A Look at Sustainability within our Economy and Culture

            
            Does the person above look happy to you? Of course he looks happy! And what is he holding?  That’s right, money.  When people think of money they think of happiness and success.  Well money can’t always buy you happiness.  Neither can material items.  Our economy today doesn’t place a value on items that don’t generate profit.  Such as partaking in efforts that make sure trees in rainforests aren’t being cut down in mass quantities or protecting rare animals from extinction.  The point of this blog is to inform the reader of how we, as consumers and designers, must incorporate sustainability into our economy and culture.


            According to The Designer’s Atlas of Sustainability, we all live in a three-sector economy here in the United States.  These three-sectors are the private sector, the public sector, and the non-profit sector.  The private sector is the companies that engage in the producing and selling of products to make money.  The public sector is typically the government that sets regulations and taxes for the private sector. Finally, the non-profit sector is dedicated to moral and compassionate missions to place value on those profits that don’t gain money.  It is social rather than financial.  The Genuine Progress Indicator is what needs to increase to see a change in our country.  The non-profit sector of our economy is what comes into play when we see an increase in the GPI.  Eco-friendly materials are typically more expensive than harmful materials.  As long as we let the private market make decisions it will be cheaper to destroy rather than preserve.  When the government sets regulations to maintain our environment they are sometimes not followed.  Non-profit organizations have actually sued government agencies for not properly enforcing such regulations. 


            Many companies today form non-profit organizations in an effort to be sustainable.  An article I found on the Oklahoma State website gives an example.  The article states that One Tribe, a branding and marketing firm in Colorado, has launched OneTribe.com.  It is a new apparel website that donates not a little of the proceeds, but 50% of the proceeds to non-profit organizations.  Even the apparel is eco-friendly.  Each t-shirt is 100% organic cotton.  Only a few of the non-profit organizations they donate to are, Grassroot Soccer, Global Village of Beijing, and PeaceJam.  Another article I found on the library’s website stated that American Apparel supports the Cleaner Cotton Campaign which was launched by the Sustainable Cotton Project, a non-profit organization.  American Apparel is the largest and most frequent purchaser of Cleaner Cotton in California’s Central Valley.  Below is a link to American Apparel’s organic products page. 

http://www.americanapparel.net/contact/organics.html

            Since humans are the dominant species over all other animals, we have control over nature and what happens to it.  We are guilty of fulfilling only our needs and because of this we have altered other species homes to fulfill our needs.  For example, when we cut down trees to build our homes, we are destroying another species home.  Our ability to communicate and our knowledge allows us to have so much control. 

            Almost every human has nine basic needs for well-being.  These include subsistence, protection, affection, understanding, participation, leisure, creation, identity, and freedom.  Each person has different ways of meeting these needs and design sometimes helps a person meet these needs.  What some designer’s have trouble with is how they can incorporate sustainability into these needs in an effort to help the environment. 

            “Watching” is one way that helps people meet their everyday needs.  By watching TV. and getting on the computer, people can satisfy their needs instead of doing it themselves.  For example, if you wanted a good laugh to brighten your sad day, you may turn to a funny YouTube video instead of turning to a funny friend and physically communicating with them.  You are missing out on the physical interaction with people that, in the long run, boosts your well-being. 

            The next question is how can we incorporate design into our everyday lives to help us better communicate more often with the people close to us?  According to The Designer’s Atlas of Sustainability, the goal would be to break off the one-way stream from visuality.  One way to do this, as suggested in, The Designer’s Atlas of Sustainability, is for a community to have a “community designer.”  Instead of turning to media to meet certain needs, people would turn to this community designer, to specify their needs.  In turn, the designer would attempt to change the community to meet these needs. 

            Another problem with today’s media is we become so obsessed with what is on TV. such as commercials for material things.  When our brain sees something new, our instinct is to want, want, want.  That is why our economy is what it is today.  What people need to see are more commercials supporting sustainable businesses and products.  That way, our focus will shift from the material products to what we really should be purchasing.  I found an example of a company, Patagonia, that created an advertisement that featured one of their jackets.  Below is the link to the ad that was featured in the New York Times.  Although it was not featured on TV, it is still gives a good message.  It asks people to think about the environmental impacts of consumption and that buying high priced items isn't always the smart thing to do.  

http://patagonia.typepad.com/files/nyt_11-25-11.pdf

In today’s world, when people think of success they think of money.  When people think of well-being they think of material items.  Where is there room for sustainability in this kind of thinking?  There isn’t.  According to The Designer’s Atlas of Sustainability, for sustainability to succeed there must be a balanced economy that focuses on human values, but also trades goods and services that can be measured by money.  Our culture must focus on well-being in a sense that well-being isn’t fulfilled by media and material products.  

Reflection on Week 2

            I believe the most important thing I learned this week is the fact that we need to be aware of what we are putting into the environment when we throw certain things away.  If you throw something away you should be sure that it is biodegradable.  If the item can be broken down into technical or biological mass then it is safe most of the time.  Too many products being used and thrown away are bad for the environment because they don’t break down into a safe substance.

            This learning is useful and relevant to me because I have become better informed of what is being put into the environment when I throw stuff away.  With what I learned this past week I hope to be more aware of the products I use and what is in these products.

            In the future, I hope to be able to pass on what I have learned to friends and family.  By letting people know the side effects of what is being broken down in our environment then maybe a paradigm shift will occur.  Businesses cannot keep making these products that are terrible for our air and land.  We will never see change in the future if this keeps happening. 

            Knowing what I know now, I want to learn more about why more companies aren’t switching over to safer chemicals and nutrients to put into their products.  I would like to know if the effect of being eco-friendly would be bad for the company in the long run or maybe it is just too expensive to produce such products.  The trend is to be eco-friendly so why haven’t more companies jumped on board?

Cradle-to-Cradle

            You may be wondering why I have a picture of a Cherry Blossom tree on my blog.  In Cradle-to-Cradle, McDonough and Braungart open chapter four with a discussion of how the blossoms on a cherry tree fall to the ground, decompose, and enrich the soil.  It seems to be a never-ending cycle.  This example reminds me of the plants in my front yard that die at the end of their growing season.  When these plants die, they create food for organisms in the soil.  When the next growing season comes along the plants regrow then eventually die.  This all explains a concept called, waste=food.  In today’s society though, some of this waste is toxic and harmful to the environment.  That is the point of this blog post, to explain what is happening with waste and how we can better manage it.

            Material waste is divided into two categories.  These are: biological mass and technical mass.  When these two become contaminated, that is where the problem begins.  The harmful chemicals eventually get into our water sources and affect our health.  According to Cradle-to-Cradle, if we continue to throw away the technical material and not recycle them, the world will become it’s own graveyard.  The world needs to establish the Cradle-to-Cradle system and start designing eco-friendly products from the very beginning to completely eliminate waste.  As I was watching the Case Study of Cradle-to-Cradle video, I came across this quote, “The significant problems we face cannot be solved at the same level of thinking we were at when we created them.”  Albert Einstein is the person who is quoted to saying this.  We as people need to completely change our way of thinking when we are designing products.  We need to clear our slate and start all over in order to see change.

            Now on to the subject of recycling.  According to The Designer’s Atlas of Sustainability, most recycling today is considered down-cycling because of the recycled material’s poor quality.  The book states that the recycling systems that are in place today do not compare at all to nature’s recycling abilities.  With each recycle, the materials become less useful.  The alternative to this is up-cycling.  Up-cycling takes the recycled material and transforms it into a high-quality material that can be easily up-cycled again.  As stated before, this is in contrast to down-cycling that contains a mix of different materials that would not be useful to the environment.

            Cradle-to-Cradle, discusses how in earlier years, people would repair their appliances that broke down or sell them to junk dealers.  In today’s society, it is cheaper to simply replace the broken item for a new one.  Repair costs are high and to most people it’s not worth it.  What we don’t realize is that it is worth it for the environment.  Chapter four also discusses how cars are not designed from the beginning to break down into technical nutrients.  Below is a picture of the 2013 Ford Fusion.  Ford designed this car to reduce the amount of toxic materials that are used in the production of a car. 

Ford states that every Fusion manufactured will have unexpected material in various places of the car.  Denim is used to eliminate the noisy sounds of driving on a bumpy road.  The seats are made of Repreve yarn which is made from post-consumer waste.  The foam that is used inside of the seat cushions is made from a soy-based material.  And last, recycled plastic is used on the underside of the car.

            There are many standards used when producing a product.  These standards are put into place to ensure that the products made do not affect either our health or the environment.  One of these standards is the AAFA Restricted Substances list.  The AAFA (American Apparel and Footwear Association) Restricted Substances list is a list of all the restricted chemicals and substances that cannot be used in the production of a product.  Two of the substances that are restricted are lead and mercury.  These two substances are restricted in the use of children’s wear.  According to Alternative Medical, exposure to both can cause decreased appetite, constipation, vomiting, and learning problems. 

            Another standard set in place is the GOTS.  The Global Textile Standard is a standard that covers the entire production process of textiles.  To be considered “organic”, a textile product must contain at least 95% organic fibers.  The other 5% can contain natural or synthetic fibers that are not of the same material that is used in the other 95%.  A substance that is prohibited in the production of textiles is fluorocarbons.  Fluorocarbons are normally used in textiles to make the material water-repellant.  According to “fibre2fashion.com”, Fluorocarbons are difficult to break down naturally and because of this are considered to be organic pollutants.

            After doing some research on companies practicing sustainability, I came across two companies that have incorporated Cradle-to-Cradle in their productions.  I had discussed previously about the 2013 Ford Fusion.  I came across another sustainable effort that Ford is in the process of working on.  According to, From Principles to Practice by McDonough and Braungart, the company has started a Cradle-to-Cradle renovation to its Rouge River Industrial site by building a factory with a living roof and a landscape surrounded by wetlands that decontaminate the storm water.  Another company jumping on the bandwagon is Shaw Industries, a carpet manufacturer.  Shaw Industries is researching what is put into their carpets so they can become aware of the harmful chemicals and remove them entirely.   

            The United States has a huge impact on other countries that are either under-developed or developing.  While reading Cradle-to-Cradle, I came across a discussion of how countries other than the United States used to have sustainable practices but now these countries rely mainly on the Western World for food and resources.  We, the United States, need to realize the impact we have on these countries and how we have the ability to change their social paradigm.  What we practice influences other countries greatly.  We can have a positive impact on other countries and ourselves by practicing Cradle-to-Cradle and setting standards that eliminate hazardous waste in our environment.