Cradle to Cradle Ch. 2

Cradle to Cradle Ch. 2

Why Being “Less Bad” Is No Good

-Many people “predicted” the result of the industrial revolution would end bad, when everyone else had hopes and excitement for the future.  These individuals were almost like outcasts because of their “negativity”.

-Over time of people continuing to push for less environmental damage, changes were gradually made, like the banning of DDT, but changes are still young.

-In 1998 the message from William Rathje was to consume less instead of trying to recycle more.

-A new change was the move to “eco-efficiency” which means “to do more with less” and using fewer resources, and polluting less.  This lead to the popular phrase: reduce, reuse, recycle.

-Many busyness companies have adopted these eco-efficiency phrases, and have reduced emissions greatly, but…

The Four R’s: Reduce, Reuse, Recycle- and Regulate

-“Eco-efficiency” is to slow down destruction not stop it, like a slow death.

-Waste removal has been made safer and safer through the years, but the word “safer” means that it is still harmful.

-Even reusing waste to fertilize the ground will hurt environments (like dioxins, heavy metals, and antibiotics) if the waste is not completely biodegradable, making landfills a better choice, and landfills are not a good choice.

-“Down Cycling” is when a material is “recycled”, but because of the inability to separate components, like paint from a car’s steel, losses its pure state and becomes weaker until all usefulness is lost.

-If a material is down cycled, but still need better quality a chemical additive will be added, making this “eco-friendly” recycling less friendly.

-Industries are under threat of punishment under regulations, but rarely rewarded for trying to create a deeper and more creative way to respond to the problem.

-Good design (solve problem) does not require regulations (slow problem).

Efficient- at What?

-Efficiency as a good thing is relevant to the issue.  Efficient food is no fun, and efficient polluting is hard to detect.

-“Less bad” is efficient, but just an efficiently slower death.

Cradle to Cradle Ch. 1

Cradle to Cradle Ch. 1

A Brief History of the Industrial Revolution

-I the industrial revolution was designed with respect to its negative consequences the result would be a detriment to the earth, in regards to mass energy consumption, using up resources at a high rate, and even creating an un healthy standard for living.  The leaders in the industrial revolution did not intend for this to happen, but the problem was that there was no design.

-Industry pre industrial revolution was based on individual skills, but then moved to mass mechanical production.  Faster transportation, like the train and steamship, also raised the pressure to output more and compete with other companies.

-The industrial revolution changed the landscape from farm land to factory town, bit by bit.  This created more dangerous environments and work conditions.

-There was a push back, for good reason, for the industrial revolution, but many were optimistic about the advancement of mankind, and thought the ability to now have more luxuries, that were before unattainable, more important than the environmental effects it was having.

-Ford was one of the major game changers in the efficiency of producing with the utilization of assembly lines.  He made time of work go down, and payments go up, all while making a product that was available to everyone.  But this process was only considered on the economic level and was not considered for the bigger picture of effect.

“Those Essences Unchanged by Man”

-There are a core group of natural resources that were used and are still used today, which factories are built near, for easy access, and were collected at an uncaring rate because of the notion that there would always be more and the earth would always provide.

-Even though we know how fragile the earth is today, we still run under an ignorant system that has greatly improved the standard of living, but has placed a big problem in the lap of today’s generation.

From Cradle to Grave

-Things are made to be used and thrown away, but the things don’t really go “away”.

-Many things only consist of 5% of the actually material used to make it and even then is made not to last so you are forced to buy a new one

One Size Fits All

-Universal design solutions were created, but did not fit context as a result.

-Products are designed for worst case scenarios so that the product could be sold to anyone and anywhere, but the effect the product has on the environment increases with the potency of the chemicals used and “disposed” of into different water sources.

Brute Force

-“If brute force doesn’t work, you’re not using enough of it.”  If factories are not running “correctly” more fuel is burned, which at some point will run out, but until then it continues to hurt the air we need to breath.

-We are missing out on a true “infinite” energy source and that is the sun.

A Culture of Monoculture

-A uniformity or hominization is created when ignoring the natural, which is always unique.  Even the crops are artificially altered to perform the way we want and create a mono-use to the once dynamic soil.

-The mass use of chemicals creates the need to use more chemicals in order to keep production “in balance”.

-Nature has a complex ecosystem, which is sustainable, but man has a narrow focus of production, which continues the “brute force” method.

Activity Equals Prosperity

-“in the race for economic progress, social activity, ecological impact, cultural activity, and long-term effects can be overlooked.”  Economy can grow from a mass hospital raise in patience, but is this a good thing?

Crude Products

-“product plus: as a buyer you go the item or service you wanted, plus additives that you didn’t ask for and didn’t know were included and that may be harmful to you and your loved ones.”

-Off gases can weaken the immune system and can be the cause of “unknown” sickness.

A Strategy of Tragedy, or a Strategy of Change?

-The industrial revolution has brought about some good, but even more long lasting bad, and unless we change, the destruction will continue to snow ball.

It’s the Architecture, Stupid!

It’s the Architecture, Stupid!

-“What we need is a paradigm shift in the way we view energy consumption in this country.  It’s Architecture- residential, commercial and industrial buildings and their construction materials- that account for nearly half of all the energy used in this country each year.  And it’s the architects who hold the key to turning down the global thermostat.”

-“Architects design most buildings and specify all the materials used in their construction.  The design of a building- it’s form, fenestration, construction materials and finishes- largely determines the building’s lifetime energy consumption and gas emission patterns.”

-“Buildings can be designed to use large or small amounts of imported energy and in some cases no imported energy at all.”

-“The challenge is that the architecture inherited from our predecessors is no longer valid today.  The global problems we now face provide the basis for a new architecture and a dialogue with nature that will give this new architecture its uniqueness.”

-“What is needed in each and every “studio,” included as a requirement in the problems issued to students, is that architecture be designed to engage the environment in a way that significantly reduces or eliminates the need for fossil fuels.  Due to the investigative nature of the design studio, students educate themselves through the research necessary to address the design problem, and- through studio critiques- they will educate their instructors as well.”

-“To set the wheels in motion, federal and state governments should require that all government renovation and new building projects be designed to meet an energy consumption performance standard of one half the U.S. regional average for that building type.”

-“The American architectural community has the unique opportunity to lead the way in reversing the destructive trend of human induced climate change.  They hold the key to the lock on the global thermostat.  If they open the lock, and if the automobile industry likewise accepts its responsibility to increase the gas mileage of its fleet- and if more States require that a percentage of their energy come from non-polluting renewable resources- than the U.S. will have a viable strategy in place to combat global warming and restore its international good will and credibility.”