reviewed by Heather Livingston

Human potential is the subject of the McDonough and Braungart book on environmentally sensitive design (North Point Press, 2002). It lauds our ingenuity as a species and looks toward a future far greater than we have collectively imagined thus far. At its heart is a simple idea: create nothing that harms future generations. But don’t be fooled; Cradle to Cradle does not call for a return to the pre-industrial age nor envisage a manufacturing sector that is tightly constrained by fierce governmental regulation. Rather, it envisions a future in which all products are designed and made with necessary forethought and attention that would allow their products to be effectively “upcycled” or safely composted to return nutrients to the soil.

The problem
It’s not an issue of recycling paper, plastic, glass, and aluminum. Nor it is an issue of consuming less to reduce the number of goods piling up in our landfills. It’s a global view of the potential to stop the damage we’re doing to our world and ourselves through thoughtless inattention when designing our products and packaging. “The design intention behind the current industrial infrastructure is to make an attractive product that is affordable, meets regulations, performs well enough, and lasts long enough to meet market expectations.”

The problem with this form of manufacturing is that it allows and, perhaps, even encourages creation of the cheapest, quickest product possible without giving much thought to what goes into creating that product and the potential harm that its components could do to our environment and ourselves. For instance, according to the authors, a polyester shirt and a plastic water bottle share an unexpected commonality: antimony, a toxic metal that is a known carcinogen. The authors state that antimony is not a necessary component, so why is it included in products that contain our water and nestle our skin? Because the philosophy of “doing more with less” is the motivation behind most corporations today. Efficiency and productivity drive the bottom line and, if thought is given to reducing the harmful effects of their manufacturing processes, then “being less bad” (for now) is their environmental mantra. The authors believe that the idea of recycling and reducing damaging effects is simply a quiet way of putting off the problem until future generations.

As the authors note, recycling products that were not designed to be reused creates another set of potential problems. Most recycling that occurs is actually “downcycling,” a process of reclaiming materials, but not in their pure form, which results in the dilution of the valuable materials. For example, soda cans are now routinely recycled, but during the reclamation process additional materials are also melted with the cans including paint from the packaging and a metal alloy from the lid. Because aluminum cans were not created with the intent of eventually recycling their components, the resulting alloy is weaker and less useful: it cannot be used to make soda cans, but must be relegated to another, less rigorous product, which will eventually end up in the landfill.

The solution
McDonough and Braungart put forth the idea that creating products and packaging that are designed to give back nutrients and improve air and water quality is not only our responsibility as stewards of our planet and children, it can also save money and time. “The key is not to make human industries and systems smaller, as efficiency advocates propound, but to design them to get bigger and better in a way that replenishes, restores, and nourishes the rest of the world.” To illustrate their point, McDonough and Braungart use the analogy of a cherry tree: “thousands of blossoms create fruit for birds, humans, and other animals . . . Once they fall to the ground, their materials decompose and break down into nutrients that nourish microorganisms, insects, plants, animals, and soil . . . the tree’s fecundity nourishes just about everything around it.”

One example cited of this kind of beneficial production was the creation of a fabric that not only didn’t harm, but also fed nutrients back into the effluents of its manufacture. After approaching 60 companies to work with them on the project, the authors found one European company willing to join them. Through their cooperative research, they were able to eliminate an astonishing “8,000 chemicals often used in textiles, plus additives and corrective processes” intended to undo the harsh effects of the chemicals. In creating their fabric, the partners looked for ingredients that had “positive qualities” and from those created an entire line of “environmentally nourishing” fabric. A testament to their tremendous success, the “factory director later told [McDonough and Braungart] that when regulators came on their rounds and tested the effluent (the water coming out of the factory), they thought their instruments were broken. They could not identify any pollutants, not even elements they knew were in the water when it came into the factory.” The results have been amazing: costs are down, profits are up, employees gained recreational space that had been reserved for storing hazardous chemicals and were able to stop wearing protective masks and gloves. Most incredibly, “because of the positive approach to creating the fabric, the manufacturer completely eliminated the need for government regulation.”

The potential
“There is no need for shampoo bottles, toothpaste tubes, yogurt and ice-cream cartons, juice containers, and other packaging to last decades (or even centuries) longer than what came inside them. Why should individuals and communities be burdened with downcycling or landfilling such materials? Worry-free packaging should safely decompose, or be gathered and used as fertilizer, bringing nutrients back to the soil.” This is the crux of McDonough and Braungart’s collective vision. They believe that the idea that humans must harm their surroundings by taking and destroying essential nutrients through farming, mining, and other industrial processes is one that’s past its prime. Nature is no longer a wild beast that must be contained for our survival as a species. Instead, nature is both the mother of abundance and a masterful designer whom industry should mimic.

The authors give us five principles to guide industry toward creating this sound vision.

1. Signal your intention: Instead of trying to make current products less bad, commit to creating a new archetype.
2. Restore: Don’t settle for simple economic growth, demand growth that, instead of harming the environment, actually makes it better.
3. Be ready to innovate further: Keep looking out for potential for your product. New products and processes are constantly introduced. Be on the lookout to further improve yours.
4. Understand and prepare for the learning curve: Change is not easy for a person or major corporation. It will take time, and you should expect to have setbacks.
5. Exert intergenerational responsibility: Recognize your responsibility to future generations and live up to it.

According to the authors, “Transformation doesn’t happen all at once, and it requires plenty of trial and error—and time, effort, money, and creativity expended in many directions,” but the potential reward is certainly worth the effort.

Copyright 2004 The American Institute of Architects. All rights reserved. Home Page