The book Cradle to Cradle's main premise is that the natural world has processes that are truly sustainable. Even the 'wastes' are used for other purposes. This is in contrast with industrial society, in which we take something, use it, and throw it 'away.'

A wonderful example that they used was the cherry tree. Some may call it wasteful that it produces many cherries that never grow into trees. However, every cherry finds some other biological purpose, whether it is as food for an animal, or if it decomposes and fertilizes the soil.

Humanity unfortunately mixes biological and technological products together so that they can not decompose properly, nor can they be reused. Furthermore, recycling does not preserve the integrity of the material. The authors refer to it as downcycling because the quality is diluted through mixing. In reality, they say, a recycled bottle may become nothing more than a speed bump because that is all the downcycled material is capable of doing.

The authors say that we need to find materials that can be used many times in many different forms without being diluted. We need to think of all the consequences of our products. We need to preserve the ability of our products to biodegrade. Although this is an ambitious goal that may seem unattainable, they have proven with their book that it is possible. They do this by printing their book on such materials and clearly enumerating the reasons why. They show that their vision of the future is possible, and it is important that we listen to them and start to think of our products and lives as cradle to cradle, instead of cradle to grave.

Discussion Question 9

Cradle-to-Cradle was a fascinating read. Its main premise seemed to be that we need to rethink the way we are talking about environmental issues, reframing our conversations from doing less harm through improved efficiency of existing "bad" industrial systems to creating good through new "cradle-to-cradle" systems. This would involve eliminating the concept of waste altogether, because products would be designed to be upcycled into equally useful products as the ones they came from. Instead of creating lower quality, degraded products that contain toxic substances as we currently do by recycling, a cradle-to-cradle system would model itself after the natural environment. McDonough and Braungart provide romantic examples of modeling our modes of production after cherry trees and ant colonies, essentially closed loop cycles that not only sustain themselves, but also provide benefits to their surrounding environments.

I found these concepts to be wonderfully appealing. To imagine purchasing products that I knew would actually benefit the earth, not simply do less harm to it, was an exciting prospect. And, given many of the examples the authors have themselves created, such as the Ford plant and eco-effective upholstery, it seems possible in many instances. Certainly, it is an ideal to strive for. But the text left me with many unanswered questions. It seemed to suggest that such a system need not recreate the products we use, but instead reinvent the way they are created-- won't there be cases in which this isn't possible, when there is no eco-effective option for creating a product consumers perceive as equal in value to the product it replaces? And what are we to do with the current versions of products that contain toxic substances and cannot be upcycled in their current state? How will we dispose of them when their life cycle is complete? Finally, as the human population continues to grow, new inputs will be a necessity to produce even eco-effective products, won't they? What should be done in that case? None of these questions for me invalidates the usefulness of an argument for "cradle-to-cradle" products and eco-effective solutions, but they do reinforce the notion that there is no single environmental paradigm that can address all of the issues we currently face.

Ariel's Blog Post

The main premise I derived from Cradle to Cradle is the notion captured within the book’s title. That is, the idea that consumption in America is highly viewed as a “cradle-to-grave” process, where we regard objects as having a linear lifetime and falsely perceive these objects as simply “going away” after we throw them in the trash. The authors suggest that this notion is highly flawed and does little to nourish the Earth. Instead, they suggest promoting a societal view of consumption that is based on a “cradle-to-cradle” system of values. Items would not be perceived as having a linear life span, and items would not be thrown away. These items would not even be recycled, or “down-cycled” as the authors suggest is the case. Instead, items would give birth to new items and would be a means of providing beneficial substances to the planet’s natural systems.

For example, the authors propose packaging that, as opposed to be thrown away or “down-cycled,” is simply thrown on the ground. It would be made of a biodegradable material that is not only safe for the soil, but provides for it. They suggest similar innovations in terms of the soles of shoes, carpeting, and the material of which furniture is made.

I do agree with the authors. I feel our society needs to seriously reconsider not only how it produces and consumes, but also how it looks at production and consumption. In order to help heal the damage we have already caused and to prevent further damage, American society needs to not only become “less bad” but to also revolutionize the entire system of production and consumption, so that linear production in which plastics, harmful toxins, and unnecessary packaging are not norms, but are instead entirely absurd.

The book cradle to cradle is telling us that we need to change the way that our industrial system works. We need to have a system that resembles the natural world and replenishes itself. In the beginning of the book he gives the example of the titanic. A gigantic cruise ship that at the time was thought to be indestructible. It was sunk by an iceberg (nature). He is stating that it is a matter of design in our industry we need to redesign it. We need to model it off of natural systems like the water cycle, the nitrogen cycle and so on. Yes i do agree with the points made in this book, obviously our industry needs to change because it's current methods are not going to last. I think he is on the right track but i think it is going to take more than just changing our industries it is still going to be a matter of cutting back on consumption. It is hard to imagine the factories working in a natural manner because the items that factories produce are far from natural. One specific example that comes to my mind is a car. In the book they mention making a car that gives off positive emissions which i think is an amazing idea but i guess i am just pessimistic in thinking that it is possible. There is one example of an idea that i have which i think the authors of this book would enjoy hearing about. Muhammad Yunus is a noble peace prize winner and a social entrepreneur in bangladesh. He spent a lot of time developing a yogurt that could be affordable and extremely good for the younger children to eat in order to improve children's nutrition. However he has also stated that he wants to go further and create a yogurt which everything is edible, even the packaging that the yogurt is in. I think that is an extremely creative idea which I hope to see one day. It also is one that leaves behind no waste from the product. Of course production of the yogurt would need to be taken into consideration but overall i think the idea of being able to package foods in which the packaging is edible as well would be a natural system in which the authors discuss.

Discussion Question 8

I found neither of these websites to be very convincing. First, neither is what I would consider a reliable source on climate change. The "Friends of Science" site at least presents itself as more of a scholarly source than the Grist site does, listing a panel of PhD holding members who have published scholarly works about the science behind climate change, while the Grist site is set up more like a blog and does not identify the personal credentials of the authors as readily. Still, both sites simply overwhelm the reader with facts, data, and graphs that come from various government and watchdog organizations. Put simply, when comparing these two sites, it is difficult to come to any conclusion because each side of the debate has counter-evidence to "disprove" the other side's argument. Who I am to distinguish who is telling the "truth"? For the most part, I don't understand the science behind either side's figures, so I'm left feeling like there is simply no consensus or truth to be found.

However, I understand why there is such fierce debate about climate change. If the phenomenon is real and is human-driven (for the record, this is what I believe), it is the most dire environmental problem facing the world as a whole. According to the science on this side of the debate, the state of the world as we know it is changing rapidly for the worse, and we are no longer guaranteed of the planet's ability to support growing future generations. On the other side of the debate, any solution to this problem is extremely costly. It would involve overhauling our current system, which depends so heavily on fossil fuel use, one of the main sources of human carbon emissions into the atmosphere. Certainly, it makes sense to be wary of making such a large sacrifice that could have its own unintended economic and environmental consequences if the phenomenon of global warming isn't real. While I personally believe global warming is caused by humans and is a threat to the health of the planet, I understand why such fierce debate continues about the validity of these claims.

The debate about whether or not "climate change" exists is something i always grew up with. My Father is a huge skeptic of the idea and i always had to listen to him mock people who were pulling towards methods of "being green" and conserving energy etc.

The reasons that he is so critical about accepting climate change and believing what people say have to do with party affiliation. But also the ideas that we have to cut back on fossil fuel use which is what our economy runs on. Without it we would not be able to produce produce produce at the rate in which we do. It would take extravagant amounts of effort on everyone's part in order to make our economy run on means that did not come from fossil fuels. That is mainly why i believe people like my father refuse to even consider the idea that it is negatively affecting our earth in the manner that it does. That is also why i particularly liked the "How to talk to a climate skeptic" more because of every day life it was much more useful for me! I also enjoyed how every answer was laid out very scientifically and to the point, there were graphs and simple statements that I definitely could use to argue points. It also gave a HUGE variety of topics in which you could look at global warming from. Instead of the same drilled in points of green house gases, warming up and the end. It covered lots of different angles and maybe at one of the angles it could change a person's perspective. So Yes I think that this website is more convincing

Climate Change

There is so much competition centered about the science of climate change for many reasons. The first of these reasons is economics. Validation of climate change means that there will need to be modifications to the current economic system. In an economy that prioritizes growth above all else, this makes climate change seem anti-capitalist to many people. What must happen is a re-prioritization of our goals. Rather than prioritizing more production, we need to prioritize well-being for humans and for the planet.

In addition, people fear climate change's validity because it indicates that we have done something wrong. We don't want to be told that what we are doing is harmful and must be stopped, so we like to pretend that everything is OK. It's time to open our eyes to the science behind global warming and climate change and it is time for us to make a change in our lifestyles.

Evaluating the science is important for understanding the consequences of our actions. We need to look for hard evidence, facts, correlations (while understanding that a correlation is not necessarily a causation), relationships between data, and our impacts on those data. Both of the sites that we looked at this week try to use the scientific data to bolster their arguments. This is important, because arguing without science is unsubstantial.

To evaluate their claims, we need to read what they say. The "Friends of Science" website mostly says that what is happening now is standard for the planet's history, while the "How to talk to a Climate Skeptic" describes the ways that things have been changing. I find the "How to talk to a Climate Skeptic" website to be more convincing, perhaps because I am already of the persuasion that global warming is factual.

Ariel's Blog Post

In a world where one can crunch numbers and create graphs “supporting” almost anything, the study of climate change becomes increasingly riddled with massive amounts of (often contradictory) scientific “evidence.” For those of us, like myself, without much skill in the realm of scientific knowledge, it can get confusing to tell fact apart from fiction. When confronted with two sources (such as those presented to us in this blog question), that both appear legitimate but provide contradictory information, it is easy to get lost in the shuffle of “scientific” debate. In addition, in a society where political action may be taken or is in the process of becoming policy, some individuals begin to view their freedom as being compromised in the name of eco-friendly policies. This arguably results in fierce competition and competing interests around the science of climate change.

Admittedly, I’m not one for science. I most likely will never have the skill to intelligently enter into a heated scientific debate. However, climate change and environmental issues still stir me, even if I’m unable to scientifically grasp the exact nature of the problem. Why is this so? Because I realize that everything has some sort of a consequence. I don’t believe that anything just happens without causing something else, either positive or negative, to happen as a result. Thus, regardless of the scientific debate, it remains clear to me that our intense consumption and reliance on fossil fuel must be having some consequence. For me, my desire to reduce climate change and cultivate a more positive impact on the environment doesn’t need to be rooted in specific scientific information. Regardless of how fancy a chart you can make, it’s hard to miss the thick black smoke billowing out of the tailpipe a car.