Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
Shaw Industries (the countrys largest carpet company) sees C2C as its focus, according to Steve Bradfield,
their Corporate Director of Environmental Affairs. All the other stuff is transitional.
Were looking way ahead; our EVP now talks about what the company will look like in 25 yrs. Its not
about quarterly profit, but about how do you stay in business? Bradfield notes. C2C is a beautiful thing, even
to a bean counter if its profitable.
Shaw began its materials redesign in 1994, and exited PVC in 2004." Product recovery is now at 50%, with a
30% recycle process efficiency; so 25% of new backing from old tile at this point, while energy savings of 56%
nets to 14% (based on that 25% use).
Shaws EcoWorx backing won a Presidential Green Chemistry award in 2003, as an alternative to PVC, with
40% recycled content. Among the business benefits: Shaw can get more of the thinner and 30% lighter carpet tile
on a trailer (7000 square yard vs 4000).
This highlights the challenge we often see as companies struggle to comprehensively and accurately tally costs
and benefits. How well this is done can guide business strategy as well as gate investment decisions with
significant competitiveness as well as profit impacts. (Life cycle assessment isnt the whole answer. Nylon
flooring will last 30 years, Bradfield notes, and thats often the figure used in LCIs, but its generally pulled in
seven.)
Note: MBDC announced the C2C certification system at the NeoCon conference in June, to evaluate and certify
the quality of products based on the principles of Cradle to Cradle Design. As described in the launch
announcement:
Ingredient chemistry is researched for its potential impacts on human and environmental health, and strategies
for phasing out any ingredients of concern must be in place;
Product is recyclable following its use and a system for recovering and fully recycling the product has been
identified;
Manufacturing maximizes the use of current solar income and water quality; and
Workplace and business practices are ethical and support employees and communities.
Details.
On the other hand, I spent a few days recently with several dozen CEOs, VPs environment, and risk
management executives from a variety of companies, exploring the challenges of "environmental health and
safety" implementation and results. The wide-ranging and universally high quality presentations included a
brilliant and sweeping "futures scan" by a senior executive of a large energy company. It was captivating. It
touched on everything from oil prices to geopolitics to China. And it didn't include a single word about greenhouse
gases or climate change.
Food for thought.
The point that 'sustainability is boring' early in the post is mild. In looking at US government materials, such as
those promoting the Bush National Offshore Aquaculture Act - using acronym NOAA perhaps to take advantage
of the reputation of the NOAA agency - the use of sustainability is being used from privatizing the ocean to forest
logging and beyond.
Like the prevalent use of the term restoration, for things that will never be restored, many terms are being
coopted in what recalls for me 'newspeak' from '84.
Although the ideas behind C2C sound great, the quote from Braungart is obnoxious:
We still have people talking about sustainability! Nothing is more boring. Are you proud if your marriage is
sustainable? We feel guilty, and cut our hair to use less shampoo. Its guilt management and celebrating
mediocrity.
The quote exemplifies a superficial marketing mentality, the message being that we are going to save the planet
by buying "fun" consumer products.
Guilt is not a bad thing, if one is doing something bad. It's part of being a mature adult who feels responsible for
his or her own actions.
The most satisfying things in my life have been called boring. Working through difficult situations. Learning a
challenging subject. Overcoming my own limitations.
In contrast, buying a completely recyclable carpet or an exciting eco-friendly shampoo rate rather low on the
scale of important things in my life.
yo bart, i think u'r missing the point. to me the point is that at this point, it wont be environmentalists that save the
planet; if the planet will be saved it will be by the world's consumers... AND if the worlds consumers are going to
save the planet rather than destroy it, they must demand and be supplied upcycleable products that result in net
positive impact on economy and ecology have to be fun and desireable.
if not they will be consigned evermore to elitest health food boutiques and obscure web retailers trafficked by the
duty-bound minority like you and me that go buy the right thing even if we can barely afford it. yes the
transcendant aspects of one's life are more meaningful than shopping, but china and india in the midst of bringing
on a couple billion more US-style shoppers online, and the upcycleability of what they demand and are supplied
will define the future of our human ecology. from this standpoing the marketing that you speak dismissively of is
far more powerful and meangingful than "superficial" in this day and age. yes like any half-assed student of
Boudrillard i too wish that we were less subject to the power of marketing but... theres good in it too you know.
Anways, C2C and moving beyond the term "sustainable" in my mind is precisely worldchanging. imagining and
creating stuff, shampoo or food or cars or homes or airplanes, that doesnt just reduce impact on the planet and
our bodies and communities to zero, but actually improves all those things with a net positive impact, to undo
previously wrought pollution and destruction, inspires me, and inspires entrepeneurs and leaders more motivated
than me. (the kind of inspiration and imagination this blog as been so insightfully speaking to lately).
Create this kind of stuff and skillfully market it, and suddenly- imho- hope in the prospect of altering the precipiceoriented vector of the human economy does not seem misplaced.
i think that getting beyond "sustainable" means getting beyond consumerism as an environmental problem, and
turning it into a solution. yes i too wish we all lived simpler, more bio-regionally and immediate-community
oriented lives, but i also like eating bananas in january and listening to mp3's on my asian made DAP... which is
to say that consumerism in the globalized market economy is not going away without some kind of species
collapse.
i'd rather see a just, globally internconnected market economy fueled by ubiquitous upcycling, with positivie
impacts to ecology and environment as by-products, rather than collapse.
oh yeah i forgot, that is what this blog is about and why i'm hear reading it. [/steps down from stack of
phonebooks]
That is quite a spirited defense of eco-consumerism, sp0078! I'm afraid you found me out -- I'm a Viridian heretic,
a non-believer.
Gil, it's not "population" that's a problem, it's exponentially-increasing population growth. Big difference. If you ask
me to imagine a world which the latter wouldn't be a problem, I'm stumped.
1,2,4,8,16,32,64,128,256,512,1024,2048... I don't think we'll solve that with innovative chemistry and consumer
psychology. Which isn't to belittle your post - the work you describe is vital - but so is stabilizing population and
economic throughput, the sooner the better.
PS - please say hello to Bill Reed for me.
http://www.worldchanging.com/archives//002967.html