Cradle to Cradle

This book has been quite a motivational read for me. William McDonough and Michael Braungart spell out some exciting concepts that I hope to become involved in mainstreaming and institutionalizing in my lifetime. None of the other readings we have covered have been this inspirational to me; I don’t think that their optimism is misplaced at all.
All this talk about changing the fundamentals of things is simultaneously realistically optimistic and completely overwhelming. I think what helped to reinforce the optimism for me was Professor Maniates’ example of imploring Starbucks to implement a mug-return policy. His example helped to highlight a feasible starting platform for someone such as myself to take initiative on the fundamental level.
Their idea of living on current solar income and looking to the environment as a guide for ways of living is so obvious, as someone in class said when you read it it’s a “duh” moment. This is optimistic because the solution is such a simple concept. It is not as if we have to gather all of the world’s most intelligent scientists and engineers to create a new technology from scratch- everything we need is right here and has been forever. What takes away a bit of that optimism is the reality on the ground of the way our society has evolved to function and the systems ingrained in place that are barriers to a shift to this simpler, more effective and efficient way of life.
Their proposal for the elimination of the entire concept of waste is also so novel, yet so obvious. The Earth has done it forever, why haven’t we been taking notes? While the ideas of technological and biological metabolisms sound, again, abundantly clear, this book for this very reason has motivated me. It makes me want to get out into the world and help to push these unmistakable solutions to the forefront and change the way people conceptualize society. The author’s make such a convincing and simple argument that it is nothing but optimistic. Of course as we have discussed, changing society is no easy task, however we have the tools to fix the system, and this book has made me even more eager to graduate and use them.

Cradle to Cradle

The most sensible and reoccurring theme at this point in the course seems rather simple: we need change on a larger scale. While this scale may be currently unfathomable in light of our current system, it is clear that reaching for fixes within our system will inevitably have a cap. Instead, then, we must fix environmentally threatening problems systemically. We must part ways with many of our habits that we may not have even found harmful thus far. The answer is as clear as the answer to this sort of problem can be. The varied and multifaceted problems plaguing the environment have one thing in common-- their existence and persistence are most noticeably a function of our severely flawed system. Admittedly, this realization soon grew frustrating. Albeit broad, we now had the closest thing to an answer handy. It then became troublesome, however, to think of how we could actually change this system. Authors repeatedly pointed to systemic problems that need fixing. Not once, however, did an author state any clear way to fix or even approach this largely flawed system.

In an environmental hallelujah moment, Cradle to Cradle came into play. At the risk of singing its praises too adamantly, McDonough and Braungart's book seems to provide the answer I didn't even know I was looking for. They offer a way of addressing this flawed system face on, discussing design and even answers. Just when the environmental rhetoric I had been exposed to seemed to overwhelmingly hold no answers, Cradle to Cradle seemed to offer solutions, and offer them optimistically. He provides design in a way that makes us question why we continue to live the way we do with readily available alternatives. While it would be naive to accept these without the social implications they'd inevitably be attached to, it is at least assuring to know we aren't working at dismissing a system without any idea of what alternative we are seeking. Further, the solutions he offers are generally simple. Things suddenly stopped seeming as stark or hopeless as they had started to.

One of the most effective parts of the book for me--surprisingly enough-- is the symbolism behind the design of the book itself. The completely reusable book seems to qualm any concerns of complexity in both the technologies they discuss and the social and political problems we might assume. In essence, they are practicing what they're preaching. Their widely read book was solely manufactured with these materials, showing that the things he discusses are really that achievable. This was the most subtle but striking showing of optimism for me. I am thoroughly enjoying the book, and while I hardly ever find myself relating to entirely optimistic sentiments, I truly think it is necessary. Iterating and reiterating the problem can only go so far. We need to know that an answer is not so far away in terms of both time and technology. While problems certainly arise in their argument, such as failure to address crucial aspects such as consumerism, environmental debate is already full enough with talk of that sort. Ultimately, I find that what the book foregoes in attention to detail or covering all their bases, it makes up for in the rarity that is its optimistic approach to environmental problems.

cradle to cradle

My first impression of this book was, "How cool is this? This book is waterproof, can be turned into another book when I'm done with it and, bonus, the pages don't tear even when I try to rip them." As I read farther into the book, I was really caught up in the optimism and innovation of the authors. It is so great that there are people out there who can come up with these technologies and can totally rethink the way we live - people who can create a book without paper and come up with a totally new concept of consumerism. It is a really neat thing to think about a world without waste.

I also really appreciated the section which talked about how being "less bad" is still not good. It seems like a lot of times, we get really caught up in thinking about how to reduce carbon dioxide emissions and limit pollution. I can see how this sort of thinking, though important for the short term, will not suffice in the long run.

I do have some concerns about the book. The first is that it does seem to oversimplify problems by relying on technological changes. I am just not ready to think that these changes are that easy not only in terms of technological developments but also in terms of social feasibility. I can't help but wonder what sort of environmental impact mass production of water-proof books may have before the transition from paper is complete. Basically, I'm not convinced yet that there will not be any side effects of this general transition. The solutions are also private-sector heavy and I do think that any substantial improvements to our system will need to at least in part come from public sector regulations.

Despite these doubts, I love the optimistic attitude of this book and know that people who think big are key to environmental improvements. Even if an idea is flawed, we will never get anywhere if people only put their ideas out to the world if they know they are perfect. In this sense, the ideas in this book are exactly what we need to push forward in environmental innovation.

Response to Cradle to Cradle

I am very much enjoying this book. I think what I like best about it is that it's not just an argument, it's also a method. It's not just about a new approach (one that is similar to others we've read), but it's about exactly what the approach looks like. The approach looks like a building full of windows where solar income is maximized, it looks like textiles made of materials that can decompose without leaving behind harmful substances. It looks like ink without the toxins and paper without the tree. That's what's so optimistic to me about this book. It gives me concrete examples of the technology that is already out there to make everything we produce and consume not "less harmful" to the environment, but part of nature and therefore, NOT harmful to the environment. It's not just talk, it's action. Before reading this book, I felt like I could argue all I wanted for changing the system, making things differently from their conception, but if anyone asked me what that meant or how that looked, I would be at a loss. So although this book doesn't address what I consider to be serious problems of consumerism, affluence, and population growth, it does give me solid evidence for what the world should look like if everything we made was made to fit into the natural world; a world where environmental doomsday no longer lingers. To know that there is that technology out there is a huge step in the right direction in my mind and I was happy to hear about it.

Reflections on an argument

Well, let's just say Professor Maniates got into my head. I have been mulling this all around quite a bit, even arguing with friends about it regularly. First off, I was totally convinced. I mean, the Trinity makes a whole lot of sense and I can see its truths in my own life; the way I have come to have a negative view of human nature and the way I've been convinced that my daily actions can somehow lead to big change. I recognize and agree that this is historically, and presently untrue. I accept that, and I accept that the environmental movement needs some rewiring, some of which is happening as we speak. But here's what I think is missing from Maniates' analysis (although it is not missing from his actions and the systems he has put in place at his university- i just think it belongs in the trinity); though most current actions on the small scale leaves the system of degredation in place, intelligent, well thought-0ut, system-oriented small scale individual action CAN make a significant impact.

So agreed, social change does not come about by getting everyone on board, and easy stuff based on small individual acts won't make the big change, and yes we need to change our perception of human nature, but we also need to change the perception of small individual acts. Not all small scale acts are a waste of our time- even Maniates gave an example to defend this. His students' actions to implement a composting system at school is, compared to the larger problem, a small scale act based on individuals; it was one university system changed by one student. Is that not small scale individualized action? It is. But it's also well thought out, creative, and focused on changing systems. So I suppose the argument comes down to this: small scale ndividualized action is only negative when it follows the routine of the current "green" fad (eating organic, changing lightbulbs, etc). However, it can be incredibly positive if it follows a different path, a system-oriented path, focusing on small impacts that change larger (though still somewhat small compared to the scale of the problem) systems.

In conclusion, the trinity should be a trinity-plus-one (not sure what the technical term is for that). The plus-one should be "GF: or 'Green' fad actions;" the idea of what an individual action entails must be changed. An individual action for the environment is not changing a lightbulb. But that doesn't mean individuals can't make a difference. Individual action framed around system-oriented change can remind people that yes, individual actions can make a difference (as Maniates says, it takes a small group of people to create social change), but only if their focus is like that of Maniates' student who, through an individual act, changed a small, but significant system. This helps empower individuals, while changing the perception of individual action.

Individualization of Caring?

Having read a number of his articles, I found Professor Maniates' "trinity of despair" both exponentially useful and an apt summation of his works. An inherent social construct of the environmental movement is the defeatist attitude that many--including myself-- are guilty of adopting. Indeed, if we continue to filter the likelihood for environmental change through our "all or nothing" attitudes, we cannot expect or even hope for change. Professor Maniates clearly urges a shift from the individualization of environmental action. Conversely, he begs us to part ways with the idea of the individualization of caring. The trinity of despair, then, is a simple and effective cue in how to approach environmental change.

The assumption that human nature translates to automatic selfishness is a notion we MUST rid ourselves of. The distinction between self-interest and selfishness that Professor Maniates highlights is important. The idea that people are selfish will only serve as a deterrent against change. As in all other arenas of human nature, some people are selfish and others are not. An overarching theme of Maniates beliefs is that we mustn't concern ourselves with those who are selfish or don't care. The parallel he drew to MLK or Susan B. Anthony was helpful. Harping on the people we don't have on board, rather than the ones we do, will only make our efforts less effective. It is important to realize this first leg of the triangle, as assumptions about human nature can easily begin to dictate our defeatist attitudes.

The second leg of the trinity of despair--environmental strategy-- is even more spot on. The environmental strategy the public (especially the children) are offered is the approach of doing the "easy stuff." Glorifying that which we already are doing-- using energy-efficient light bulbs, turning the water off while we shave, etc-- will get us absolutely nowhere. This is a multi-faceted and hugely hindering problem. If the public are only offered unchallenging and simple options, then they will only practice simple and ineffective options. Likewise, if we continue to pat people on the back for doing things that in reality are not going to provoke change in the significant way huge environmental problems beg, then the idea will be created that we needn't do more. Essentially, it will hinder the likelihood of people ever stepping out of their comfort zones.

The third leg, then, is the one that addresses social change. This rests on the assumption that we can solely achieve change if we get everyone on board. This is unrealistic and leaves us in the proverbial uphill battle. Again, we are brought back to the idea that we cannot focus on those who are not in sync with the environmental movement. Much can be achieved without concentrated or even majority support of an issue. If we sentence ourselves to working within this ideology, we are sentencing ourselves to a limited possibility of change and more importantly, working forever in and against a flawed system.

The fact that well-educated students had adopted these beliefs was striking and disheartening. If the few people that do care are defeatist, there is little hope for those who may need some convincing. In the same way environmental issues beg systemic changes, our own environmental beliefs need some serious readjusting at a fundamental level. I have personally seen the development of such defeatist attitudes. After just one summer at the environmental non-profit that I worked at, the aspects of Maniates' triangle were all too realizable. Passersby scoffed at people trying to make changes at the federal level, either limiting themselves to the individual change they already make (best case scenario, unfortunately) or claiming that expectation of any such change was simply naive. I have further seen examples here on campus. The case we referenced of TDR's tray removal was highly revelatory. Indeed, the "few" made a decision and implemented it for "everyone." As a student, I was not even addressed prior to the change-- an undeniably good thing. This was social change at its best, forcing people into getting on board rather than asking them to and hoping they would. Another sort of hybrid example is the reusable mugs system. While they are not yet mandated on campus, drinks are significantly cheaper if you bring one. This economic incentive represents a change in policy, as pricing is readjusted for everyone who partakes. It leaves room for individual decision, however, by still offering alternatives. This meet-you-halfway idea is useful, I found. However, I cannot speak for the entire student body. Either way, enough people are clearly on board to be making changes. It is clear that the triangle of despair is an unfortunate reality, and with this realization, we must rid ourselves of these beliefs.

Trinity of Despair

Professor Maniate's Trinity of Despair seems to be a very helpful tool to use in understanding the problems in thinking within the environmental movement which prevent it from being fully effective. I particularly appreciate the first element which he discussed - the idea that people are self interested as opposed to inherently selfish. The difference between self interest and selfishness is an important distinction to make because selfishness implies that people only look out for themselves where as self interest opens up the possibility that people may consider that the well being of others may also be good for their own interests. It is tempting to just toss aside the entire environmental movement under the pretense that nothing will ever be done because people are selfish and will never make sacrifices or think outside their own personal space.

The second part of the Trinity of Despair, the idea of environmental action as easy and individualized is an interesting element because this concept is so widespread. Elementary students learn about using less water or recycling, adults carry their groceries in reusable bags and on AU's campus, we get to feel better about ourselves by reading our paper coffee cups which tell us that by using this product, we are able to save enough energy to power a household for 810 years. These actions have become the base of the environmental movement and even the people who embrace these ideas may not recognize the small impact that they have. At the same time, how do you ask people to address this large issue when it seems like only a few people have the power to really make changes to the system?

I am most guilty of getting caught up in the third element of the trinity, the idea that everyone must be on board for the environmental movement. This is because I can not imagine policy changes that can occur without strong Congressional support and if people vote out legislators who support environmental protection, nothing will ever happen. After thinking about this part of the trinity, though, I recognize that living in DC has made me think only about government action and completely forget about the private sector. Professor Maniates talked about changes that companies could make - like Starbucks halting the use of paper cups - or changes in schools and other institutions. This seems like the place where the most progress could be made in the environmental movement because it is the place where a few individuals can take charge and alter the system without requiring the permission of hundreds of thousands of people. I am interested to know about more projects and ideas that look to make large scale change outside of government policy.

the trinity of despair

Professor Maniates’ “trinity of despair” is a very accurate assessment of the barriers to effectiveness of the environmental movement. The three assumptions he suggests are ones I have seen dishearten many, including myself. Because Maniates confronted these assumptions head-on and explained how they do not necessarily have to be barriers to momentum in environmental change, I am able to think in a different way about how to be an effective environmental change agent. For example, he stressed that in order to build social movements and create change, it is not necessary to have a majority of the population on board. I think this assumption is especially difficult to breakdown because without overwhelming support, efforts feel futile and resignation sets in. I think what helped me to accept Maniates’ proposal that we don’t need large-scale support in order to be successful is that the most effective changes we can make need to be at the policy level, where we make eco-friendly activities a natural part of every day functioning (like his example about instituting a mug-rental in all Starbucks shops). It doesn’t take an army of supporters to make fundamental changes in how we function in every day life.
For example, when computers were first introduced, there was no mass social movement behind implementing widespread use of the new technology. However, the technology became institutionalized by the few, and now we use computers for everything in our every day lives without even thinking twice about it. Not having an email address has become taboo. The same needs to be done in the environmental protection arena. A small group has the ability to implement institutional changes, and as a result create a shift in the American way of life. Driving an SUV while eating McDonald's out of a styrofoam container needs to become taboo.

Continuing "The Lorax"

By communicating through email, Ashley, Melissa, Maggie, and I compiled the last of our addition to "The Lorax." Our addition is meant to be tacked onto the end of the book, as a continuation.

But the boy knew he could not act alone
so he picked up his seed and marched on home
"Mom! Have you heard of the Truffula trees?"
"No," she said, "explain it to me please."
So he told her the tale
of the Once-ler and his greed
and they picked up his pale
and knew just what to do with the seed.

So they went on their way, two generations united
rallied neighbors and friends, everyone was excited.
They planted the seed, but it didn't stop there,
they marched to the office of Mr. Dontcare.
They told him the tale of the Truffula trees
and he laughed and he scoffed at his citizen's needs.
He shooed them out the door, told them they couldn't stay.
The little boy was disheartened, then his mom yelled "No way!"
"If you wait just a moment and listen, you'll see
the Earth's as important for you as for me.
It's not really thneeds that everyone needs
and we must stop now before all that's left are the weeds.

But it's not just the Brown Barbaloots who will suffer,
oh no, even for you, things will get tougher.
One day you too will live as the Once-ler does
alone in the smog, wishing for what once was.
Because someday soon we'll run out of trees,
there'll be no more fish, nor flowers, nor bees.
We'll even run out of that goop in the ground
that you put in your car to make it go round."

"What? This can't happen!" cried Mr. Dontcare,
"How can I fix this?" he asked, pulling his hair.
"We must change the whole system," an old man chimed in
"leave consumption behind and everyone will win.
We must measure our economy with yuzzamatuzz, not GDP
To raise the standard of living for you and for me."

"You're right!" exclaimed Mr. Dontcare,
as he raised his fists and jumped off his chair.
"We'll set the example for living with less
and the whole world will follow; we'll all fix this mess.
We'll show one and all that our land matters more
than factories, machines, and thneeds galore.
Gather all scientists, leaders, and friends
Once-lers and citizens, the list has no end!
We'll need everyone together, the rich and the poor
to come up with ways to change lives at the core.
So come along! We're off! It's a new day!
Soon, under Truffula trees we will lay!"