|
Cradle to Cradle: Remaking the Way We Make Things By William McDonough and Michael Braungart Published by the North Point Press, 193 pages
By
focusing on design, Cradle to Cradle attempts
to steer environmental debate about
end-of-pipe solutions into a
constructive re-conceptualisation of the
way we think about the environment –
largely by focusing on manmade products
and their often destructive interaction
with ecosystems.
In
a Mother Goose and Grimm cartoon
from years ago, Mother Goose is paying for her groceries and is asked if she wants
paper or plastic bags. Faced with a choice of killing trees or exploiting oil,
and being unable to decide, Mother Goose is finally put into a straightjacket
and carried off to the loony bin.
There
are, of course, other solutions not illustrated in the cartoon – such as
reusable string and textile bags – but resources are also mined and used in
their manufacture, and there is still the question of disposal. Nor are
so-called “biodegradable” bags the answer: Today’s biodegradable bags comprise
a mix of plastic interspersed with cornstarch. When and if the cornstarch biodegrades
(which it does not unless exposed to sunlight, air and water – none of which
are present in a landfill disposal or incinerator), many small plastic bits
remain.
Cradle to Cradle asks us to look at
everything from bags, shoes, carpets and entire buildings, and to contemplate redesigning
them in such a way that waste does not equal waste, but equals food. A carrier
bag, for example, can mean a fully compostable bag that can re-enter the
ecosystem as food for biological processes, or be made from materials that can
be re-fed into bag-manufacturing process. Sports shoes can be made with soles
that erode slowly through wear and leave behind material that biodegrades into
soil nutrients.
The
authors argue that all materials and products should be designed so that they
safely feed the biosphere and/or technical processes. For example, car exhaust
emissions could be reconceived and the process designed so that positive emissions
can either help purify the air or produce drinking water. They add, however,
that these types of solutions do not get to the actual root problems of an
auto-based culture and infrastructure.
The
authors also emphasise the big difference between recycling and down-cycling.
Recycling is to make the same product from reclaimed materials. For example, Cradle to Cradle itself is made from non-toxic,
100% recyclable polymer material that can be recycled into a new book.
Recycling might make you feel good, but the authors claim that it does not
provide adequate incentives to minimise either the waste or the often-toxic
chemicals used in production.
Energy-efficiency
advocates might quarrel with the authors’ contention that emission standards,
permits, toxic release inventories and carbon trading schemes are just a “license
to harm” – that making a destructive system less so is just not good enough.
Being “less bad” or “sustainable” does not halt depletion, it just slows it
down. The authors write, not without humour: “If a man characterised his
relationship with his wife as sustainable, you might as well pity them both.”
|