The Ability for Sustainability?

Cradle to Cradle was an interesting read. I liked the approach they took with building things with what was available. I feel like that the solution to all social, economic, and political problems – start off small. I do feel like the authors were on track but I felt like they were addressing to a Utopian society. Not all companies can afford a green makeover. Not many countries even care. Not all citizens are concerned with the food=waste equation. So as much is it all makes sense and it sounds TERRIFIC, I’m not sure it would work in poorer countries after the two authors left. I found it interesting that on page 124 they mentioned their visit to Jordan and how they helped peopled near the “almost dried up” Jordan River build mud houses that were ideal in the weather conditions they were living in. Being from that area I’m sure the people were grateful for the authors’ help in building a house, but I’m not sure how effective that design would be in the future. We need to have a lot more people like Mcdonough and Braungart for things to change.

I know as a reader of this post you probably think I'm a very skeptical person, I try not to be, but I do agree with my classmate before- the four Rs aren't enough. On a brighter notes, Mcdonough and Braungart should work with companies (as they did with Nike and Ford) that have the capital to change. Starting for the top big companies would have a trickle down effect to smaller companies and eventually leading to the consumers. The Biologic and technical cycles have to be followed by the producers for the consumers to care about.



As the book mentions, the cost to make all these changes is high at first, but the money saved basically Proxy-Connection: keep-alive
Cache-Control: max-age=0

ys the bill! I feel Proxy-Connection: keep-alive
Cache-Control: max-age=0

ke big companies need to be lured in with that concept- then be given the good to be green concept. These companies play a complicated game, to be the winner you need to play it with them!

Redesigning Design: Completely Recyclable Books, Biodegradable Shoes, and the like.

When I received Cradle to Cradle in the mail along with my other textbooks this semester, I quickly realized that it was not the typical book. The pages were plastic, and it was heavier than all of the other books I bought. The design of the book aligns with the ideas inside. We need to make things differently, and input a closed loop system. The book has been designed to be completely recyclable into a new book; it is not like another book which when recycled is converted into a lower quality product.

A major issue that McDonough tackled was ditching the 'cradle to grave' model for the 'cradle to cradle' model. The book follows this model because it is easily recyclable into a new book of the same quality. He argues that the industrial revolutions methods of production that are still in place are leading to massive environmental degradation, and that all human products must be made in this way or at least be completely biodegradable. Instead of producing by this method, we must operate with zero emissions. The authors envision a future of complete sustainability.

I extremely enjoyed his viewpoints of addressing sustainability through not just innovation, but complete reinvention and redesign. They state that we don't need to reduce our measures of consumption, but come up with new ways of consuming that benefit the planet. He does not advise that we need to change our ways, but that corporations and businesses need to change their ways to take action to invent new materials and products that do not harm the environment.

4 R's Aren't Enough

Cradle to Cradle deals with many of the issues we have talked about this semester. They cover the industrial revolution, our flawed production system (cradle to grave), over use of resources and sustainability. Of all the things the book brought up I thought that their understanding of "eco-effectiveness" was the most profound.

Instead of arguing for eco-efficacy Cradle to Cradle argues for a complete change in our production system. Macdonough shows that simply making products more efficient is kind of like a band-aid. Just like recycling is an aspirin. The book clarifies these ideas in the term eco-effectiveness. The authors right on pg 76, "Our concept of eco-effectiveness means working on the right things - on the right products and services and systems - instead of making the wrong things less bad. Once you are doing the right things, then doing them 'right,' with the help of efficiency among other tools, makes perfect sense." I had never thought about something like this before.

I mean I knew that as a society we would have to change our lives to stop the environmental degradation. But while I knew this, I imagined a world where we had the majority of the same products and services we do now. I imagined that we would have efficient and systemic mass transit systems. I imagined closed loop production. But during all of this I never thought that we might have to strop producing certain products and services to save the environment. Eco-effectiveness brought my mind one more step further.

The Goal is Zero

I feel that the book Cradle to Cradle is a good summary of the course, International Environmental Politics because it covers relevant points that we discussed in class. In summary, it mainly talks about Neo-Malthusians vs. Cornucopians, environmental sustainability, eco-efficiency, the history, such as the Industrial Revolution and International conventions and protocols, food issues, including GMOs and metabolism, and use of resources, such as raw materials and energy. It also brigs a new important topic that we have not fully discussed yet, which is the four R’s: Reduce, Reuse, Recycle and Regulate. At the end of the book, specific and practical solutions are recommended; therefore, this book provides one of the significant approachable solutions to global environmental issues.

The author’s main argument is eco-efficiency and environmental sustainability, which include a question of universal designs, and four Rs. My impression of the book is that the author’s ideas are based on Neo-Malthusians. He questions everything and claims analytical thoughts. In particular, I like a quote, which is “Recycling is an aspirin, alleviating a rather large collective hangover… overconsumption” (50). I argued that Japan was successful in recycling resources in the previous blog post, but after I read this book, I feel recycling is just slowing down severe effects of environmental issues. In other words, it is not stopping or preventing issues completely. For example, I always use recycle boxes at America University. They can be found at everywhere, such as in the library, MGC, dorms, and classrooms. It is easy to recycle because they are next to garbage boxes and all I need to do is read the sign and classifies which one goes which boxes. I believe that recycling bins, cans, and paper help reducing environmental issues, but in fact, it becomes true　only if everyone participates in recycling. I often see people throw away recyclable stuffs to the garbage box even though they see cycle boxes next to the garbage. This is sad and not helping to solve the environmental issues. The quote exactly explains the situation today. The author suggests that we need to take actions of four Rs seriously in order to change the world.

In addition, I agree with, “The goal is zero: zero waste, zero emissions, zero ‘ecological footprint’” (67). We are currently doing negative things to the planet. Thus, we first need to bring back the situation to zero by contributing energy to solve and prevent further environmental issues. Accordingly, the author’s arguments make sense and on the right track.

A Closed Loop System

The authors of Cradle to Cradle seem to have taken the idea of “green technology” a step further, by advocating an economic system that is green from start to finish. Hence the name “Cradle to cradle”: from beginning of a product’s life to the end of a products life and from the start of a production system to its end, zero or positive environmental impact should be the result.

First, they argue that the Industrial revolution system is a “cradle-to-grave” design and all along the production system we are harming the environment. When we throw the product “away” there really an “away” doesn’t really exist.

Second they argue that eco-efficiency is not an effective way of saving the planet. “Reduction does not halt depletion and destruction—it only slows them down,” and over time the harmful effects will still be noticeable. To reuse wastes means to simply transfer them to another place. Recycling is ineffective for a number of reasons, not least of which is that when materials are recycled they become of lower quality and are less useful. Regulation is also ineffective because it hinders economic growth of industries, and cannot compete with unregulated industries.

Instead of eco- efficiency, the authors advocate “eco-effectiveness.” Eco-effective systems and products would function like a Cherry Tree, in that it gives back to the environment. It is a closed loop system that uses the earths resources and then gives back to the soil that will help it continue to grow. The authors say that humans have the potential to create systems and products that give back to the environment and also help its own production or use.

I believe that they are on the right track, because their solution directly confront the problems the environment is facing. They are right that reduction, reuse, recycling, and regulation will not solve the problems on their own. What we need is a closed system that gives back to the earth at least if not more of what we take from it. I look at it as simple math. Lets simplify the earth’s complex system into a number that represents everything the earth has to offer us (resources, sinks, fertile land, natural services…). Lets say the earth has 100 units to give us. In a “cradle-to-grave” system every year we may extract 1 unit and replace .5 unit. This means the earth will be unable to support us in 200 years. However, if we have a “cradle-to-cradle” system we would be extracting .5 unit and replacing .5 unit or more, allowing the earth to support us indefinitely.

Neither Website! Skeptics need something more serious...

To be completely honest, I was never an “environmental person”. I travelled, consumed and spent like there was no tomorrow. As an economics major- I believed that there were sacrifices that had to be made for the human race to excel. After taking this class my entire belief shifted. But then there are websites like these that make me skeptical again. I didn’t feel the facts were something that made me think I wanted to change the way I lived to reverse the effects of climate change.
The first website: Friends of Science had this on its homepage, “While FOS does not do any original scientific research, it does extensive literature research and draws on the worldwide body of work by scientists in all fields relating to global climate change” Well who chooses what scientific research is qualified? I felt them having this on the website made me not even want to click on anything else. I feel like the creators of this website “stupified” the arguments to make them more simple. The problem with that is when a viewer reads the arguments presented- we feel like they aren’t important and too simplified. The Grist website addressed what skeptics would say. A potentially great idea – I liked how they had it broken down. But what I noticed is that a skeptic would want hard facts- something that would sway them. The Grist website could have done a better job in convincing skeptics.It was just very hard for me to actually want to stay on either website for more than a minute. I felt like they did not provide any source of information!

The Debate on the Big CC

The fierce competition around the science of climate change can be attributed to a few things. First, it is extremely complex by nature. There are clearly a number of factors that contribute to climate change that should not be looked at individually but instead they should be seen as interconnected. People try to look at the factors individually without looking at the big picture and try to discredit scientific data. Second, the effects of climate change are varied and are not the same around the world. Again, people who doubt the existence of climate change will attack a statement like the average global temperature is rising by pointing to the fact that the eastern seaboard had record snowfalls last winter. Finally, something that was mentioned in a previous post, it is just to difficult to believe for some people. The idea that the earth is changing so radically and its humanity's fault is a lot to take in for some people. Especially when the cause and effect is not so clear cut.

For both sites I believe there are some legitimate arguments. However, neither site is very convincing for its own reasons. The Friends of Science site is unconvincing to me because it does such a poor job of explaining the graphs. When I look at the graphs , I see the exact opposite of what the site is trying to prove. The site admits not doing any research itself and just taking scientific literature and putting it on their page. The problem is they don't site their sources. It could just be taking everything out of context to try and prove what it is saying (which it doesn't do very well). For the other site, the format is extremely informal, and gives the impression the the ideas and evidence presented are not legitimate and are not from legitimate sources. The blog/facebook style gives doubt that actual research is being presented and is not research taken out of context and re-construed to prove the point they want to make. However, many of the claims made by the sites are probably based on facts and research, but are not properly explained or backed up by evidence.