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.

A tale of two bottles.

This week I will look at two different bottles that have two different levels of green-ness.  Although the bottles and associated product have two very different uses, I believe that the claims can be judged equally.  The first product, which is an example of greenwashing, is Poland Spring water bottles.  It boasts an "eco-shape bottle."  What the heck is an eco-shape??  They go on to say that an "eco-shape bottle" is one that uses 30% less plastic than comparable sized bottles.  This is a vague claim.  Same as that they claim that they have reduced their label sizes to save paper.  Compared to what exactly?  Yes, they have saved paper and plastic, but those kinds of comparisons are fairly arbitrary.  I did check out the study that was referenced at the bottom, and none of the referenced points are listed.  This is not good.  Also, water bottles use a TON of resources to be shipped to your store, as well as the processing to clean the water.  Water is heavy and takes up a lot of space on trucks.  I know from working at Wal-Mart, that we sell many palettes worth of water every day per store.  This is the worst offense of all.  We all have public water supplies at our houses.  We all have reusable cups.  Heck, we can all get a Brita filter.

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.

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!

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.