Reflections

"Any definition of famine that sees it as a failure of some sort is missing the point. Whether famine is seen as a failure of the food supply, a breakdown in the food distribution system, or a multi-faceted livelihood crisis, the outcome is the same. These definitions or concepts blind us to the fact that famines, and the deaths, migrations or impoverishment that they produce, are enormously beneficial to the perpetrators: they are a success not a failure, a normal output of the current economic and political system, not an aberration." -Jenny Edkins

This quote made an impact on me because it shows that we will need to change our system since we cannot expect the system that creates the problem cannot solve the problem, so we will need to let go and find a new path. This leads perfectly into the next quote, which describes ways to get there, and that people are already working towards that change and making impacts.

"But something else has been happening over these thirty years, too. The people we met on our journey are living this story. They are pushing forward the edge of hope with what they prove is possible. They are creating are space in which each of us can find hope.

We must warn you, though. This kind of hope isn't clean or tidy. Honest hope has an edge. It's messy. It requires that we let go of all pat answers, all preconceived formulas, all confidence that our sailing will be smooth. It's not a resting point. Honest hope is movement." -Frances Moor Lappe and Anna Lappe

Provoking Thoughts

I have chosen my two quotes based on what I think makes people think about the environment and current issues the most.

This quote in Hope's Edge by Frances Moore Lappe' and Anna Lappe':

"Choosing hope means conscious risk; it means looking at the ideas that govern us. while it is easy to condemn terrorists who justify the destruction of themselves and others, a much greater challenge is to ask: Do we, too, hold ideas that end up placing others values before life? What belief systems allow people to tolerate day in and day out, for example, the devastation of nature and other species as well as the starvation and early deaths of millions of innocent people, and allow them even to benefit- in cheap food, fuel, and finery- from the poverty that so stunts and shortens those other's lives?"

This forces us to question and be uncomfortable in more ways than one. This is not simply implicating environmental problems, but it is wrapped into the social, economical, political, and ethical questions surrounding it all.

This quote is by Garrett Hardin in Lifeboat Ethics:

"If we divide the world crudely into rich nations ad poor nations, two thirds of them are desperately poor, and only one third comparatively rich, with the United States the wealthiest of all. Metaphorically each rich nation can be seen as a lifeboat full of comparatively rich people. In the ocean outside each lifeboat swim the poor of the world, who would like to get in, or at least to share some of the wealth. What should the lifeboat passengers do?"

This quote also forces people to think and become uncomfortable. I believe that only when we are uncomfortable with what has already been said or though do we come up with new ideas and solutions. This really puts things into a comical but serious perspective. How will we handle these issues? Should we deal with these issues? I think this represents most the thoughts and feeling of Americans today regarding environmental and social problems. When do ethics become involved?

Cradle to Cradle: Subverting the Paradigm

I was actually quite skeptical of Cradle to Cradle after reading the introduction because it seemed as though the authors were so quick with accusations but were not offering solutions. However, as I entered the "Eco-Effectiveness" chapter, my concerns were eased. In fact, their ideas are so exciting that I began imaging how I could get 'soil roofs' in my own neighborhood.

I think William McDonough and Michael Braungart are definitely on the right track. Their idea of ELIMINATING the concept of waste revolutionizes environmental thinking. While it is a daunting idea, I have come to believe from this class that revolutionary ideas are necessary at this point. We cannot work within the paradigm, we must change the paradigm.

Also, I especially connected with their idea of "recycling as an aspirin." This is a great way to describe how society has come to see their participation in saving the environment. I have been thinking throughout this semester about the language of environmental politics, and this contributes to my thinking. Recycling is an aspirin because people see environmental problems to be the Earth's concern, so recycling is helping the Earth...something they don't really have other invested interest in. However, if the language of environmental studies focused on human health, as the authors do throughout this book, it would be understood as a more dire concern to individuals personally. I believe this is one of the main objectives of Cradle to Cradle--to reposition the issue as one of personal concern. Discussion of medical implications will do that to a person.

This book is great, I am really looking forward to discussing it because I am eager to hear it others see it to be practical. I felt at times that their suggestions were unfeasible, but then I reminded myself of my conclusion about subverting the dominant paradigm. Reading this book shows why it is so hard for society to accept revolutionary ideas, but with more books like this, revolutionary will become the new paradigm.

Cradle to Cradle

I think there are some fantastic ideas in the book.  I love the idea that we can design products and societies built on the idea of zero waste so that we don't add to landfills and the materials get recycled through many products. I think their vision may be optimistic at the moment, but more and more companies are getting on board, and as energy cost get higher and raw materials get scarcer there will be more emphasis on reusing the materials, as well as making them more durable since they will not be as cheap, as higher transportation costs and production costs must be absorbed into the price. This is also encouraging smart design that reduces waste from the production cycle onward. Shaw Carpets, which is an example of their work, shows how smart design can reduce waste, by using carpet tiles and a underlay so that when a stain occurs they can just take one tile and replace it, whereas before they would have had to rip out the whole carpet. They can then recycle the fibers from that carpet, to make new carpet, reducing costs by reducing waste. This would require a change in thought in both consumers and producers, which is already occurring in select markets. If we can get rid of composite materials and take out the unhealthy chemicals used in current production processes by formaldehyde and PCBs just to name a few most of which have never been tested for their effects on human health. This change would make us healthier and the Earth healthier, especially if it is combined with reduced consumption and more socially conscious ways of obtaining the raw materials.

Too Much Too Often

A few things really jumped out at me when I was reading Cradle to Cradle. On page 18, McDonough and Braungart describe the Industrial Revolution retrospectively, and they write "Design a system of production that...puts valuable materials in holes all over the planet, where they can never be retrieved." This really struck me as an interesting and unique way to describe the problem of landfills. One of my major concerns about the environment is the abundance of garbage dumps. It just makes me sick to think about garbage piling up in massive amounts, and stories about ships sailing around with tons of trash looking for a place to dump their waste really worry me. I think McDonough and Braungart do a great job of putting this into perspective by saying that it's a needless waste of valuable materials - it just doesn't make sense that we'd want to bury valuable things and make them inaccessible to us. However, most people don't see the value of "trash," therefore they don't see the problem with throwing everything away. I was also shocked with the fact that "According to some accounts more than 90 percent of materials extracted to make durable goods in the United States become waste almost immediately." That seems insane to me, and it is very obvious that we need to redesign the current manufacturing system.

Another aspect of McDonough and Braungart's writing that really interested me was their take on using GDP as a measure of progress. In Deep Economy, Bill McKibben also wrote about the fact that some communities have very small economic growth and yet thrive in their own ways, while places with high economic growth can still have a very low quality of life for the majority of people living there. "[I]f prosperity is judged only by increased economic activity, then car accidents, hospital visits, illnesses (such as cancer), and toxic spills are all signs of prosperity." I had never considered this before, and it made me feel even more strongly about the necessity of developing different ways of measuring progress rather than through purely economic means.

One more thing that I connected with in this reading pertains to the effects that products have on us. I found it very depressing to read about how everything in our home is dangerous to us, from plastic toys to armchairs to carpets. It makes it seem impossible to live a truly healthy life. And yet it makes sense because it seems like more people have health problems than ever before. So many kids have allergies, asthma, ADD and ADHD, everyone seems to be getting cancer, etc. etc. So much research goes into finding cures for these things, but I've felt for a long time that it's more about changing everyday lifestyles than solely finding cures. My dad has always told me that I'll be healthier if I spend more time outdoors (granted, this was in Ohio where I think there's less pollution than in DC...). He told me that more people get sick in the winter because they spend a lot more time inside than outside, which isn't good for you. I believed him and saw that this often was the case, but it makes so much more sense to me now. Something that really shocked me was that "crude products - whether appliances, carpets, wallpaper adhesives, paints, building materials, insulation, or anything else - make the average indoor air more contaminated than outdoor air." This is scary!

I think it's really exciting that the new SIS building was designed by McDonough, and I wish all buildings could be so green and healthy. Unfortunately, I won't be here when it is finished :(

On a side note, I was listening to Phantom Planet's CD Raise the Dead as I was writing this, and their song "Too Much Too Often" came on. I think the lyrics "So now without stopping It's too much too often Out of the cradle And into the coffin" fit this topic perfectly!

A new way

What Michael Braungart and William McDonough's idea of from cradle to cradle is not a new concept as they admit. The idea to actually produce a product with the intention of it being restored to nature later is a great idea. However, I do believe that they seem a bit optimistic with this idea. For example, the roofing they propose made of soil and an assortment of plants will be cost effective for cooling a building and preventing water running off and flooding the area, but there will still need to be material below the roofing. The destruction of buildings to implement these new designs will cause the harmful substances to release into the air quicker than what they would in the first place. I also believe that they underestimate the "good" people are trying to do. Not only do recycling programs bring environmentalism into the consciousness of vast communities, but it also encourages people to consume less, which is very significant. Even if materials were made to be absorbed by the environment, I believe that there is a limit. You cannot dump bottles everywhere and anywhere simply because you know that they are environmentally friendly. This will perpetuate the problem they mentioned about the absence of aesthetic beauty. We will be walking around on top of bottles! Therefore, not only do these products need to be environmentally friendly, but people also need to learn to consume less. Dead leaves in a lawn can be used to encourage plant growth. However, too much chokes the light from reaching any new plant life. To an extent, producing products purposefully to become recycled is a wonderful idea, but it needs to be combined with reducing and recycling programs in existence already in order to promote the ideas among the populations and to limit consumerism, which could out weigh the positive effects of the from cradle to cradle approach.