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.

Climate Change

I have seen clips before where scientists argued that climate change is not happening. When I first watched them, I could not believe my eyes and was speechless. I took some time to look over the two websites and felt the same way again. People, in general, need solid facts to support any arguments. For this particular issue, scientists argue that climate change is used for political means with no scientific proven facts to support the climate change. The fierce competition around the science of climate change occurs in order to prove that climate change does not have scientific facts to support the cause and the cause of the climate change is simply a myth. Climate change is however, used in the political field and has become a bigger issue politically than scientifically—is these scientists argument.

Neither of the websites sticks out to be more convincing than the other.As Thomas mentioned though, there is bias, due to the fact that I do believe in climate change and feel that these websites are rejection of the obvious and cannot be ignored or treated the way it is.

It Varies

Climate change is an issue that seems very broad in regards to the effects and the actual causes. The science behind climate change varies, depending on who you ask the answer will either be CO2 emissions or the Sun, which is what the Friends of Science organization believes. Because there isn’t a strong consensus as to the scientific cause or effects of climate change the debate over the topic is intense, with arguments varying in perspectives. 

And when you examine the websites of the Friends of Science organization and Grist an online environmental magazine you see just this. It’s difficult to actually differentiate and determine whom to believe, which is why the best approach is to take the information from both websites and inform oneself about the varying arguments. Just being aware of the issue and knowing the various point of views is better than not being aware about the aspects of an issue. For instance the Friends of Science organization has a specific standpoint on the issue which is the Sun being the main driving force of climate change and Grist is completely different as it mainly informs people about environmental issues through commentary and news articles. If you basically just browse through the Friends of Science website it appears to be more convincing in terms of its standpoint, with the site listing scientific references, initiatives, as well as consensus and skepticism on the issue. Compared to the Grist website this site is more convincing as it takes one central point and appears to back it up with scientific data.

Valuing Nature

Through many of my formative years my parents were part of a CSA that required its members to spend a certain amount of time in the fields working for their share. While I strongly detested the fresh chard and other products of my parent’s hard work, I detested tagging along to the farm even more. The parents of my childhood best friends were also contributing members in this CSA. This meant our stay at home mothers would put on their work clothes maybe once or twice a week throughout the summer and force us all into the Volvo to carpool out into the country. The farm, in my memory, was hell on earth. It was always hot and intensely boring. As our parents, usually mothers, weeded and watered, the kids tended to get a little “Lord of the Flies” on each other. There was rarely a work day that went by that someone didn’t end up in tears with an incredible number of burrs in their hair. One summer when I was about eleven had been particularly unbearable. Maybe it was hotter than most years or we had just grown tired of each other sooner, but those farm days were becoming brutal. Our mothers had grown so tired of us and our complaints they encouraged/forced us to go out and explore.

We had previously been forbidden to wander beyond the confines of the barn or the fields they happened to be working in. This new license to explore meant we could venture into the woods that abut the fields. After having spent a summer hanging out in an overheated barn or in the fields bothering our parents, this felt like a dream. And the woods did not disappoint. We found an oasis, an area where a beautiful creek ran through the woods. We climbed trees, waded in the water, and built forts of fallen branches. We spotted a few deer, a multitude of insects, and an alarming number of snakes. The place seemed entirely private and untouched. Having grown up in a densely populated urban neighborhood, our interactions with the ‘wild’ were limited. What we found entirely changed our opinions of all that nature had to offer. The magic of that spot is something we, my friends and our respective siblings, still discuss when we all make the obligatory Thanksgiving migration back to our hometown. This experience in nature really began my love of the natural world. It is something I value and hope that we can conserve into the future. Unfortunately, there are many who do not share this value of preservation of the natural world and instead look to what we can take from nature or how it can be manipulated to suit our needs. I think changing this viewpoint and valuing nature for what it is instead of what it can offer is a large obstacle.

Competition

Consider, why is there such fierce competition around the science of climate change? How should we make sense of and evaluate the scientific claims these two competing websites make? Is one of the sites more convincing than the other? If so, why?

I think there is such fierce competition around the science of because some people do not want to accept that the climate really is changing. Many people support the science of the one that fits their ideas. They do not dig into the science themselves they only support the science that supports their ideas. That is one of the largest reasons why there is such great competition. It is difficult to evaluate the claims each website makes. I think the website that talks about how to speak to someone who is against the claims of climate change does the best job because it refutes the evidence the other website gives. It is more convincing because it gives a lot more evidence against the other sides claims. I could also be biased though because I believe that climate change is real and I think that most of this science against that claim is from funding from people who do not want loose money by having to change their business practices if evidence is proven against them.

Island Style

Growing up on a small island such as Guam made me appreciate what nature has to offer. One of my favorite past times on the island is heading down to Tumon Bay, where the central beaches on the island are located. I would sit at my usual spot underneath a coconut tree far removed from people and just take time to enjoy the beautiful view of the ocean, catch an occasional sunrise or sunset as well. There’s definitely a feeling of tranquility as I observe this picturesque view of the clear blue Pacific Ocean and listen to the waves as they crash onto the reef. It’s a great way to escape from the frenzy of everyday life and appreciate the simplicity of our natural surroundings.

Living on an island such as Guam, I’ve always been aware of the importance of conservation and preservation of natural habitats. All throughout my elementary, middle, and high school years I’ve been taught the significance of various ecosystems and its benefits for the island and people; whether it is about mangrove estuaries, the coral reef, or the importance of keeping the coastal areas free of trash and the consequences to fisheries of not doing so. I remember during my senior year of high school as part of my marine biology course and with it being earth week, I along with a group of students were tasked with presenting to 3^rd and 4^th grade students the benefits of coral reefs and the significance of ‘saving’ them. This project made me realize the impact that learning earlier on about natural habitats have on making future generations aware of and appreciate them more. With this in mind, I would say that ‘saving nature’ is an issue that should be of concern especially for future generations.

Hot Springs

Upon answering this question, I had to ponder for a while. Although I have gone camping, hiking, walking in the woods, I have never felt “thrilling, magical, or enchanting.” I never cherished the environment and the non-human world. I guess one thing that sticks out the most is the hot springs. I come from a town where hot springs are very famous and a lot of them exist in a short driving distance. My family and I love the hot springs—yes these hotels are human-made, but the hot springs they have are natural, no chemicals added. Depending on what the hot springs have inside, it is said to improve health, moisturize skin, and much more benefits. Just this past summer, I was given a chance to go to a hot springs for an overnight event for my internship. I was stressed and anxious at the same time, and I needed sometime for myself to relax and forget everything that was going on. I woke up early in the morning to enjoy the hot springs by myself. I felt relaxed, made me forget about stress, and gave me motivation for the day.

I think a lot of people in the United States do not have a chance to enjoy and experience the hot springs, as they are not a common culture here, but hot springs is definitely an experience that you should have. If you have a chance to visit a hot spring, please take that chance!

“Saving nature” is something that we should concern ourselves with. I think there are many ways to interpret this question, but I believe that no, we should not provide too much chemicals and human made whatever to the nature to preserve nature, but we should conserve what we have and first try and rebuild what human population does to the environment every day. For example, not littering in the forests—this also ties into recycling. Also, conserving water, electricity and any other energy used in everyday lives. Use public transportation and much more. I think once everybody (this is ideal, not realistic) do these small things every day, then we can figure out what must be done by chemical and technological means. But in reality, it is impossible to persuade everybody in the world. Maybe, the convention-protocol approach should be applied here regarding conserving nature.

Site 67

I've been camping at least once annually since I was 4 years old and every time it's "special" to get away from the noise and into the wild. Middle Saranac in upstate NY has been my place for this ever since I can remember-- it's a mile walk through the woods then another mile down the beach (which isn't cleaned up by any service and usually smells like clams) and is lined with blueberry bushes and marshland set behind. If you paddle in, it's a couple of miles through the creek and the open lake. I can always tell exactly where we're going because there was a washout on the face of a cliff near the site which is always bright because of the sandy orange dirt that spills over. Usually it's me, my mom and our dogs meeting up with a father-daughter duo and their dog for a week or so. I occasionally brought friends when I got older but they never quite understood "the point" and would become frustrated when there was no cell service-- to me, being off the grid is something magical in itself these days. We've been through crazy t-storms, coyote howlings, loon songs, shooting stars, sunk canoes and rapids at site 67. And as a kid I remember how much I used to like pretending the waterfront was a house (as an only child I managed to get very creative at playing alone) with multiple rooms and a walk out balcony-- which was really just a fallen tree over the lake-- and a high-class kitchen stocked with clam shell spoons. I would wander off into the woods for hours and sit by the fire until I fell asleep. Needless to say, I've seriously mastered the s'more marshmallow toasting. Despite the outrageous mosquito bites, Saranac Lake has definitely been my enchanting engagement with the non-human world that has probably shaped a lot of my feelings toward nature into adulthood.

That said, it's probably pretty apparent that I think saving nature is something we should concern ourselves with. Regardless of whether it's for "human enjoyment" and the fulfillment of biophilia as with National Parks, or if it's to conserve the biodiversity of a region and protect nature from being paved over for strip malls, saving nature is absolutely critical. Environmentally, we rely on it for ecosystem services, natural resources and even enjoyment so from a selfish American point of view we need to conserve what's left if we want to continue forward. But through a more sentimental and personal lens, I think that nature is simply too amazing to destroy or just assume will "grow back" after we've used all it has to "offer" us. Given the modern day economy, it's clear that a serious overhaul on our perception of and relationship with nature is required if we're going to save it. Another concern with this altered concept of nature that's developed can be seen in our children-- they'd rather play video games and watch Nickelodeon than go play outside or climb a tree. Many urban kids are even fearful of the woods-- quick anecdote: I was the nature director at a summer camp after I graduated high school and we had a group of fresh air kids come for the week.. mind you they were 16+ years old.. and during one of our "lessons" we stumbled upon a deer carcass that had been eaten by a coyote. I took the opportunity to explain the food chain to them until most of the guys started screaming and running the other way (although they had no idea where they were going) while the girls clutched onto me fearing for their lives. This wouldn't happen if they'd had a proper "introduction to nature" and its wonders; the fact that they're not afraid of hearing shootings at night but freak out over a dead deer in the woods is pretty telling of the sort of society we've become.

"Green Education Foundation"

“Green Education Foundation”

http://www.greeneducationfoundation.org/

Green Education Foundation “provides sustainability education resources to K-12 classrooms” (“Green”). Their target age groups are these youth, but also their families as well as they can carry out their knowledge and transfer them into their families. Their objective is to promote and enhance environmental education (“Green”). The organization believes that enhancing the youth’s awareness of environmental education, will be effective to enforces people to save the environment.

This organization features what I personally believe is the most important to increase environmental awareness, through education. Without the knowledge of what is happening in the world, without understanding why it is happening, ways to prevent them, it is almost impossible to improve the environmental situations. Bringing awareness from a young age will also increase its effectiveness as they will be able to carry out the awareness and preventing the worsening of the environment in the future.