Slashdot Mirror
Cradle to Cradle
According to the authors, current human technology is a product of "cradle to grave" design. We pull resources from the Earth, shape them into a product, use it, and throw it away. The problem, we've noticed as we've spread all over the planet, is that there really isn't any "away." This is certainly not the first time our endless cycle of resource destruction and waste creation has been brought to light. But the whole point of this book is to show why the usual responses we've developed are useless, and what to do instead.
Consider the typical "recycling" program. What is presented to the public as a way to endlessly reuse raw materials is in fact a downward spiral of degradation in material quality until, just as before, it becomes unusable. Sometimes the recycling process itself produces additional toxic waste. Most Americans have probably heard of "the 3 Rs": Reuse, Reduce, and Recycle (to which the authors add a fourth, Regulate). These are measures that only aim to slow the destructive cycle. In the end, the result is the same. As the authors put it, Less Bad is No Good.
McDonough and Braungart's proposed strategy is called "eco-effectiveness". It revolves around the idea that in nature, waste equals food. Other than incoming energy from the sun, our environment is basically a closed system. Whenever (non-human) life on our planet uses a resource, it is left in a form readily useable to other life. Humans must do the same. The authors envision a world where, when a material item gets worn out, you simply throw it on the ground to decompose. Buildings should produce more energy than they use. Eliminate the concept of "waste" entirely.
The authors put their money where their mouths are. In 1994 they started a design firm that puts these principles into practice. Examples of their work are downright astonishing. The firm was once hired to design a compostable upholstery fabric. According to their principles, not only did the finished product have to be environmentally neutral, so did the production process. In the end, an entire line of fabrics was put into production using a total of 38 chemicals (selected from a list of almost 8,000 commonly used in the industry). Water leaving the factory, originally drawn from the local water supply, tested cleaner than when it went in. And the fabric, of course, could be readily disposed of by tossing it onto the ground where it would decompose back into the soil without leaving toxic chemicals behind. They include plenty of other cases that illustrate how eco-effectiveness can both improve the quality of life and make for a more profitable business.
We live in a complex world, and it is absurd to think that every product and production process could be converted to produce similar results overnight. What about items that consist of metals and other elements that organic life doesn't usually process? There is a whole section of the book to address such issues. The authors also go beyond pure chemistry and physical health to discuss how environment affects the intangible quality of human life, and how applying these same philosophies to architecture and urban planning can produce amazing results. Unlike many environmental advocates, McDonough and Braungart both acknowledge the difficulties and provide a clear path for reform. They include a framework for eco-effective planning and decision-making so their ideas can be implemented as much as is practically possible at any given time, always with an eye for continued improvement down the road.
The writing in this book is extremely clear and articulate. The authors provide explanations of their ideas from historical, scientific, and business perspectives. They even manage to rip apart typical corporate and environmentalist thinking without pushing blame on anyone. And of course, the book is far more detailed and comprehensive than I could cover in a short review. It's hard to read it and not come away convinced, and I think that's a good thing.
One final note for anyone thinking it hypocritical to waste trees so these ideas could be distributed: the book is not made out of paper or printed using a conventional process. It's plastic -- waterproof, resilient, eligible for recycling in most locales, and an early step towards what the authors hope will be infinitely recyclable synthetic book-making materials.
Links: McDonough's architectural firm; the design firm mentioned in the review; a webcast of NPR's National Press Club at which McDonough talked about their ideas far more eloquently than I have."
To go through your own hard times, you can from Crade to Cradle from bn.com Slashdot welcomes readers' book reviews -- to submit yours, read the book review guidelines, then hit the submission page.
In 1994 they started a design firm that puts these principles into practice. Examples of their work are downright astonishing. The firm was once hired to design a compostable upholstery fabric. According to their principles, not only did the finished product have to be environmentally neutral, so did the production process. In the end, an entire line of fabrics was put into production using a total of 38 chemicals (selected from a list of almost 8,000 commonly used in the industry). Water leaving the factory, originally drawn from the local water supply, tested cleaner than when it went in. And the fabric, of course, could be readily disposed of by tossing it onto the ground where it would decompose back into the soil without leaving toxic chemicals behind.
Wonderful... but people aren't going to jump for it unless it costs the same or less. Look at how hard factories fight things like filters on smokestacks, because it'll raise prices a few cents per item.
Energy.. or thermodynamics.
I'd like to see an energy comparison on which process is more efficient and what the total energy consumption from each was - including, for example, all the energy used to make those chemicals in use.
The point these people miss is that it isn't raw materials and gargage that does us in. It's going to be the supply of energy.
..don't panic
Any waste produced means the you are being
inneficient with resources which means you
are losing money. This type of design can be
cheaper beacause it is far more efficient
in the use of resources.
...of fighting against thermodinamics laws... and winning.
I don't such things are possible. A building cannot produce more power than it uses. If you produce thermal power from chemical power (that is: you burn charcoal) you are pushing a degradation in energy.
one energy is degraded, there is no way back.
I'm not discussing the skills of the writer of the book, nor I'm saying there isn't a better way to handle the estract-mangle-use-throw cycle.
but we must use energy to do things, and once you used energy... you can reuse it a finited number of times.
obviously this does not apply to solar power :)
:dikappa
These are not the environmentalist ideas we're looking for.
And no mention was made at all about how comfortable those eco-chairs were. How long could you use it before the upholstery wore out?
Greens need a better argument than this review intimates. How much regulation is necessary? What is the maximum negative economic impact allowable before environmental regulations must be curbed. Name industries where ecological improvements resulted in better revenues, or other tangible benefits.
I have been pwned because my
One final note for anyone thinking it hypocritical to waste trees so these ideas could be distributed:
Actually, I thought trees were a renewable resource, and when disposed of properly, paper can be biodegradable.
The only problem I see is the bleaching in some papers.
I am the evil aardvark!
Finally someone makes a book it is safe to read in the bathtub.
I wonder how a plastic book would stack up against a paper book for longevity?
And just to keep on topic here, I think that looking at the way we manufacture things with an eye to increasing the potential for recycleability is a good thing. Landfill space is finite and we definitely don't want to wind up living in a sea of disposable diapers, plastic 6-pack holders, discarded hot-dogs and stale twinkies.
Maybe a book like this could get people who live in places like New Mexico to look at how we use our EXTREMELY limited resources.
Not to mention how wasteful the rest of the world is...
Now I don't want to come off as some Tree-Hugging Hippy, but there is a lot of substance to this whole conservation thing. Just look at LA. If they don't find another way of getting water, there are going to be a lot of thirsty people in the near future. (This is the case with much of the west/southwest US).
There is more to be said for clean technologies too. They may be more expensive to implement initially, but in the long run not only do they save money, you're saving the planet so future generations don't have to clean up you mess (fuel-cells and fusion anyone?)...
*Glares at the baby boomers...*
Linux is dead.
LU
The firm was once hired to design a compostable upholstery fabric.
Just think of what your unwashed geek body would do to this one.
-Tolerate my intolerance
The affects of environmental damage are incremental, so it will take an enlightened authority to force these changes on society.
And the fabric, of course, could be readily disposed of by tossing it onto the ground where it would decompose back into the soil without leaving toxic chemicals behind.
What's to stop the fabric from decomposing in my living room? It doesn't matter whether I leave a steak outside or in my living room, the steak is going to decompose.
What seems to be a missing point is durability. I would think that something that easily decomposes would be less durable than something that "lasts forever", almost by definition.
Sometimes it's best to just let stupid people be stupid.
So I should just drop down my pants and take a dump when and where I feel like it?
"Sound like typical 'environmentalist' rhetoric? Not by half. This book actually contains reasonable explanations and practical solutions."
As does every 'environmentalist' book I've ever read. You are more of an environmentalist than you would like to admit.
Personally, I think it would be easier (and much cooler!) to gengineer bugs that do eat our waste. Of course there is that whole risk of mutation and the bugs eating all the plastic around us, sending our civilization into chaos and disorder, eventually collapsing, but that always seems pretty cool in the books too. Then I can become a warlord and get my harem. Warlords get a harem, right?
---- El diablo esta en mis pantalones! Mire, mire!
These are measures that only aim to slow the destructive cycle. In the end, the result is the same.
Entropy wins again.
Everyone likes environmentally safe/clean engineering designs, but they are usually last on the list, and nearly never on the "need" portion of the list; very similar to how everyone likes secure software, but that feature is neearly never above usable, cheap, and quick.
Environmetal impact only matters if it threatens the survival of the species. Thus, locusts can not do their thing unchecked. This is the same with most other species. There are checks and balances against everything. Except us, but if we can determine most environmental externalties and associate them with economic production costs, our economic system will 'weed' out net (environmental/economical) producers.
The Problem, of course, is correctly analyzing externalities. This is what needs more work, and even with more work, will probably prove impossible in some cases.
WhiteWolf666 an exBush supporter. All you new-school,compassionate,save the children Republicans can rot in hell
This review reads like a Wired article - "visionary thinkers with groundbreaking ideas set to revolutionize the world!", whereas in actual fact these type of ideas are fairly mainstream in some parts of Europe.
I don't want to start off a USA vs Europe thread, but it's true that in some countries in Europe (not all) the level of environmental awareness and recycling is extremely high in industry as well as the government and public spheres.
I agree with your line of thinking wrt. an ideal global open market democracy.
Unfortunately, your argument only holds when the things you use cost what they cost. That is, if you don't pay an unreasonably low price for (raw or fabricated) products comming from third world countries and if don't burn fossile fuels at the rate we currently are simply because they are "cheap".
Inefficiency is really a relative thing when "cost" is as unbalanced as it is currently defined by the global currency markets.
I like your gimmick.
Yes, like animals. No, animals don't wear pants.
Infuriate left and right
Eliminate the concept of "waste" entirely.
This post stored using recycled bits and rendered using recycled pixels.
"Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither!"
In McDonough's speech, he talks about this. Trees produce millions of flowers whose petals fall on the ground. It's not efficient, it's EFFECTIVE. To fit in with a prolific natural world, he argues that we should produce MORE but ensure that all of what we produce fits into the cycle - our waste becomes someone elses food.
In Soviet Russia, hot grits put YOU down THEIR pants.
Anyone earning large amounts of money exploiting other people, materials, chemicals that are bad for the environment... they're all doing it
Anyone consuming the cheapest product, without any care for production... they're doing it
Nobody calculates the REAL cost of anything any more. Look at the dot com crash. Before that there were investors buying in to exploration trips on ships that would never get a crew and sail. It comes back again and again.
This book sounds like a great read. Will you read it? Probably not. Will you buy more expensive, eco friendly stuff? Probably not.
And who is most to blame? World leaders. Corruption. You name it. But the only person you can really blame is yourself. For that, indeed, is the only thing you can really change.
Global attitudes have to change. These things are possible. Stop chasing the money dragon, and get into a more zen life.
Or you could just say bollocks to it, and get run over by a bus tomorrow... you can't be a finite being in a (to all intents and purposes) infinite world and still contribute to the greater good, really, can you?
Conversion Rate Optimisation French / English consultant
actually, there is some evidence that oil reserves may be self replenishing if you wait a reasonable period of time.
The source would be microbes buried deep in the hot rocks of the earth.
"It is a greater offense to steal men's labor, than their clothes"
I bet they would if they could, PANTS RUEL!!! :D
Linux is dead.
LU
There is a world summit coming up (a 10 years later follow-up to the Rio Summit) in which many issues related to this topic will be discussed.
I've been working as a contractor on a website project recently for a UK university. The site uses the Slash code, and is aiming to focus discussions between special interest groups in the time before the summit (groups like Greenpeace, Friends of the Earth, etc).
The site is called Earth Summit for All, and there is quite a lot of background information there relating to sustainable development in general and the summit in particular, as well as the discussions powered by the Slash software which are only just starting to take shape...
Regards,
Denny
Police State UK - news and
In this house, we OBEY THE LAWS OF THERMODYNAMICS!
"I don't know that atheists should be considered citizens, nor should they be considered patriots." - George Bush
... thermodynamics ? Esp. the bit about entropy, and it always increasing ?
Is made out of leather, wood, and cotton (and some little metal bits, but not a significant amount).
Am I an enviro-God?
Are couches really the pinnacle of achievement in terms of bio-safety? Wouldn't a naturally produced, biodegradable television be a little more impressive?
Let's not stir that bag of worms...
Damn, I wanted to review this book. Oh well, I'll just say that while anyone can enjoy reading it, it is clearly aimed at the designers of products, not merely at consumers. The whole premise is that we can't solve the problem by just consuming less -- we need products that behave as nature does.
Take textiles. Many textiles contain unwanted materials such as heavy metals or pesticides, what the authors refer to as "products-plus". Why are they included with the product? Did you the consumer ask for them? Such products can't be safely decomposed or recycled. The only safe place for them is a landfill (hence the term cradle-to-grave). Take the long, long-term view and it is clear that, if this cradle-to-grave model continues, we'll fill the planet with landfills.
However, if you model the product on nature, then the waste from the textile production process and end-of-life product itself can be used safely as mulch: cradle-to-cradle. The challenge for the designers is to distinguish the biological nutrients from the technical nutrients, and provide a way for these nutrients to be reused, the way nature reuses them. This is not hypothetical: the authors provide many examples of companies that are doing this type of work.
If you are a scientist, engineer, or designer, you will need to be familiar with the techniques these guys espouse. The MBA's willl need to recognize the value of this approach, but it's up to the designers to select the materials and techniques that achieve the results.
Also, I was very impressed with the example the authors provide of Bill Ford at Ford Motor Company. He is transforming the ancient River Rouge plant into a model of these principles, and saving as much as $35 million in the process.
In short, this is a really thought-provoking book.
Oh, yeah, it's not easy to pad these out to 120 characters.
I haven't read the book, so I don't know if they mention this or not. Since they say that recycling is not the answer and is bad, should we stop doing it, or continue to recycle what we can, in the meantime, until the "real" solutions present themselves and become commonplace and economically feasible?
I haven't read this book, but I'll certainly keep an eye out for it. However, for anyone who read the words "how environment affects the intangible quality of human life" and nodded in agreement, I'd like to point out the excellent "A Pattern Language" (Christopher Alexander, Sara Ishikawa, et al., Oxford Press 1977), which identifies the bits of a building and its surroundings that connect us to the world, from the placement of windows to the optimal width of sidewalks. After reading this book, it's hard to drive past a newly-sprouted field of designed-in-a-vacuum McMansions without seeing how ridiculously unnatural they are.
And for a lighter look at how we got here, "From the Bauhaus to Our House" by Tom Wolfe is a great (admittedly skewed) history of 20th century architecture, and how Socialist model housing of the 1920s became the signature style of international corporations by the 1960s.
Both of these books are ostensibly about architecture, but I keep coming back to them as general design touchstones when I need to remember that the stuff I'm making (programming, teaching, designing) has to be about people and interactions, not just stuff.
"Luck is the residue of design" --Branch Rickey
The "cradle to grave" way of living reminds me of Windows, while "cradle to cradle" sounds more like open source. Any thoughts?
Karma: Good (despite my invention of the Karma: sig)
...pick two.
(not mine, but I can't remember where I read it)
Regards,
Denny
Police State UK - news and
You want a non-regulatory state?
Fine.
Let's start by getting rid of the laws that create land rights, mineral rights, water rights, and other state-granted exploitation of the planet.
And those laws that create limited-liability corporations should go out the window.
Finally, repeal the laws that prevent us from acting in reasonable self-defence when some greedhead poisons the water and air we all share.
Now, personally, I'm fine with that. I think we could come up with more co-operative means of resource allocation and economic organization, and a more gentle type of industrial development.
But you strike me as a capitalist sort of person, a big fan of a powerful state choosing and backing private concerns to control resources. In which case, we could keep all those laws and make sure that they're structured so that the artifical rights granted by the state to mess with the land don't let industry poison us.
Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
You cannot wash away blood with blood
all you stupid faggots on slashdot are a bunch of freaking stupid moronic pieces of shit and should go jump off a fuckin cliff this paragraph doesn't mean anything its just tog et passt the filterz
Non-biodegradeable this and that. We need to recognize something. We as a species will almost always do what is easiest, cheapest, and most directly to the purpose. One hundred years ago, most things were made out of wood, because it was readily available and it was fairly cheap to process. Fifty years ago, everything was made out of steel because it was readily available and cheap to process. Now, everything is made out of plastic because...you get the idea.
In the future, oil reserves will diminish. We will need to adjust our modes of production and our supply lines. This goes for consumer goods, for food, and for energy. It is all part of the economic optimization process. *That* is the fundamental principle that has been at work in the rise of nature and human civilization. As a working engineer, I know that it takes effort and know-how to build a reasonably efficient design process that minimize costs and maximizes operational efficiency and still conforms to the current emissions requirements. Adding further constraints to that engineering process will come at some cost in quality or availability. In an economic reality, this stuff will just cost more.
The most telling point is the institution of the "fourth R." Regulation. Yep, more regulation is the key. That will guarantee that the "environmentalist" teet doesn't dry up for they can retire. We need better engineered systems that do their utmost to optimize system efficiency and minimize costs.
</rant>
It's the best explanation of "how things came to be this way" within our global culture I have read so far, and his logic and reasoning is very interesting.
If you've ever wondered how "humanity" as we like to call ourselves (but only the members of our culture) came from a relatively stable population to the brink of a global collapse within just 500 generations, then this book is for you. From glacial growth to exponential growth.
Ever wondered whats wrong with the world? http://www.ishmael.org/
Humans do nothing that breaks the laws of nature. A skyscraper is no less 'natural' than a termite mound.
love is just extroverted narcissism
I just finished reading Ishmael by Daniel Quinn. It was a great read. My guess is that this work was derived from Quinn's in some way. Speaking of which, the movie Instinct starring Anthony Hopkins and Cuba Gooding Jr. is a reasonable film with some great philosophy that was inspired by Ishmael.
no more war!
I'm not an environmentalist by any stretch of the word but I was sympathetic to their aims. Problem I found was that they had few specifics about how exactly this massive undertaking of rethinking how we make things would occur. It's one thing to say, let's make things cleaner, another to lay out this process.
As I said in my review, "It's one thing to write a manifesto as an intellectual exercise and quite another to trigger a revolutionary change in the fundamental way that humanity goes about creating the things that they use. It's a process that we have using for over a century and if we are to shift direction, it's incumbent upon the manifesto authors to build an airtight case for how that shift is to be undertaken."
Despite that, I thought McDonough and Braungart did writing a fascinating piece of blueskying.
You want to know who isn't running Firefox 2.x? They spell it "definately" and "rediculous".
Of course, trees are a renewable resource, but the time your talking, hundreds of years, before a new tree will grow is unacceptable to turn a profit. Of course, there's always hemp, which could produce the same amount of paper pulp in a much shorter time, like 1 year.
But with such a great renewable resource at our disposale, we decide instead to wage war on against it in the name of Knowing Whats Best for You. Of course the fact that hemp oil burns brighter than any other oil and could provide an infinitely renewable energy source makes it a prime target of the oil and industrial companies, which of course will keep your governments from doing anything to curb their massive profits. These are people that care so much about money, that they're willing to destroy the planet for their future generations.
But then now with Cointelpro reinacted, I guess I should stop there.
Instead of having billions of people, kill 95% of them.
Go ahead. Roll a D20. If you get 20, you get to live. otherwise, kill yourself.
Lots of technical and environmental problems are solved by the application of vast amounts of nuclear power
Buildings should produce more energy than they use
How does that work ? Are the buildings powered by perpetual motion machines ?
Ceci n'est pas une signature.
Me, I'd rather stagger like a drunk between the possibilities of over and under regulation...And I don't drink!... Alchohol, that is.
I'm halfway through this book and so far it is a good read. But it's missing few things that I think are critical:
(1) The authors discuss the book and how it's infinitely recycleable, but offer no clue as to who to contact to do so! Maybe I'm wrong in assuming that my local recycler doesn't know that the book is recycleable or how to do it.
(2) I would have liked more contact information regarding some of their projects and resources for similar projects. The Natural Home book had resources, why not this book? Contact info for the folks that designed the "dura-book" would have been nice, too. (I'd love to have some of my favorite books printed in this format!).
Ponkus 4 Wonkus !
We have more forests, cleaner air, and cleaner water in the US now than we did at the turn of the century. So in the past 100 years, these ARE the glory days.
Of course, Neal Stephenson had a pretty good idea of the impact of practical nano construction is.
One of the coolest parts of the book was how eco friendly the designs were, and not by intention. Because when you have the ability to build at the same level nature does (molecule by molecule) you can make extremely simple designs, which are easy to break down. The whole idea that the water intake system for the raw materials plant was not a gigantic intake duct, but instead, thousands of little tubes which could do a better job because of its ability to act as a wick. The side affect of this design was that it was almost identical to clump of reeds, and after like it.
And items could be broken back down easily, however if they were made pre-nanotech, it took longer, because their patterns were chaotic.
The problem is that as many here have pointed out, forcing regulations on corporations isn't going to change anything as long as people's minds aren't changed. People (at least some of us) need to have a different mind set if we're going to survive in the long run. That is, as long as we think of ourselves as outside of "nature" and living in a separate place from it, we'll never realize that we are only making our very own habitat uninhabitable for ourselves.
It will probably take a few generations to change minds (look at civil rights in the U.S.), but it can be done and not all minds need to be changed for a change in the impact we as a culture make on the world to be affected.
For another set of books more on the cultural aspects of this issue, check out any of the following Daniel Quinn books (all quick reads): Ishmael, The Story of B, My Ishmael, and Beyond Civilization.
In other words, we want more things made out of meat.
man will destroy himself with bio/nuclear weapons, long before he makes the earth uninhabitable. Point: who gives a crap.
There is indeed a lot of wasted energy as far as the Earth is concerned. We choose to use the most convenient and cheapest to harvest forms, i.e. fossil fuels. The big issue seems to be that we need some total amount of cost to do things. Therefore, I propose that
Cost = Entropy used + Energy Used
Saying that, for example, you could use a very fast process to extract oil from the ground that uses minimal energy (what you pay for) but increases entropy (makes a big environmental mess). At a greater energy cost, you could make it a lot cleaner. Fortunately, we have a saving grace:
The sun provides us with an almost unlimited amount of energy.
The problem here is that we choose to use the more inexpensive forms of energy, but if we did use forms that come from the sun rather than toxic entropy-increasing forms or non-renewable forms (possibly the same, considering the toxic by-products of fossil fuels, which I understand did come from the sun, but are toxic nonetheless. The sun's energy was expended so that these toxins could be trapped.)
What a lot of people whose posts I am reading are forgetting is this:
Plants (wood, food) = Solar, their energy to grow comes mostly from the sun, and what doesn't goes back to Earth
Wind = Solar, pressure is due to heat from the sun
And of course direct solar energy.
Therefore, it is not hypocritical to make a book with paper. Paper is solar energy. Considering the vast amount of this energy that goes unharvested and unused, it is therefore not impractical to harness a virtually unlimited and safe energy source.
~Ben
eat shit!!!!!!!!
Energy is never consumed... It just changes form. Duh...
I find nothing wrong with paper books. They could
easily be made of recycled paper. Trees are
wonderful producers of paper and sequesters of
carbon and shade producers. Don't think cutting
trees is bad-it is not as long as you replace them.
Shells and skeletons fall to the bottom of the sea and turn into limestone.(calcium carbonate)
Peat bogs fail to rot, but thicken and thicken, eventually turning to coal.
What do they mean by "we"?
Susan Blackmore's "The Meme Machine",
and noted philosopher Daniel Dennet's "Conciousness Explained" both evince that there is another non-biological life entity that we are composed of. That is the meme.
(do some reaserch if you don't know what I'm talking about).
Recent history and the world as it is now have been great for memes.
So givin that all good replicators are selfish, memes and genes will compete. Who should win?
-... ---
Right, it's inconvenient and they see no return for that inconvenience, so they take no action. However, recently there have been cases where the level of consumer interest in specific environmental/ecological/etc issues has risen to a sufficiently high level that it started to affect consumer purchasing decisions.
That is when industry starts to pay attention to environmental issues. As a specific example, it is now not much more expensive and certainly no more difficult to buy organic milk/eggs/etc (in the UK anyway) than it would be to buy the less healthy/moral/whatever alternatives...
If you want to persuade industry to behave in a better way, you can only get their attention through their balance sheets. In most high income countries (if you're reading this site, that's probably you) people are often happy to pay more for environmentally less damaging products once they have been made aware of the issue(s) involved.
People will even pay an extra amount which is more than the difference in production costs - so the manufacturers can make more profit by selling the 'better' type of product! Now that's the kind of good reason for developing a social conscience that companies can see the sense in :)
Regards,
Denny
Police State UK - news and
Great. Make a sofa that rots after a few months or years. Planned obsolescence has never been easier. When the dog starts rolling in the couch it's time to get another.
"the book is not made out of paper or printed using a conventional process. It's plastic -- waterproof, resilient, eligible for recycling in most locales, and an early step towards what the authors hope will be infinitely recyclable synthetic book-making materials. "
Isn't that kinda against the opening few paragraphs of your review, isn't recycling degrading the materials, where as paper can be thrown on the ground....
Anyhow, I'm a bit of an anti-wood pulp man, and think they should have printed the book on hemp paper, which will last a few hundred years, be recycleable, use less chemicals etc...
thank God the internet isn't a human right.
...than the initial article. Had you done a little more research, you'd have found out that they used natural fibers (wool, etc.) to make it and that they used non-environmental impacting dyes, etc. in the rest of the manufacture. It's won many awards and apparently works rather well.
People need to realize the costs of the disposal/waste that they produce and add them in acccordingly. Sure, the stuff's cheap, but people aren't paying for the problems right now either.
I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the State of Texas
Wasn't there some guy with an equation about this one? ;-)
No, seriously, I suppose if we develop far enough scientifically you can take the view that energy is all that matters, because we can use the energy to make the materials we want... but the chances are we'll run out of something we need before we reach that stage, so I think you're right really.
Regards,
Denny
Police State UK - news and
> people aren't going to jump for it unless it costs the same or less
I disagree. A huge segment of the population, possibly even a majority, is willing to pay extra for environmental benefits. The question is not "if," but "how much?"
There are two problems: First, there is the "raw" cost difference (how many extra dollars for the biodegradable upholstery), and second, there is the "hidden" cost difference (difference in life span -- longer or shorter -- or difference in net energy cost from using the "environmental-friendly" product)
I'd gladly buy an electric car, for example, if the cost were 20% more than the cost for a regular car (alas, the difference is more like 60% currently, and the environmental "advantages" are not entirely clear since the batteries are not biodegradable).
Alas, there is an economic battle going on: the automobile and oil industries are fiercely resisting any change, and they are cleverly pricing alternatives so that they will appear "unaffordable" or to defend their false claims that "nobody wants electric cars" etc.
I'm planning to buy this book today.
-- http://www.MarkWelch.com/ Pleasanton California
See? All he wants is for us to invent a perpetual motion machine. It's not so much to ask, we're just thinking about it wrong.
mark
If you want to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first create the universe. -- Carl Sagan
Another aside (I have yet to read the book) is an article in Mother Earth News (www.motherearthnews.com) on how to live in such a world andmove out suburbs into true communities.
An example is a cohousing community in Ithaca, New York. Check out the website, it is truly fascinating! Esp for conscientious geeks...
http://www.ecovillage.ithaca.ny.us/
More like a junta. A meritocracy, a small band of the intellectual elite to command society. There's way too many people without the intelligence, education, or interest in making decisions for democratic change to work. What america has always wanted, whatever you might think, is 1) creature comfort for the average person, and 2) a general excuse not to make decisions. 1) is obvious, 2) is indicated by the dwindling voter turnout year after year and the general ignorance of significant political, cultural, or scientifc matters of the day.
So let's just remove the rights that people have been allowing to wither on the vine, as it were and replace our government that will give people what they want. Comfortable existences in which the scary decisions are made by people with an understanding of the significance of those decisions.
I'd like to think an "enlightened" authority wouldn't be "forcing" anything.
Goverments won't make environmentally considerate policies until their citizens demand it. They're a lot like companies in that respect (more so every day, it seems!)
If you care about what happens to this planet, don't sit around waiting for some 'enlightened authority' to save you - start arguing with people in a position to do something about the issues you care about. Join political pressure groups, write to your local govt representative(s), local papers, etc etc etc...
Okay, so maybe you can't save the planet. And maybe I can't. And maybe that guy over there can't. But how about you, me, him, and these other several thousand people? How about if we add all their friends into that question too??
The number of people noticing that things aren't quite right grows every day - provide them with an example of what to do once they've noticed! (Hint: sitting still and keeping quiet is not the right example)
Regards,
Denny
Police State UK - news and
The authors put their money where their mouths are. In 1994 they started a design firm that puts these principles into practice.
The authors are trying to sell their business by associating it with environmentalism. It is a selling point, they hope to increase their profits by doing so. That's not the same as "putting their money where their mouths are". They are putting their customer's money their. I think a little skepticism is in order here.
It revolves around the idea that in nature, waste equals food. Other than incoming energy from the sun, our environment is basically a closed system. Whenever (non-human) life on our planet uses a resource, it is left in a form readily useable to other life. Humans must do the same.
Environmental contaminants which promote growth can be just as harmful as those which limit it. Fertilizer runnoff from farm fields promotes algae growth in lakes and streams. This pretty much destroyes the ecologicial balance. The algae take over, displacing fish and everything else. In the specific instance of biodegradable fabrics, perhaps there is a net advantage in creating waste which can be consumed by nature. But contrary to what the authors claim, the creation of eco-consumable waste should not be endorsed as a general principle.
And the fabric, of course, could be readily disposed of by tossing it onto the ground where it would decompose back into the soil without leaving toxic chemicals behind.
Note that if you are one of those who fear CO2, then this is exactly the wrong thing to do. Decay releases CO2 into the atmosphere. If you want to reduce atmospheric CO2 then you must imitate nature in different way; entomb your waste under the ground. Coal and landfills are both ways of accomplishing the same thing-- Removing Carbon from the atmosphere locking it beneath the surface.
Ceci n'est pas une signature.
Humans are not the only creators of waste.
Animals create waste, plants create waste, stars and planets create waste. In fact, everything creates waste. Its called the Second Law of Thermodynamics.
These guys are making a living telling us all how naughty we are for doing something that it is fundamentally impossible not to do. Thanks a lot jackasses.
Following the Coase theorem might succeed in forcing marginal cost to include external costs, but it completely fails to develop sustainable systems.
Using your polluter and downwind landowner scenario: the polluter will have to buy the right to pollute off the landowner.
So, the pollution begins, and the landowner gets compensated for that pollution, but the environmental damage still exists!
People forget that compensating property owners is not the end of the story - we have to make sure we don't unknowingly destroy ourselves, even if we get a good price for it.
plus, in the real world, the true cost of some externalities is usually not known at the moment of pollution. Look at DDT - it was thought to be safe, and then later found to be poisonous. How would the Coase theorem work then, after the property rights have been transferred?
--
Long-term effects of Bush deficits
McDonough and Braungart's proposed strategy is called "eco-effectiveness" It revolves around the idea that in nature, waste equals food. ... the book is not made out of paper or printed using a conventional process. It's plastic
So in essence the authors went for the do as we say not as we do. Instead of choosing an eco friendly product like paper that biodegrades, they chose to publish using plastic books that will fill our dumps thousands of years after their 15 seconds of fame have come and gone.
I'm going to start building a monument simialr to crazy horse, using wind and water errosion I expect to finish in 2930.
Look at how hard factories fight things like filters on smokestacks, because it'll raise prices a few cents per item.
That is because the people doing that bitching are only concerned with their own immediate interests, and nothing more. If your eyes do not look beyond the next quarter's financial statements, effective and intelligent planning for the future is next to impossible. "Why implement Kyoto? It will have a negative effect on our profits - and our stock options".
It would be in everyone's best interest to maybe look at the big picture once in a while. I suspect that if you take the long term view, the question is no longer "How much is this going to cost us?" Instead the question becomes "What is the cost of not doing this?" In that case, the filters on the smokestacks should be a slam dunk because their relatively trivial cost more than offsets the enormous costs of not cleaning up the environment.
*** Where are we going? And what's with this handbasket?
In the future, our present-day garbage dumps will be gold mines of resources. With nanotech we will be able to recycle and recover all the resources that are there - metals, hydrocarbons, polymers. All can be converted to useful form, in many cases in higher concentrations than played-out natural ore veins.
It's pointless to spend expensive resources today on conservation when in a few decades we will have infinitely more powerful and cheaper abilities to fix the problems. Better to divert our efforts into speeding the progress of the advanced technologies which will let us re-green the earth cheaply and easily.
First, for those whining about cost, durability, etc., please listen to the webcast. The buildings designed for major companies (SONY, Norman Miller, Ford, et. al.) end up costing much less in operating costs and increasing productivity. The plant they are building for Ford will cost $13M more than a standard comparable plant, but will remediate $48M worth of ecological damage Ford was required to fix by the government. 1 factory, out of the box saved the $35M.
Which brings my question -- how do I help. I do what I can. I'm a homeowner, so I avoid using chemicals where I can (no turfbuilder!), drive an efficient car, etc. Can someone suggest practical ways to implement on an individual or household level these very forward-thinking ideas?
We have a demand problem. Most of the energy we produce goes to waste. Solar could provide all our energy needs by a very wide margin, if me merely stopped wasting all that we're producing.
Nuclear power is a messy solution to a problem that doesn't exist.
The planet is BIG. There is near infinite room to put garbage and waste.
Dude, our planet is not "near infinite", and spelling "big" in all caps does not make it any more so.
*** Where are we going? And what's with this handbasket?
In the future, oil reserves will diminish.
Mmm yes eventually. We've already begun to run out, but instead of trying to solve the problem, our oil comp... oh sorry, our goverment, under the leadership of George W. decided to find another source. So instead, we're gonna drill under a national wildlife preserve, and go to war against people in other countries that can supply us a good route for an oil pipeline to Uzbekestan, etc.
People are stupid enough to believe the "War on Terrorism" is about freedom, when all we've done is destroy a group of people that opposed our capitalist "me, me, me" ideology, and coincidently resided in an area that would work great for an oil pipeline. Hell, we even put in their new leader, who fully backs the pipeline because of his past work in... oil. In fact if I'm not mistaken, he came up with the idea.
What's scarier is the fact that since now we have secured our oil supply for the next few hundred years, our government has decided it doesn't even need to answer to us anymore. Cointelpro, and by it's own admission this administrations policy of misleading it's own people, as well as Bush's new "We'll go wherever we need to to fight terrorism", will work out great for the Olligarchy that has come to rule this country. Now we can't stand against them, they won't tell us the truth, and they'll go do all the things that they've wanted, but havn't had political ground to do so.
If it keeps goin this way, we won't be able to change it. If half of the disenfranchised voters in this country started voting, they'd overwhelmingly overpower the current voting class. But no one cares.
Green products might well be cheapest - if you use a more encompassing definition of 'cost'.
Regards,
Denny
Police State UK - news and
I am very surprised by the number of negative comments made by the /. community. I guess "geekdom" is just as ready to fuck over this planet as anyone else. I'm half way through this book and I think it's groundbreaking. Sure, some of the ideas are not new, especially if you have lived in some parts of Europe, but as a whole it connects and brings together many concepts that, if listened to and acted on, could save us from ourselves.
The reason why good economic choices (namely, recycling) don't happen is because people overwhelmingly don't care enough to make it happen. They don't care enough to make it happen because of the social values within societies. Simply pushing for some eco-recycling ideal in society is utterly useless when the entire value-set of industrialised societies is screwed up. The big picture needs to be seen.
Of course, getting people to agree on which decision is "right" is often the problem.
Here's an example at Milliken Carpet. If you read it, you get the sense that each area that prevents having to dispose of something saves money.
Now, when you take the meta of that, you start to get into the areas of "How much regulation is necessary?" and "What is the maximum negative economic impact..." Here are a few sets to consider: pollution and health care costs; global warming and loss of farmland via desertification; gasoline usage and the cost of the military; clearing of the rainforests and the loss of novel medications. Greens are focused on areas that don't concern a particular company's balance sheet, but go beyond that to "total costs" that are often ignored to make that balance sheet better.
"It remains to be seen if the human brain is powerful enough to solve the problems it has created." Dr. Richard Wallace
Yes!
Example: What is the cost of a $50 car, that has a 25% chance of killing you every time you take a drive in it? Isn't the true cost higher than that of a $50,000 BMW? Which is why you would rather buy the latter.
Listen to Radio Nectarine, computer music 24/7
I choose to remain celibate, like my father and his father before him.
well, i guess it comes down to utilitarian theory. are you dealing with your own "best interest", or to use the jargon, your own "enlightened self interest"? does your self interest stop at your personal bounds, or extend into the cascading effects of your actions? do you factor anyone else into your best interest (i'm not necessarily suggesting altruism)? i agree that everything should be evaluated, that there should be convincing arguments, but it turns out to be extremely difficult to convince people of something that doesn't necessarily affect them directly. and this is, as you might have guessed, an absolutely enormous problem.
Litter wouldn't be a problem if it decomposed anytime soon, now would it? Tree leaves in autumn, for example, are nature's litter.
:). I'm sure if you look around hard right *now*, you'll find mostly-intact leaves from last autumn lying around. They'll eventually degrade into random soil organics, but they'll look pretty ugly while they're doing it. And by the time they do, the next few layers of leaves will be on top.
Ever try leaving leaves on your lawn to decompose instead of raking them?
It doesn't work so well
Man-made substances are even worse for this. We want them to last for years with no degradation when we store them, so they take even longer to break down in the environment. Paper is just about the most biodegradable substance we produce, but readable newspapers from 80 years ago have been pulled out of landfills. Granted, part of this is the environment of the landfill itself, but my point holds.
A "green" sofa whose upholstry biodegraded in a reasonable time would start degrading in your living room a month or two after you bought it. A sofa that did not biodegrade over the 5+ years you usd it would take its sweet time degrading in the landfill.
In summary, I don't think nature is a fast enough recycler to be worth using (at least without help).
Yes, people do need to understand the complete cost to their actions, but...
A tree is a limited effect carbon sink. They die eventually, naturally, and release their trapped carbon right back into the system. A tree is not a magic carbon sink. It's more of a delayed effect carbon sink. Who should people pay to cut down that tree? Keep in mind that wood and paper companies pay people to cut down trees - those people in turn pay others for goods and services; hence society as a whole benefits.
If this is what you were trying to say with your libertarian statement - then say it.
If you mean by externalities - individual preference and free will, oh well. I guess the market will always be imperfect.
Think of how often a device made of plastic will break & become useless. We have very few products left which can really be repaired.
:).
Plastic is actually pretty easy to repair (at least if it snaps). Acetone will glue some plastics, and methylene chloride (available at hobby stores and possibly hardware stores) will glue almost all of them. Both of them are actually strong solvents, which dissolve and re-form the plastic around the break.
Now, I'm lazy enough that I'll probably buy a new $3 plastic widget instead of repairing a broken one, but it's still _do-able_
[Note: Use methylene chloride outdoors only. The fumes are quite dangerous.]
I don't understand your post - how can Zen have money? Zen isn't an institution like the Catholic Church (to pick a name at random which definitely DOES have money!)
Regards,
Denny
Police State UK - news and
How about an EAT (Entropy Added Tax)?
(only half joking...)
its all about the pockets.
"man" (here im refering to our ancestors) evolved opposible thumbs and could now pick up two things at once. (three if you include the mouth, which is how other animals pick stuff up.)
we remained living in the wild untill the day someone came along and realized they could use their opposible thumbs to make something new to carry stuff in.
and so the path to civilization was begun. (after one false start, you see the first one was made by a woman, and the bear hide pouch didnt match the rabbit hide shoes)
Hrm... I'd be careful with the random accusations of stupidity if you're not going to spell-check them first - it tends to detract from the overall impact of your insult when you can't manage to correctly type and/or spell half of the words in it.
Regards,
Denny
Police State UK - news and
Paper is solar energy.
No, paper is matter, not energy, and by your own logic, it's merely a product of solar energy. Even that's a stretch, however, because paper does not naturally occur -- it must be processed and made by humans.
The difference between making paper and growing trees is in time. It is far quicker to make paper than to make the trees that produce it.
the problem is, if you implement an environmental regulation against a steel manufacturer in Chicago, and the manufacturer in Abudabe has less strict (or less strictly enforced) standards, your Chicago manufacturer is going to get pushed out of business by the Abudabean steel's cheaper prices.
So doing the right thing only guarantees that the less environmentally friendly company stays in business. Result = you lose your company, your employees lose their jobs, and the environmental damage you prevented in your country is perpetuated somewhere else.
The solution? Simple. Tax imports for all items from nations that don't adhere to your nation's environmental standards. Or, give your own companies that are environmentally compliant tax rebates (same net result either way). You can't have free trade between two nations without identical environmental standards (or labor standards, for that matter). The nation with less strict rules will steal all the business.
*LOL* +1 : Made me grin at the end of a workday :)
Police State UK - news and
If you spill a glass of water on the sofa, will it begin to decompose?
Realistically, can we make a Gameboy Advance out of materials that will decompose if you throw them on the ground, but not if you just use the system normally? I refuse to give up my GBA.
Stuff that easily decomposes is going to be less durable. Period.
WWJD? JWRTFA!
"Our model of technology and development is completely counter to the natural cycles and principles that worked for millions of years to create the environment we so cleverly manipulate."
Yes exactly! Those principles include such hits as "survival of the fittest," "kill or be killed," "the weak must die unless they are useful as slaves," "you are either food or mating material," and the ever-popular "hey, don't mess with my women."
Idealized representations of a nonexistent past should be avoided at all costs.
Other important methods of harvesting solar energy that I forgot: hydroelectric power and wind power.
Both are manifestations of the weather system, which is a giant solar-driven heat engine. While it's doubtful that wind power could provide a reasonable amount of energy on a continental scale, hydroelectric power certainly can. Both of these forms of solar energy harvesting are quite efficient, because you get a lot of the energy concentration for free.
Idealized representations of a nonexistent past should be avoided at all costs.
I think it is you who may have the idealistic mentality that you can take what you wish and discard without worry. No? I'm tired of intelligent people being called idealists by unintelligent brutes such as yourself.
Stuff that easily decomposes is going to be less durable. Period.
Oh please; quit spreading stupidity. Trees are very durable, yet they decompose. You call people idealistic when they understand that we can't continue to modify our environment without respecting nature? Please! I think it is you who are idealistic.
"The firm was once hired to design a compostable upholstery fabric. According to their principles, not only did the finished product have to be environmentally neutral, so did the production process."
No mention as to anybody wanting to BUY the finished product, is there? Greens have lots of great ideas, most of which usualy involve me buying something I don't want because of government regulation.
Lets see a solution that doesn't involve some greenie sticking a gun in my face.
You know, when you put it that way, there are only two sources of energy available to us:
- heat (from the middle of the earth, and from the sun)
- nuclear fusion and fission
All other forms are by-products of the former two. And actually, the heat from the sun is a by-product of the nuclear fission happening inside the sun, so, there is only nuclear energy, and since we don't have enough raw ore for nuclear fission to be a durable source of energy, nuclear fusion will be our only real possible form of really long-term earth-generated energy.
Too bad nobody wants to invest in research in the stuff.
The above message is not troll-like, and shouldn't be rated that way. Whoever has doubt, should go ahead and read the troll howto before taking away karma points like that.
The most telling point is the institution of the "fourth R." Regulation.
Regulation should be there to make people pay the true costs of their activities so that it is cost effective for the companies to do the "right" thing rather than making toxic messes that we have to clean up later on down the road.
The problem is that as many here have pointed out, forcing regulations on corporations isn't going to change anything as long as people's minds aren't changed.
The goal of regulation shouldn't be to _stop_ companies from polluting; but it should make it so economically infeisable that they look for other options. For instance, instead of setting limits on how much C02 is emitted, regulation should just charge per pound. This way, those companies start spending more money thinking about how to reduce C02 for their competitive advantage rather than lobbying to have limits changed.
What a great explanation. Thank you. What regulation needs to do is charge for Entropy used. That is, charge per pound for messes. Then companies would change.
;) Clark
nice work!
Slashdot requires you to wait 20 seconds between hitting 'reply' and submitting a comment.
It's been 19 seconds since you hit 'reply'!
If this error seems to be incorrect, please provide the following in your report to SourceForge.net:
Browser type
User ID/Nickname or AC
What steps caused this error
Whether you used the Back button on your browser
Whether or not you know your ISP to be using a proxy, or any sort of service that gives you an IP that others are using simultaneously
How many posts to this form you successfully submitted during the day
* Please choose 'formkeys' for the category!
Thank you.
I'm all in favor of what you said, and I'm a big capitalist advocate.
People may not give you this impression, but there's a big difference between being pro-big business and pro capitalism. I'm pro capitalism. Take the government out of as much of business as possible. (I won't say all, although some would.)
The current problem is simple: the government can pass laws drastically effecting businesses. So, a corrupt businessman can attempt to buy favorable legislation, or just trick legislators into passing laws that help him. Honest businesses lose out, and eventually get forced out of business. Look at the big businesses now... how many stories of unfair treatment, pork barrel funding, and tax evasion do you hear? Well, guess what... they have no choice! If you play fair, you get put out of business. Congratulations, US Congress has done a masterful job over the last fifty years of making sure the honest businessman gets burned!
So, take the US government out of the equation. Make it illegal to give tax rebates in certain industries/geographic areas, or on any level other than the national level. Eliminate the EPA and OSHA or else make abso-fucking-lutely sure that enforcement is consistent across the board and nobody gets pampered treatment. No free use of government land - pay a market price for leasing. No free use of resources from government land - auction it off to the highest bidder, with the minimum bid being 5% below market. Level the playing field, and watch the honest businesses that do the best job of providing what the customer needs excel.
I'm not logically opposed to OSHA or the EPA, but I've seen incredible double standards of enforcement, even in my simple college summer jobs.
and as usual it is me.
Ahhh yess, the obligatory sigh oh, did you say sig?
> The point is that if I had carpet that would last for 50 years without fading or wearing out, I'd buy it in a second.
Long life options exist in many, many, areas. But, the bean counters are quite good at establishing "prices" based on "total avoided cost" of using a throw away option. They do this because you're buying down what they see as their future revenue stream.
So you can pay to buy, install, and throw away carpet 5 times over the next 50 years, or pay the same present value cost to install 50 year carpet today.
Sounds like an OK deal until you realize that you lose the short term insurance values. You are unable to buy new to replace for stains, floods, and other acts of life, or to move without losing the "equity" in the "good carpet", and the fact you're locked out of the next 50 years of technology advance.
Returnable milk jugs are a historical example of the perversion we call "free markets". After they got over glass jars, they moved to a thick high density clear poly. Tough as nails. 100 cycles then you sent them off for a melt and reform to clean up the scratches. Soon the disposable poly and paper cartons, the ones you see today, cost 1/100th the price of the returnable. Alas, the long-life jug people didn't allow for the cost of sanitation. After all, they sold the disposible cartons and didn't want to lose a dime in the process. Eco-be-damned is the watchword of the world.
Paper companies "farm" trees. They do not just buy land, whack the trees down, and move on. They produce as many trees as they consume.
If we stopped using paper, we would force the paper companies out of business. The paper companies would have to sell their forests to other people/companies, who would then cut all the trees down to build a neighborhood or strip mall.
Buying and using paper creates/saves pine forests. Economics is the driving factor here. The paper companies are the *only* industry with a dependency on forests. As long as they have money, we'll have forests.
I've been on too many commercial rooftops working on getting carriers roof rights and such. Most roofs don't have much room, that is often where HVAC and such are kept. The other thing you will find often time up there are small racks or closets for cell, network and pager systems.
Second, how do you propose to keep the proposed plants alive? Most plant's couldn't handle the harsh sun and heat. Would you water these plants? More money. How do you make sure there's no leaks? Things settle over time, so "proper drainage" doesn't always stay that way. How to you patch a leak once you find one? How much top soil are you going to have to dig through? How do you deal with root systems that start to grow into the infrastructure. How much weight is the structure going to have to bear to provide the long term benifit to provide a return? How about the increased liability that the owner will need to incur because the roof will need to have a higher level of maintainence? Would you choose to lose one or two storied off your house (and thus lose money) to have roof garden that *may* survive the heat, and be seen by very few and unusable to most?
This book sounds good, but this idea is often considered and the cons far outweigh the pros.
Democrats and Republicans only disagree about how to enslave you
You have to raise the children to serve this role; educate them to be the leaders, think like leaders, and be concerned with 1) and not 2). In other words, breed an effective ruling group according to a set of precepts developed and set in stone.
I was sort of joking, too. Much as I think people are generally too stupid to make important decisions, the ruling oligarchy strategy has a tendency to terribly awry.
Perhaps you are thinking of rooftops that are made of materials that reflect or hold the heat near the rooftop. With dirt and plants there, wouldn't there be less heat, like the heat levels in your back yard? Isn't that the whole point?
And besides, what plants are you talking about that could not handle the "harsh sun and heat".
I don't think they are planning on planting ferns. Think of things that love sunlight and need little water. There are plenty of them growing along side our highways right now, in almost every state.
I think I would try heirloom types of tomatoes, beans, squash and corn, then you get a crop out of the whole thing as well.
-G
--Fac Iustum Nec Time-- --Veritas Prevalibit--
What is really needed isn't decomposing upholstery, it's a lot fewer ideas like this.
Thomas Jefferson said:
It seems though that our actions can have unintended consequences that will indeed place a burden on future generations. A burden that morally should not be foisted on them.
Unfortunately a system to deal with the issue of dealing with individual property rights versus costs to the worldwide 'commons' will only become available when ecology is a mature hard science, not the jumble of guesses it is today. No insurance companies will cover GM crop producers, because nobody has the science to predict the possible ecological consequences of GM crops, hence they don't know how much risk is involved. This is something we need, a useful, accurate, non-agenda driven tool. There needs to be a system to weight the interest of future generations in an unspoiled commons against the needs of current residents, and assign monetary values to the costs of adversely affecting the environment. Without that, we can't properly internalize these costs. And we're a long way from having the understanding of ecological science to create this.
Yes.
What's the point of making something environmentally friendly so it won't end up in a landfill?
Here's the proper plan for the immediate (50-200 years) future:
Dump yard waste and other things into sealed, non-biodegrading landfills. No shortage of space and it reduces CO2.
In two hundred years, or fifty, send robots into the landfills to manually separate junk for recycling, in ways that aren't economically feasible now.
To sum up:
1. Landfills (leaks notwithstanding) are not a problem.
2. Even if they were, in a few hundred years they won't be.
Someone from the future reading this, please resurrect me and one envirogeek so I can sit there and laugh at their massively incorrect world view.
"Has [being a kidnapped teenage girl, raped repeatedly for months] changed you?" - Katie Couric to Elizabeth Smart
Re-Design of Ford River Rouge Plant:- 142597.h tmo rd_r ouge.html
d onough. html
2 /mcdonough . tml
l
http://detnews.com/2000/autos/0011/01/a01
http://www.mcdonoughpartners.com/projects/p_f
Nat'l Press Club speech by WM (really interesting, but long ~50 min):
http://www.npr.org/programs/npc/020424.wmc
Wired article:
http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/10.0
McDonough Partners Press Room:
http://www.mcdonoughpartners.com/press.htm
NOTE: screwed up URLs, as usual!
One approach would follow the logic above. If life tends to process waste of other life activity in a closed system, and we've now got non-degradable outputs (in any reasonable time), then maybe we need to break out the genevats and cook up some life to turn the non-degradable outputs into something useful again.
And before anyone rants on, I'm aware of the "we don't know what we're doing" theory of genetics... which is at least partially true... today. But this might well be a worthwhile avenue of approach (ref: using microbes in nuclear disaster and oil disaster cleanup as an example). Maybe in the long run, we can make something that _likes_ polyester (unlike the rest of the universe).
-- Mal: "Well they tell you: never hit a man with a closed fist. But it is, on occasion, hilarious."
The issues discussed in "It's all Human Nature" are generally referred to as "The Tragedy of the Commons". Google that phrase and you get lots of similar treatise.
Environmentalism is the new Victorianism. Everyone ties on a green corset and pretends we're virtuous.
I thought this story was a bit out of the /. realm except there is a matter of using the waste of the bit bucket to feed something else......
But I'm having problems figuring out what, as the open source software and free software don't ever really seem to get thrown in the waste pile. However, the commercial strives to fuel the bit bucket waste can.