The True Cycle of Life

I really find waste=food concept the ultimate way of life. There are many critics to refute that this can become a reality. I am not saying that we can do this at a 100% rate of effectiveness, but we as a human race need to use this idea in mind when we go to produce and manufacture products. Even though I am a fan of recycling, when you look down the road...it really DOES just prolong the inevitable. There needs to be a mindset of eliminating waste all together.

This concept makes me thing of the city of Masdar in the United Arab Emirates, where there are no cars, the city will be run completely from renewable energies, and best of all.....no waste. In my spare time I have been trying to do further research into this, and grasp the ways in which they are attempting to live "waste free". I can not stress this enough, that eliminating waste would be like Utopia for the enviornment.

I think if we truly wrap our minds around this concept, we can take great strides in making this a reality. There was pressure to put a man on the moon within a decade from JFK, and we did it. We wanted to abolish slavery, and we did it. We wanted so many things, as a society, and when we fought to do it, we did. I don't understand why there is all this backlash on doing something so fundamental for ourselves, and yet instead of trying alternatives, we bash them down and say there's no way it can happen. I think back to the 1800's and beyond, and ask them if they believed we would have machines that transported us at fast speeds on land and in the air, or that an actual human being would be on the moon, and I bet they would say that would never happen. When we put our minds to do something, it will happen. But more importantly, for whatever reason, when there is pressure put on us, is when we are able to accomodate.

As far as the content of Cradle to Cradle goes, even though people may find some flaws or have the attitudes that it is a nice "dream" but it can never happen, I just take a look at what society has been able to do, and it REALLY isn't that hard to overcome really - at least how I see it. The majority of the people on the Earth probably would love the concept of no waste, and are all for it. So we wouldn't have to struggle to change the mindset. We just need to put pressure on ourselves to make it work.

a job well begun

There is something to be said for a manifesto. A calling together of ideas on a subject with a projected hope of a future vision, like William McDonough and Michael Braungart put forth in Cradle to Cradle. They are telling their story, perhaps a story that takes place in the future, but a story. The best part about their story is that parts of it are already in action! I appreciate their vision, their hope, their creativity and their hard work. I love that picking up that book says something to me. Also, that when I hand that book to someone else I can hand them ideas, a possibility, and an example right there in their hands. It, in and of itself, laughs at people who think they are bunk. It says, "try me!" and I love that. I knew before reading C to C that design and a green future were tied in my head. I also had a high set of expectations for the book, for McDonough especially, and was already aware of critiques against him. I think that the book is a wonderful piece of work and I think that optimism is KEY to its success and viewpoint. The book cleared up some of the critiques and insults I had heard about C to C products and Bill himself. Some of the critiques were obviously coming from people who hadn't read the book, others questioned why spend time re-designing products we really could do without (like throw-away water bottles) and others are either jealous of or annoyed with McDonough. To those people, I am sure that this architect who thinks he can define a greener future might be a pain in the ass....but come on guys, design is IMPORTANT. Others are just sick of celebrity environmentalism and think he plays into that...but again, while this kinda grosses me out too, I will admit that most Americans like their celebrities, in any form, so i'll take the ones who have good ideas about a greener future! The two issues that I have heard raised about C to C and McDonough in particular that ring a bit more serious to me are his reluctance to be transparent and share his knowledge with a commons. If the environment is the goal here, then SHARE and get people on board. Exclusion works for people trying to make money, not people trying to build a better, healthier future. I wonder which camp Bill falls into when it comes down to it?? And finally, It must be said that there is no message of equity and social justice in the C to C design principles. Of course, I don't think that these ends are incompatible with C to C, as the SIS building proves....it just requires vision and prioritization on the part of the project holders to make this a key element, rather than C to C having it part of their immediate goals. All in all, very excited about cradle to cradle. Hope to field opens up for others *like me* to do work like this. I would love to look at greener design either in political structures or tangible ones.

It Doesn't Matter

I am taking a class, concurrent to this one, on ancient political philosophy, we’ve been reading Thucydides’ history of the Peloponnesian War, which details the war between Athens and Sparta in ancient Greece. At one point, a plague wipes through Athens killing many people very quickly. As people die, the Athenians who are still healthy loose hope and become convinced they are next to die. With hope lost and nothing to loose, the people of Athens become all out hedonists. People eat and drink their life savings away, loot, and fornicate in the streets. Without hope the people lost their heads.

With that in mind, I believe it doesn’t matter if Braungart and McDonough’s optimism is misplaced. What matters is that people feel like they have hope. It matters that people feel this is a problem that can be tackled. Without hope, what’s the point of doing anything? Al Gore’s “An Inconvenient Truth,” rocked the world and caught the attention of millions, but hasn’t lead to any sort of Green Revolution. Without hope, what’s the motivation to do anything? In order for mainstream America to embrace the environmental cause, they need to be inspired.

Cradle to Cradle is good for environmentalism. The question, is the optimism misplaced?, is not important. What’s important is that the book is overall hopeful, makes the argument from a ‘what’s good for people is good for the environment’ and outline steps to transform our society and save the world. In short, it inspires.

Optimism Goes A Long Way

Reading Cradle to Cradle, I realized that to push forward a dream to save the planet, we need optimism. Along with optimism, we need initiatives.
If the global community, really wants to save the planet, if the government cares about the planet, then we need to think outside the box. Instead of creating energy, why not use the energy we already have. The sun gives us light, heat, fuel and food in direct and indirect ways. Why not use the energy that is coming from above to heat up our homes, provide wind power to garner electricity, begin the process of photosynthesis for the plants to grow and become part of a the food cycle.
Instead of creating products that will be used and sent to a dump where it will sit there, why not model our system after nature. Nature creates, provides, and decomposes and reuses everything. Everything has a place and everything within that cycle is provided for. By thinking within the box will inevitably keep us where we are at now. This is why, optimism is going a long way. When we finally have people who think outside the box and see what can be done with the advancements of technology and the incorporation of nature, we can have eco friendlly building, products, transportation modes which are part of a continual cycle where nothing is watested. Everything is food. This is why Cradle to Cradle concept is on the right track but what we need is the initiative to get to these points. If we do not have the initiatives to get to this point, then this book will just be a concept on a reusable book that will become lost in the....dump..

We Found the Compromise

All throughout class this semester, I have sat back and absorbed almost everything (I hope!). Key terms, history of environmental negotiations, etc. The one thing that I have had trouble with the with the whole semester was "changing the system" - i.e. how to retool the economy to be more environmentally friendly. On my own time, I have been positing ways that this could be achieved. granted, it is a hard task, but I gave it shot. So, here's what I've come up with: we can't change economics.

I know it's gloomy, but my reasoning is this: economics is too ingrained in the world's psyche, and it is a system that, when used correctly, is not an awful indicator of how the country's finances are going. I agree that some minor tweaks are required - indeed, as the book pointed out, the GDP of an oil spill area went up because all the workers were buying things in the area! Despite this, economics seems to do its job very well; thus, it is hard to imagine that we will live in a post-economics world.

This, then, is why I love "Cradle to Cradle." It tackles the issues of the economic system, but does not try to eradicate it. Instead, it works with the drivers of the economy to work in the system while making environmentally conscious choices. Right now, as also mentioned in "The Story of Stuff", we live in a linear world. "Cradle to Cradle", then, tries to make our system circular so that, not only are we economically growing, but we are doing while not aggravating our world. It seems to be the ultimate compromise - environmentalists will not stop until change occurs, and economists will not change their minds, because who's to say they don't have a valid point, either? So, by using both systems' best options - growth and sustainability - we live in a world of compromise and peace. Indeed, does the war not end when a treaty is signed? I think McDonough and Braungart's vision is the treaty - now all the world has to do is sign it already. Granted, that treaty allows us to fight together in another battle, but we're not there yet. Soon, I hope.

Hope in the Trinity of Despair

I found Dr. Maniates’ trinity of despair rather insightful. I think he hit the nail on the head.

However, I personally think he is wrong about human nature. I think human nature is inherently selfish and rather lazy actually. And it makes sense that it would be, presumably, only creatures that looked out for themselves would survive, but I think there is also a community aspect built in to the selfishness of humanity. That is to say, communities look out for its members so an indirect way to look out for oneself is to look out for the other members of the community so that, when the times come, the community will have your back as well. So, even with my understanding of human nature, the environmental movement still has a way in.

Dr. Maniates’ is right about the strategy. While the small things part of the environmental movement should not end and is important, the focus should be on larger scale things. If half the people on a given power grid change all their light bulbs, they’re not going to save nearly as much CO2 as if the grid changed to solar, wind, and other non-fossil fuel based energy.

The social change one is similar. The entire population does not need to be on board to affect major social change, just the key decision makers. While republicans have been more successful at this lately, there is no reason serious environmental legislation cannot get pushed through congress. And surely, no piece of environmental legislation will be more unpopular than the Patriot Act, which will probably be renewed within a year.

The Trinity of Despair is a powerful way to look at the lack of hope in the current environmental movement and offers some hope and perhaps a new calling.

Interesting - but here's the thing...

Let me start off by saying that I thoroughly enjoyed Professor Maniate's lecture on the current state of the environmental movement and where it might be headed. It was a completely fresh perspective on these issues and I applaud his effort to reform the movement to be more functional and efficient.

When he first presented the "trinity of despair", I was initially excited by the fact that Maniates had developed a great, simple rubric for what to look out for when challenging the effectiveness of the environmental movement. However, I think the inherent problem with the "trinity" is the exact thing the professor is trying to fight against - it's too simple! After further thought, it really did surprise me that someone whose main mission it is to fight simplicity in the environmental movement would create such a simple framework for the assumptions environmentalists should not have. Isn't Maniates saying, then, that the problems keeping environmentalists from going in the right direction is only threefold? Is he not really giving us the "3 Things That Impedes the Environmental Movement from Working"? I feel that, after having read his work, he is now advocating for the same thing that he has made a career of fighting against.

I also have trouble believing that we can boil down all the complex human emotions involved with the environmental movement into three categories. Are humans self-interested? Perhaps, but I do not think the answer is an emphatic "no". It would make sense if there were still some reservations on this issue. Do we need everyone on board? I agree with Maniates that we do not, especially since the majority of social movements had a bunch of people opposed to it. Then, of course, do we make the environmental movement to simple? Sure, I agree with this too - we cannot assume that "collective simplicity" will lead to a reduction in our complex problems. In this same vain, we cannot assume that we can change the complex environmental movement with the simple understanding of three conditions - that movement is too intricate to boil down to three factors.

What about corporate counteractions? Of course, not every corporation hates the environment, but a decently-sized bloc do. What about human initiative? With the rise of TV and the Internet, people now spend more time at home. Clearly, the fight to save the outside is, well, outside. There are other factors, definitely more than just the three Maniates mentioned.

I truly do have great respect for the man and enjoyed our class very much. I was truly enriched by the experience and the knowledge I gained. Despite this, I cannot help but be mildly disappointed that what he came up with to save the environment is "simple" - the thing Maniates seems to fight against. While I think he is on the right track, maybe it's time to go back to the drawing board. Perhaps a "squiggly-line-going-all-over-the-place of despair"?

Ecological Action: fringe or front?

The trinity of despair explains a fair portion of environmental movement frustration, getting caught in the trap of nagging, asking too little, and demanding full support. I agree that asking too little is a widespread issue in environmental issues. I mean, let's be clear, asking too little is rooted in the idea of people as 'consumers' who are not willing to act in ways that are not beneficial to them. Further, there is this idea that because we all share the planet we must all want to save it. However, as Mike mentions, social political movements don't happen because of full support. In fact, democracy is not ABOUT full support, it's about a majority. The issue here is more about environmental issues have a "powerful" majority rather than a "weak" majority. By this I mean that there is a difference between a united majority of people who care about environmental issues and can therefore pressure action to be pushed through a beauracratic sieve that in the United States often waters down and pacifies policies. The way to push forth social change to create structures that, as Mike said, make environmentally friendly actions the natural end result means working as a front, as a majority. Although there is that wonderful 51% of people who care deeply about these issues in the Yale graph, they care about them differently and act on their multiplicities of focal points in fractured ways. This means that a lot of people who in one way or another care about the environment are working separately...talk about demanding too little! Asking ecologically minded groups to stay small, to work as a resistance of sorts, even with such large numbers is asking too little.

Ecologically-minded social change would require that these fractures groups unite under a banner, be it a loose banner, to promote change at the structural level. Some theorists I am drawing on here, Derrida, Laclau and Mouffe, even Sartre, talk about this in the form of group action. Laclau and Mouffe, perhaps the most able to speak to current political social movements and their potential, refer to this as hegemony. Under a hegemony small groups are brought together to pressure the time wasteful bureaucratic paper shuffling to a point that it MUST act. Of course leading up to this, the hegemony and its coming to together signal to "empty signifiers" the change that must be done and they enact this...think politicians. This is a painfully watered down version of these assembled writings, but the gist of it is that heavy things don't get moved without communication and cooperative action. Even moreover, a collective saying, "we are now going to move this heavy piano....on three!" To further the analogy, the best cooperation might mean helping each other to put wheels under the piano then pushing it as a team...in the same direction with no one blowing their back out. Hegemony of course is problematic. Under what banner do ecologists unite? And, of course no social political theory demanding for group action can neglect the fact that groups are not permanent. Hegemonies are not meant to last, they are meant to get something BIG accomplished efficiently, then new hegemonies and groups form around that issue.

In my argument here for a social change strategy the trinity of despair is helpful in debunking the silly apathy that many feel when faced with these issues. However, I think that the 'tabs' are a small place to start and always a place to come back to, but might not lead to full structural change. Without a self-recognition of the numbers and power that exist within a more unified movement that can demand and push change through (patriot act is a fantastic example of a hegemonic front movement that pushed right on through the system and has had large structural repercussions), ecological movements are defining themselves as "fringe" and reactionary rather than comprehensive, effective, and empowered.

We must come together
If we hope to fix the weather
We must be a group
We must keep everyone in the loop
If you want to save the truffle trees
Or stop gasses the make people sneeze
If you want to save the truffafarks
Or build more national parks
We must all work together
Because alone, nothing will get better.

The Second Following of Hanna Lines

So lets go ahead and be the change
Decrease the carbon emission
A mission that sure will never change
And instead of being a scout, lets be a team
And never let doubt be our clout
A clout that many believe, that climate change is indeed not here.
But look at the evidence and you will see
The same story of the Lorax and that tree
All over the world
People are crying, because our governments are lying
Saying they will stop climate change
But all we have seen is climate change
Snow in the summer
That’s a great bummer
So lets get down to the change
Push back your sleeves
And put your brain on rerun
And see the mistakes that have been made
And let those mistake never fade
Let us never repeat, increasing carbon emission
Instead let us come together and bind our mission
To save what is here, and regain what has been lost

Following Hanna's Lines...

Would you not like
A nice world to live in?
Where we all think
Of each other as kin.
From the tops of the trees
To the bottom of hills
The loss of our resources
Will heighten the price of our bills.
It is imperative
We give it shot
And make sure our action
Is warranted and not bought.
I hope this rhyme
Will help us out
Towards working together
And going on a world-saving scout.

Our Seuss Verses!

Here are the Seuss verses we created in class. I am sorry that I'm not e-mailing this, but I don't have everyones e-mails. So, the alternate ending is as follows, plus at the bottom I added a few lines in ***. Please feel free to work off of these proposed lines, or to re-work them, or go on without them.

[after the once-ler hands over the seed]

Get all of your friends,

And the friends of your friends,

And find the Lorax and start a new trend,

But this cannot be the end of the show,

For we still have a long way to go,

We must do this together,

Together as one,

And we shall not stop until this fight is won,

There are no Is,

We are now Wes,

As a collective we speak for the trees,

Even you makers and wear-ers of th-needs,

Our united action must be as swift as the breeze

**Do not bicker or squabble

And forget why we care

We must do this together

Because it's a world we share.

Enjoy your seuss-ing!