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.