Please don't say it's a fight

A couple of days ago, Bruce Nussbaum, BusinessWeek’s innovation and design guru, posted on his blog that “We now have two approaches to sustainability—live light on the land and cut back consumption vs. live like the crazy consumer that you are but use different chemistry that recycles, reuses and reinvents stuff.”

“Hair-shirt sustainability vs. Go-Go growth sustainability,” he wrote. “Colin Beavan—No Impact Man meet Bill McDonough, Cradle to Cradle man.”

Since you're reading this, you presumably know me, No Impact Man, and what I'm about. In case you don't, I am trying, with my wife, child and dog, to live in the middle of New York City while creating as low as possible an environmental impact--largely by reduced consumption.

And in case you aren't familiar with Bill McDonough (that's the cover of his book on the right), he is a design genius who envisions a world where products can be disassembled so that components and materials can be reclaimed and used to provide for the next cycle of manufacture. McDonough’s plan is for a birth, death and reuse of materials in industry that mimics that of nature. He calls it Cradle to Cradle.

But the way I see it, the No Impact and the Cradle to Cradle philosophies are not at odds. There is no fight. They are two facets of the same general strategy--to treat the planet more gently.

Sadly though, most products are not yet designed according to McDonough's Cradle to Cradle model of sustainability. Rather than acting as nutrients that return safely to the manufacturing cycle, items that have outlived their usefulness become toxins that are buried in the earth, dumped in the water or vaporized in the air. In part, this is why, for now, I choose the No Impact method of treating the world more gently--because I’m frustrated that big business is moving so slowly at providing sustainable, Cradle to Cradle products.

Meanwhile, a third thinker, Seth Godin, the marketing wiz, discussing the No Impact project on his blog, writes:

“The richest and best-educated people in our economy are shifting, and pretty quickly. They're just as willing to spend money as they always were, but now it's not focused on fancy organic stuff at the Whole Foods Market or giant bulletproof cars from Germany or private jet travel. Instead, the market is trying as hard as it can to spend time and money without leaving much of a trace.”

“Zero is the new black,” Godin says. What that means is that big business will have to take notice of people like me who are willing to forgo products if buying and using them means harming the planet. My refusing to consume unsustainably as part of No Impact is one tiny market signal that, when added with many others, tells big business that if it wants us to buy, it’s going to have to manufacture safely, the way McDonough suggests.

So me and Bill McDonough don't have anything to fight about. One major reason for a reduced consumption project like No Impact Man is that industry is not adopting ideas like McDonough’s fast enough. With enough No Impact-style consumer protest, business will have to pay attention. It will have to work a lot faster to make its products sustainable. Maybe, then, one day, the whole idea of having to consume less to help the planet will become less urgent.

This post also appears in my Green Parenting column for Time Out New York Kids, appearing every Wednesday. For resources on eco-friendly stores and restaurants, or simply to plan a weekend outing, visit them at tonykids.com.

Comments

[D'nelle]

Colin...
I've been reading your blog for a couple weeks now, and I'm enjoying it very much.

I am glad that you mention this:

"The richest and best-educated people in our economy are shifting..."

This hints at what has been my main stumbling block as I consider the No Impact philosophy -
That it is IMMENSELY "cheaper" to buy the impactful, harmful product.

For instance, I am pre-diabetic, and therefore watch carefully what I eat - I occasionally indulge in sugar, but I am constantly on the lookout for products that contain high-fructose corn syrup. However, HFCS is in almost EVERYTHING! In order to avoid it, one must shop in the organic aisle and spend twice as long in the non-organic sections, looking at nutrition facts.

This costs time and money that, as a just-out-of-college, single girl, I simply cannot "afford"... i.e. my checkbook shows a dangerously low balance, but my blood sugar levels and my weight are showing improvement. the "Cost" to me in the future is something that I'm trying to avoid by going into debt for now.

Which leads me to my question for you -
What sort of role - either in cradle-to-cradle or in No Impact - do you see for those who are barely scraping by? Those who - in the moment, without too much thought for the future - have neither the money nor the time to make this change, because they are occupied with feeding their families or paying rent?

I'd love to hear what you think about how we can change the national/global consciousness at the level of the just-above-poverty class.

[Leslie]

The spending shift can be tedious at first but then it gets interesting. At first it seems that there isn't much out there to buy but then the treasure hunt leads to some cool stuff.

I find I now buy fewer items that are more expensive. I spend much less time shopping and less time running around in my car. Spending money used to be a diversionary entertainment just like overeating.

[L.L. Barkat]

Jim Merkel lives on $5,000 a year (Radical Simplicity Man), which means that simplicity doesn't have to be costly. Of course, I think he lives in Vermont, but still it tells us something.

I love Cradle to Cradle, but I have to admit that I found it a little too forgiving towards consumer mentality. There is a place for limitation in all facets of life, even when something seems "good" for us. Overall, though, I think McDonough and Braungart are on a good track.

And, yes! I hope a whole truckload of businesses read this and hear the message. We want lighter products! I, for one, have given up plastic almost completely. Learning to make products like ketchup and so forth has been part of the fun challenge in accomplishing this.

[Elizabeth DiSalvo]

Perhaps it is just my perspective as a fellow architect but - having been quite familiar with Bill McDonough for 14 years- I have never heard him to say anyting like 'live like crazy, etc...' I think like many architects and other 'thinkers' he is aknowledging where we are and trying to find a new way to look at it. He is aknowledging that we all live by technology and working with that fact.

Perhaps we can start to 're-tool' technologies so that they act as sustainable or re-generative devices rather than desturctive ones. Perhaps because of our technology we can live even more consciously than our ancestors did.

Remember our ancestors clear cut New England 200 years ago- now New England is all trees - partially because farming does not happen in New England as much anymore and partially because of technological advancments and partially becasue we have evolved in our thinking about trees. (all of these topics are potentially controversial but) The bottom line is that technological advancment has changed the face of farming in both more and less ecological ways and technology has allowed us to measure and realize the destructive effects we have on the earth, etc. I bet that technology can also save us. (And also I just bet that most of us will not give up technology unless there is world wide destruction and collapse of all infrostructure...)

I am very inspired by all of the thinkers and do-ers who are engaging and adapting technology to move the world toward a 'no impact' relationship with the earth. (But first of course we have to use these technologies to create a healing relationship with the earth.)

I think that Colin's approcah is part of the 'enlightment' factor that is necessary to help motivate people to tranform technologies and their thinking. Soo.. major kudos to both angles of approcah.

[Kami]

just found your blog and it's so wonderful to see this! I worry about our excessive lifestyle here in North America and have been taking small (very small compared to you and your family) steps to lessen our family's impact on the environment.

I agree with you wholeheartedly... big business has GOT to get with the program and if the Cradle to Cradle theory can be implemented - HEAR HEAR!

Thanks to you and Bill for bringing this issue front and center, it's about time!

[Vanessa]

In regards to D'nelle's comment, for those who are just scraping by, I think the answer is just to try and follow the No Impact philosophy and use less, buy less, demand less. Find creative ways of obtaining all that you need for cheaper and greener. Yes, Whole Foods can be expensive, but not if you buy carefully.

Also, this Cradle to Cradle thing sounds a little too selfish for my liking. Why put all that effort into finding ways to make our current lifestyles sustainable when we could put effort into just living more simply, reevaluating our wants/needs? Sometimes it feels like people are trying to fix a broken car when all they need is a bicycle.

[Yiftach]

In a recent issue of ComputerWorld, Mary K. Pratt wrote about electronic waste. At the very tail end of the piece is this:

Sun recycles about 45% of the material it takes back, and it reuses about 50%, Douglas says. And many manufacturers are thinking about all these issues before their equipment even hits the market. They’re designing with disassembly and environmental impact in mind, Douglas says, which makes recycling easier and removes hazardous materials from the products altogether.

Having just been informed of the cradle to cradle philosophy here, it was nice to see it referenced there.

[Brendan T.K. O'Brien]

I agree with Vanessa, on a large scale we need to be making changes to reduce our impact, not make our impact sustainable.

[megan]

Good points, No Impact Man. I was (am) so excited by Cradle to Cradle, appreciating most its central metaphor as a positive and sensible approach to stuff. While No Impact and Cradle to Cradle aren't exactly at odds - it's clear they'll have to work together until technology allows us to consume without impact - the ways in which each engages our individual and cultural psychologies are.

Cradle to Cradle design takes the view that we've arrived at where we are for reasons beyond simply that stuff is available, and since we're here now with lots of stuff, it's going to be hard to stop people from consuming it or wanting to consume it. (Especially when America's biggest export is the images of its abundance.) I would reckon that most people who are overweight/do drugs/don't get enough sleep know it's bad for their health but are compelled to/choose to engage in unhealthy eating/getting high/etc. anyway. In this way, Cradle to Cradle at its extreme is like a magic pill - do all you want and don't get hurt. No Impact, on the other hand, is like moderation that keeps people from getting sick in the first place, and appeals to those of us with the control freak/moderate/hard work temperaments. Each ideology has its own dangers, of course: binge-y people rage at the holier-than-thou skinnies who have no problem taking just one.

As a culture, we're exhibiting a pretty binge-y psychology, which would require a lot of adjustment to change. Does it take a year to revise our underlying metaphors and assumptions about prosperity, health, cleanliness, safety? A decade? A generation? Let's say we someday arrive at Cradle to Cradle utopia - do we swing right back into consumption after years of sacrifice? It probably wouldn't be that drastic: we'll reduce while feverishly inventing new things, but a lot of people argue that we don't have time for that. And is this balance another utopia too?

[Emme]

I think the cradle to cradle model is very important to look at. The idea of creating somethings that can be reused or repurposed or has another life instead of heading right for the dump. I only hope that people realize that we can't continue purchasing.
Everything that is created (even in the cradle to cradle model) takes energy and resources to create. It is best to take a look and think about whether or not we need something and if we do truly need (not want) then it is best to go for cradle to cradle items.