is a product that costs less to produce and therefore provides a quick turn around on the initial investment.
What's the lifecycle of the average polyester shirt? While I know that thrift stores are filled with 20 year old polyester shirts and pants, how many more went into landfills and are still there relatively intact today? We have the knowledge today to create buildings that use the environment itself to create a comfortable work and living environment inside - lessening the need for electricity and other utilities, yet most companies continue to build the same old environmentally unfriendly and people unfriendly buildings they always have. Twenty years later (sometimes only a year later) people end up gettng sick because of poor ventilation, carpet fumes, ceiling tiles, what have you. What's the cost when that happens?
Re:Maybe I'm missing something, but... (Score:2)
Aren't you going to throw it out in 5 years anyway? When it starts to look old and dull, and its not really the colour you want.
Well, you typically throw it out because of durability issues. I dont tend to recarpet my house just to change the color myself, although some may. The point is that if I had carpet that would last for 50 years without fading or wearing out, I'd buy it in a second.
Re:Maybe I'm missing something, but... (Score:2)
Well, buy wool carpet then. Preferably berber. Even thick pile wool carpet will last 30+ years. Berber would last 50 years standing on its head (so to speak), and it's biodegradable. Consider most natural fabrics will composte, it's just that we keep them clean enough inside that they don't. Of course, your avg code monkey like me can only afford the synthetic stuff ;-).
OT: Repairing plastic. (Score:2)
Plastic is actually pretty easy to repair (at least if it snaps). Acetone will glue some plastics, and methylene chloride (available at hobby stores and possibly hardware stores) will glue almost all of them. Both of them are actually strong solvents, which dissolve and re-form the plastic around the break.
Now, I'm lazy enough that I'll probably buy a new $3 plastic widget instead of repairing a broken one, but it's still _do-able_
[Note: Use methylene chloride outdoors only. The fumes are quite dangerous.]
Like animals? (Score:2)
Designer bugs (Score:3, Funny)
Personally, I think it would be easier (and much cooler!) to gengineer bugs that do eat our waste. Of course there is that whole risk of mutation and the bugs eating all the plastic around us, sending our civilization into chaos and disorder, eventually collapsing, but that always seems pretty cool in the books too. Then I can become a warlord and get my harem. Warlords get a harem, right?
Re:Designer bugs (Score:3, Funny)
The result of the cycle. (Score:2)
Entropy wins again.
Engineering vs Engineering (Score:2)
While I will not address the eco-notions. . . (Score:2, Insightful)
Environmetal impact only matters if it threatens the survival of the species. Thus, locusts can not do their thing unchecked. This is the same with most other species. There are checks and balances against everything. Except us, but if we can determine most environmental externalties and associate them with economic production costs, our economic system will 'weed' out net (environmental/economical) producers.
The Problem, of course, is correctly analyzing externalities. This is what needs more work, and even with more work, will probably prove impossible in some cases.
Re:While I will not address the eco-notions. . . (Score:2)
Re:Shells turn to Limestone (Score:2)
2. peat bogs have a great amount of biodiversity and provide habitat for many animals and plants. The lifecycle of coal is a downward cycle. Layer upon layer of mass is placed on top of the peat and eventually it becomes coal. The cycle should be that it continues to be burried and is at some point reclaimed into the earth's core to be melted and recycled to another area as new sea floor or new island etc. Another part of the lifecycle is that coal can provide home and food for bacteria which produce waste product in the form of natural gas (there are many different theories and processes for natural gas BTW). Natural gas/Methane/etc. then provide part of the component for climate regulation/"global warming" that keeps the planet warm and life sustaining.
Re:While I will not address the eco-notions. . . (Score:2)
It's one or the other. you can't have it both ways.
Not really original (Score:3, Insightful)
This review reads like a Wired article - "visionary thinkers with groundbreaking ideas set to revolutionize the world!", whereas in actual fact these type of ideas are fairly mainstream in some parts of Europe.
I don't want to start off a USA vs Europe thread, but it's true that in some countries in Europe (not all) the level of environmental awareness and recycling is extremely high in industry as well as the government and public spheres.
Re:Not really original (Score:2)
I'm not saying common sense and a rudimentary understanding of biology are directly tied to environmental awareness, but there could be at least some correlation, couldn't there?
Re:Not really original (Score:2)
Looks like you are trying to, really.
No, I'm not f**king trying. Jeeze. You can't even make a simple comment pointing out something positive about Europe in comparison to the USA without it being modded as Flamebait and getting responses like yours.
Re:Not really original (Score:2, Funny)
It's all Human Nature (Score:5, Insightful)
Anyone earning large amounts of money exploiting other people, materials, chemicals that are bad for the environment... they're all doing it
Anyone consuming the cheapest product, without any care for production... they're doing it
Nobody calculates the REAL cost of anything any more. Look at the dot com crash. Before that there were investors buying in to exploration trips on ships that would never get a crew and sail. It comes back again and again.
This book sounds like a great read. Will you read it? Probably not. Will you buy more expensive, eco friendly stuff? Probably not.
And who is most to blame? World leaders. Corruption. You name it. But the only person you can really blame is yourself. For that, indeed, is the only thing you can really change.
Global attitudes have to change. These things are possible. Stop chasing the money dragon, and get into a more zen life.
Or you could just say bollocks to it, and get run over by a bus tomorrow... you can't be a finite being in a (to all intents and purposes) infinite world and still contribute to the greater good, really, can you?
Re:It's all Human Nature (Score:2)
Re:It's all Human Nature (Score:2, Insightful)
You seem to be completely missing the point. Making a green product is harder. Therefore, it will be less cool or more expensive.
Even if you managed through sheer brain sweat to produce a product that is green, cheaper and cooler, then company B could just rip off your design and replace the eco-flogiston with spun plutonium, halving the price.
Suppose everyone, everywhere bought one Gizmo a day. You can select between the $1 standard Gizmo and the $2 Eco-Gizmo. Will most people but the standard version? Hell yes!
Unfortunately, that's exactly what people are doing in the real world. They don't bother the read the fine print on the standard Gizmo that says:
Closed system??? NOT!! (Score:2)
"Other than incoming energy from the sun, our environment is basically a closed system."
You can't just discount the sun's influence when describing the earth. The sun drives photosysthesis, the production of ozone, climate, evolution of species, etc. These are hardly minor events and only happen because of the virtually inexhaustable, free energy we get. If earth WAS a closed system (ie no parent star), then the only energy to work with would be that produced by lunar tidal effects. In that case, you'd only get enough energy for simple organisms such as bacteria (if that).
Also...
"Eliminate the concept of "waste" entirely.
The authors put their money where their mouths are. In 1994 they started a design firm that puts these principles into practice. Examples of their work are downright astonishing. The firm was once hired to design a compostable upholstery fabric. According to their principles, not only did the finished product have to be environmentally neutral, so did the production process."
Excuse me, but how much MORE energy was spent to make the production process neutral? Sure, you get "clean" by-products, which is an admirable accomplishment. But you had to use more energy to drive the pollution prevention measures (ie at the water treatment plant). Somewhere, a power plant produced a little more electricity to do this and as a result, a little more toxic waste (from the power plant) was released. Sure the production process is enviromentally friendly, but it's NOT a free lunch. There is ALWAYS waste somewhere.
Re:Closed system??? NOT!! (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Closed system??? NOT!! (Score:2)
I highly doubt that was what the authors were doing. Of course the sun is important... it's the reason we have so much life on the surface of this planet. When they mentioned the closed system, they meant it as the waste products aren't discarded somewhere out of the system, but instead used up again.
If earth WAS a closed system (ie no parent star), then the only energy to work with would be that produced by lunar tidal effects. In that case, you'd only get enough energy for simple organisms such as bacteria (if that).
most of the energy would be at the bottom of the ocean where there are numerous vents of hot gas/water/lava. That's how plenty of organisims live: totally independent from the sun. There also are many organisisms that live in dark caves that have no contact with the outside world. They just rely on the heat which could easily come from the planet's core. These caves are complete closed systems that only need an outside heat source.
Excuse me, but how much MORE energy was spent to make the production process neutral? Sure, you get "clean" by-products, which is an admirable accomplishment. But you had to use more energy to drive the pollution prevention measures (ie at the water treatment plant). Somewhere, a power plant produced a little more electricity to do this and as a result, a little more toxic waste (from the power plant) was released. Sure the production process is enviromentally friendly, but it's NOT a free lunch. There is ALWAYS waste somewhere.
Wind power? Geo-thermal?
World Summit for Sustainable Development (Score:4, Informative)
There is a world summit coming up (a 10 years later follow-up to the Rio Summit) in which many issues related to this topic will be discussed.
I've been working as a contractor on a website project recently for a UK university. The site uses the Slash code, and is aiming to focus discussions between special interest groups in the time before the summit (groups like Greenpeace, Friends of the Earth, etc).
The site is called Earth Summit for All [open.ac.uk], and there is quite a lot of background information there relating to sustainable development in general and the summit in particular, as well as the discussions powered by the Slash software which are only just starting to take shape...
Regards,
Denny
Homer Simpsons puts it best: (Score:3, Funny)
In this house, we OBEY THE LAWS OF THERMODYNAMICS!
Re:Homer Simpsons puts it best: (Score:2, Informative)
I guess you don't use solar power then.
Down in Austin (I think, but am not certain, I saw it on the news about a week ago) there is a business that sells solar power equipment; they also use solar power for their shop. They produce more power than they use, which leaves the power company owing them money. Apparently the power company replaced the power meter a couple of times thinking there had to be something wrong with it.
My Couch (Score:2)
Am I an enviro-God?
Are couches really the pinnacle of achievement in terms of bio-safety? Wouldn't a naturally produced, biodegradable television be a little more impressive?
This book is aimed at /. readers (Score:2, Interesting)
Take textiles. Many textiles contain unwanted materials such as heavy metals or pesticides, what the authors refer to as "products-plus". Why are they included with the product? Did you the consumer ask for them? Such products can't be safely decomposed or recycled. The only safe place for them is a landfill (hence the term cradle-to-grave). Take the long, long-term view and it is clear that, if this cradle-to-grave model continues, we'll fill the planet with landfills.
However, if you model the product on nature, then the waste from the textile production process and end-of-life product itself can be used safely as mulch: cradle-to-cradle. The challenge for the designers is to distinguish the biological nutrients from the technical nutrients, and provide a way for these nutrients to be reused, the way nature reuses them. This is not hypothetical: the authors provide many examples of companies that are doing this type of work.
If you are a scientist, engineer, or designer, you will need to be familiar with the techniques these guys espouse. The MBA's willl need to recognize the value of this approach, but it's up to the designers to select the materials and techniques that achieve the results.
Also, I was very impressed with the example the authors provide of Bill Ford at Ford Motor Company. He is transforming the ancient River Rouge plant into a model of these principles, and saving as much as $35 million in the process.
In short, this is a really thought-provoking book.
Diamond Age (Score:2)
One of the coolest parts of the book was how eco friendly the designs were, and not by intention. Because when you have the ability to build at the same level nature does (molecule by molecule) you can make extremely simple designs, which are easy to break down. The whole idea that the water intake system for the raw materials plant was not a gigantic intake duct, but instead, thousands of little tubes which could do a better job because of its ability to act as a wick. The side affect of this design was that it was almost identical to clump of reeds, and after like it.
And items could be broken back down easily, however if they were made pre-nanotech, it took longer, because their patterns were chaotic.
Re:Diamond Age (Score:2)
The whole idea that the water intake system for the raw materials plant was not a gigantic intake duct, but instead, thousands of little tubes which could do a better job because of its ability to act as a wick.
Actually, that passage specifically states that it would have been easier to do a big pipe, or something ugly, but they didn't precisely because they cared about aesthetics. That was just part of being a Victorian.
And items could be broken back down easily, however if they were made pre-nanotech, it took longer, because their patterns were chaotic.
But they didn't do so, by and large - makers would only break down stuff that was tagged as a made item.
meat (Score:2)
Energy Entropy (Score:3, Interesting)
Cost = Entropy used + Energy Used
Saying that, for example, you could use a very fast process to extract oil from the ground that uses minimal energy (what you pay for) but increases entropy (makes a big environmental mess). At a greater energy cost, you could make it a lot cleaner. Fortunately, we have a saving grace:
The sun provides us with an almost unlimited amount of energy.
The problem here is that we choose to use the more inexpensive forms of energy, but if we did use forms that come from the sun rather than toxic entropy-increasing forms or non-renewable forms (possibly the same, considering the toxic by-products of fossil fuels, which I understand did come from the sun, but are toxic nonetheless. The sun's energy was expended so that these toxins could be trapped.)
What a lot of people whose posts I am reading are forgetting is this:
Plants (wood, food) = Solar, their energy to grow comes mostly from the sun, and what doesn't goes back to Earth
Wind = Solar, pressure is due to heat from the sun
And of course direct solar energy.
Therefore, it is not hypocritical to make a book with paper. Paper is solar energy. Considering the vast amount of this energy that goes unharvested and unused, it is therefore not impractical to harness a virtually unlimited and safe energy source.
~Ben
The solution? (Score:2)
How about an EAT (Entropy Added Tax)?
(only half joking...)
plastic book (Score:2, Interesting)
Isn't that kinda against the opening few paragraphs of your review, isn't recycling degrading the materials, where as paper can be thrown on the ground....
Anyhow, I'm a bit of an anti-wood pulp man, and think they should have printed the book on hemp paper, which will last a few hundred years, be recycleable, use less chemicals etc...
Cost is an issue, but not the only issue (Score:2)
> people aren't going to jump for it unless it costs the same or less
I disagree. A huge segment of the population, possibly even a majority, is willing to pay extra for environmental benefits. The question is not "if," but "how much?"
There are two problems: First, there is the "raw" cost difference (how many extra dollars for the biodegradable upholstery), and second, there is the "hidden" cost difference (difference in life span -- longer or shorter -- or difference in net energy cost from using the "environmental-friendly" product)
I'd gladly buy an electric car, for example, if the cost were 20% more than the cost for a regular car (alas, the difference is more like 60% currently, and the environmental "advantages" are not entirely clear since the batteries are not biodegradable).
Alas, there is an economic battle going on: the automobile and oil industries are fiercely resisting any change, and they are cleverly pricing alternatives so that they will appear "unaffordable" or to defend their false claims that "nobody wants electric cars" etc.
I'm planning to buy this book today.
Produce more energy than it uses? (Score:2)
See? All he wants is for us to invent a perpetual motion machine. It's not so much to ask, we're just thinking about it wrong.
mark
Garbage dumps as gold mines (Score:2)
It's pointless to spend expensive resources today on conservation when in a few decades we will have infinitely more powerful and cheaper abilities to fix the problems. Better to divert our efforts into speeding the progress of the advanced technologies which will let us re-green the earth cheaply and easily.
How does the individual participate? (Score:2, Interesting)
Which brings my question -- how do I help. I do what I can. I'm a homeowner, so I avoid using chemicals where I can (no turfbuilder!), drive an efficient car, etc. Can someone suggest practical ways to implement on an individual or household level these very forward-thinking ideas?
throwaway phones... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:dreaming... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:dreaming... (Score:2)
You should take a look at the City of Chicago is doing with the roof of their City Hall [mcdonoughpartners.com]. Sadly, the greentop is being treated as a research project and is not open to the public.
Re:dreaming... (Score:2)
I'd say that's a big step in the right direction.
Re:dreaming... (Score:2)
Re:waste == cost (Score:3, Insightful)
DennyK
That's what nature is all about (Score:2)
Re:Litter is advocated? (Score:2)
Re:a non-regulatory state? (Score:2)
Re:a non-regulatory state? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:a non-regulatory state? (Score:2)
Governments are large organizations that exploit individuals for their benefit. Corporations are large organizations that exploit individuals for their benefit.
Sure, the benefits and methods may differ somewhat. Governments use law, force and money to ensure power and profit. Corporations use money, law and force to ensure profit and market power. Often, government and corporations work together. Tell me again how they're different?
<expected_rant type="libertarian" content="governmental_force" />
Oh, and please don't tell me that only governments use physical force on individuals. Corporations often use government troops or mercenaries against people standing in the way of their profits.
Re:Litter is advocated? (Score:2)
Litter doesn't decompose quickly. (Score:2)
Ever try leaving leaves on your lawn to decompose instead of raking them?
It doesn't work so well
Man-made substances are even worse for this. We want them to last for years with no degradation when we store them, so they take even longer to break down in the environment. Paper is just about the most biodegradable substance we produce, but readable newspapers from 80 years ago have been pulled out of landfills. Granted, part of this is the environment of the landfill itself, but my point holds.
A "green" sofa whose upholstry biodegraded in a reasonable time would start degrading in your living room a month or two after you bought it. A sofa that did not biodegrade over the 5+ years you usd it would take its sweet time degrading in the landfill.
In summary, I don't think nature is a fast enough recycler to be worth using (at least without help).
Re:Litter doesn't decompose quickly. (Score:2)
Good point.
However, after you spill something on it a few times, I think the inside of your sofa would qualify as a dark, moist, warm, microbe-haven.
Re:Litter is advocated? (Score:2)
Wow, those are really important issues. Let's phrase them another way:
I think my version reads better.
Re:Litter is advocated? (Score:2)
Name industries where ecological improvements resulted in better revenues, or other tangible benefits.
Coal. The gunk gathered from the scrubbers turns out to be a good fertilizer, which the companies sell for a profit.
At least, I think it was coal... my father works in that industry, so maybe I should ask him before arguing further.
You didn't do any more reading... (Score:2)
People need to realize the costs of the disposal/waste that they produce and add them in acccordingly. Sure, the stuff's cheap, but people aren't paying for the problems right now either.
Re:Litter is advocated? (Score:2, Informative)
This has happened in the paper industry. I can't find figures for profit increase at the moment, but here's a link to one of the mills involved:
http://www.ipmaine.com/html/environ_right.html
A lot of technologies like this are just sitting on the ground, waiting for industry to use them even though there are strong financial benefits. I believe in the case of paper the methods were known and used outside the US for some time before someone got the bright idea of doing it here.
You might also check the book "Natural Capitalism", which discusses industrial scenarios where moving to environmentally friendly solutions have led to a doubling of output with a halving of energy use.
Name industries where ecological improvements... (Score:2)
Now, when you take the meta of that, you start to get into the areas of "How much regulation is necessary?" and "What is the maximum negative economic impact..." Here are a few sets to consider: pollution and health care costs; global warming and loss of farmland via desertification; gasoline usage and the cost of the military; clearing of the rainforests and the loss of novel medications. Greens are focused on areas that don't concern a particular company's balance sheet, but go beyond that to "total costs" that are often ignored to make that balance sheet better.
Re:Litter is advocated? (Score:2)
I don't know what environmentalist ideas you're looking for, but for my money, no environmentalist makes more sense than McDonough.
And no mention was made at all about how comfortable those eco-chairs were.
It hardly seems like making biodegradable fabric comfortable is a major design challenge.
Name industries where ecological improvements resulted in better revenues, or other tangible benefits.
Here's one obvious example [mcdonoughpartners.com]. The living roof will cost them $15m as opposed to $50m for a standard roof, as well as saving on water treatment. There are plenty of examples in a variety of industries if you care to look.
Re:Authors sound like idiots (Score:2)
Oh please. I'm getting tired of this protrayal; we might be selfish in the end, but the means often involve teamwork, co-operation, comprimise to get there. I dont understand why this is so difficult for some to comprehend - to borrow the other reply's terminology, altruism is often required to achieve this 'selfishness'
People are not driven by greed, they are driven by the desire to co-exist with minimal social friction, which is usually best achieved via altruism, teamwork, etc. Only once minimal social friction is achieved (or at least the illusion), people move onto their greed. We sometimes forget that we wouldn't be so selfish were there not authorities to protect us from social friction that would result from wanton, socially unchecked greed.
Re:What foolishness... (Score:2)
Given that humaity tends to be stupid, lazy and vain (c.f history of mankind) I do not see how the necessary paradigm shift away from the non-renewable resources we currently depend on will happen without some encouragement. Who do you trust? Obviously not big, evil governments. I suppose that the socialist hordes that make up pan-national governing bodies are not to be trusted either. So what's left?
Unfettered capitalism will devour the planet and leave nothing of value in its wake. Corporations do not tend to take the long-term view because it is not particularly profitable to do so. Besides, they are only accountable to the shareholders, and the shareholders mainly care about ROI.
If I understand your argument then, the paradigm shift will be forced on us when the status quo becomes unprofitable and unsustainable, and not a minute sooner.
That sounds like a pretty crappy future. Especially when we have the option of choosing an alternative one. But why should we inconvenience ourselves? Let's just ignore the problem and hope it just goes away. If that strategy fails, we can always comfort ourselves with the knowledge that the problems really won't come to a head in our lifetimes...
Re:How do I recycle this book? (Score:2)
55 Vandam Street, Suite 805
New York, NY 10013