To rectify the environmental havoc that toxic processes and materials created and continue to have seems virtually impossible due to the large scale of the problem. With the right consumer choices and habitual practices, however, by industries, small businesses, families, and individuals, our small yet significant actions can make a difference and solve many, if not all, of the ecological problems we face today and will in the future.

Making such choices requires a paradigm shift, or a change in the way we think about and deal with the issues. We need to be certain that the products we use, the processes used to create those items, and the effects of those products are of little to no danger or present no hazard to the environment and biodiversity. Intrinsically wise, the purpose of such is to ensure that the environment reaches a sound balance in which mostly natural forces act upon the organisms and ecological constructs present rather than human forces. Instrumentally wise, the essence of correcting our environmental wrongs in a holistic manner is to ensure that future generations and we may exist sustainably.

To attain these environmental goals, it is necessary for industries to adapt cradle-to-cradle mechanisms, even if doing so requires a total overhaul of previous systems used, because these closed-loop processes promote the development of sustainability. That is, these processes assist in diminishing the environmental mark that humans have made and are making yet provide options for humans to continue to live in ways they are generally familiar with. In my opinion, the essence of cradle-to-cradle engineering is to create little to no waste. We must do so in a way, then, that mirrors natural processes on Earth, or create technological metabolic processes that resemble biological metabolic processes.

Earlier in the semester, we discussed the Gaia Hypothesis, which has a similar viewpoint to cradle-to-cradle design. The Gaia Hypothesis encompasses viewing the Earth as an organism with natural processes that maintain equilibrium within that organism. In a sense, we must use a viewpoint of the Earth that is a fusion of the Gaia Hypothesis and of modern ideologies, or the Earth as a machine, to restore the Earth to equilibrium while practicing limits.

While industries adopt such cradle-to-cradle policies, they can use “The 12 Principles of Green Engineering” to aid them in attaining environmentally, socially, and economically beneficial businesses. As industries make these changes, citizens have the responsibility of making the right choices. That is, they should consume products that are made in environmentally sustainable ways to make such products the norm. For example, as opposed to spending large sums of money on a vehicle that uses a lot of fuel, one might opt for a hybrid or one with higher miles per gallon. By making sustainable industries commonplace, not only will citizens contribute their efforts to a cleaner, balanced environment but also their efforts may effectively drive the cost down of the products of the industries, ultimately creating an all-around beneficial system. In this case, one does not have to stress too much upon finding energy or material sources because the cradle-to-cradle designs inherently account for such supplies.

By committing to a paradigm shift and by combining the cradle-to-cradle policies with “The 12 Principles of Green Engineering”, it is possible to achieve a healthy, clean, balanced Earth. In order to certainly reach such goals, however, I believe that one essential element must exist within all of us. This fundamental is emotional engagement. Without genuinely caring about what we are doing, future generations, other organisms, the intrinsic value of the Earth, and ourselves, we would be innovating and acting because we are supposed to rather than because we want to. In this case, if there is no one to tell us what to do and why to care, we will lose all interest eventually and return to our old ways. Emotional engagement is, thus, important to constantly remind us to act sustainably and environmentally friendly as well as remind us of why it is essential to act in such a way.

Sherifa Baldeo

When I first heard that the third Macaulay seminar was based around the environment and sustainability, I won’t lie I was a little unsure as to what I thought of that. I recycled, I understood the world had environmental problems and thought that in some sense that was enough; I had little idea of how bad the planet’s environmental problem really was, both in a physical pollutant sense and in the sense of how oblivious and ambivalent our culture is on the issue. The BP discussion last class really made me reconsider how bad our culture’s ignorance on the issue.

I can fairly safely say that I too would have written BP off as one of the good guys prior to the spill. You don’t often see commercials advertising the environment so I would have assumed they were a company with some significant ties to green initiatives and definitely would have taken the same message we all extrapolated, that everything is fine and our gas consumption is perhaps a necessary evil for right now. The commercial did not advocate change, responsibility or even really awareness; it simply reinforced American’s addiction to oil while plugging their oil over their competitors. BP completely spun the issue of environmentalism to their own benefit, using a serious danger as a marketing ploy.

Again sadly though I will admit if I had simply been glued to my couch watching Family Guy or something similar and that commercial came on I wouldn’t have gone through any of this. I would have sat through it and perhaps maybe thought its good that BP was doing something about the environment while subconsciously the commercial lulled my scared thoughts about the environment to sleep.

The true danger with the environment is simply the lack of consciousness on the issue. Prior to this class, even I, an honors college student who follows the news and cares about the environment had little idea of what was really happening, and just stopping for a moment to consider the awareness of the issue of my fellow classmates in my regular classes really saddens me. The population seems just so entirely oblivious to what is really going on.

I know the fabled arc of the class foretells solutions rather than simply more problems but honestly for me it can’t come soon enough. I really believe that the only way changes can be made is by individual efforts for I think the masses may be long lost. It will be likely be a long time before the mainstream public really comes to grips with the importance of sustainable culture and engineering so the work of those that do understand it is simply that much more important. Now that I have been “brought out of the cave” as Plato’s famous analogy goes, recycling my bottles and giving a nod of “keep up the good work” to those who are trying to make a difference doesn’t seem like enough. So once again I eagerly await the solutions portion of the arc.

Alda Yuan

Professor Alexandratos

MHC 200

Week 7 Response

A few years ago, long before the BP spill, I recall a commercial they put out featuring a cartoon young boy frolicking in a field. The commercial had cheerful music and a color scheme reminiscent of the oil company’s logo. They managed to somehow depict their company as the easy choice for those worried about the environment. Instead of think about the real issues and solutions that might lead to a reality half as idyllic, BP is encouraging us to leave it all in their hands. It is as if simply by purchasing their products, we are doing our part to solve the environmental crisis. Just the juxtaposition of an oil company using such a green theme and supporting the environment will have convinced a lot of people that they were sincere. Why else would they draw attention to environmental issues and invite scrutiny unless they really are taking action? Even at the time, I recognized it to be one of the most hypocritical ad campaigns out there. I think it is certainly possible for companies to do a turnaround, even switching from fossil fuels to alternative energy but that is plainly not what BP aims to do, as evidenced by the horrendous oil spill.

The cradle-to-cradle concept and approach to engineering seems to be without too many drawbacks. In the long run, it will both be green and economically profitable. The problem will be breaking industries and businesses out of their old ways of thinking and operating. But such fundamental changes are far from impossible. Take the revolution in the way we do business today because of the information technology revolution. Once people realize that producing products in this way and indeed, rethinking the ways we consume resources is profitable, changes can happen quickly.

Obviously, there will first need to be a substantial investment. If the free market is not willing to provide those funds, the government should most definitely step in. Personally, I think the emphasis on the financial costs of investing in green energy is both irresponsible and profoundly misplaced. Or course our government must be concerned of where its money is going with the economic recession. However, to call money being placed into environmental programs wasted funds is illogical. Supporting the burgeoning companies with a focus on green energy and sustainability is not an act of picking winners and losers. Ultimately, if government is successful in spurring a new green revolution, everybody wins, except for perhaps the oil companies. Even if you only take an economic view, a revolution in the way that we obtain energy can fuel development in many directions. The new technologies and devices that will be invented, designed and produced will create the kind of high skill manufacturing jobs that everyone has emphasized a need for. And these are not jobs that would go away and become obsolete quickly. Meanwhile, it has the capability to spur something of a fourth industrial revolution as it involves an overhaul of the whole system in a way that produces more wealth for everyone involved.

Then of course there are the non-economic benefits of such a path. The health of our citizens would be improved by less pollution. That of course can still be linked to lower health costs for us as nation. Less material than that is the question of quality of life. Even if pollution and harm to the environment did not hurt human health, is it not worth investment to preserve the natural beauty of earth?

Cradle-to-Cradle design represents a paradigm shift in thinking. Instead of thinking about what to do with the waste we create, cradle-to-cradle design aims at limiting the waste we need to dispose of by reusing our wastes in a closed loop system. This is a brilliant idea, and so long as it works, it is a huge step towards achieving sustainability. This article made me much more aware of certain things.

Engineering is going to be an extremely important field in the near future. We are going to continue to rely on engineers to design new mechanisms to further technological advancement in order to be sustainable. Perhaps an engineer (Patrick?) will design a way to harness solar energy more efficiently, or devise a better way to harness wind energy. Maybe engineers will have a breakthrough in space travel design and become able to visit other planets. Maybe on these other planets we will find alternate sources of energy that we need so very badly.

I think the three tenets of cradle-to-cradle design make perfect sense and should actually be followed. The phrase, “One man’s trash is another man’s treasure” comes to mind when it comes to “waste equals food”. In an ecosystem, there is no waste, because everything occurs in equilibrium and is constantly being utilized. For example, in humans require oxygen for respiration and plants require carbon dioxide for photosynthesis. Conveniently, humans release carbon dioxide as a waste product and similarly, plants release oxygen.

I think we all know that our future is in solar energy. This goes along with tenet 2, which states, “Use current solar income”. All ecosystems rely on the sun to sustain life. We do too, but we should further our use of the sun. Solar energy is the most natural energy because the sun is always shining down on us. We need to create more efficient ways to harness the power of the sun to fuel our society. If we can do this, many effects of fossil fuels and other harmful sources of energy can be reversed or at least stopped. The keyword when it comes to solar energy is renewable. We would finally have a renewable source of energy. We cannot continue to rely on fossil fuels because they are non-renewable meaning the Earth will eventually become entirely depleted of them.

Diversity is such an underrated part of successful ecosystems. We need to make sure we do not generalize about all ecosystems, but rather look at them specifically. We give ourselves intrinsic value and so we must move away from our anthropocentric ideas and assign intrinsic value to all living things. This will help promote diversity.

Hopefully, engineers will be able to follow the principles of green engineering and begin to make more significant progress in the near future. These principles make a strong foundation. Words are nice, but I always feel better when I see real action occurring. A good thing to do that Ford has started, is to make cars that follow the principles of green engineering. They used reusable material for the upholstery. We could make all cars the same, instead of having luxurious, more harmful cars. Why not have all cars follow the green principles?