Thoughts on Cradle to Cradle

In Cradle to Cradle Braungart and McDonough discuss the fact that currently we are only slowing the destruction of our planet, not stopping it. They suggest that through changes in business practices and materials we can turn this around. In order to put into practice what they mean, their book is printed using infinitely recyclable plastic, not paper. The ink can also be reused and is not harmful to the environmental. Braungart and mcDonough suggest that all companies can do this and that everything we make can work with the environment, not against it. I do agree with this statement. We've sent a man to the moon, why can't we build things that don't kill the natural world? I think we can and I think that in doing so we can better ourselves. In many ways I think that this is the only way to address the environmental issue in our society. It would be great if we would just produce less. It would also be great if companies weren't what is dictating our lives aand choices. However, this is the soceity that we created. Our culture of consumption is harder to change than the business practices of companies. We can make companies change through legislation—for instance making companies use materials that can be reused without releasing toxins or downgrade through recycling—but I don't know how you can make a person stop wanting things. Therefore, I believe that Braungart and McDonough are on the right track.

Towards a Zero Waste Future

Cradle to Cradle by William McDonough presents the reader with the irrationalities at the heart of our current industrial system and argues why mainstream environmental solutions are not doing enough.  Reflecting themes we have covered previously in class, McDonough finds fault with consumer driven environmentalism. He criticizes these feel good measures as merely slowing down the detrimental side effects of our current system. The solutions he offers instead take aim at the systemic roots of our waste stream problems, and consumer driven industrialism in general.

One of the big ideas behind Cradle to Cradle is that we must kick off a new industrial revolution which focuses less on unnatural, unrestrained growth and more on a closed loop system where the resources involved never exit the stream and are continually used for the same or equally valuable purposes.   The physical book itself tries to exemplify this by being designed to be entirely reusable. The pages can be cleared and reused for a new book, while even the ink can be extracted and used for printing again.  Doing so does not require huge amounts of energy as traditional recycling processes since the book is designed to be reused.  This lack of design is at the heart of our current waste problems as many of our products are designed in way that makes them either impossible or prohibitively expensive to reuse.

Another major idea in the book is waste as food.  McDonough looks to nature as a guide for how our future economic and agricultural systems might function. Instead of massive, monoculture type processes our systems of production would instead reflect the complexities and diversity found in nature. A respect for natural systems is key to this, and the example of a cherry tree is used to show how the trees waste (leaves and fallen branches) are used each year to cycle nutrients in the soil.  Similarly our industry should be able to supply most if not all of its own energy and resource needs through a well design cradle to cradle process.

I agree strongly with the sentiments behind this book, specifically its critique of feel good, consumer driven environmentalism. Real and effective change will only be possible through radical shifts in how we do business and the ideas presented in Cradle to Cradle are in excellent step in the right direction. 

Discussion #9

Unfortunately I haven't had time to get through Cradle to Cradle yet, and I have to be at work very soon (I plan on reading more when I get home). I've only read the introduction, and as such I can't fully answer the blog question. However, I can say that based on what I've read so far I'm excited to continue reading.

All the books/articles we've read thus far in the semester have undoubtedly been interesting, but pretty grim. While this one also seems as though it will confront us very honestly (as shown by the first few pages where the authors discuss all the hazards of home comforts such as the armchair, small children's toys, etc), it also seems more hopeful.

I had never heard the terms 'technical' or 'biological nutrient' until picking up this book. After reading about these concepts- that a technical nutrient is a product that can be broken down and circulated infinitely in industrial cycles, and a biological nutrient as something that will reenter the water/soil without leaving synthetic materials and toxins, I wondered why I hadn't heard of them sooner. By no means am I in the inner circles of environmentalism, but given how "duh" these ideas seem (for lack of a better word), it's surprising that more of the public doesn't know consider them.

I really like what the authors had to say about "being less bad." It echoes what we've been discussing in class- that what we're doing isn't nearly enough and that the targets we're setting with international treaties/agreements such as the Kyoto Protocol aren't where the need to be. Thus, as we've also discussed, the whole system needs to change. So far the book is more than just depressing facts that leave us thinking "Where do we go from here?", it's an actual dialogue that appears as though it may have some concrete proposals for solutions. I look forward to reading more about their ideas and what they've deemed as the new industrial revolution.

Cradle to Cradle Ideas

In his innovative and progressive book Cradle to Cradle William McDonough proposes a new way of thinking about solutions for the environmental issues that we face today, especially those that are centered around the materials economy. While he sets forth a lot of interesting ideas in his book, there are several that form the backbone of the argument:

Less Bad is Not Necessarily Good

He also frames this idea by comparing the eco-efficiency (what we strive for in our current system) and eco-effectiveness (what we should be striving for). Essentially, eco-efficiency is simply making less of a bad impact, reducing all the horrible things we already do to the earth. While this is better than the status-quo, it still cannot sustain our earth. What eco-effectiveness suggests is that instead of simply cutting down on our bad impact we work on making our impact a good one. Then, instead of working towards decreasing are "footprint" we could have a huge positive footprint.

Think Like a Cherry Tree

One way to work towards being eco-efficient is to think like a cherry tree. This means, thinking like nature, which means thinking in cycles. In nature, things use the resources they are given in the best way possible. Every resource is used to it's fullest, so nothing is wasted. In other words...

Waste Equals Food

Any seeming waste in the system is actually cycled back into the system for reuse. With a cherry tree, the dropped blossoms decompose and fill the soil with nutrients to help the tree grow next year. In an industrial system, this would require systems that use their waste to fuel other parts of the system. Products that can be completely reused as materials back into the system, instead of thrown out or "downcycled."

Needing a New Design Challenge

In the end, McDonough suggests that we need a new design challenge for reevaluating our industrial system, one with better goals than simply cutting down on the harm we're already doing. These goals, while certainly lofty, are definitely headed in the right direction. As we've talked about in previous classes, little efforts are not going to be enough. We need to stop working on just making our impact less bad and actually have a major re-haul of our system. It may not work out as well as we would hope, but if nothing else it will get us thinking about solutions differently.

Discussion #8

Upon viewing the "Friends of Science" website, I was very surprised to read that in the 'about us' section the website claims the organization's membership is "comprised mainly of active and retired earth and atmosphere scientists, engineers, and other professionals." Quite frankly, I don't understand how such professionals and scientists could reach the conclusions that the website displays.

Although this site gives some charts and time lines, I feel like they don't put the data into perspective or context. One example is the "It's been hotter" link where they show a graph of fluctuations in the climate throughout history. While this is true, it doesn't negate the strong possibility of global warming or make the evidence that correlates the most recent changes with human activity illegitimate. In one of the videos featured on the website a scientist claims that the sun is one reason for climate change. This is repeated on several parts of the site and almost makes it seem like there's no space for other possibilities. Sure, the pattern of the sun may have something to do with it, but does that mean there's no chance that our lifestyles are also contributing?

My first inclination in addressing the question of "Why is there such fierce competition around the science of climate change?" was to turn to the politicization and stigma of such words as "environmentalist," which has inevitable become associated with being a liberal. And, as we discussed in class today, a good republican can't be an environmentalist or believe in climate change. Now that the terms have such a political connotation, the debate on global warming doesn't even seem to be on the status of the planet, but rather on validating and assuming one's political identity.

I think the best way to make sense of these competing websites is by trying to take the information they give us and look at it as part of a system or in the context of the bigger picture. As such, I find the second website, "How to talk to a climate skeptic" more convincing." Almost all of the articles presented on the site have links to other sources of information such as charts, graphs, reports, and documents from many other organizations. The other reason I probably find this site more convincing is because it aligns more with my thoughts and what I believe to be true. The witty title of the series doesn't hurt either.

Fact vs. Doubt

One of the most contentious issues in American politics today is the debate over climate change. Considered by many to be the most dire threat to our nations prosperity. Others believe that it is a hoax designed by anti-consumerists, in what they also argue (ironically) is a threat to our nations prosperity.

The root of both sides concern is material well being, and by extension, money. And oh boy is their a lot of money involved. The human forces most often attributed to climate change are some of the biggest engines of our 21st century global economy (i.e. petro-chemicals, agriculture, etc...). Alternatively, proponents of man made climate change envision a green economy not only replacing our currently fossil fuel based system, but becoming the largest and fastest growing market in the world. Those who support the status quo have the most to lose, but also have far more capital to expend on keeping things the way they are, as was witnessed in the well publicized Proposition 23 in California.

Money is the clear driver of peoples passion on the issue, but why can't facts just be accepted at facts? I purposefully labelled climate change as a contentious political issue in my opening paragraph, as opposed to a contentious scientific debate, because their is a consensus among the vast majority of scientists and scholars in the world. That consensus is that the world is warming due to the primary driver of anthropomorphic GHG emissions; obviously their are other contributing factors. Their are legitimate skeptics in the scientific community but they are a minority to say the least and are generally not considered preeminent members of their respective fields.

With little debate in the scientific field, it is the interpretation of scientific studies by policy makers, the media and industry and its subsequent dissemination to the public, where doubt arises. Often those most opposed to stopping our reliance on fossil fuels fund this doubt but some blame does lie with the failure of the scientific community to properly explain climate change in lay-mens terms. Part of this failure is due to the sheer complexity of global climate change, however this leads to an argument for more science education in general and is a bit too off topic to delve into further.

A lot of these communications problems can be exemplified by two websites, http://www.friendsofscience.org/ and http://www.grist.org/article/series/skeptics. The former supporting man made climate change, the later proposing natural causes as the leading drivers. friendsofscience.org seems to intentionally bombard the reader with indecipherable graphs and figures while making bold claims on historical climate trends. However, the how to talk to a climate skeptic series on Grist often runs into many of the same problems, although to a lesser extent. Their short comings center mostly around a lack of organization and navigability of the site.

Neither site is perfect, but Grist does a better job of seeming legitimate. Data is more thoroughly cited, an abundance of links to additional sources are available and a comprehensive debunking of skeptics claims is provided (I was able to find a cited article refuting every claim on friendsofscience.org and only looked through the first section of the site).

Much of the world believes in human driver climate change, as does much of the worlds scientific community. The American public and the businesses and industry that shape the public narrative will one day reach this position but only once the costs of continuing on a business as usual approach become apparent. People vote with their pocketbooks, and tend to have shorter memories and even shorter far-sight. Proper public policy and education are the solutions to this. One can only hope that they will start working soon

Climate Change Competition

The competition around climate change reminds me of myself when I'm pressed for time and I need to write an essay. Sometimes I forget about a paper, have to work, or have another paper (or class) that is more important so I need to write a decent paper in as little time as possible. When this happens I pick a side to an argument, write all that I know about it, and then find literature to support it. I don't make sure that what I am writing is correct or even if I really believe what I am writing. Sometimes there is evidence that is better for the other side of the argument, but I just ignore it and find more ideas that support my side. I often think that this is how the arguments on climate change work. You can find facts that support anything. You can analyze facts however you want. It's all about interpretation and this becomes most important when there is a political or economic agenda at hand. Many people and businesses have an incentive to not believe in climate change and to convince others that it does not exist either. Other businesses and people have the economic incentive to do the opposite. I believe that if money were not involved, then there would not be such a heated debate about the subject. People would just want to know the truth. One group has to be right.

I find the “How to Talk to a Climate Skeptic” website more convincing, but I am also biased. I automatically find the other website to be less convincing because of all of the other literature that I have read. To be honest, if I have never studied the environment before I do not know which one I would believe more.

How to (Not) Understand Climate Change

Looking through these two websites (Friends of Science & How to Talk to a Climate Skeptic) was incredibly frustrating. The more I read on either site, the angrier I became, until I finally had to set down the computer and come back to it later. Both websites were incredibly biased, neither seemed credible, and all their arguments were very weak.

It's no wonder there's so much confusion out there regarding climate change science. People can post anything on the web. There are no editors or publishers to filter what is being sent out to the public. Moreover, there is so much data out there about climate change that it is near impossible to understand it all, let alone include it all in analysis to figure out how it fits together.

So, websites such as these have the ability to choose the data that supports their views to include in their arguments. Moreover, they get to interpret much of the data they choose as they wish. So much of the data presented is so confusing that people are likely to believe what someone who seems "expert" tells them it means (not that I think either seems expert, but they sure have expert sounding titles). But even their expert explanations weren't very clear; in some of the articles I read I couldn't figure out what they were trying to say.

Both websites talk a lot about correlations between different changes in the earth and different factors that could be causing it. These correlations are probably convincing to a lot of the public who don't understand the idea that correlation is not causation. In the end, I didn't feel like there was a lot of conclusive evidence on either site.

Not that all this confusion is entirely the fault of the creators of these websites. The earth is currently changing in so many ways, was that we can't really understand. The causes of these changes are probably many, and may include sort of chain reactions. The causes certainly aren't simple enough to encompass in a single platform for a website. For example, in the About Us section of the Friends of Science website, they state their opinion as follows:

Our Opinion:

It is our opinion that the Sun is the main direct and indirect driver of climate change.

I'm not even sure what this means. The factors playing into climate change are much too complex to whittle down into a single sentence. The arguments on both sites seemed very simplified, and not in a way that made anything more clear to their audiences. Their arguments were just jumbled and juvenile.

Climate science is confusing. Although I'm not sure how we can reconcile the different ideas presented on these websites, they are certainly not the way to educate the public about climate change. Instead of having so many deep set opinions, I think that people who are analyzing climate data should have more open minds and be willing to admit that they don't understand everything. Instead of working against each other, the creators of websites like these would be better off to work together. Maybe then we'd figure something out.

Seeing Vega and Getting Sirius

One of the most awe-inspiring experiences I've had with nature was on my family's recent trip to Yosemite National Park when I got to see the sky light up. It had already been an amazing day: biking all over the park, seeing incredible monoliths and beautiful waterfalls. After dinner I was set to go on a bus to one of the highest peaks in the park and observe the stars. We drove for about an hour and a half, seeing spectacular views of the park on the way up and hearing about all the different species of plant and animal that were present in and around the park. Like any park, Yosemite was proud of it's relative biodiversity.

Once we finally made it to the top (we were held up by road construction and traffic) it was almost dark. We all settled down into a stone amphitheater and began to watch as stars flickered on one by one. Before long the sky was brighter than Broadway. There were more stars than I even knew existed. I was, quite literally, star-struck. I had always loved the stars but I had always been close enough to some lit up town or city that they would lose some of their luster. But here there was no light anywhere nearby. The stars had the stage and it was quite a show.

I realized as I was sitting there that our human sprawl is not only threatening the biodiversity of our lands, but it's threatening the sky as well, at least our ability to enjoy it. Because of all the light pollution in the world, I had never really seen the stars until I was nineteen years old. That's unacceptable for something so incredible and accessible.

Sadly, even our national parks, areas we've set aside to preserve natural beauty such as this, are being affected by human activity. The sheer number of people I had observed in the park that day could not have passed through without causing an effect. There were trash cans, bathrooms, and food carts placed all over the park. There were roads and bike trails etched throughout. I mean, for goodness sake, we got stuck in road construction and traffic while driving a huge gas-guzzling charter bus to the top of the peak (which, if I may mention, was in no way full of people).

While I would never say we shouldn't be concerned about saving nature, I wonder if that is the wrong mindset for us to have. The natural world is incredible. It would be a devastating loss if it were completely gone, and it is already devastating how far gone we've let it get already. But I wonder if we give ourselves too much credit in our ability to intervene and "save nature." Wasn't it the human hand that got us into this mess in the first place? While we could certainly work towards making our impact on nature good rather than harmful, do we really understand this other world well enough to know how to do this effectively? While I certainly have faith in our ability to try to save the non-human world, I envision all sorts of unintended negative side effects that could arise from our interfering.

Maybe a better focus than saving nature would be for us to work on completely reducing our impact on it. Remove ourselves from the equation and let nature govern itself again for awhile (it was doing just fine long before we showed up). While there is certainly an argument for us helping to save it--people who say that we have harmed it so much that it's too far gone to revive itself--we need to at least stop harming nature before we can think about trying to help it