Earth First
Wednesday, November 24, 2010
Thoughts on Cradle to Cradle
Sunday, November 21, 2010
Towards a Zero Waste Future
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
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
Monday, November 8, 2010
Discussion #8
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.
Sunday, November 7, 2010
Fact vs. Doubt
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.