Cradle to Cradle

The idea of a Cradle to Cradle design is one in which materials are circulated healthily. It stresses that industry has to protect ecosystems through a healthy cycle of goods. Some key ideas with the Cradle to Cradle design are the uses of technical nutrients and biological nutrients. The idea behind them differs with the basis of their makeup. For example technical nutrients are inorganic materials that can be used many times without decreasing quality and can continue to stay in the cycle. Biological nutrients on the other hand are different because they are based from organic materials and instead of being able to stay in the cycle for a long time with out deteriorating, their strength is based on how easily they can decompose into the natural environment without making a negative effect. This idea of Waste=Food, which consists of a large portion of the book, follows this premise of biological nutrients. The basic idea of Waste=Food is organic materials(waste) becoming food for bugs that decompose it and therefore return it to the environment and leads to the production of our own food. I believe these ideas in the book are very revolutionary. If we create products that will last in the system and use organic materials that bugs can break-down this will immensely help our current problems with waste today. This idea totally goes against how most businesses work unfortunately. A great example of this is the idea of planned obsolescence which was discussed earlier in our class.The negative effects that come from Perceived obsolescence could be deterred if we start use technical nutrients in these products that can be reused in the newer technologies.

Waste Equals Food

The premise of the book Cradle to Cradle, as Carolyn and Yumi have already mentioned can be manufactured in ways that are more environmentally friendly. This calls on shifting from an idea of building products which will eventually become obsolete and are harmful to the environment, to ones that will “give back”. In the book the authors mention the idea of products as biological or technical nutrients. Through these methods the materials that products are made of will safely reenter the water or soil without harming the environment by depositing synthetic materials and toxins, or can be continually used by downcycling—into low-grade materials and uses rather than being “recycled”.  This idea surprised me as I never really considered that even though we recycle it doesn’t necessarily mean that we are helping the environment because we still have to think about the materials that make up products, which are toxic and unsafe for the environment. If we were to adjust the production of goods in such a way that takes into consideration “nutrient cycle” then we would definitely be in a better situation. Instead of the “cradle to grave” industrial model we should think about the “cradle to cradle” notion.

Cradle to Cradle

After reading the book, I feel that the authors are arguing that the current industries where so many products are produced and wasted can actually be used to generate ecological value. Of course there are economic values in them as well that industries always compete with one another, but the authors emphasized that even though in the modern days it seems that there is no future (from The End of Wild), there are ways to shift from the wasteful society to repeatedly recycling and producing, without having to use up all the resources. It was really interesting to me that the authors brought this notion of “lifecyle development.” And I feel that that is a term/phrase that we should all think about for sustainable development, future generations. As we all know, the environment conditions will not improve in one day, but throughout life time, many things can be done if each and every one of us actively participate in this process and be aware of this. I definitely think that they are on the right track, in the sense that what other options do we really have? If industries were to stop producing, human life will not continue—so many people will lose their jobs etc. So, the industries must keep moving forward, in which they can use this “cradle to cradle” design where they can use-recycle-produce the material without having to use up the resources like the book, made out of polypropelene paper, demonstrates.

Cradle to Grave

The first time I saw this book, Cradle to Cradle, was over the summer at a lobbying firm I was interning at. The President had been passing it around to his EVPs and was seemingly fanatical about it-- I read the back cover and flipped through the recycled/recyclable plastic-y pages then blew it off as a really heavy, waterproof enviro-book. Honestly, it seemed pretty self explanatory: we're wasteful and the way we make things needs to change if we're going to lessen environmental harm. Needless to say, I wasn't thrilled when I saw it on our reading list. However, my sentiment has since changed after reading the text and hearing the stories of William and Michael. Not only does this book offer hope for the future of environmental movements and collaboration, but it nicely synthesizes the information about how and why we can/should shift from a cradle to grave into cradle to cradle model. "Remaking the way we make things" is indeed, self explanatory but the meaning is definitely deeper than I originally felt it was after briefly reviewing the book a few months ago.

Some main premises I thought were on point include the umbrella concept of cradle to grave transforming to cradle to cradle because, as the authors make clear, the products that we produce and "consume" are usually toxic to the environment and have built in obsolescence. Additionally, most products only contain about 5% of the raw material used to create/transport them. This thought of obsolescence and wastefulness reminded me of Annie's "story of stuff" and her example of the little green radio that was so cheap and constructed "cheaply" just so she'd have to buy a new model when it died (or went out of style, which is a different yet related issue). Another point I appreciated was the motto designated to the Industrial Revolution that is applicable to our current path of cradle to grave production: "if brute force doesn't work, you're not using enough of it" -- this slogan paired with the assumption that environment is the enemy are clear barriers to overcome in achieving a cradle to cradle model. Finally, since cradle to grave designs dominate modern manufacturing, "durable" goods become waste almost immediately; so in a sense, we aren't actually consumers, but rather the grim reapers of product.

The Loraxical Framework for Social Seuss Change

SO...

I'll come down from my Lerkin

And together we can establish the Grickle-Grass Commission

To oversee the planting of the last Truffula Seed!

Now that we've fostered cooperation, we can get to workin'

If we write a Seussical Convention

And bring back the Lorax together with all of his friends,

We can spur a social Seuss intervention

To re-write the ends...

The Great Climate Debate

After reviewing the "Friends of Science" site I was less than impressed with its arguments and scientific models. Even when I first opened the page and hadn't read anything, it already seemed like a hoax. The bright yellow, "click here to donate!" button and the linked prompt to listen to a radio ad seemed less credible than the "how to talk to a climate skeptic" site. Even the title, "friends of science" was strangely off-putting... probably because it reminded me of what a Scientology recruitment website might look like (no offense meant to those of you that are scientologists) it just seemed a little ridiculous and ultimately, wasn't very convincing.

I found the "talking to a climate skeptic" website most interesting as it broke down the levels of denial among climate skeptics and reasoning behind it. For those who don't believe global warming is occurring, I'm sure this site is offensive since it classifies their arguments as silly, naive and misinformed or blatantly uninformed. Though I agree that climate skeptics are "in the wrong" as it were, I found it interesting how borderline hostile and passive aggressive the site was toward the other side of the debate. I suppose since this topic is politically charged and draws a lot of excitement in the scientific community there is good reason for a fierce debate over climate change but the competition in pushing theories of whether or not global warming etc. is occurring seems a bit extreme to me. These efforts in defending and promoting opposing opinions would certainly better serve our society if they were instead trying to prevent the problem or solving any number of environmental situations that are compromising the planet and our future on it. In the words of Rodney King (and many others), can't we all just get along?

The Presentation of Science

Having taken a class on statistics with a climate skeptic, I was pretty familiar with many of the arguments presented by the Friends of Science page and refuted by the How to Talk to a Climate Skeptic page. This disagreement over the reality of climate change is present throughout society. We do not consider climate change a scientific fact but instead a polarizing political issue. Each point has a counterpoint presented by the opposition and both sides seem to have science on their side as represented by their numerous graphs and figures. And both websites seem pretty convincing. The layouts are clear and each possible argument is addressed, bolstered by other articles. We like to think of science as definite and factual, but so much can be done in how those facts are presented. Scientific data does not definitely prove a point either way, much can be done with the analysis and presentation. The websites have made choices in what facts they want to include and how they want to present them. This makes their causes seem obvious and factually based. It is no surprise that skeptics and believers alike have dedicated followers to their causes. For me, the Grist website was more convincing, but I went onto the sites with specific opinions and therefore looked for the information that reinforced my beliefs.