Today my blog is about "design activism" and I was inspired this week by the KONY2012 video of a few weeks ago. The video was extremely inspiring and effective. One thing I couldn't believe is that the video itself was almost 30 minutes long! It had over 100 million views in the span of a week. In this day and age, to have my generation watch a 30 minute video is unreal. This shows that targeted, quality videography will work. Youtube, combined with the various social media outlets are an extremely effective social activism engine. It is a shame that the claims were rather shallow and outdated, and the company has questionable financials. What if the cause had been legit? What if it was something of integrity?
My solution is just that. My cause is to fight suburbia. My cause is to fight loneliness and isolation. My cause is to conserve resources and fight overconsumption. After the soldiers came home from the war, they came home to a world that would never be the same. Before, they would walk to get a few groceries from the store, get a haircut, or get a drink at the local establishment. But after the war, they got in their car to get anything. They were progressively disconnected from family, friends, and strangers. They bought in to the facade of a suburban "community". Fast forward 50 years, and that community no longer exists. Neighbors don't know each others' names. Families are broken. Our population is the most obese in the world. We lost millions of acres of open space, forests, and prime farm lands. The suburban ideal was dead on arrival.
What we need is to go back to the communities that worked just fine for thousands of years. True communities are based on experiences, not on products, according to the Fuad Luke article. In order to have these experiences, we must live in close proximity to other people! We need to know, on a first name basis, who lives around us. And in order to do that, we must talk to them! It is so strange that my generation will say anything online, but when it comes to face to face interaction, they have nothing to say! We wouldn't need facebook, at least as often, to keep up with our friends, because in the community I describe, we would see them on a daily basis. Walking home, at the grocery store, in the coffee shop, at the local drinking establishment, sitting on the porch, these interactions would happen in any number of places.
How to achieve this, you may ask? First off, smaller houses and lots are a must! Most people don't have the family size to justify the house size anymore. Heck, most people can't clean and maintain their houses and yards anymore. They hire out. Imagine how much you would save in owning a smaller house. Less to maintain. Less to clean. Less to heat and cool. Less time sitting in traffic. Now, it's not less in amenities. Now, since the lots are smaller, you can be closer to other things, like a park or school or work. Or, imagine if you lived above the local eatery or office. With today's building techniques, we no longer have to worry about noise problems from what is going on above and below us. Insulation has come a long way. What it really means is more time with your family. More time to spend with your neighbors. More time to enjoy the fruits of your labors. More time to relax.
All of this requires for people to come together and decide how these thing will work for them. An example of this is out of the Faud Luke article. It described a "Design of the Time" project in the UK. They spent a year showing the community what a sustainable community looks like. They did this through community projects, events and exhibitions. It was a successful operation of bringing people of all backgrounds together to become more aware of the world around them. More aware of the affects of our actions. If only we really knew what the suburban "community" really did to our earth and our lives. This is why we should believe in COMMUNITY 2013.
One thing that I have learned about in this course is how the sustainable solution is truly a multidisciplinary one. We are all in this together. It doesn't matter who screwed up to make our current position, because if we spend all of our time pointing fingers and blaming, we will never get anything done. When we work together, we can accomplish so much more than what we could on our own. So what I plan to do with this new knowledge is work collaboratively. I plan to get involved in my community. I have made a more focused effort to support my local community with my dollars. One thing I would like to know more about, having taken this course, is how to garden, using compostable materials.
Friday, April 13, 2012
Friday, April 6, 2012
A Magic Carpet Ride
My blog this week will be a continuation of the topic last week, just using the other kind of food value category: technical. A technical nutrient as defined by the cradle to cradle system is one that can be used perpetually in the marketplace. It is the truly recyclable item that can be reused infinitely. My idea is to make a bathmat that is produced from a technical material.
My choice of a bathmat is because they are a commonly replaced item, due to its direct contact with lots of moisture. Because of this, it is prone to mold and mildew. If the mat is made from a material meant to breakdown, the moisture might accelerate the process to one that it might break down the mat prematurely. The second reason to make this from a synthetic material is exactly because it is in contact with lots of water. The product would not absorb much of the water, which would then evaporate. The mat could be washed or dried more easily. At the end of its use, it would be melted down and turned back into a new bathmat.
Now, in order for this to happen, the factory needs to control its supply chain, as well as the consumer market for the material. Currently, there is not much set up in the way of clothing recycling. A good way to do this would be for the retailers to have a special bin just for the bath mats. Users would receive store credit for their deposit of the old mat. On the supply end of this, the producers would need to make sure that one, the old material is being used, and two, the virgin material is being sourced and dyed in a way that does not affect the recyclability of the product. This would include not using any of the chemicals listed on the x list or the gray list.
My choice of a bathmat is because they are a commonly replaced item, due to its direct contact with lots of moisture. Because of this, it is prone to mold and mildew. If the mat is made from a material meant to breakdown, the moisture might accelerate the process to one that it might break down the mat prematurely. The second reason to make this from a synthetic material is exactly because it is in contact with lots of water. The product would not absorb much of the water, which would then evaporate. The mat could be washed or dried more easily. At the end of its use, it would be melted down and turned back into a new bathmat.
Now, in order for this to happen, the factory needs to control its supply chain, as well as the consumer market for the material. Currently, there is not much set up in the way of clothing recycling. A good way to do this would be for the retailers to have a special bin just for the bath mats. Users would receive store credit for their deposit of the old mat. On the supply end of this, the producers would need to make sure that one, the old material is being used, and two, the virgin material is being sourced and dyed in a way that does not affect the recyclability of the product. This would include not using any of the chemicals listed on the x list or the gray list.
Friday, March 30, 2012
A package is worth a thousand words
William McDonough has been of particular interest to me for quite a few years now. He is the founder of "Cradle to Cradle", which is a philosphy that is based on the concept of closed loop product cycles. There are two such cycles outlined, one being a technical nutrient cycle, and the other being a biological nutrient cycle. I was inspired this week by the biological nutrient cycle, which means that products that we produce can be safely be returned to the earth. Think of of a tree, a tree grows its leaves, they serve their purpose(photosynthesis, for the tree to grow), and then they die and fall off. The leaves then are broken down by organisms, and the nutrients are returned to the soil for the tree to use again.
My solution is to make all packaging like this. We grow the packaging, we use it, then we discard it to the earth to become nutrients for the soil. This came about to me from getting Rib Crib for dinner. From my order of chicken breast, toast, fries, and sauce, I had several different containers which were comprised of a variety of materials. There were styrofoam containers, wax paper bags, plastic cups with foil lids, a paper bag, and a plastic bag. None of this can be composted. Most of it can't even be recycled. So it all goes to the landfill. In my solution, all of this would go to a compost heap in my backyard, to be returned to the soil. Think about it, those packages were used to get my food home, they had a life of about 15 minutes. That is a lot of resources just to be immediately taken to the landfill.
Now, I recognize most people do not have a compost heap. This is most likely due to not much of anything being compostable. But if were were to switch over to compostable packaging, instead of having recycling bins, we would just have a compost heap in the backyard. It would also provide good soil which could be used for gardening, which many people are beginning to do again. This concept is similar to Roehner, a textile company faced with the challenge of being sustainable in an economical way. Think about the fuel savings that the city would see if they have substantially less garbage every week. Because you are composting instead of throwing things away in the trash, the garbage truck will have further to go before it has to go dump in the landfill. If it got dramatic enough, the truck could even be smaller, because of the greatly reduced load. It may not even be necessary as a garbage truck, it may become a technical nutrient truck, picking up only things that can be reused and recycled.
This concept is feasible, we must just be motivated, like William McDonough, and advocate that it be done. Packaging accounts for a large volume of our trash, if we take care of it in a sustainable manner, we can substantially reduce our dependence on landfills.
My solution is to make all packaging like this. We grow the packaging, we use it, then we discard it to the earth to become nutrients for the soil. This came about to me from getting Rib Crib for dinner. From my order of chicken breast, toast, fries, and sauce, I had several different containers which were comprised of a variety of materials. There were styrofoam containers, wax paper bags, plastic cups with foil lids, a paper bag, and a plastic bag. None of this can be composted. Most of it can't even be recycled. So it all goes to the landfill. In my solution, all of this would go to a compost heap in my backyard, to be returned to the soil. Think about it, those packages were used to get my food home, they had a life of about 15 minutes. That is a lot of resources just to be immediately taken to the landfill.
Now, I recognize most people do not have a compost heap. This is most likely due to not much of anything being compostable. But if were were to switch over to compostable packaging, instead of having recycling bins, we would just have a compost heap in the backyard. It would also provide good soil which could be used for gardening, which many people are beginning to do again. This concept is similar to Roehner, a textile company faced with the challenge of being sustainable in an economical way. Think about the fuel savings that the city would see if they have substantially less garbage every week. Because you are composting instead of throwing things away in the trash, the garbage truck will have further to go before it has to go dump in the landfill. If it got dramatic enough, the truck could even be smaller, because of the greatly reduced load. It may not even be necessary as a garbage truck, it may become a technical nutrient truck, picking up only things that can be reused and recycled.
This concept is feasible, we must just be motivated, like William McDonough, and advocate that it be done. Packaging accounts for a large volume of our trash, if we take care of it in a sustainable manner, we can substantially reduce our dependence on landfills.
Monday, March 12, 2012
You want to recycle what?!?
This week I would like to continue down the city's path and focus on the buildings themselves a little more carefully. I realize that not everything we build is meant to last centuries, so what about those buildings? What do we do with them? Well, currently, unless they are steel framed, they go straight to the landfill. No recycling, whatsoever. We recycle our plastic, why not recycle our buildings too!
The first part of this deals with last week's reading for item number one on the list: use waste as a resource. When we tear down a building and put it into a landfill, we are wasting precious resources. Yes, some homes may have somethings taken out, like light fixtures,bricks and door knobs, but what about the studs, the shingles, and the drywall? Heck, what about the thousands of nails, screws, and other metal fasteners? My idea is to set up a recycling service for buildings. When you tear down a house, a team of people come and tear it down bit by bit for its valuable resources. These resources would then be reused, melted down, or chopped up to make new resources. This would also save on fuel costs, to the environment and the consumer, from not having to ship in new material from elsewhere around the globe. A study done on tshirts could be applied to this as well, "it concluded that the environmental cost of transportation was significant and amount to about half the cost..."
The second part to this plan is that most likely this type of recycling program would be carried out at a local or at least regional level. This service would provide a community with needed jobs and also provide new materials for new local factories. Those pieces from the house need to be made into something else somewhere. Why not have the local wood factory shred the old studs and make them into plywood, or the nail factory take old nails and make them into new nails. Again, we do this with plastic bottles, why not with building materials. This would be considered a "holistic, cradle-to-grave approach..." in which we think not only about the first use, but the second, the third, and so on (Quinn).
So in conclusion, recycling can apply to everything we use, bot just fabrics and plastic bottles. We need to think smarter, not harder in how we go about this, and we will ultimately live better lives because of it.
The first part of this deals with last week's reading for item number one on the list: use waste as a resource. When we tear down a building and put it into a landfill, we are wasting precious resources. Yes, some homes may have somethings taken out, like light fixtures,bricks and door knobs, but what about the studs, the shingles, and the drywall? Heck, what about the thousands of nails, screws, and other metal fasteners? My idea is to set up a recycling service for buildings. When you tear down a house, a team of people come and tear it down bit by bit for its valuable resources. These resources would then be reused, melted down, or chopped up to make new resources. This would also save on fuel costs, to the environment and the consumer, from not having to ship in new material from elsewhere around the globe. A study done on tshirts could be applied to this as well, "it concluded that the environmental cost of transportation was significant and amount to about half the cost..."
The second part to this plan is that most likely this type of recycling program would be carried out at a local or at least regional level. This service would provide a community with needed jobs and also provide new materials for new local factories. Those pieces from the house need to be made into something else somewhere. Why not have the local wood factory shred the old studs and make them into plywood, or the nail factory take old nails and make them into new nails. Again, we do this with plastic bottles, why not with building materials. This would be considered a "holistic, cradle-to-grave approach..." in which we think not only about the first use, but the second, the third, and so on (Quinn).
So in conclusion, recycling can apply to everything we use, bot just fabrics and plastic bottles. We need to think smarter, not harder in how we go about this, and we will ultimately live better lives because of it.
Friday, March 9, 2012
I'm kind of an introvert...in an extroverted way.
Part of my vision is conservation, which is defined by using enough to meet your needs. I am going to focus that vision on a particular field: the construction industry. According to Benyus, we should "...Build for durability, but...don't overbuild." Prior to the crash, cities were building infrastructure and plotting land as fast, or faster than developers could build on it. This fed to the already well ingrained problem of suburbanization in America. In some extreme cases, the cities were almost bankrupting themselves just to offer roads, sewers, and water to developments that never came. If that isn't the definition of unsustainable, I'm not sure what is. My plan is to rethink how we conceive and grow cities.
Step one of that plan is to lock down zoning. No future outward growth, unless absolutely necessary. This means moving up instead of out, closer together instead of farther apart. Open land can and should be considered a nonrenewable resource. Once built upon it is extremely costly to convert that land back to the open pasture it once was. It is like what Benyus said, "Cutting into the growing stock of the forest is like damaging the goose with the golden eggs..." If we are to continually increase our population, open land will actually need to increase! Currently that is being met by cutting down forests for cropland, but we already know the gross effects of doing that. What if you got a tax credit for building in the city instead of in the suburbs? How different would our society look today.
Step two of the plan is to build better buildings, and by better, I mean more durable, long-term resource conscious buildings. Europe is a wonderful example of this. Many of the buildings are made of stone or brick that were built hundreds of years ago, but are still being used today. Here in the united states, many buildings are torn down well before they are even 50 or 100 years old. This is due to the relatively cheap construction cost, and relatively cheap replacement cost. If we were to build out of more durable materials, they would be more expensive, and we would be less likely to tear them down. Now, we can not convert completely to this way of building, because we should "[not] use nonrenewable resources faster than you can develop substitutes."
Step one of that plan is to lock down zoning. No future outward growth, unless absolutely necessary. This means moving up instead of out, closer together instead of farther apart. Open land can and should be considered a nonrenewable resource. Once built upon it is extremely costly to convert that land back to the open pasture it once was. It is like what Benyus said, "Cutting into the growing stock of the forest is like damaging the goose with the golden eggs..." If we are to continually increase our population, open land will actually need to increase! Currently that is being met by cutting down forests for cropland, but we already know the gross effects of doing that. What if you got a tax credit for building in the city instead of in the suburbs? How different would our society look today.
Step two of the plan is to build better buildings, and by better, I mean more durable, long-term resource conscious buildings. Europe is a wonderful example of this. Many of the buildings are made of stone or brick that were built hundreds of years ago, but are still being used today. Here in the united states, many buildings are torn down well before they are even 50 or 100 years old. This is due to the relatively cheap construction cost, and relatively cheap replacement cost. If we were to build out of more durable materials, they would be more expensive, and we would be less likely to tear them down. Now, we can not convert completely to this way of building, because we should "[not] use nonrenewable resources faster than you can develop substitutes."
Friday, February 24, 2012
Put down your phone and smell the roses
Plain and simple, our society is consuming itself into oblivion. Every single day we figure out how to more with less, but in turn, we end up doing more than we wanted to do in the first place. We never relax, we never back down. I've heard the phrase in architecture so many times before, work hard, play hard. I've wondered what it would be like it we simply did less. "The word vision derives from the Latin videre meaning "to see, to discern and to focus."" In order to break this cycle, we must have a vision to get there.
In simply doing less, we actually require less resources. So instead of taking on a second or third job, just to maintain a certain lifestyle(which you have no time to do anyways, you are too busy!), why not just work the one job and have more free time. Time to spend with friends and family, or even just to spend it doing something that you enjoy. It never ceases to amaze me how our society increasingly finds its self worth in the amount of stuff that we consume. We have a garage full of things for hobbies that we never have time to do. What's the point! According to Limiting Consumption, "The avarice of mankind is insatiable," Aristotle declared 23 centuries ago." I do believe that if this is not corrected, our society will fail.
In Limiting Consumption it stated three factors to determine an economies complete burden on nature, "the size of human population, average consumption level, and technologies." The first thing is human population level. This however, is something that the majority of the public will not touch on. If we have less people we will consume less! The reason all past societies have had such a low impact on the earth is not because of their "primitive technologies", but because there wasn't that many of them. Here is where we must think a little, and use "foresight - the ability to imagine the future." Most people won't think about what will happen if our population of 7 billion grows to 14 billion in a short period of time, which it is heading there. In my lifetime, 2 billion more people have been born than have died. That is 2 billion more to feed, clothe, and house, all of which take natural resources. This is the most pressing issue of our time.
In simply doing less, we actually require less resources. So instead of taking on a second or third job, just to maintain a certain lifestyle(which you have no time to do anyways, you are too busy!), why not just work the one job and have more free time. Time to spend with friends and family, or even just to spend it doing something that you enjoy. It never ceases to amaze me how our society increasingly finds its self worth in the amount of stuff that we consume. We have a garage full of things for hobbies that we never have time to do. What's the point! According to Limiting Consumption, "The avarice of mankind is insatiable," Aristotle declared 23 centuries ago." I do believe that if this is not corrected, our society will fail.
In Limiting Consumption it stated three factors to determine an economies complete burden on nature, "the size of human population, average consumption level, and technologies." The first thing is human population level. This however, is something that the majority of the public will not touch on. If we have less people we will consume less! The reason all past societies have had such a low impact on the earth is not because of their "primitive technologies", but because there wasn't that many of them. Here is where we must think a little, and use "foresight - the ability to imagine the future." Most people won't think about what will happen if our population of 7 billion grows to 14 billion in a short period of time, which it is heading there. In my lifetime, 2 billion more people have been born than have died. That is 2 billion more to feed, clothe, and house, all of which take natural resources. This is the most pressing issue of our time.
Friday, February 17, 2012
A tale of two bottles.
Next up is the Seventh Generation laundry detergent, which is a good example of a green product. First off, it is highly concentrated, so that means that it will do many more loads compared to non-concentrated detergent. Secondly, and most importantly, the bottle and detergent are biodegradable! This is great, because you don't have to worry about recycling, which is very energy intensive. The cap and inside liner are not biodegradable, but are however, recyclable. Thirdly, the brand carries the Leaping Bunny logo which means that they do not test on animals.
Standardization of environmental claims, in the case of these two bottles, would probably be a good thing, although not a perfect solution. There are many things that the two products can be compared. The bottle itself, the cap, and the label. Those could all have a particular environmental standard associated with it. The product inside, would not be a good case for standardization. The products are completely different. Looking at how much energy is consumed to make the product might be a good one. So I could see how standardization could dilute the market, encouraging producers to again reach, but not exceed, a minimum standard.
Thursday, February 9, 2012
King Cotton.
Up until now I had no idea the scale of cotton production around the world. Like many consumers, I just had not thought about it at all. I go to the store, and there are clothes there to buy. According to the reading, "Cotton production involves about 20 million farmers who completely depend upon cotton production and another 30 million farmers who include cotton into their rotation scheme." As with all farming there is conventional farming which uses pesticides and fertilizers, and organic cotton which uses neither. Water consumption is a large concern with cotton because in order to increase yields, farmers use extensive irrigation systems. I do not believe that we can convert all cotton farms back to organic, but with some help, the industry can become more responsible farmers.
Not surprisingly, China is the largest producer of cotton, accounting for "24% of total world production." What I did find surprising is that "100% of the farm sizes are less than 6 hectares." While the US accounted for "19% of total world production" and "10% of the farms are 20-100 hectares and 90% are greater than 100 hectares." This is quite a difference! And for reference, one hectare is 2.47 acres. Now, where the real concern is with this is when water use is factored in. In China, there are "14 million farmers directly involved in cotton production" and in the US, there are "25000 farmers." This has an impact with how quickly water conservation issues can be spread and implemented. China currently irrigates nearly "100% of all of its cotton", while the US irrigates "41% of all its cotton." Now in the cotton video, it says that many farmers are beginning to utilize more targeted watering techniques. I do believe that some farmers are doing this, but I question how widespread it is, since the video makes it seem like all farmers are doing it. These new techniques are very capital intensive, so they will not necessarily be applied in a widespread manner in China, where the techniques are needed more urgently. One thing that China does have over the US is that they do have the monsoon season, which the rainwater can be stored and used at a later date. This is, like the man in video stated, "it just makes good business sense!"
One thing that is a little concerning to me is the genetically altered cotton. This was pioneered by the company Mosanto, which put "glyphosate...into cotton for the first time in 1987." Now this does not concern me as much as GM corn, since we do not eat cotton, but I think more studies must be done in order to find what kinds of effects it has on our environment. A good thing about the GM cotton is the obvious fact that it needs less pesticides, or none at all. This protects the environment. Also, as stated in the video, scientists are working on making cotton more drought resistant. This means less water for the plants overall. The one scientist said the he "wants to cuts cotton water consumption in half...but it will be 15 or 20 years before we get to that point."
Overall, the video was quite optimistic and maybe too much so. I do not think this is a bad thing, as it is supposed to be inspirational for the consumer. This inspiration will help consumers be more educated on their choices and behaviors concerning cotton production. It was briefly mentioned in the video, and was extensively talked about in the readings last week is that consumer cleaning does account for a large portion of the energy and water that is consumed in relation to this industry. Empowered consumers can make a difference!
Not surprisingly, China is the largest producer of cotton, accounting for "24% of total world production." What I did find surprising is that "100% of the farm sizes are less than 6 hectares." While the US accounted for "19% of total world production" and "10% of the farms are 20-100 hectares and 90% are greater than 100 hectares." This is quite a difference! And for reference, one hectare is 2.47 acres. Now, where the real concern is with this is when water use is factored in. In China, there are "14 million farmers directly involved in cotton production" and in the US, there are "25000 farmers." This has an impact with how quickly water conservation issues can be spread and implemented. China currently irrigates nearly "100% of all of its cotton", while the US irrigates "41% of all its cotton." Now in the cotton video, it says that many farmers are beginning to utilize more targeted watering techniques. I do believe that some farmers are doing this, but I question how widespread it is, since the video makes it seem like all farmers are doing it. These new techniques are very capital intensive, so they will not necessarily be applied in a widespread manner in China, where the techniques are needed more urgently. One thing that China does have over the US is that they do have the monsoon season, which the rainwater can be stored and used at a later date. This is, like the man in video stated, "it just makes good business sense!"
One thing that is a little concerning to me is the genetically altered cotton. This was pioneered by the company Mosanto, which put "glyphosate...into cotton for the first time in 1987." Now this does not concern me as much as GM corn, since we do not eat cotton, but I think more studies must be done in order to find what kinds of effects it has on our environment. A good thing about the GM cotton is the obvious fact that it needs less pesticides, or none at all. This protects the environment. Also, as stated in the video, scientists are working on making cotton more drought resistant. This means less water for the plants overall. The one scientist said the he "wants to cuts cotton water consumption in half...but it will be 15 or 20 years before we get to that point."
Overall, the video was quite optimistic and maybe too much so. I do not think this is a bad thing, as it is supposed to be inspirational for the consumer. This inspiration will help consumers be more educated on their choices and behaviors concerning cotton production. It was briefly mentioned in the video, and was extensively talked about in the readings last week is that consumer cleaning does account for a large portion of the energy and water that is consumed in relation to this industry. Empowered consumers can make a difference!
Friday, February 3, 2012
It's all about moderation.
My dad always used to say "it's all about moderation" and that applies to many things in life, including the things that we use everyday. So when we make decisions about what material to specify or which product to use, we must use our best judgment. Whether it is a new material or a tried and true product, it must be able to achieve the task we need it to do, in a sustainable way. This means making tough decisions sometimes, and not always the obvious ones.
First and foremost, a product or material must be durable. Time and time again designers and clients think only about the immediate present, but do not design or plan for the future. Take for instance the decision to pick a brick facade or a vinyl siding. Sure, the vinyl is cheaper and looks nice now, but it will only last maybe 20 years. Brick on the other hand is more expensive but has an indefinite lifetime. Also, that brick can be recycled and reused, the vinyl siding cannot. It goes straight to the landfill. According to this weeks reading, it is now "obvious that it is no longer enough for a designer to consider the environmental impact of products only during the time these goods are being used. Responsibility now extends to the product's entire life span." In this instance, brick would be the "natural" option to go with, and the siding being the synthetic option, since the vinyl is made from petroleum.
Now, let's take this same example from another angle. Say that the vinyl was made in such a way that it could be melted down and made into new siding. This is exactly what the cradle to cradle program has suggested. It gives recycling a new lease on life. According to the C2C doctrine, "This means petroleum-based synthetics(technical nutrients) that can be recycled perpetually and safely." The vinyl siding may actually be more sustainable than the brick to make and use, since when you tear a building down some bricks are likely to break and it is a very labor intensive process.
Another thing that needs to be considered is efficiency in manufacturing and production. According to the reading, only 7% gets into products at all, only 1% into durable products, and only 0.02% into durable products that later get recycled, re-manufactured or reused. Thus, U.S. materials flow is about 99.98% pure waste." It is like you have lost the race before you even got started. Companies can do this, and a few are leading the way. Take for example Ikea out of Sweden. They have committed to going 100% powered by renewable energy. This takes demand off of the grid from power systems that are almost comparably inefficient. They are working with suppliers to use less and healthier materials. They have designed their packaging to fit flat into your car so you don't have to rent a truck to get it home. Ikea is a very large company, and they impact the lives of millions of people. If more companies took the initiative that Ikea has taken, must less waste will be made, and we will have more materials for the new generation.
So the over-arching theme of moderation means doing more with what you have. It means not buying every last gadget in sight, so the factories have to use more materials and resources to make more. It means choosing materials that will last for generations and that can ultimately be recycled to make more material. Moderation is always the best policy.
First and foremost, a product or material must be durable. Time and time again designers and clients think only about the immediate present, but do not design or plan for the future. Take for instance the decision to pick a brick facade or a vinyl siding. Sure, the vinyl is cheaper and looks nice now, but it will only last maybe 20 years. Brick on the other hand is more expensive but has an indefinite lifetime. Also, that brick can be recycled and reused, the vinyl siding cannot. It goes straight to the landfill. According to this weeks reading, it is now "obvious that it is no longer enough for a designer to consider the environmental impact of products only during the time these goods are being used. Responsibility now extends to the product's entire life span." In this instance, brick would be the "natural" option to go with, and the siding being the synthetic option, since the vinyl is made from petroleum.
Now, let's take this same example from another angle. Say that the vinyl was made in such a way that it could be melted down and made into new siding. This is exactly what the cradle to cradle program has suggested. It gives recycling a new lease on life. According to the C2C doctrine, "This means petroleum-based synthetics(technical nutrients) that can be recycled perpetually and safely." The vinyl siding may actually be more sustainable than the brick to make and use, since when you tear a building down some bricks are likely to break and it is a very labor intensive process.
Another thing that needs to be considered is efficiency in manufacturing and production. According to the reading, only 7% gets into products at all, only 1% into durable products, and only 0.02% into durable products that later get recycled, re-manufactured or reused. Thus, U.S. materials flow is about 99.98% pure waste." It is like you have lost the race before you even got started. Companies can do this, and a few are leading the way. Take for example Ikea out of Sweden. They have committed to going 100% powered by renewable energy. This takes demand off of the grid from power systems that are almost comparably inefficient. They are working with suppliers to use less and healthier materials. They have designed their packaging to fit flat into your car so you don't have to rent a truck to get it home. Ikea is a very large company, and they impact the lives of millions of people. If more companies took the initiative that Ikea has taken, must less waste will be made, and we will have more materials for the new generation.
So the over-arching theme of moderation means doing more with what you have. It means not buying every last gadget in sight, so the factories have to use more materials and resources to make more. It means choosing materials that will last for generations and that can ultimately be recycled to make more material. Moderation is always the best policy.
Friday, January 27, 2012
We all live in a yellow submarine
This week I have chosen to tackle option A and argue that the garment industry is in fact guilty of contributing greatly to the depletion of our natural resources. There is no denying that the human population is exploding and will continue to do something about it. This is the root of all of the problems we are facing today and thus, because there are more people, more clothes are needed. More clothes means more cotton needed, so the more land we clear and use for crops. One of the major problems with this is outlined in the ESMA article "Approximately 60% of the ecosystem service evaluated in this assessment are being degraded or used unsustainably." As stated in the FS article "the use of pesticides cab cause..soil degradation and biodiversity loss." If we can not maintain healthy soil, especially with heavy pesticide use, we will no longer have good soil upon which to grow new cotton for new clothes. In addition to the soil degradation, which in the Walsh article represented the largest environmental cost in growing cotton, water use is a major issue.
Water, although not much of a problem here in a the United States, is very much a problem in the developing countries in which the cotton is grown and the clothes are produced. In the FS article it is said that "Cotton is a thirsty crop. A problem made worse by poor agricultural practices, in some cases over 10 tonnes of water are used to grow enough cotton to make 1 pair of jeans - or 6 pints of water per cotton bud!" This water comes from wells, which comes from an aquifer. This same water is used for drinking for the local people. As the water is used beyond its replenishing capacity deeper wells must be drilled, causing many people's wells to run dry. "In central Asia, inefficient water use in cotton production has all but eradicated the Aral Sea."
One issue that is a bit more difficult to control is human consumption of the clothing. As our society continues to exploit our desire for consumerism, the demand for more clothes grows. In the FF reading, "Over the last two decades clothing has become increasingly affordable to everyone. Retailers and brands have capitalized on this affordability by moving away from a 'summer' and 'winter' season to fresh collections throughout the year." In the Walsh article they did justify additional cost to offset externalized costs within the products themselves, but not to set "green taxes" which they felt would be detrimental. Although cost is not all of it: the trend to release clothes more frequently is a hard cycle to break. Many designers could not stand being "behind the curve." This is not just a problem for the garment industry, it is all industries. So this becomes a human mindset problem, which will take as long of a time to correct as it took to set in the first place, potentially even longer. This is certainly a heated topic in who is actually responsible. I think that both the consumer and the industry are equally at fault. With the current sustainability movement, I believe more and more people are becoming aware of the consequences of our actions. The movement of the general public is like an old steam train, it take a lot of energy to get the wheels turning, but when they do begin to turn, momentum is gained exponentially. It is best to note that like the Beatle's song "We all live in a yellow submarine", like that submarine our earth is contained, and we are all in this together.
Water, although not much of a problem here in a the United States, is very much a problem in the developing countries in which the cotton is grown and the clothes are produced. In the FS article it is said that "Cotton is a thirsty crop. A problem made worse by poor agricultural practices, in some cases over 10 tonnes of water are used to grow enough cotton to make 1 pair of jeans - or 6 pints of water per cotton bud!" This water comes from wells, which comes from an aquifer. This same water is used for drinking for the local people. As the water is used beyond its replenishing capacity deeper wells must be drilled, causing many people's wells to run dry. "In central Asia, inefficient water use in cotton production has all but eradicated the Aral Sea."
One issue that is a bit more difficult to control is human consumption of the clothing. As our society continues to exploit our desire for consumerism, the demand for more clothes grows. In the FF reading, "Over the last two decades clothing has become increasingly affordable to everyone. Retailers and brands have capitalized on this affordability by moving away from a 'summer' and 'winter' season to fresh collections throughout the year." In the Walsh article they did justify additional cost to offset externalized costs within the products themselves, but not to set "green taxes" which they felt would be detrimental. Although cost is not all of it: the trend to release clothes more frequently is a hard cycle to break. Many designers could not stand being "behind the curve." This is not just a problem for the garment industry, it is all industries. So this becomes a human mindset problem, which will take as long of a time to correct as it took to set in the first place, potentially even longer. This is certainly a heated topic in who is actually responsible. I think that both the consumer and the industry are equally at fault. With the current sustainability movement, I believe more and more people are becoming aware of the consequences of our actions. The movement of the general public is like an old steam train, it take a lot of energy to get the wheels turning, but when they do begin to turn, momentum is gained exponentially. It is best to note that like the Beatle's song "We all live in a yellow submarine", like that submarine our earth is contained, and we are all in this together.
Friday, January 20, 2012
The pin drop heard round the world
Earthquakes! Tornadoes! Tsunamis! Diseases! Famines!
Every night you sit down and watch the world news there is no escape from hearing more and more about terrible things going on in the world. Is it really that bad out there? Have things gotten out of control? Have we really screwed up this world that these things are happening? I don't think so.
Let us go back in time to the 1500's. Easter Island was at it's peak with about 7000 inhabitants. By the time anyone ever found this place, it was 200 years later and the society had diminished to a few hundred. It took settlers over 200 years to find these people, but now we can see everything going on around the world at a moments notice via satellite. The advent of the internet in the 1980's only helped narrow the access time to next to nothing by allowing all information to be accessible almost instantly. Now think, that society existed for 100 years before anyone discovered them, how many different disasters have we missed as well? We did not have hundreds of weather stations or instruments of any kind of real accuracy. We didn't have the variety of measurements either.
In the last 40 to 50 years, we have been able to take measurements with an increasing amount of accuracy. This leads to a much better understanding of current trends, but does nothing with providing any details as to what happens in the past. There is an old adage that says "if a tree falls in the woods, and no one heard it, did actually happen?" I think that holds well in this situation, that there are many many more people now than there ever was in the past. More people to see, record, tell their friends about, any kind of thing is now being witnessed and recorded. The USGS website, in relation to whether or not there are more earthquakes now, "A partial explanation may lie in the fact that in the last twenty years, we have definitely had an increase in the number of earthquakes we have been able to locate each year. This is because of the tremendous increase in the number of seismograph stations in the world and the many improvements in global communications. In 1931, there were about 350 stations operating in the world; today, there are more than 8,000 stations..." This relates directly to many of the recorded graphs in the Millennium Assessment that they either go back only about 60 years or so, or the technology upon with those recording were recorded from were very inaccurate or poor, as well as limited in number.
So as with many things, there really isn't anything new under the sun.
Every night you sit down and watch the world news there is no escape from hearing more and more about terrible things going on in the world. Is it really that bad out there? Have things gotten out of control? Have we really screwed up this world that these things are happening? I don't think so.
Let us go back in time to the 1500's. Easter Island was at it's peak with about 7000 inhabitants. By the time anyone ever found this place, it was 200 years later and the society had diminished to a few hundred. It took settlers over 200 years to find these people, but now we can see everything going on around the world at a moments notice via satellite. The advent of the internet in the 1980's only helped narrow the access time to next to nothing by allowing all information to be accessible almost instantly. Now think, that society existed for 100 years before anyone discovered them, how many different disasters have we missed as well? We did not have hundreds of weather stations or instruments of any kind of real accuracy. We didn't have the variety of measurements either.
In the last 40 to 50 years, we have been able to take measurements with an increasing amount of accuracy. This leads to a much better understanding of current trends, but does nothing with providing any details as to what happens in the past. There is an old adage that says "if a tree falls in the woods, and no one heard it, did actually happen?" I think that holds well in this situation, that there are many many more people now than there ever was in the past. More people to see, record, tell their friends about, any kind of thing is now being witnessed and recorded. The USGS website, in relation to whether or not there are more earthquakes now, "A partial explanation may lie in the fact that in the last twenty years, we have definitely had an increase in the number of earthquakes we have been able to locate each year. This is because of the tremendous increase in the number of seismograph stations in the world and the many improvements in global communications. In 1931, there were about 350 stations operating in the world; today, there are more than 8,000 stations..." This relates directly to many of the recorded graphs in the Millennium Assessment that they either go back only about 60 years or so, or the technology upon with those recording were recorded from were very inaccurate or poor, as well as limited in number.
So as with many things, there really isn't anything new under the sun.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)