Cradle to Cradle

Like everyone else, I thought Cradle to Cradle was a really interesting book. The authors seem radical - though not necessarily in a bad way - in that they aren't advocating for greater efficiency or crazy technology but, rather, in a complete overhaul of the way we produce almost everything we consume. One of their main premises is that this shift to a more cyclical form of production which honors nutrient and technological flows is really the only way we can hope to continue producing the goods we've become accustomed to in a world of increasing resource scarcity.

At the same time, though, their book kind of freaked me out. All of the parts about off-gassing from upholstered chairs and books was definitely a bit scary and made me wonder what sort of substances I'm inhaling on a daily basis that I don't even know about. Given the recent uproar about BPA and phalates, it's kind of scaring to think about the harmful and even toxic stuff we're sitting on and drinking from and writing with and wearing.

So I think another main premise of their book is that this sort of cradle-to-cradle production is healthier, not only for the planet but for us, as well. While their book is certainly compelling, I do wonder if they could have pushed their case a bit further - for example, reading Bill McKibbon really scared the crap out of me. Cradle to Cradle inducing only a mild stirring of unease, and I wonder if they had pushed their argument further - if they had included a few more scary facts about the products we use every day - if their book might have been a bit more compelling and gotten a few more people on board (although environmentalists have reputations of fear mongerers, so maybe that would have been a self-fulfilling prophecy and turned people off). Regardless, I do think they're on the right track, and I think their book provides some fascinating solutions that we're going to have to take a hard, critical look at in the coming years.

I also found Cradle to Cradle to be an interesting and even refreshing read. It was not like other environmental books that I have read that just evoke fear because the world is going to end and it is our entire fault, it just was not as depressing for me. The concept of “being less bad” instead of being good, I believe, is a brilliant way to portray the idea that the little acts we take in favor of the environment is not enough and really is not making much of a difference. Bigger and longer term changes need to be made so instead of living “less bad” we can live “good” and they do suggest that people reconsider their lifestyles all together to really make a difference.

I think the fact that McDonough is an architect and that Braungart is a chemist translate in the writing of the book. They are not just simply giving facts but practical approaches that they have created or designed. They argue that waste is a product of bad design, so the best way to reduce or even eliminate waste is to create a better design , for example the SIS building. Better design leads to this idea of cradle to cradle instead of cradle to grave in that we need to create products have a continued life and are used as resources for other products, instead of just turning into waste. It is an interesting concept but it may take too much time or money or lack of interest of people to really make a push towards actually eliminating waste.

Cradle to Cradle

I found Cradle to Cradle to be an extremely interesting read, starting especially with the introduction. I think the way that the book was presented, that it is not a tree, gave it an immediate presence that this will not be a typical environmental critique, but instead a thought provoking one with true insight. I think the main point of the argument in the book was that as a society we need to refocus our thinking on a more cradle to cradle process rather than a cradle to grave one. In other words we need to limit or, on the most extreme side, eliminate our waste because we are in essence killing something (bringing it to it's grave).
I think that the inclusion of the chapter on the industrial revolution is a great idea before entering into the logistics of consumptive behavior. It is important for society to realize how it came to be that we as whole became such a consumer driven force who creates an overwhelming amount of waste without ever really realizing what we're doing. This led nicely into a part of the book he called the 4 Rs, and this is where I think the authors make their main points. The practices of Reuse, Reduce, Recycle, and Regulate that we base our idea of environmentalism off of today is simply not enough. These ideas are not long-term solutions, they are a way to reduce the amount of waste not but it is just delaying the problem for the future. When we recycle we simply create a new product with a new life cycle that will eventually come to an end later but will still in the end become waste. Cradle to Cradle urges the public to reconsider this lifestyle, a suggestion I think we all should listen to because they are definitely on the right track, its the the practicality of this that I find myself at a loss to comprehend.

Cradle to Cradle

The Authors of Cradle to Cradle make a number of fascinating arguments in their book. Their premise that the way in which industrialized society manufactures and consumes products is out of balance with nature and harmful to humans is well supported. More interestingly than their diagnosis of the problem however is their prescription to solve it. Instead of a traditional environmental approach that advocates for people to use less and by extension enjoy the things they like less, the authors argue that simply being less bad is not enough to solve our environmental problems.

They say that human beings can be a force for good and ecological renewal on our planet if we change the way we design and use things. I found their example of ants having a larger total biomass than humans and being a net benefit for ecosystems by enriching soil quality to be very interesting. If humans could help enhance biodiversity instead of harming it, our world would be fundamentally different. I think this fresh perspective for advocating things to be better instead of just ‘less bad’ is at the very least a far superior message from a PR standpoint for the environmental movement. While putting these ideas into action seems difficult, it seems more hopeful to see the new SIS building as a real life example of McDonough’s work to construct a building that is sustainable, functional, and beautiful. While only time will tell what the best approach to solve our environmental crisis is, the author’s insights into getting rid of the harmful chemicals in everyday materials and building things with common sense and eco effectiveness in mind is a step in the right direction.

When I first looked at each of the sites, without having to even scroll down the page at all, I saw the little donate bar on each page. I already became skeptical of each site without reading anymore. As Lisa already stated, there is no list of sponsors or other organizations that are affiliated with either site, which led me to question the legitimacy of the sites. Money and politics are what drive the competition around the science of climate change. There is a lack of money in our government to deal with climate change so political leaders are not going to take a stand to make change, especially when they are backed by companies or CEOs that would be hurt if certain changes were made. When it comes to changing the minds of normal citizens, there is just so much information trying to prove climate change doesn’t exist. While I think climate change is indeed a real problem, I can understand with all this anti climate change “stats”, that is almost easier to believe that our actions are not causing these changes in the climate.

As for the two sites, I agree with everyone else, How to Talk to a Climate Skeptic is more legitimate to me. I find Friends of Science’s opinion, a bit amusing. It states that “It is our opinion that the sun is the main direct and indirect driver of climate change”. As Lisa states, I am biased about these sites as I believe climate change is real but I think it is interesting to have these different views. However it does add to the complexity of the issue and trying to take action against it.

What are numbers anyway?

I have to echo what Stephen, Lisa and Emily have said thus far. I think the How to Talk to a Climate Skeptic (HTCS) website was more convincing. Though like my fellow bloggers, a fair amount of this could be because I believe climate change is real and caused by CO2, not solar flares. I find HTCS to become a little confusing because it is an aggregate of so much data. You have to click from link to link to link, whereas on Friends of Science (FS) you are immediately hit with confusing graphs when you click on the link.

The two websites really show how numbers can be manipulated to prove completely opposing points. Though one thing to note is that the graph on FS about the earth is cooling uses a best fit line. Best fit lines are made to ignore outliers. Which is problematic as we saw in the Ozone debate. For a while there seemed not to be a hole in the ozone layer because the machine was programmed to ignore outliers. For this reason FS is not convincing for me. Though I can see how they're immediate graphs might be more convincing to someone who wants a quick answer and is uninterested in clicking multiple hyperlinks.

I think it is important to look at each website's methodology in order to make our own decisions about climate change. The numbers can be skewed in a variety of ways. So, what is their reason behind each decision to keep or toss out a piece of data?

Until we get at this we cannot really know how to decide for ourselves. Especially because the debate around climate change is so contentious due to the wide reaching implications of accepting either position.


Consider, why is there such fierce competition around the science of climate change? How should we make sense of and evaluate the scientific claims these two competing websites make? Is one of the sites more convincing than the other? If so, why?

Climate Change Debate

First of all I would like to state that I may sound completely biased in this post because I do believe that climate change is real. Therefore, I found the Friends of Science website both confusing and disturbing. I wish I could say it was shocking, but unfortunately I've seen enough of similar websites to know that they exists. Yet it is very confusing, I noticed how everyone of their main points included a graph, because a graph somehow adds legitimacy, but I found those graphs so hard to follow that for most of them I just gave up trying to. I also noticed that they used climate change and global warming interchangeable, which they're not. I liked that they were upfront with their message and mission statement, I've seen organizations that try to trick people into thinking they're pro-environment but I like that FoS are upfront in saying they're against the Kyoto protocol and their goal is to make a mockery of it. But I am slightly upset that I cannot find a page of their partners or major sponsors. They are a non-profit organization but most still have a page that list their biggest sponsors and I think that's something very important to look at when informing yourself.
How to Talk to a Climate Skeptic is a website that I have much more respect for. Although there is still a lack of information about who funds the project, I feel like overall its a much more clear and supported argument. I like the way that its broken down into arguments and counter-arguments and I think the author given adequate support for his statements. Flipping through some of the debates I see he has either quoted or linked highly esteemed scientific organizations as part of his proof, i think that's extremely smart. Of the two I think this is the more convincing site.
I think the debate around climate change right now stems around the politics. Climate change will involve a great deal of money, money that people are ready to give up right now because they don't feel like climate change is an eminent threat. To protect this you will see a like of data falsification and austro-turfing, it is the job of the public to sift through and decide what they think is correct. I think the first thing to do when looking at these websites is to determine their mission statements and goal, often their listed but sometimes you need to determine them for yourself. Then it is extremely important to find out who is funding them, because the information will be swayed in a way in which they're supporters want, so if an oil company is funding a group that says climate change doesn't exist that should be a red flag. The next step is to sort through the data and come to your own opinion if it makes sense and you agree with it. It's a long process but its worth it to be informed.