Cradle to Cradle

[ceelove]

There's been a lot going on for me internally, lots of processing and re-evaluating, coinciding with a recent birthday. It is, though, perhaps better expressed in person; I'm not sure I can even write about it. Meanwhile, I've still got a couple of posts grumbling at me about being unwritten. So, here's a book that really made me sit up and take notice, a couple of months ago.

William McDonough and Michael Braungart come from very eclectic, varied backgrounds. This explains in part how broad in scope their observations and ideas are. The basic underlying premise of their book, Cradle to Cradle: Remaking the Way We Make Things, is that we are going to have to think much farther out of the box, much further into the future, than we currently are, to solve our environmental problems long term.

It is not a scolding book, nor a gloomy one, but an optomistic and creative one; still, it does paint a rather terrifying picture of how dangerous an environment we are currently creating for ourselves. To quote an early paragraph, "That plastic rattle the baby is playing with - should she be putting it in her mouth? If it's made of PVC plastic, there's a good chance it contains phthalates, known to cause liver cancer in animals (and suspected to cause endocrine disruption), along with toxic dyes, lubricants, antioxidants, and ultraviolent-light stabilizers. Why? What were the designers at the toy company thinking?" Well, obviously this question hit me rather hard; and, frankly, it got across to me things that starphire had been trying to communicate all along, that one cannot assume that things made for children are safe for them.

So do we not give the child a toy? Do we not make the toy? No, says Cradle to Cradle, we make the toy out of materials that are safe for the child to interact with.

But what about the fact that it's still trash, after it gets broken or outmoded or whatever? It's nice if I got it as a hand-me-down, and if I can pass it along the line afterwards, but eventually it's going to end up in a landfill - or, worse, burned, which will release toxic chemicals into the air. The toy was never designed to be anything more than a single-life item. It needs to be designed to be fully recyclable: not as an afterthought, not "downcycled" into a subsequent single-use item (of lower-quality material), but as a material that can be safely and efficiently used and re-used and re-re-used.

And what of the process by which the toy is made? One of the most shocking facts for me to absorb in here, of many shocking facts, was that the toy only represents about five percent of the materials used and discarded, in its making. I am unconsciously throwing away twenty times as much as I directly use, which is a phenomenal amount of waste. The process needs to be re-envisioned, the book contends. We need to copy nature's processes, wherein waste equals food.

It all gets more complicated from there, and I can imagine rereading this book (which, slow and picky reader that I am, I very rarely do) to better imprint the ideas on me. If you'd like to borrow it in the meantime, speak up. It will hold up to many readings: it's not actually made of paper, is waterproof, and is the only book I have unhesitatingly let Sylvana play with.

Comments

[chenoameg.livejournal.com]

It will hold up to many readings: it's not actually made of paper, is waterproof

That's really neat!

I'd like to read it eventually, but am burdened by my to be read stack, so I'm not going to ask for it yet.

[kimberlogic.livejournal.com]

I'd love to read it, but as I'm back in DC for a few weeks, I'll check libraries down here first. Have you read The Omnivore's Dilemma?

[aroraborealis.livejournal.com]

the toy only represents about five percent of the materials used and discarded

This is one of the main thought-changing points I took away from the permaculture design course I took last year: An item doesn't simply represent itself, it represents everything that went into making it. "Embedded energy" is the shorthand I use for this. I can look at a sheet of aluminum foil and think to myself, "What's the embedded energy of this item?" How much gas or oil was used to mine the aluminum, to smelt it, to roll it flat, to ship it to me, etc? What factory had to be built to make that happen?" I like thinking about things this way; it hasn't stopped me from consuming, but I do think I'm more careful than I was before.

[medyani.livejournal.com]

The observation that most items represent only 5% of the energy and material used in their creation, reminds me of locavore (buy local) food arguments which Michael Pollan also promulgates: namely that in terms of environmental impact it is arguably better to by a local, conventionally grown head of broccoli, say, than to buy an organic one shipped from California.

The Nature Conservancy, E Environmental News Magazine and The Sierra Club all reviewed this book and gave it high marks, so it's been on my list to get a copy. Nice to hear a more personal account reflecting the same appreciation.

[fanw.livejournal.com]

Sounds like an interesting book. I just have a brief note about phthalates. They do cause liver cancer in animals when injected in high doses. They are also trying to see if there are any measureable effects in infants in intensive care. This is because surgical tubing often includes phthalates, and infants who have their entire blood supply replaced through transfusion or otherwise filtered in a way that requires large amounts to flow through this tubing might possibly see adverse health effects. They've been looking for a while and haven't proved it yet though.

I'm not saying you shouldn't look into other materials, but I wouldn't worry too much about Sylvana gnawing on the plastic.

[pseydtonne.livejournal.com]

This theory goes very well with the idea that 90% of everything is crap: moving it up to 95% percent matches more cleanly with the two standard deviations above and below the norm in a bell curve of things.

I would like to point out that no one needs more theories to induce neurosis: we have plenty. It's a common ploy to get someone emotionally drawn into an idea by playing the idea as "you're a baaaaad parent because of something you do I just discovered is baaaaad so feel my wrath made of guilt!" Meh.

Our parents grew up in a world of lead paint, toxic fumes, lack of seat belts and sharp metal edges on clothing. They're often still around to give us grief. We grew up in a world of choking hazards, just say no and all sorts of loopy that made us conclude "oh, you're just hanging me up to get me addicted to your jive. No thanks, we recycle our psychodrama in this pyre."

Let's face it: making things leads to waste. If product manufacture leads to excessive waste, then a company spends more money on waste removal than on product sales. The old answer was "dump faster". The new answer is "someone will pay me to take this crap away and turn it into a cyborg army of the undead in Michigan." There's money in things we throw away -- or mobsters wouldn't run the garbage trucks.

The only way things actually change is when there is money in it. Guilt alone does not move the world.

Two and a half years ago, many of my friends freaked out because W won a second term. I mean, y'all freaked the eff out. I couldn't take it. The next day I bought an iPod and tuned out for the next six months.

I'm very glad I did that. I was drained from very bad about having to deal with hard core problems in my personal life. I had to accept that karma will respond as necessary, that this was not my time to make a difference. I had to build a cocoon of music so that I could figure out what I needed for myself before I could help others again.

I feel a lot more sane now than I did in late 2004. That was a hard time for me. I have learned how to help again and how to be sane in the world while using my insanity creatively.

If some chemical ate part of my brain when I was a baby (because I shoved averything in my mouth when I was a kid and frankly I still do), I still wound up decent. I am reminded of the old Joe Jackson line: "Everything gives you cancer."