Hello Everyone this is Viktoria Unger and these are my thoughts on chapter two.
This chapter was quite an eye opener. It begins describing our early attempts to make industry less destructive. In the past, industry was so destructive regulations had to be put in place to avoid, “immediate sickness and death.” We certainly have come a long way. Works like Silent Spring by Rachel Carson have catalyzed the formation of many conservation societies and resulted in the passing of many environmental regulation laws. However the authors go on to describe how our efforts are thus far not sufficient. They compare recycling to aspirin, insinuating it is only good enough to ease a post-consumption hangover rather than eliminating the waste problem from the root. Not only that but they claim that because none of our products are actually designed to be recycled, we are actually “downcycling” them. In many cases, it actually takes more energy to “recycle” a product and requires the use of harmful chemicals that perpetuate the pollution cycle. Furthermore, these materials lose their quality and value. It can also be more expensive for companies, reducing incentive for companies to attempt to adapt sustainable policies.
Generally, businesses see environmental regulations as uneconomic and try to avoid them at all costs. Oil companies are just one of the many companies that lobby politicians to ignore or reject legislation that would push for sustainable practices. (In fact you can go to Exxonsecrets.org to see just where their money goes) At first I believed the authors were being slightly harsh on our efforts thus far, but quickly realized it is true and the aspirin metaphor is a perfect way to look at it. Many of the so-called “solutions” we’ve come up with for our gross overconsumption are weak attempts at covering up mistakes we’re made in the past, and are NOT long term solutions.
In order for us to really make a difference we have to change the way we produce things, we need to make them in such a way that they can be easily recycled without the addition of any extra chemicals. Currently our attempts at “eco-efficiency” have only resulted in a “less bad” approach that is not good enough for the long term. We need to revamp the system and we need to do it from all angles. From grass-roots organization to large-scale legislation we need to change the way we run business and industry.
Thank you for taking the time to read my thoughts, I look forward to reading yours!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
17 comments:
I agree with the comment, "businesses see environmental regulations as uneconomic and try to avoid them at all costs" posted by Viktoria. These regulations may be uneconomic to put into action, however in the long run the money saved will exceed the money used to correct the problem. It is also more respectable to see a business being eco-friendly and could potentially lead to more financial success for that business.
I could not agree with you more Viktoria! Major problems companies’ are have is that they are not creating products to be recycled and instead the items are being down cycled.
With hurtful chemicals being used, the quality of the product is being reduced in the end. This chapter never gave us a solution for the future to help solve our recycling dilemmas. Looking down the road, companies need to make their products more eco-efficient and friendly and cut back on the use of dangerous chemicals. I give Rachel Carson credit for the writing of Silent Spring that emphasized the concerns of pesticides and pollution to our environment. I admire her forward thinking in recognizing the effect of chemicals on the environment. Today, we are still grappling with these problems until companies’ modify the ways they generate their merchandise.
the part of this chapter that stuck out for me was when the author talked about a hangover. instead of taking an asprin to cover up the hangover, you could just refrain from getting drunk. i think that the moral of this chapter was that the earth is like our bodies. we get out what we put in. if we know that we'll get a hangover the morning after we get drunk, we think about our futures and don't get drunk the night before an exam. so if we would just think about our futures when it comes to production, we can prevent some of the common damages that come from not thinking far enough ahead.
I found the Chapter to repeat the overall same idea and the title sums it up, "being less bad is no good." we are trying to slow down the process of destruction and it is really only prolonging the problems and in most cases making them worse. we need to stop trying to put a band aid on a wound that requires surgery and reconstuction. Valuable time and resources are being wasted in attempt to postpone destruction of the planet, and noone is looking for ways to reinvent things so that the word destruction dosent even have to exsist. More attention needs to be paid to one R, Reinvention, rather than the four R's reduce, reuse, recycle, and regulate. I give people like Rachel carson credit for trying, now more people need to listen.
riedinger5205@philau.edu
For ages humans have been predominantly destructive and greedy in nature. If there is land to be had, we want it, if there is food to be eaten, we eat it and if there is a obstacle in our way, we destroy it. Although this manner of handling our wants and needs can be successful at times it does not prepare for long term results. Covering a dead body in a plastic bag, makes the body no less dead, just more pleasing to the eyes. This practice is often seen in the ways we handle waste as described in Cradle to Cradle. Regulating detrimental practices merely limits its ratio of harm, it does not solve it.
I found this chapter particularly eye-opening as McDonough and Braungart delved into what was thought to be progressive, and helpful measures to saving the environment. The often clique motto 'reduce, reuse, recycle' is often thought as the clear and only solution to environmental hazards. However, it is exemplified through the book like Veronika mentioned that these tactics are not only insufficient but sometimes more expensive and harmful than helpful as 'downsizing' occurs. Should we stop recycling? Of course not. What the authors are informing is that it is possible to replenish the earth, environment ,and ourselves by recreating the way we make things. Cutting back to a pack a week, still makes you a smoker, just as cutting the amount of toxic waste emitted still leaves the air polluted. Again a renaissance is upon us just as it was with through Malthusian times, now authors and innovators like McDonough and Braungart urge us to take the next step and think deeper than just cutting back on our bad ecological habits.
My question is how many 'go green' movements will it take? How many more books and research papers and depleted soil will we have to face before real change will occur?
It is interesting that the authors choose to leave Charles Darwin out of the philosophers they dwell on in chapter two. Darwin explains it quite well--survival of the fittest. Although mankind is essentially abandoning the earth's needs, the Industrial Revolution is so significant because of all the people it helped at the time, still today. At the creation of industries, more people were given jobs, the materials which people owned increased, and living became more efficient for people rather than for the world as a whole. Humans tend to be rather egotistic when it comes to the ways of the world, as proven by this book so far; people generally believe that they can always make the world better, that they can spark the tipping of a great ecological movement to save the planet by inspiring the population to take action.
Unfortunately, the majority of the population cares more for their own ease and comfort to actually take action. They may support the cause, but they won't be a part of the solution. Why? Because they have their own lives to tend to.
The essence of this chapter is that we need to rebuild our society to work with nature rather than against it. I completely agree, but realistically that's just not going to happen. Offering small scale solutions, such as aspirin to a hangover, are easier steps to take. Or, rather than rebuilding our entire system, we should be thinking of means to save energy, lower costs, and appreciate the environment. For instance, vending machines consume so much energy that many places which have them are spending obscene amounts to maintain them. Rather than throw the old vending machine away to buy a new, more energy efficient one, people have offered small solutions to simply add to such large energy wasters (i.e...vending machines, refridgerators, etc.) to lower the amount of energy used. This is a solution which retailers would buy, which could tip the industry to become even more eco-friendly and energy smart.
The sad truth is that we cannot dispose of everything we have just to simply start over and become environmentally astounding. We have to work with what we have and set the precedent of ecologically sound technology, industries, and lifestyles.
--Melanie Whedon
whedon8173@PhilaU.edu
I completely agree with you Viktoria. Figuring out how to turn “down-cycling” to recycling should be our first priority. Over the years I feel as though companies have on been in incognito with the allusion of making things better. But in reality it is only masking them. In the book, Cradle to Cradle, the authors mention that when an industry says they have eliminated seventy percent of the cancer- causing toxins we as consumers think ‘wow that’s great!’, but in reality, now that they had to change their chemicals, maybe now it causes the employees lung disease. There always seems to be a catch. As of now there is no 100% guarantee known, but a solution needs to be done.
Legislatures need to set eco-friendly regulations for industries now that need to be met that ensures that the company isn’t causing too much destruction and all that can be done at this time is being done. I am sure that there are a few industries in this world that are completely disregarding the threats to the environment and that needs to be stopped. By doing this the process of ruining our environment and threatening our health will hopefully be slowed enough o give us time to come up with a solution. Although, the consumers of the world still need to be educated on what they are buying and what that product may turn into when it is “recycled.” I feel as though knowledge is the key to better control over what is happening in the world and what can be done to fix it.
butera8987@philau.edu
I also agree with you Viktoria, chapter two was an eye opener. I especially found the mentions of romance authors taking a passionate role in trying to enlighten the world about industries harmful effects on the earth, I am mainly referencing Rachel Carson's "Silent Spring".
However a quote in the opening of the second chapter caught my interest as well; "Reduce, avoid, minimize, sustain, limit, and halt," (McDonough 45). I felt as if I really agreed with the author when he said that there is and was an industrial agenda. It was not until after I re-read the quote again that I realized, none of those words are proactive, rather, they are reactive. REDUCE the pollution the industries products are producing. AVOID a complete health scare only after factory conditions had proved to be fatal. MINIMIZE how much the public actually knows about the damaging affects of their products (give them enough informations so they feel they are in the loop) but not enough to get citizens so worried that they will want factories to be closed down. SUSTAIN a steady increase of new and innovative ways to consequentially harm the planet. LIMIT (but not stop) the use of non-replenishable resources and HALT any and all negative attentions and or media if and when at all possible. These things stood out to me, because they are only prolonging the inevitable and allotting time for worse things to occur.
Another comment in this chapter that stood out to me was when Robert Leinfeld sad in his essay "Use Less Stuff" "The best way to reduce any environmental impact is not to recycle more, but to produce and dispose of less," (50)
I found this particularly interesting because in way it contradicted the title "why less is bad" but in the same instance it defended the title.
"The best way to reduce any environmental impact is not to recycle more, but to produce and dispose of less" (50). Oddly strong words for this chapter considering we are a country that lives on wealth and prosperity only through mismanaged resources.
We live in a society where bigger is better, the latest is the greatest, and if you can afford it then it doesn't matter how old it is or where it came from. In order to solve the problems posed from chapter two we need to live by the quote and produce less and dispose of less. Instead of producing the latest and greatest from raw materials, we need to reinvent what we already have. By reusing and updating products already in use many problems are adherently solved. We have produced less, disposed less, recycled less, and have overall pleased consumers. If people demanded a business strategy from companies that focused on these points, our products would be safer and would be recyclable/reusable from the start.
As Viktoria pointed out, recycling and eco-efficency do not fix our problems but only shorten their impact on us. Many companies try to earn your loyalty through advertising, flashy designs, or legislation that supposidly is suppose to help us.
However, as the chaper points out, most companies only cover up the problem and do not take care of the whole situation. "When you hear that a company like DuPont has cut its emissions of cancer-causing chemicals by almost 70 percent since 1987, you feel better" (53). They never really solved a problem, they only reduced the immediate effect on humanity. If our society lived by moral practice and upstanding then DuPont's chemicals for example would have always been safe. DuPont in the long run would have saved profit and earned better consumer loyalty then having to pay to clean up their act and fool people. We have to demand in the future that our products are designed to benefit us overall rather than harm us. Otherwise, companies will continue business as usual.
rich9533@philau.edu
it seems as though i forgot to post my email adress staley3659@philau.edu
In this chapter it describes how the industry caused many "immediate sickness and death", and how we have progressed forward into a safer nation. But doesn't it seem like we are falling right back into that trap? Companies choose not to become more "eco-friendly" because it cost them more money. However they are not seeing the bigger picture, it will cost our nation, safety, environment and our future to be at risk. It is just like buying clothes. (Sorry to make this analogy but I am a fashion merchandiser major) Instead of buying articles because they are cheaper invest in a one good quality of clothing that will never wear out and be reusable for years. Instead of something cheap that needs to constantly replaced and will cost you more in the end.
There were many books and warnings for everyone to become aware and everyone seemed to ignore it, now that its close to becoming to late everyone is trying to hard to be "less bad" but it is not enough. We seriously need to become more involved in saving the environment, and we need to stop letting the "commerce from corrupting the guardian." I recently watched how they the biggest addiction in the nation right now is oil. We will pay at any price just to obtain some and use it like its water. The "guardians" job is to satisfy the "commerce", but the guardian needs to start enforcing stronger regulation.
buccello2662@philau.edu
“You must be the change you wish to see in the world.” – Mahatma Gandhi
Human beings have an amazing power: choice. The authors proposed we are intelligent enough to identify problems, now we are being asked to choose appropriate actions for solving them. The world has problems, the concept of recycling has proven more difficult and less beneficial than previously thought; environmental and economic thinkers struggle to agree upon appropriate business action; our approach at “eco-efficiency” and environmental health are labeled not good enough. As individuals, we could claim unfair odds and accept our negative impact on the world, or we can resolve to rise to the challenge, rethink our means and methods and propose to solve the problems we face. We choose.
The number negative one can only exist so long as there is a positive one. Humans’ influence on earth is a spectrum. The less bad approach asks only we come nearer to the middle, zero. And so long as zero is the goal, we will damage the earth. We move closer and closer to no negative impact, but what a pessimistic view of Human capabilities. We must aspire to be positive, for even if we falter or slip we may still end up above zero. ‘Less bad in no good,’ because it doubts the power of imagination.
It is true the text of the book does not offer a remedy for the down-cycling that has replaced recycling but the book itself is an example. The synthetic paper and binder can be reused to produce another book. It requires energy to recycle because there was no true plan for the recycled product’s next life. With forethought, individuals can take it upon themselves to design and create products which can easily be modified for future lives. In this sense, the product never dies but instead is repeatedly reborn.
Environmental infrastructure is often viewed by businesses as unnecessary, expensive, and a nuisance. It has been shown; however, that these projects are important, cost favorable and gratifying with time. This concept of disagreement is more a misunderstanding – one which must be overcome to make a positive impact on earth.
It is easy to speak generically of what Government must do, or how Businesses must change. Do not expect others to make change for us. Individuals make up businesses and business make up governments. Place responsibility on oneself to change. We can reinvent business models and government actions by being progressive constituents. The authors do not wish to discourage us, but excite us to choose to take action, “What would it mean to be 100 percent good?” (67) We can only reach such a goal by finding new ways of thought. Said Albert Einstein, “The significant problems we face cannot be solved at the same level of thinking we were at when we created them”. We must change even the way we think to solve the world’s problems. This will not be easy, but if left with a choice of accepting being a detriment to the world and add to its’ problems or reinventing the way we act and think to reflect the strength and care of human kind and contribute to the solution, may we all choose the latter.
morris9869@philau.edu
I find it true that businesses try to avoid costly regulations but what it comes down to is that a business is a business and it wants to make money rather than spend money. If the product are able to be recycled over and over again, that company will never sell another item. I do not agree with that but that is what the business end of this going green movement is. Products should be designed to be disposed of more practically and healthfully rather than being recycled multiple times.
sovia1267@philau.edu
This chapter made a lot of sense to me. To plan for life rather than just a day makes a lot more sense. When buying dorm sheets at Target, if you don't find any you like, you don't just settle for any pair do you? Instead, go home and search online for a better set. This chapter informed me that just because a product is easily accessible does not always mean that it is the best one. Another point mentioned was that reducing is not as great as it seems. We are intelligent human beings and it makes sense that we can find a way to eliminate our problems rather than minimize them.
I have to agree with you. Big Business is simply not considering the future and is merely producing for NOW not LATER. I've always felt businesses put in too much packaging for their products; packaging that is only going to be discarded into a landfill to rot for eternity later on. We aren't making products and packing with what happens to them next in mind.
Part of the problem is businesses like to look for the cheapest, most efficient way to do something, NOT the safer, more sustainable way. They waste resources like they are limitless, however, they are just slowly draining them forever. The best way to prevent this would be to start at the root of the problem: design products and their packaging to be either REUSABLE or RECYCLABLE in a way that doesn't degrade the value of the material.
Right now, I feel a lot of businesses are only participating in this "Green Revolution", not as a way to save our earth and the environment, but just as a way to keep up with the current fads for publicity and business. But hey, this is just an opinion, it could go either way.
In Chapter Two, William McDonough and Michael Braungart argue that designers should move beyond designs which merely "make industry less destructive' and move toward designs which from the beginning allow industry to be beneficial to the environment and not destructive of it. Those whose attempts have focused on what it takes to make industry "less bad" have helped foster the terms "reduce, avoid, minimize, sustain, limit, halt." They mention the writings of Thomas Malthus, the author of Population: The First Essay (published in 1798). Malthus wrote, "the power of population is so superior to the power in the earth to produce subsistence for man, that premature death must in some shape or other visit the human race." Agriculture managed to avoid to some degree mass starvation; but the improper use of pesticides in industrialized agriculture was criticized by Rachel Carson in Silent Spring in 1962. Prior to Silent Spring, the authors claim, "environmentalism meant protesting the obvious damage—deforestation, mining destruction, factory pollution…—and seeking to conserve especially appreciated landscapes..." Rachel Carson went beyond this and "pointed out something more insidious; she imagined a landscape in which no birds sang, and moved on to explain that human-made chemicals—particularly pesticides such as DDT—were devastating the natural world." After a decade, DDT was banned in the United States and Germany.
In trying to establish why their system to deal with environmental degradation is preferable to attempts by environmentalists, the authors do not give a complete history of the pro-environmental movement but slant their mention of environmentalists to make their system seem to be the only viable method for dealing with environmental degradation caused by industry. Although they mention George Perkins Marsh, they do not mention or discuss the contents of his The Earth as Modified by Human Action: Man and Nature (1874). Although they mention Aldo Leopold who served for 18 years in the United States Forest Service and who founded The Wilderness Society in 1935, they do not mention or discuss the contents of his book, A Sand County Almanac (1949). Marsh and Leopold discussed the environment at least as well as the authors. For example, nothing in Chapter Two is better than these words of Leopold's: "A thing is right when it tends to preserve the integrity, stability, and beauty of the biotic community. It is wrong when it tends otherwise...Conservation is a state of harmony between men and land..." The authors do not adequately cover such environmental efforts as Leopold's. Also, the authors do not give the timeline of early ecological legislation and designs given this summer in Paris at the Cite, the architectural museum.
The authors contrast efficiency with effectiveness; but they do not tie sufficiently the convenience-like efficiency they see errors in to industry but rather try to tie mistaken kinds of efficiency to ecologists! They write that upon a "look at industry under the influence of the eco-efficiency movement, the results might" be a system designed to "release fewer pounds of toxic wastes into the air, soil, and water every year; measure prosperity by less activity; meet the stipulations of thousands of complex regulations to keep people and natural systems from being poisoned too quickly; produce fewer materials that are so dangerous that they will require future generations to maintain constant vigilance while living in terror; result in smaller amounts of useless waste...." The authors have many industry clients and admit later on the resistance which industrialists have shown them when they have suggested more ecological designs. The authors argument against limits is wrong. Nature uses limits. Ecologists know that when a species loses its natural checks and balances, it negatively affects the balance of nature. George Perkins Marsh, Aldo Leopold, and Rachel Carson were right to urge limits in an unecological-behaving society.
klein0470@PhilaU.edu
Rginajames is james7425@PhilaU.edu
Post a Comment