Seong Im Hong
October 22, 2012
Weekly Journal 7
This week, we mostly learned through the required reading on Green Engineering due to the midterm and group project problem. (Sorry.) I found that Green Engineering paper actually connected pretty well into the themes we have explored in the class. For example, the need for an ideological change to the way we approach the environment was pretty clear in the reading. This is similar to how the MHC 200 class began with discussion of philosophy regarding the environment. Additionally, small parts of the paper (like Nike and Ford’s Model U) reminded me of the previous discussions we had about the responsibility of the consumers as well as the manufacturers and the government.
The Green Engineering paper started off by saying that inherent, ideological changes were necessary when it came to green engineering. According to the paper, there is the traditional way of being green (fixing what is already there, kind of like the “reuse, reduce, recycle” mantra of “pollution prevention”) and the new, radical way of being green (changing the system by creating a closed loop system). I agree that there is a need for radical change in thinking about the role of environment.
For example, the phrase “designers need to strive to ensure that all material and energy inputs and outputs are as inherently on-hazardous as possible” from the reading can take multiple meaning based on the kind of philosophy the reader subscribes to. “Non-hazardous” to whom? What if the output is a non-hazardous but yet un-reusable item? Those subscribing to the cradle-to-grave might be okay with accumulation of output items that are inert yet unusable. But cradle-to-cradle engineers would be wondering (or should be) what they can do with the output and whether this process gives enough benefit to warrant using a yet unusable output. The same sentence can mean worlds of different things according to the reader’s mindset. Hence, it makes sense to talk about philosophy first, as we did in class, because “working smart without perspective or guiding principles can ultimately become an efficient pursuit of the wrong goals.”
Another part of the paper that I found interesting was the phrase about PVC: PVC is “sent to landfills, incinerated, or recycled into products of lesser value”. I found it interesting initially because recycling (something generally considered Very Good for Environment) is listed with what is generally thought to be Very Bad for Environment—landfills and incineration. However, with more careful reading, I realized that recycling into products of lesser value is also bad—not Very Bad, but maybe Pretty Bad because it won’t close the loop completely. There will always be a need for more raw materials with that kind of recycling. Therefore, I found the fact that I did a double-take interesting because I realized that I never think about what happens to things I recycle, or what it means when things are advertised to be “recyclable”. “Recyclable” is a vague r-word that, when seen, is good and will raise my opinions on the product without actually having to follow through its actual value. It’s clever marketing, I suppose, and will increase the demand for recyclable things, but it doesn’t really make the consumer more engaged or knowledgeable. This kind of marketing (“buy this because it’s labeled green!”) really hinges on the consumer feeling better about themselves more than actual change.
I also found it interesting that Nike had some positive PR regarding its PVC use fade-out. However, it’s also worth noting that we just had a talk about Nike’s blatant human rights abuse. It’s good that they’re doing something for the environment, but what’s their end goal? Are they truly subscribing to C-to-C philosophy and/or the Triple Bottom Line philosophy, or did they need some positive PR, or mix of both? Is there truly a mix of both, or does C-to-C philosophy require environmentalism for the sake of environmentalism? I think it’s the latter, but I guess credit should be given where it’s due to encourage corporations to do what’s right. Or do they expect us to like them better, and are planning on something bad/continuing to do something bad to offset whatever positive PR they get? Am I turning into a conspiracy theorist?
