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
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.
But a building with a green top, that being trees, grasses, etc would help reduce ambient temperature caused by normal metallic/asphalt roofing materials. Furthermore rainwater falling on such a building could be used to at least flush toilets and water plants. Additionally there are new solar cells being constructed that could easily be incorporated onto new construction to help it reduce / eliminate its need for an electrical power grid. It doesn't seem that the authors are against progress or power grids, but they want to see more logic and thought go into creation processes. Rooftop gardens actually save the owners money over time (temperature regulation), but how often are they considered?
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.
Not really, in the way the authors are referring to waste. If a business producing non-biodegradable, disposable products, and sells 90% of the material the business produces, they wouldn't consider that waste, they would consider it profit. But that 90% will still end up in a landfill, accomplishing nothing, in a few weeks/months/years/whatever, and that is what the authors are referring to as "waste". If it cost twice as much to make those products environmentally friendly, what incentive is there for a business (whose primary goal is probably to make as much money as possible in the short term, remember) to take those steps, when all it does *for them* is reduce their profits and increase their costs?
DennyK
So I should just drop down my pants and take a dump when and where I feel like it?
The way we have to view the whole situation is this: don't touch anything. If you regulate the life out of the various industries, then you will kill the economy, and we'll end up in a world somewhat like that which existed before the Industrial Revolution. If you don't touch anything, either the world will be destroyed, thinking will evolve toward a more gentile nature, or life on Earth will evolve. I can't speak for everyone, but I would much rather face the possibilities that would come of a non-regulatory state, than having the tyranny of an over-regulatory government be pushed down my throat. I believe the saying goes: "Give me Liberty, or give me Death!".
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.
Litter wouldn't be a problem if it decomposed anytime soon, now would it? Tree leaves in autumn, for example, are nature's litter. No mention is made in the review of the answers to your questions; however, I'd be really surprised if those issues aren't at least considered in the book, since they are, after all, so bloody obvious.
7 November 2006: The day Americans realized corruption and incompetence weren't addressing 11 September 2001
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.
Wow, those are really important issues. Let's phrase them another way:
I think my version reads better.
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"
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
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.
But a building with a green top, that being trees, grasses, etc would help reduce ambient temperature caused by normal metallic/asphalt roofing materials.
You should take a look at the City of Chicago is doing with the roof of their City Hall. Sadly, the greentop is being treated as a research project and is not open to the public.
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.
You know, the heat death of the universe isn't exactly imminent...
In other words, we want more things made out of meat.
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
Capitolism has nothing to do with a powerful state. You sir, have no idea of what you speak. It is quite the opposite. Capitolism is an economic term, not a political term. What you are talking about is political means, tyrrany, in a capitolist world. You seem to be so caught up in your socialist/utopian fervor, you can't even distinguish the difference between political and economic terminology. I reply, as I shall not stand down to ignorance. Get educated, or get out of the gene pool. If I were like minded as you, I would say that phrase should be law. Instead, I wish to let nature exclude the ignorant.
Name industries where ecological improvements resulted in better revenues, or other tangible benefits.
Coal. The gunk gathered from the scrubbers turns out to be a good fertilizer, which the companies sell for a profit.
At least, I think it was coal... my father works in that industry, so maybe I should ask him before arguing further.
- Free tabletop fantasy gaming! Grey Lotus
"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
> 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
The new Ford Rouge Plant in Michigan that is being built will have a totally organic roof (besides the support). It will be covered in grass, trees, etc, and will provide much better cooling, better heat capture, and will lower the cost/energy consumption used in the heating and cooling process... It also helps scrub the air of the waste gas given off during the car production process...
I'd say that's a big step in the right direction.
>So givin that all good replicators are selfish
.. when selfishness is achieved through altruism, competition is no longer part of self fulfillment.
Oh please. I'm getting tired of this protrayal; we might be selfish in the end, but the means often involve teamwork, co-operation, comprimise to get there. I dont understand why this is so difficult for some to comprehend - to borrow the other reply's terminology, altruism is often required to achieve this 'selfishness'
People are not driven by greed, they are driven by the desire to co-exist with minimal social friction, which is usually best achieved via altruism, teamwork, etc. Only once minimal social friction is achieved (or at least the illusion), people move onto their greed. We sometimes forget that we wouldn't be so selfish were there not authorities to protect us from social friction that would result from wanton, socially unchecked greed.
"Old man yells at systemd"
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?
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?
so what's the correct terminology to use when corporations and funded special interests run the government? republicanism? democracy?
1. giving other animals raw material for shelter
2. peat bogs have a great amount of biodiversity and provide habitat for many animals and plants. The lifecycle of coal is a downward cycle. Layer upon layer of mass is placed on top of the peat and eventually it becomes coal. The cycle should be that it continues to be burried and is at some point reclaimed into the earth's core to be melted and recycled to another area as new sea floor or new island etc. Another part of the lifecycle is that coal can provide home and food for bacteria which produce waste product in the form of natural gas (there are many different theories and processes for natural gas BTW). Natural gas/Methane/etc. then provide part of the component for climate regulation/"global warming" that keeps the planet warm and life sustaining.
"Do not be swept up in the momentum of mediocrity." - anon
The most telling point is the institution of the "fourth R." Regulation.
Given that humaity tends to be stupid, lazy and vain (c.f history of mankind) I do not see how the necessary paradigm shift away from the non-renewable resources we currently depend on will happen without some encouragement. Who do you trust? Obviously not big, evil governments. I suppose that the socialist hordes that make up pan-national governing bodies are not to be trusted either. So what's left?
Unfettered capitalism will devour the planet and leave nothing of value in its wake. Corporations do not tend to take the long-term view because it is not particularly profitable to do so. Besides, they are only accountable to the shareholders, and the shareholders mainly care about ROI.
If I understand your argument then, the paradigm shift will be forced on us when the status quo becomes unprofitable and unsustainable, and not a minute sooner.
That sounds like a pretty crappy future. Especially when we have the option of choosing an alternative one. But why should we inconvenience ourselves? Let's just ignore the problem and hope it just goes away. If that strategy fails, we can always comfort ourselves with the knowledge that the problems really won't come to a head in our lifetimes...
*** Where are we going? And what's with this handbasket?
> Name industries where ecological improvements resulted in better revenues, or other tangible benefits.
This has happened in the paper industry. I can't find figures for profit increase at the moment, but here's a link to one of the mills involved:
http://www.ipmaine.com/html/environ_right.html
A lot of technologies like this are just sitting on the ground, waiting for industry to use them even though there are strong financial benefits. I believe in the case of paper the methods were known and used outside the US for some time before someone got the bright idea of doing it here.
You might also check the book "Natural Capitalism", which discusses industrial scenarios where moving to environmentally friendly solutions have led to a doubling of output with a halving of energy use.
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
Melcher Media, Inc.
55 Vandam Street, Suite 805
New York, NY 10013
These are not the environmentalist ideas we're looking for.
I don't know what environmentalist ideas you're looking for, but for my money, no environmentalist makes more sense than McDonough.
And no mention was made at all about how comfortable those eco-chairs were.
It hardly seems like making biodegradable fabric comfortable is a major design challenge.
Name industries where ecological improvements resulted in better revenues, or other tangible benefits.
Here's one obvious example. The living roof will cost them $15m as opposed to $50m for a standard roof, as well as saving on water treatment. There are plenty of examples in a variety of industries if you care to look.
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).
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.]
You need to check your facts. Trees planted for pulp/paper do not take "hundreds of years". It depends on the tree and the location, but it ranges from 20-50 years for North American softwoods, to 3-5 years for eucalyptus in Asia.
Perhaps hemp is still preferable, but let's do an accurate comparison...
How about an EAT (Entropy Added Tax)?
(only half joking...)
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.
Governments are large organizations that exploit individuals for their benefit. Corporations are large organizations that exploit individuals for their benefit.
Sure, the benefits and methods may differ somewhat. Governments use law, force and money to ensure power and profit. Corporations use money, law and force to ensure profit and market power. Often, government and corporations work together. Tell me again how they're different?
<expected_rant type="libertarian" content="governmental_force" />
Oh, and please don't tell me that only governments use physical force on individuals. Corporations often use government troops or mercenaries against people standing in the way of their profits.
The problem is keeping the junta from becoming our current plutocracy .. how do you ensure their goal is always 1), and not 1)s/average person/themselves-at-the-cost-of-others?
"Old man yells at systemd"
no mention was made at all about how comfortable those eco-chairs were. How long could you use it before the upholstery wore out?
How much it costs to make? How much pepsi, or sweat, does it absorb before it decomposes right in your living room? Does it actually decompose in a landfill, or does it last forever like most other "biodegradeable" materials? (Do they really think people will just toss their trash furniture in the backyard and wait for it to melt into the soil? Um, I've got neighbors like that, but the town council is giving them a hard time...)
Encourage new technologies with SBIR funding or tax incentives, but let's not get stupid and *mandate* this sort of thing.
So, subsidies are ok and publicly funded research is ok. But enforcable standards are not? I do not understand the trust you place in organizations that are not accountable to the public at large.
I understand the thrust of your argument, but I cannot accept it. Consider the evidence: large corporations cannot be trusted to behave ethically if they have the option to do otherwise. It would appear that if a corporation can make more money by engaging in un-ethical behaviour, they will go for the unethical behaviour - particularly if punishment for being caught doing so is inconsequential.
(*cough* microsoft *cough*)
I work hard for my money and do not want my tax dollars to be wasted on corporate welfare. I see no value in allowing corporations to reap the benefits and profits from publicly funded research. To me, that would be *stupid*. BR>
Far better that there are standards. In addition to those standards, there should also be significant punishment for non-compliance. How many corporations would choose to pollute if part of the punishment for doing so was that the board of directors would go to jail for a minimum 5 year term and the personal assets of board members would be siezed and sold to help finance the clean-up operation?
*** Where are we going? And what's with this handbasket?
What is the maximum negative environmental impact allowable before the economy must be curbed?
It's funny you put it this way. Alan Greenspan fights like hell to put the brakes on the economy when it's expanding too fast - by raising interest rates. Why don't they just use some plug-n-play legislation when the economy's going too fast; slow it down with environmental regs, stop fucking with interest rates - then when the economy slows down, temporarily suspend the environmental regs?
The science supporting both is pretty weak anyways. (not environmental regs in principle, but the actual effectiveness of environmental regs - along with pork, loopholes, trade-offs, etc.)
These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
Sure, we can supply all our energy needs with solar but then we'd be building a dyson sphere or some real world hybrid like Ringworld. I think both variants are so far off that we've got to come up with intermediates between here and there. Nuclear sounds just fine to me.
I'm not sure where you draw the line between "as much as possible" and "all". As much as possible and still have...what?
My point is that if you eliminate and invalidate the state's power to hand control of resources over to a favored few, you eliminate the infrastructure that makes capitalism possible. (which is fine by me. :-) ) You then don't need to give the state the powers to regulate capitalism gone amuck.
In other words, capitalism isn't some natural result of an absence of government action in the economy. (Don't confuse "free market" and "capitalist" - one is about trade, one is about control.)
I'm all for private property; without it, there can be no private decisions. But it's not a concept that should apply to everything in the universe. For then decisions that affect us all are made by, and for the benefit of, a few.
Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
You cannot wash away blood with blood
Corporatism is the usual term for that situation. Fascism is sometimes used but that gets the relationship backwards. Fascism is actually the state control of the means of production.
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.
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."
Excellent points, all. The main situation in government which allows corporations to run their fellow man over is the "bubba system". It is quite common in the area I live in(SE Georga, USA). The situation arises when you have an elected official who thinks he is helping out his country by helping out his friends who just so happen to run a large company. Eventually, it turns into a mutual "I scratch your back, you scratch mine" scenario. They can have all the good intentions they want, but they will succumb to the corruption and greed that persist in our government today. Once corporations were considered individuals with the same 'rights' as any one of us(minus voting... they get to do it with the spectacular spending power they have). Oh, and let's not forget about the career politicians! I conceed that corporate bodies use the government to exercise physical force upon those who do not share their views, do their work, etc. An excellent example would be the Ludlow Massacre, brought on by Rockafeller and executed by the US National Guard. I cannot even begin to express my utter disdain of that man, nor his cronies. They, along with good ol FDR are the reason that we as citizens have come to rely on the corrupt corporate government that we have today. We are only a few steps short of socialism with a capitalist spin(read not communist, for those who don't know the difference... look it up). The good of mankind is in the eye of the richest, I cannot deny that. However, if you divorce the state from the business altogether, then you won't see as much of this behemoth collusion. Will it happen... someday. I don't plan on seeing it anytime soon though. Not with heads of oil in power. Not with laws and treaties being used to set the path for global corporations. I do agree with one poster that LLCs must be done away with. It's just another kickback from the early days the Welfare State. I would like to thank those of you who have participated in this discussion, I enjoy reading other's opinions...and yes, my views are just that. Simple speculation.
Eons ago, I grabbed a quote from Hydrophobe here on slashdot that summarizes the situation perfectly:
As long as there's a balance of power between the two, then they spend their resources counteracting each other, and those less fortunate (i.e., us) are safer from exploitation.
The dangers come when government and corporations join and work together. It doesn't matter whether the government is running the corporations, or the corporations are running the government -- both communism and corporatism lead to exploitation.
What we need is some way to discourage or prevent the two from working together. I have no idea what that could be, though. Seems like historically, the two are naturally drawn to each other, and only random acts of nature drive them apart.
I think I agree with removing the "natural person" status of corporations - it gives them the ability to use resources far in excess of those of us who are only a "normal person." Once this enormous power is removed from the corporations, though, we would have to watch out for the pendulum swinging the opposite direction.
I still think the real solution would be to find a way to ensure the separation of corporation and government interests. True campaign reform would help some, but we still have the "buddy" system that you mentioned - the overlap between business power and government power, and the "revolving-door" pattern of employment, need changing, too. That would be harder, though. It doesn't sound right to prevent people from ever changing careers between business and government, so there must be some other way of reducing this overlap. It would be silly to say that we can't allow people with business expertise in a certain area to use that in the government...
It's too bad we can't infallibly test the motives and corruptibility of politicians and bureaucrats before allowing them to serve in government. It's also too bad that motives are rarely considered as a major reason for voting for or against someone...
Now I'm rambling, I know...
Another part of the solution might be to find a better way to measure the health of the country. Right now, the core assumption is that if something is good for the economy (i.e., big money, big business), then it's good for the country -- "a rising tide lifts all boats," you know. Hah! Double hah!
I wish we could somehow make the government realize that the country's good can be better seen by looking at the median income, or the cost of health care for the typical citizen, rather than looking at the big, bottom-line numbers.