|
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.
- Signal your intention: Instead
of trying to make current products less bad, commit to creating a new
archetype.
- Restore: Don’t settle
for simple economic growth, demand growth that, instead of harming the
environment, actually makes it better.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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
|
|
|