Friday, November 5, 2010

Zero Waste’s #1 rule

by The Zero Waste Home

REFUSE, REFUSE, REFUSE: Zero Waste’s #1 rule. We have all been programmed to accept and take whatever is given to us. Every bit we accept and take, creates demand. Zero Waste starts by chasing and changing those habits, one by one. Here are seven ideas to get you started:

-refuse that plastic bag!: Even if the item, that you have not yet paid for, is already bagged. You know that the bag is probably going to end up in the can but you can let that one go: you’ll feel horrible seeing it go to waste (it will help you remember next time) and refusing helps cashiers change their compulsive bagging habits. Debagging being a time waster, only our incessant reminding will get them deprogrammed.

-refuse that bottle of water that you get handed for no reason, my husband went to a sports bar last month, the next day I found a bottle of water in his car (!!!) (#&%@%$#!)... He explained to me that although he barely drank, the bartender gave it to him, and that he felt bad saying no… come on! Show some strength, Love! Did he twist your arm to take his bottle of water? Were they out of tap water at the bar? …

-refuse freebies from parties, events, festivals, etc. (including green parties, green events and green festivals): I can hear you: “oh, but it’s free!”… well not really, nothing in life is free. Stop the demand for swag bags (and whatever crap it contains).

-refuse excessive packaging or toxic ingredients and write a letter to those that you wish would change (I try to write a letter of feedback every other day): I believe that consumers can change the world if they let manufacturers know what they want. Remember, you vote every time you buy…

-refuse the food/drinks served in disposables: tough, I know, but if you had brought your own, you’d be drinking and eating… you won’t make that mistake more that a couple of times.

-refuse to let junk mail go from your mailbox straight to your recycling can: you need to cancel those pesky mailings one by one (see “Junk Mail War”)

-refuse the extra school papers that come home: talk to your kids teachers and request less paper. I used to get a copy of the Community Center Activities Catalog from both my boy’s classes. What a waste, when the catalog is already sent out to all residents and can also be viewed online… at the beginning of the year, I opted-out with the kids teachers and they have been most cooperative. 

Wednesday, November 3, 2010

Next Steps in Education for Sustainable Development


The realisation has become widespread that globally there are simply not enough resources and insufficient sinks for the wastes generated to enable economic growth in a business as usual manner to continue. The characteristics of business as usual are shown in this diagram (fig 1). It is a linear Take-Make-and-Dispose arrangement whose major output is waste, alongside a much smaller volume of useful goods and services.

Full_85fab041f582d2179440ca714dda4bd4ec9c3fd4.jpg © Richard Crookes

These characteristics have evoked a response in kind from those with responsibility for environmental protection: consume less, produce less waste in manufacture, recycle wastes, or dispose carefully. In education it has often been seen as a challenge for technology to assist waste minimisation or improve waste treatment or provide alternative energy sources. The watchword in both contexts is ‘eco-efficiency’.

Increasingly however, as we bump against resource and waste limits and the weakening of the ecosphere’s ability to maintain its services (clean air, viable soils, fresh water, diversity etc) there has been a renewed interest in system design. China for example has a long history of sustaining large populations through integrated food and farming methods where nutrients are retained and benign energy flows harnessed effectively. These systems persist despite the disruptions caused by cheap fossil fuels.

In industrial systems such an integrated approach is described as a ‘circular economy’, a closed materials loop that is powered increasingly by current sunshine rather than buried sunshine. It is also a system where toxicity is low and falling and where natural and social capital is restored so that improvements in the quality of life continue to be possible. It is modelled after living systems, that is taking the principles which sustain ecological systems and applying them to the economy. It is characterised in this diagram (fig 2). Since living systems don’t create certain types of technical materials – metals and polymers for example – these materials must become cycled at a distance from the environment. The underlying principle is consistent in both biological and technical cycles: that waste = food and materials be safe and energy, as mentioned, be increasingly based around renewables.
Full_9e419292eee75cd86f09eab49840f4e8b66c5c3c.jpg
The significance of this model to the prospects for prosperity in a materials and energy constrained world of increasing population and aspiration cannot be underestimated. Even in heavily polluted China:
If we are to succeed…it is very important to develop a circular economy based on cradle-to-cradle design principles.
Madame Deng Nan, China’s Party Secretary for Science and Technology.
In the West this model is often called a ‘cradle to cradle’ or closed loop economy and its proponents insist that it should not be seen as an environmental movement, but as a different way of thinking: a design philosophy. Arguing that if design is an expression of human intention then we could usefully have a positive plan!
It’s about design, quality and about respecting other people and their right to exist. The debate about the environment is characterised by a level of ‘guilt management’, with a rhetoric stressing the need ‘to minimise’ and ‘avoid’ rather than ‘to optimise’ and ‘support’. This is tantamount to telling people that they don’t have the right to be here. But there is nothing wrong with consumption, as long as it makes a positive contribution to our surroundings.
Pr. Michael Braungart
The details of this design philosophy can be found in Michael Braungart and William Mcdonough’s book Cradle to Cradle and it is beyond the scope of this short introduction to elaborate on its contents and I turn instead to its implications for education, in general and more specifically.

General Considerations

 

The ‘circular economy’- really the circular materials and monetary economy- represents a different perspective or framework for thinking. Cognitive science tells us that all abstract thought is metaphorical (1) and that we cannot escape using frameworks built around core metaphors, but equally, escaping the dominant existing framework, which is essentially a mechanistic worldview (fig 1), is very difficult and will be resisted e.g. facts which don’t fit existing, dominant frameworks are routinely discarded by the mind/brain. Shifting to a new model requires rewiring the brain! Educationally there is large task to be done in comparing and contrasting a circular economy (fig 2) with existing linear models on a framework basis. This is big picture stuff. It is, after all, a question of philosophy, of ideas as much as what to do. To succeed the new model will have to reveal its advantages over the old. (2) But why bother?

We are caught in a multi toothed trap: the end of an era of cheap fossil fuel energy, threatens the surplus, the economic growth the financial systems needs to exist , it threatens food production and prices are trending upwards globally; disruption to climate is the flip side to fossil energy use of course and if that were not enough OECD economies have been experiencing jobless growth and aging populations.

To say the least education needs to have a positive and constructive response which addresses the possibilities as well as the immense challenges of transition to a low carbon and sustainable economy. For schools, colleges and universities this is particularly in re-skilling, rethinking and redesigning radically. As business guru Amory Lovins said in a recent interview, when asked about thinking outside the box ‘There is no box.’(4) A new economy, not just ‘green’ jobs, but restored natural and social capital set within a revised framework. Currently there are very few new, coherent and prosperity orientated models available except some form of circular economy and it therefore has a clear place in what we teach: even if it is to ask ‘if not this then what?’ There is also an urgency about change in such circumstances. The financial and economic crisis of 2008-2010 (?) is instructive- a collapse which cost the USA for example more than World War 2, the Marshall Plan the Korean and Vietnam Wars all rolled into one was widely deemed a surprise (perhaps a better general understanding of feedback and systems would have helped) But other more profound surprises might await in the real world of resources and energy.

An Education for Sustainable Development (ESD) approach based on this design philosophy ‘joins the dots’ around what it is we are trying to achieve – transition and it simplifies, in a big picture way (ah ha … I see!) enabling schools, colleges and universities to develop leadership practices that join up existing priorities within a powerful sustainable development vision: they have an ideal in mind. Ideal or utopian positions have a key organising role. (3)

In comparison, an education around sustainability which merely characterises it as education for a ‘slightly less harmful world’ or a world ‘where I don’t feel so guilty’ or one of ‘less and less’ is not an education for sustainability worth celebrating but an education for ‘just getting by’ and misrepresents the creative possibilities and energy of a circular economy and the chances of motivating change. As the Art of War noted: ‘tactics without strategy is the noise before defeat’.
The ‘cradle to cradle’ design philosophy is, reassuringly, based around the best in scientific modeling. As we realise that most real world systems are non-linear and sensitive to feedback and initial conditions it makes sense to adopt these insights in designing economies, supporting communities, creating products and services and managing energy flows. The older machine like linear models (having only limited feedback) are now seen as special cases or of limited value. Systems approaches, based on feedback, are also the key to understanding participatory learning and how change happens – the existence tipping points for example. These approaches are also the basis of ecology, climate science and much more.

One key insight : many uses

Full_34a0fd088f0f0752eb4dedccd30e10c1f9f034b3.jpg © Richard Crookes

Applying a consistent systems approach also reveals the limits of current perceptions about education in regard to sustainability: ‘caring for the planet’, ‘doing with less’, ‘eco- efficiency’, ‘if everyone did their bit…’ all turn out to be based on a partial and linear worldview. This systems approach really feels like fresh air for education for sustainable development programmes.
Environmental education and ecology are still important in any education for sustainability They have added value: they illustrate the way living systems work. Insights from living systems provide models for sustainable economies and a guide to the successful redesign of product and services and the possibly the functioning of successful human communities. A particularly interesting development is that described as ‘biomimicry’ which uses Nature as ‘model, mentor and measure’ and reaches from ecological levels right down to materials and structures, into so called green chemistry. (4)

The ‘cradle to cradle’ notion works well alongside innovative business and local government and supports enterprise as technical and biological nutrient cycles reveal new business opportunities and employment. The ‘closed loop’ or circular economy is exciting product designers, industrialists, architects, community enterprises and municipal or regional governments all over the world (5). There is often no more powerful an illustration than successful innovation. Education needs to draw from, illuminate and share the aims and aspirations of businesses and communities who adopt these ‘living systems’ models. As a Foundation we are doing just that with our founding partners – and others – and in our local community project at Chale on the Isle of Wight.

In general, education’s main contribution to a sustainable low carbon circular economy will lie in its support for continual rethinking and redesign in an age of profound change.

Practical Support Opportunities

In looking towards supporting change in education there are many strands of interest to the Foundation But we have focused on a small sub set initially.

As a framework for thinking more than anything there is a great deal of work to be done to introduce it and enable discussion around its main features. The work of Donella Meadows on leverage points in a system (6) indicates that at the level of ‘paradigm change’ this is often very difficult, but that equally change can happen in a moment and from that point nothing, literally, is ‘seen’ in the same way again. Hence the Foundation’s interest in film, animation and a powerful resource base online.


As the focus is design- human intention -then exploration of the idea might be done most readily in Design and Technology, STEM (Science Technology Engineering and Maths) Business Studies and the work related curriculum but an introductory programme based around the ideas is relevant almost everywhere, especially in the context of systems thinking, the constant companion of the circular economy.

Ken Webster, Head of Learning, Ellen MacArthur Foundation
Notes
(1) George Lakoff and Mark Johnson in Philosophy in the Flesh. Brian Wexler (psychologist) noted, ‘when faced with information that does not agree with their [preformed] internal structures, they deny, discredit, reinterpret or forget that information’
(2) ‘You never change things by fighting against the existing reality. To change something, build a new model that makes the old model obsolete.’ Designer, Buckminster Fuller
(3) Milton Friedman, the economist noted: ‘. . . it is worth discussing radical changes, not in the expectation that they will be adopted promptly but for two other reasons. One is to construct an ideal goal, so that incremental changes can be judged by whether they move the institutional structure toward or away from that ideal. The other reason is very different. It is so that if a crisis requiring or facilitating radical change does arise, alternatives will be available that have been carefully developed and fully explored.’
(4) In an interview with Elizabeth Kolbert, a writer for the New Yorker,
(4) Biomimicry Janine Benyus. See also http://www.biomimicryinstitute.org/
Shandong University is running research in this area in China.
(5) Netherlands moving ahead with Cradle to Cradle (closed loop) initiatives at Regional and Government level
Key stimulus: Prof. Dr. Michael Braungart, a German chemist, is a former professor at the University of Lüneburg, and has recently taken up a professorship at the Erasmus University of Rotterdam.
The Region of Limburg has officially announced their ambition to be the first Cradle to Cradle region in the Netherlands and are going to start with the International Horticultural Exhibition Floriade 2012. However Almere, Groningen, and Utrecht are all developing strategies.
The Dutch Ministry of Environment and the half-governmental agency SenterNovem are working on the Sustainable Purchasing Order `Duurzaam Inkopen´ Braungart claims the 40 billion Euro disbursements will be along cradle to cradle lines by 2012.
Some Dutch-based international companies have already taken up the challenge, DSM, AkzoNobel, van Gansewinkel, Desso, van Houtum, VelopA and others.
NB: California – Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger has declared it is to become a Cradle to Cradle state.
(6) Donella Meadows, Leverage Points: Places to Intervene in a System , 1999 http://www.sustainabilityinstitute.org/pubs/Leverage_Points.pdf
 

Teaching the fundamental facts of life

  • by Paul Clarke
Full_96c2c9e421b67acd854bdca21b8c38b4f480281f.jpg

To understand how nature sustains life, we need to move from biology to ecology, because sustained life is a property of an ecosystem rather than a single organism or species.
Over billions of years of evolution, the Earth’s ecosystems have evolved certain principles of organization to sustain the web of life. Knowledge of these principles of organization, or principles of ecology, is what we mean by “ecological literacy.” 

In the coming decades, the survival of humanity will depend on our ecological literacy – our ability to understand the basic principles of ecology and to live accordingly.
Life, from its beginning more than three billion years ago, did not take over the planet by combat but by networking.
This means that ecoliteracy must become a critical skill for politicians, business leaders, and professionals in all spheres, and should be the most important part of education at all levels – from primary and secondary schools to colleges, universities, and the continuing education and training of professionals. 



We need to teach our children, our students, and our corporate and political leaders, the fundamental facts of life – that one species’ waste is another species’ food; that matter cycles continually through the web of life; that the energy driving the ecological cycles flows from the sun; that diversity assures resilience; that life, from its beginning more than three billion years ago, did not take over the planet by combat but by networking.

http://www.ellenmacarthurfoundation.org/education/next-steps-in-esd


 

Building like trees, cities like forests

This article originally appeared in The Catalog of the Future (Pearson Press, 2002).

By William McDonough
© 2002

When the architect and theorist Le Corbusier imagined the future of cities from the vantage of the early 20th century, he foresaw a new industrial aesthetic that would free design from the constraints of the natural world. For Le Corbusier, the city was "a human operation directed against nature" and the house was "a machine for living in." He imagined architecture worldwide shaped by a "mass production spirit." The ideal: "One single building for all nations and climates." Le Corbusier's friends dismissed his futuristic ideas. "All this is for the year 2000," they said.

It seems they were right. In many ways, our world is LeCorbusier's world: From Rangoon to Reykjavik one-size-fits-all buildings employ the "engineer's aesthetic" to overcome the rules of the natural world. As uplifting as that might be for the spirit of LeCorbusier, it is becoming more apparent all the time that buildings conceived as mass-produced machines impoverish cultural diversity and leave their inhabitants cut-off from the wonders and delights of nature.

But what if buildings were alive? What if our homes and workplaces were like trees, living organisms participating productively in their surroundings? Imagine a building, enmeshed in the landscape, that harvests the energy of the sun, sequesters carbon and makes oxygen. Imagine on-site wetlands and botanical gardens recovering nutrients from circulating water. Fresh air, flowering plants, and daylight everywhere. Beauty and comfort for every inhabitant. A roof covered in soil and sedum to absorb the falling rain. Birds nesting and feeding in the building's verdant footprint. In short, a life-support system in harmony with energy flows, human souls, and other living things. Hardly a machine at all.

This is not science fiction. Buildings like trees, though few in number, already exist. So when we survey the future-the prospects for buildings and cities, settled and unsettled lands-we see a new sensibility emerging, one in which inhabiting a place becomes a mindful, delightful participation in landscape. This perspective is both rigorous and poetic. It is built on design principles inspired by nature's laws. It is enacted by immersing oneself in the life of a place to discover the most fitting and beautiful materials and forms. It is a design aesthetic that draws equally on the poetics of science and the poetics of space. We hope it is the design strategy of the future.

The Human Leaf
If one unpacks the compressed verse of Einstein-E=MC2-one finds poetry, beauty, the dynamic structure of the universe. Following Einstein's inimitable lead, we see in E=MC2 a kind of design koan. E is the energy of the sun-physics and planetary motion. M is the mass of the earth-chemistry. When the two interact at the speed of light, biology flourishes and we celebrate its increase-the growth of trees, plants, food, biodiversity and all the cycles of nature that run on the sun. Good growth. And when human systems support ecological health, that's good growth too.

Applied to design, the laws of nature give architects, designers and planners a set of principles that allow them to articulate in form a building's or a town's connection to a particular place. They allow us to create buildings that make the energy of the sun a part of our metabolism and apply it to positive human purpose-the building as "human leaf." The principles, illustrated by the life of a tree, are:

Waste=Food. The processes of each organism in a living system contribute to the health of the whole. A fruit tree's blossoms fall to the ground and decompose into food for other living things. Bacteria and fungi feed on the organic waste of both the tree and the animals that eat its fruit, depositing nutrients in the soil in a form ready for the tree to take up and convert into growth. One organism's waste becomes food for another. Applied to architecture, these cradle-to-cradle nutrient cycles can serve as models for the design of materials and building systems that eliminate the concept of waste. Materials designed for use in cradle-to-cradle cycles, for example, can be either safely returned to the soil or re-utilized as high-quality materials for new products.

Use current solar income. Living things thrive on the energy of the sun. Simply put, a tree manufactures food from sunlight, an elegant, effective system that uses the earth's only perpetual source of energy income. Buildings that tap into solar income-using direct solar energy collection; passive solar processes such as daylighting; and wind power, which is created by thermal flows fueled by sunlight-make productive and profitable use of local energy flows.

Celebrate diversity. "The tree" provides not just one design model but many. Around the world, photosynthesis and nutrient cycling, adapted to locale, yield an astonishing diversity of forms. Bald cypress, desert palm, and Douglas fir suggest a range of niches. The hundreds of tree species within a single acre of Southern Appalachian forest suggest the diversity of a single region. Architects and planners, applying a diversity of design solutions, can create buildings and cities that fit elegantly and effectively into their own niches.

Kinship with All Life
As architects and planners explore these principles-what amounts to a new conception of design-they will become more adept at creating fit and fitting spaces for human habitation. New benchmarks will emerge. Rather than overpowering nature or limiting human impact, good design will affirm the possibility of developing healthy and creatively interactive relationships between human settlements and the natural world

With new benchmarks will come new practices, and a design process that is now rare will, we hope, become the norm. Design teams in many regions would begin with an assessment of the natural systems of a place-its landforms, hydrology, vegetation, and climate. They would tap into natural and cultural history; investigate local energy sources; explore the cycles of sunlight, shade and water; study the vernacular architecture of the region and the lives of local fauna, flowers and grasses.

Combining an understanding of building and energy systems with this emerging "essay of clues," designers would discover appropriate patterns for the development of the landscape. Building materials would be selected with the same care, chosen only after a careful assessment of a variety of characteristics, ranging from their chemistry to the impacts of their use, harvesting and manufacture. We might also expect to see the industry-wide pooling of architectural products as builders begin to create closed-loop recycling systems to effectively manage the flow of materials.

With this emphasis on sustaining and enhancing the qualities of the landscape, architectural and community designs would begin to create beneficial ecological footprints-more habitat, wetlands and clean water, not fewer negative emissions. We would see buildings like trees, alive to their surroundings and inhabitants, and cities like forests, in which nature and design create a living, breathing habitat. Vital threads of landscape would provide connectivity between communities, linking urban forests to downtown neighborhoods to riparian corridors to distant wilds. Cities and towns would be shaped and cultivated by an understanding of their singular evolutionary matrix, a new sense of natural and cultural identity that would grow health, diversity and delight, and set the stage for long-term prosperity.

Changes such as these, many already afoot, signal a hopeful new era. Ultimately, they will lead to ever more places that honor not just human ingenuity but harmony with the exquisite intelligence of nature. And when that becomes the hallmark of good design, we will have left behind the century of the machine and begun to celebrate our kinship with all of life.
The City as Organism

While nature's laws shape our sense of cities, they don't force us into a static view. We see each city, and we see Chicago, as part of a dynamic ecosystem, a singular evolutionary matrix. And we see the future of the City as an ever more harmonious and creative participation in the surrounding landscape. Claude Levi-Strauss put it well when he described the city as the place where "nature and artifice meet."
"A city is a congestion of animals whose biological history is enclosed within boundaries, and yet every conscious and rational act on the part of these creatures helps to shape the city's eventual character. By its form as by the manner of its birth, the city has elements at once of biological procreation, organic evolution, and esthetic creation. It is both a natural object and a thing to be cultivated; individual and group; something lived and something dreamed."
Cities are made. One can look at a metropolis like Chicago and get the sense that it has always been there. Yet in 1830s Chicago, as William Cronon has written, "one did not have to walk more than a few minutes to be out on the prairie." Just 60 years later booming, urbane Chicago hosted the famous Columbian Exposition.
Cities are designed. The tree-lined boulevards and elegant storefronts of Paris are not the result of lucky happenstance but of an ambitious 19th century renovation that remade the city from the sewers to the rooftops. It is no coincidence that Paris has remained a cultural capital in spite of the mercurial fortunes of France.

Cities are organisms. They have metabolisms. They are linked to their regions through complex networks, both natural and cultivated, that circulate biological nutrition-food, wood, fiber, water-and technical nutrition-the hardware and software of the 21st century. These flows of nutrients are the twin metabolisms of the living city. If we are to make our cities truly sustaining we need to take this literally, not just as the beautiful and moving idea about cities that Levi-Strauss blessed us with, but as a literal, strategic truth that informs all of our designs.



By William McDonough & Michael Braungart, with Paul Anastas
and Julie Zimmerman

This article originally appeared in Environmental Science and Technology, December 1, 2003.

Doing the right things right. It's not as easy as it sounds. Working smart may be easy, but working smart without perspective or guiding principles can ultimately become an efficient pursuit of the wrong goals. Consider historical approaches to industrial problem solving: Applying engineering strategies to make a wasteful or hazardous process more sustainable might seem like a beneficial course of action-there are many examples of this-but is fine-tuning a fundamentally flawed system actually the goal we want to pursue? Conversely, engineers can be headed toward positive ends yet be undermined by tools that will never get them where they want to go. This is the case of early approaches to the manufacture of photovoltaic cells, which often consumed more energy in their construction than could ever be recovered over the lifetime of the system.

So what are the right goals? The right tools? If we approach sustainability from a design perspective, we can see the need for a fundamental conceptual shift away from the design of the current industrial system, which generates toxic, one-way, "cradle-to-grave" material flows, toward a "cradle-to-cradle" system powered by renewable energy, in which materials flow in safe, regenerative, closed-loop cycles.

The Cradle-to-Cradle Framework [1] articulates this conceptual shift. Developed and successfully applied over the past decade, the Cradle-to-Cradle Framework is a science- and values-based vision of sustainability that enunciates a positive, long-term goal for engineers: the design of a commercially productive, socially beneficial and ecologically intelligent industrial system.

The Principles of Green Engineering [2] provide guidance for realizing this vision in practice, suggesting ways in which designers and engineers can pursue optimized, cradle-to-cradle products and systems. While Green Engineering addresses the issue at all levels of innovation, as illustrated in Figure 1, one sees that for a given investment of time, money or other resources, the greatest investments often come from redefining the problem.

In this article we will provide an overview of the Cradle-to-Cradle Framework and examples of design projects that have put the framework into practice. We will also address the Principles of Green Engineering and, following each example of cradle-to-cradle designs, suggest how engineers might apply the Principles to achieving the goals of the Cradle-to-Cradle Framework.

Sustainablity: The Cradle-to-Cradle Perspective
The Cradle-to-Cradle Framework does not reach for sustainability as it is typically defined. Discussed at length in various papers, books and other venues [3-5], environmental sustainability in the industrial sector is popularly understood as a strategy of "doing more with less" or "reducing the human footprint" to minimize troubling symptoms of environmental decline. From an engineering perspective, conventional sustainability too often suggests retrofitting the machines of industry with cleaner, more efficient "engines" to secure ongoing economic growth. But this is not an adequate long-term goal. While being eco-efficient may indeed reduce resource consumption and pollution in the short-term, it does not address the deep design flaws of contemporary industry. Rather, it addresses problems without addressing their source, setting goals and employing practices that sustain a fundamentally flawed system.

The Cradle-to-Cradle Framework, on the other hand, posits a new way of designing human systems that ultimately can solve rather than alleviate the human-created conflicts between economic growth and environmental health that result from poor design and market structure. Within this principled framework, which is based on the manifested rules of nature and re-defines the problem at hand, eco-efficient strategies can serve a larger purpose.

The Foundations of Cradle-to-Cradle Design
The Cradle-to-Cradle Framework recognizes the operating system of the natural world as an unrivaled model for human designs. In essence, natural systems largely operate on the free energy of the sun, which interacts with the geochemistry of the earth's surface to sustain productive, regenerative biological systems. Human systems designed to operate by the same rules that govern the natural world can approach the effectiveness of the earth's diverse living systems, in which there is no waste at all.

Cradle to Cradle identifies three key design principles in the intelligence of natural systems, which can inform human design:

1. Waste Equals Food
2. Use Current Solar Income
3. Celebrate Diversity

Waste Equals Food. Waste does not exist in nature because the processes of each organism contribute to the health of the whole ecosystem. A fruit tree's blossoms fall to the ground and decompose into food for other living things. Bacteria and fungi feed on the organic waste of both the trees and the animals that eat its fruit, depositing nutrients in the soil in a form ready for the tree to use for growth. One organism's waste is food for another and nutrients flow indefinitely in cradle-to-cradle cycles of birth, decay and rebirth. In other words, waste equals food.

Understanding these regenerative systems allows engineers and designers to recognize that all materials can be designed as nutrients that flow through natural or designed metabolisms. While nature's nutrient cycles comprise the biological metabolism, the technical metabolism is designed to mirror them; it's a closed-loop system in which valuable, high-tech synthetics and mineral resources circulate in cycles of production, use, recovery and remanufacture.

Within this cradle-to-cradle framework, designers and engineers can use scientific assessments to select safe materials and optimize products and services, creating closed-loop material flows that are inherently benign and sustaining. Materials designed as biological nutrients, such as textiles and packaging made from natural fibers, can biodegrade safely and restore soil after use. Materials designed as technical nutrients, such as carpet yarns made from synthetics that can be repeatedly depolymerized and repolymerized , are providing high quality, high-tech ingredients for generation after generation of synthetic products.

Use Current Solar Income. Living things thrive on the energy of the sun. Trees and plants manufacture food from sunlight, an elegant, effective system that uses the earth's unrivalled and continuous source of energy income. Despite recent precedent, human energy systems can be nearly as effective. Cradle-to-cradle systems-from buildings to manufacturing processes-tap into current solar income using direct solar energy collection or passive solar processes, such as daylighting, which makes effective use of natural light. Wind power-thermal flows fueled by sunlight-can also be tapped.

This is already beginning to change the energy marketplace. The City of Chicago, for example, has committed to buying 20 percent of its electricity from renewable sources by 2006, which is spurring the local development of renewable energy technology. Indeed, the City recently opened the Chicago Center for Green Technology, an ecologically intelligent facility on a restored industrial site that houses companies involved in developing the local capacity to tap wind and solar power. Germany, meanwhile, has already harnessed wind power equivalent to 20 coal-fired power plants and the European Union plans to generate 22 percent of its electricity from renewable sources by 2010.

Celebrate Diversity. From a holistic perspective, natural systems thrive on diversity. Healthy ecosystems are complex communities of living things, each of which has developed a unique response to its surroundings that works in concert with other organisms to sustain the system. Each organism fits in its place and in each system the fittingest thrive. Needless to say, long term perspective is needed since even the introduction of an invasive species can enhance diversity for the immediate term while virtually destroying that diversity over time.

Nature's diversity provides many models for human designs. When designers celebrate diversity, they tailor designs to maximize their positive effects on the particular niche in which they will be implemented. Engineers might profit from this principle by considering the cradle-to-cradle maxim, "all sustainability is local." In other words, optimal sustainable design solutions draw information from and ultimately "fit" within local natural systems. They express an understanding of ecological relationships and enhance the local landscape where possible. They draw on local energy and material flows. They take into account both the distant effects of local actions and the local effects of distant actions. The point is this: Rather than offering the one-size-fits-all solutions of conventional engineering, designs that celebrate and support diversity and locality grow ever more effective and sustaining as they engage natural systems.

Consider the building systems for the 901 Cherry, Offices for Gap Inc. in San Bruno, California. Aiming to enhance energy effectiveness and the qualities of the local landscape, William McDonough + Partners designed the building with an undulating roof blanketed in soil, flowers and grasses that mirrors the local terrain, re-establishing several acres of the coastal savannah ecosystem that had been destroyed by human intervention. The living roof also effectively absorbs storm water and provides thermal insulation, making the landscape an integral part of the building's energy systems.

In addition, a raised floor cooling system allows evening breezes to flush the building while concrete slabs beneath the floor remain cool and provide a cooling effect during the day. Windows are operable, the delivery of fresh air is under individual control, and daylighting provides natural illumination. By celebrating diversity-tapping local energy flows, integrating landscape and system design, maximizing positive effects rather than minimizing negative ones-the design contrasts starkly with typical, tightly-sealed, energy efficient buildings. Yet the Gap offices' advanced, integrated systems are so effective the building was recognized as one of the most energy efficient buildings in California by the regional utility company, Pacific Gas and Electric.

In short, by modeling human designs on nature's operating system-generating materials that are "food" for biological or industrial systems, tapping the energy of sun, celebrating diversity-cradle-to-cradle design creates a new paradigm for industry, one in which human activity generates a wide spectrum of ecological, social and economic value.

The Principles of Green Engineering
While the Cradle-to-Cradle vision sets a course and answers "What do I do?" the Twelve Principles of Green Engineering can answer "How?" Shown in Figure 2, they can be viewed as a toolbox of approaches to be used systematically to optimize a system or its components. This approach builds on the technical excellence, scientific rigor and systems thinking that has addressed the issue of science and technology for sustainability and sustainable development in recent years [6-23]. As is the case in any complex multi-parameter system, there will be the need to contextually understand when to balance one principle or collection of principles versus another. Often an understanding of this type is not obvious or transparent and requires asking questions that apply locally and across the life-cycle. Applied thoughtfully, however, these principles can be useful tools for turning vision into reality.

The Principles of Green Engineering can be used to provide guidance to engineers working to develop a practical methodology for implementing cradle-to-cradle goals.

Consider Principle 1: "Designers need to strive to ensure that all material and energy inputs and outputs are as inherently non-hazardous as possible." From a cradle-to-cradle perspective, human systems approach optimal effectiveness when inputs and outputs are as safe and beneficial as those generated by natural systems, which effectively uses energy and generates materials while producing no waste. With this in mind, designers working on cradle-to-cradle products and systems begin the design process by analyzing the chemistry of materials to determine which ones are inherently safe and non-hazardous and which should be avoided. When a cradle-to-cradle material is optimized it is not only non-hazardous but also provides nourishment for something new after its useful life-either "food" for biological systems or high-quality materials for subsequent generations of high-tech products. Approaching product and system design from an engineering perspective, designers following Principle 1 would be moving toward this entry point to Cradle-to-Cradle systems.

Principle 2 is complementary, and follows from the Waste Equals Food aspect of nature's design. Principle 2 says: "It is better to prevent waste than to treat or clean up waste after it is formed." By designing safe, healthful materials that can flow in closed-loop cycles, cradle-to-cradle designers are eliminating waste by putting filters in their heads instead of on the end of pipes. That is, rather than managing the costly liabilities or potential liabilities of flawed designs, cradle-to-cradle designers conceive products and materials that generate assets at every step of their life-cycle. Engineers striving to meet Principle 2 would be laying the groundwork for systems that sustain cradle-to-cradle material flows.

An old adage suggests the importance of making the elimination of waste an upfront engineering priority:

What do you have when you put a drop of chardonnay in a barrel of hazardous waste? A barrel of hazardous waste. What do have when you put a drop of hazardous waste in a barrel of chardonnay? A barrel of hazardous waste.

Clearly, managing waste is a limited goal. And each Principle of Green Engineering, in its own way, offers to engineers a way to go beyond it, to move from managing liabilities and hazards toward designing effective, ecologically intelligent materials, products and systems. The brief case studies that follow show some of the ways in which designers and engineers have already begun to apply the Principles of Green Engineering in developing models for cradle-to-cradle industry.

Designing Biological and Technical Nutrients
As we have seen, cradle-to-cradle materials and products are conceived as either biological nutrients or technical nutrients-food for nature or industry. Their design and manufacture has been going on for nearly a decade. The examples that follow were designed using a cradle-to-cradle approach, and utilizing the methods and tools that have been developed for cradle-to-cradle design. They also illustrate the applicability of the Principles of Green Engineering, many of which they exemplify.

Biological Nutrients
By 1995, the Swiss firm Rohner and the textile design company DesignTex, working with McDonough Braungart Design Chemistry (MBDC), had already developed examples of a textile that is a biological nutrient, a product so benign it could be assimilated by natural systems without any toxicity [24].

To ensure that the fabric would safely biodegrade, the design team worked with the chemical company CibaGeigy to select only the most inherently benign chemicals and materials used in the textile industry to finish and dye natural fabrics. The team eliminated from consideration chemicals containing any form of mutagen, carcinogen, heavy metal, endocrine disruptor, or bio-accumulative substance. Applying these criteria, the team identified 38 chemicals suitable for a material destined to be food for the soil, enough to produce a textile meeting all quality standards.

Going into the project, the mill chosen to produce the fabric had an interesting problem: although the mill's director had been diligent about reducing levels of dangerous emissions, government regulators had recently defined the trimmings of his fabric as hazardous waste. In stark contrast, the trimmings of the new biological nutrient fabric serve as mulch for the local garden club. At the end of its useful life, the fabric itself can be safely composted to build healthy soil.

This example of cradle-to-cradle design benefits from many of the tools that the principles of Green Engineering supply. By using Principle 1, engineers can not only choose the most suitable chemicals from those available, but molecular designers can also make new chemicals that have environmental and health benefits built in as a performance criterion. Ciba Geigy embraced targeted durability (Principle 7) in recognizing that the performance in commercial after-life (Principle 11) must be a design goal.

Technical Nutrients
In a paper in this issue (page XX), Bradfield et. al. describe how Shaw Carpet has accomplished significant, quantifiable benefits by working within the Cradle-to-Cradle Design Framework in ways that are compatible with the Principles of Green Engineering. Shaw's approach involves scientific assessments of the material chemistry of its carpet fibers and backing, using MBDC's material assessment protocol as shown in Table 1 and Figure 3. Throughout the design process, dyes, pigments, finishes, auxiliaries-everything that goes into carpet-are examined and each ingredient selected meets rigorous environmental health criteria of the protocol. Out of this process has come the promise of a fully optimized carpet tile-a completely safe, continuously recyclable technical nutrient. This new design for carpet tiles has earned Shaw carpet the 1999 Georgia Governor's Pollution Prevention Award and the 2003 Presidential Green Chemistry Challenge Award [25].

Carpet is made from two primary elements, a face fiber and a backing. Shaw's face fiber is made from nylon 6, which has a demonstrated ability to be easily depolymerized into its monomer, caprolactam, and repolymerized repeatedly to make high quality carpet fiber. The main competing face fiber, nylon 6,6 cannot be depolymerized effectively for recycling. As for carpet backing, PVC has dominated the industry for 30 years.

PVC, commonly known as vinyl, is a cheap, durable material widely used in building construction and a variety of consumer products, including toys, apparel and sporting goods. The vinyl chloride monomer used to make PVC is a human carcinogen (IARC), while incineration of PVC can result in dioxin emissions. There are also concerns about the health effects of many additives commonly used in PVC. Responding to widespread scientific, consumer and public concern for PVC, Shaw developed a polyolefin-based backing system with all the performance benefits of PVC which it guarantees it will take back (along with its nylon 6 face fiber) and recycle into new backing.

In effect, the new carpet tile eliminates the very concept of waste. The material that goes into the carpet will continually circulate in technical nutrient cycles. Given the hundreds of millions of pounds of carpet fiber and backing that each year are not recycled and instead are sent to landfills or incinerated or are recycled into products of lesser value, the impact of this new design on the carpet market will be very significant.

Shaw's accomplishments exemplify a number of the Principles of Green Engineering. The company's product development process illustrates how Principles 6 (complexity viewed as an investment) can be put into practice through the technical skills and engineering rigor needed to invent a new approach to carpeting. By upfront design for commercial after-life (Principle 11) the people at Shaw both prevented waste (Principle 2), and designed the separation and purification processes, in this case depolymerization, to be less material and energy consumptive (Principle 3)

A Material Assessment Protocol
The application of the Cradle-to-Cradle Design Framework has yielded a rigorous materials assessment protocol that can be applied in a wide range of industries. Working with MBDC, the footwear manufacturer Nike employed the MBDC protocol to determine the chemical composition and environmental effects of the materials used to produce its line of athletic shoes [26]. Focusing primarily on Nike's global footwear operations, the effort began with factory visits in China, where teams collected samples of rubber, leather, nylon, polyester, and foams, and information on their chemical formulations, to begin assessing their chemistry.

In this ongoing partnership, when Nike and MBDC identify materials that meet or exceed the company's emerging criteria for sustainable design, those components are added to a growing palette of materials (a 'Positive List') that Nike will increasingly use in its products. These ingredients are designed to either be safely metabolized by nature's biological systems at the end of a product's useful life (Principle 11), or be repeatedly recovered and reutilized for new products (Principle 10). [this last one seems to me to fit better with Principle 11 than with 10]

Nike's systematic effort to develop a positive materials palette has begun to produce tangible results, such as the phasing out of polyvinyl chloride (PVC). After two years of scientific review, Nike set its sites on the elimination of PVC from footwear and non-screenprint apparel by the end of 2002. In Spring 2002 Nike highlighted two of the company's PVC-free products, Keystone Cleats and Swoosh Slides, as a way to begin a dialogue with consumers about its PVC-free commitment.

Green Engineering can be driven even further by companies like Nike when they place environmental and health criteria as specifications for the suppliers of basic feedstocks that enter their products. Through the use of Principle 1, large and influential companies can cause their vendors to design next generation materials to be intrinsically less hazardous and more sustainable. The new materials also eliminate the need for the other additive substances required by PVC and accomplish Principle 9 in allowing for greater ease of disassembly and value retention.

Integrating Design Strategies
The furniture company Herman Miller has gone a long way toward integrating cradle-to-cradle principles into its product development process. Herman Miller has developed an interdisciplinary Design for Environment team that implements materials assessments based on MBDC's protocol, translates design goals throughout the company, measures environmental performance and engages its supply chain in implementing design criteria [27].

Working closely with MBDC, the DFE team built a chemical and material assessment methodology that could be used by the firm's designers and engineers as shown in Table 2. Throughout the design process, the multi-faceted assessment analyzes materials for their human health and eco-toxicological effects, recycleability, recycled content and/or use of renewable resources, and product design for disassembly.


Recyclability
1. Material is a technical or biological nutrient and a commercial infrastructure exists.
2. Material can be down-cycled and a commercial infrastructure exists.
3. Material can be incinerated for energy recovery.
4. Material is normally land filled.

Recycled / Renewable Content
Percentage of total product weight:
Post Industrial Recycled Content
Post Consumer Recycled Content
Renewable Content

Disassembly
Can the component be separated with no dissimilar materials attached?
Can common disassembly tools be used (pry-bar, hammer, drivers, utility knife, pliers)?
Can one person disassemble the component in 30 seconds or less?
Can the material type be identified through markings, magnets, etc?

The DFE team includes a chemical engineer who incorporates findings from assessments into an evolving materials data base, and a purchasing agent who acts as a conduit and data source between the supply chain and Herman Miller's purchasing team. This strategy engages both groups as partners in implementing new design criteria, thereby ensuring the consistent procurement of safe materials. As one Herman Miller engineer has said, "getting a handle on supply chain issues from an environmental standpoint has also helped us get a handle on the organization and prioritization of materials." Now, for example, Herman Miller can use the new database to record the volume and content of the raw materials it uses and distributes, figures it had not previously tracked.

Clearly, the Herman Miller assessment criteria have large commonalities with the goals of the Green Engineering Principles such as intrinsic hazards elimination (Principle 1), renewability (Principle 12), design for commercial after-life (Principle 11) and design for disassembly (Principle 3).

Sustainable Facilities
Cradle-to-Cradle Design can also be applied to the restoration of industrial landscapes, as Ford Motor Company is doing at its historic Rouge River manufacturing complex in Dearborn, Michigan [28]. There, the automaker has built an automotive assembly plant with a 10-acre green roof that cost-effectively filters storm water run-off, which is typically managed with expensive technical controls.

Rather than approaching anticipated environmental requirements from the common industrial perspective, Ford opted for a Cradle-to-Cradle approach: a manufacturing facility that would connect employees to their surroundings, create habitat, make oxygen, restore the landscape and invite the return of native species. The result is a daylit factory with a 450,000 square-foot roof blanketed with topsoil and growing plants-a "living" roof.

In concert with porous paving and a series of constructed wetlands and swales, the living roof effectively filters stormwater run-off for $35 million less than the typical stormwater management systems required to meet regulations. In addition to absorbing storm water, soil and vegetation on the roof:

* provide extra insulation
* protect the roof membrane from wear and thermal shock
* contribute to mediating the urban heat island effect
* capture harmful particulates

The roof and the swales also create new and revived habitats on the site for native birds, butterflies, insects and microorganisms, generating a larger biological order and encouraging diversity.

Phytoremediation, the process of using plants to absorb or neutralize toxins in the soil, is also being employed at the Rouge site [29, 30]. Ford has cultivated 20 native plants in contaminated soil and is monitoring them to test how well each breaks down and purifies polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH), a prevalent on-site toxin. So far, big bluestem and green ash seem to have been the most effective for PAHs. With other native plants, which are being monitored by a group of scientists, big bluestem and green ash are being planted in phytoremediation gardens along the Rouge's main thoroughfare. The researchers will continue to systematically test which plants most effectively absorb toxins. Other scientists are doing research on plants they believe may sequester heavy metals and other compounds.

The Rouge River example is an excellent illustration of how to build in the integration and interconnectivity of available energy and materials flows, as called for in the Principles of Green Engineering. Rather than introduce synthetic materials or machinery to accomplish a goals, in this case remediation, the existing natural systems' processes and energy flows are used to accomplish these goals more effectively. In this example both Principle 10 (interconnectivity) and Principle 12 (renewable energy and materials) are utilized in the design of the restoration system.

Remaking an Industry
While the Cradle-to-Cradle Framework sees the transformation of a wide range of mobility systems as a key objective on the path to sustainability, it has to date been most effectively applied in the automobile industry. Given that long-range projections estimate that global vehicle registrations could reach 2 billion during the second half of this century, this appears to be a good place to start.

Building a truly sustainable automobile industry means developing closed-loop systems for the manufacturing and re-utilization of auto parts. In Europe, the End-of-Life Vehicle Directive, which makes manufacturers responsible for automotive materials, is encouraging companies to consider design for disassembly and effective resource recovery more seriously. Cradle-to-cradle systems, in which materials either go back to industry or safely back to the soil, are built for effective resource recovery. In such a system, each part of every car is either returned to the soil or recovered and reused in the assembly of new cars, generating extraordinary productivity and consistent employment.

These ideas are emerging in the American auto industry. Working with MBDC, Ford Motor Company has developed the Model U, the world's first automobile designed to explore the concept of inherently safe, beneficial cradle-to-cradle materials.

Environmentally benign materials used in the manufacture of the Model U include Milliken & Co. polyester upholstery fabric, a technical nutrient made from chemicals chosen for their human and environmental health qualities, and capable of continuous recycling. The car top is made from a potential biological nutrient, a corn-based biopolymer from Cargill Dow that can be composted after use. Both are examples of materials designed for cradle-to-cradle life cycles.

This first step toward the cradle-to-cradle vehicle lays the foundation for a clear, long-term vision that sees American automobiles as products of service-customers buy the service of mobility for a defined use period, not the car itself-designed for disassembly, their materials circulating in closed-loop cycles and providing "food" for nature and industry, generation after generation.

This strategy for the design of next generation automobiles incorporates several Principles of Green Engineering. This approach utilizes inherently benign chemicals and materials (Principle 1) that can be recovered at end of life (Principle 3) to cycle in closed-loop, integrated systems (Principles 2, 10). In addition, introducing the automobiles as a "product of service," the components designed to have a commercial afterlife in new automobiles (Principle 11).

The Foundation of Sustainability
Engineers across a wide spectrum of industry are already laying the foundation for green manufacturing. Throughout this issue of Environmental Science and Technology are examples that illustrate a variety of approaches to sustainability. When considered through the lens of the Principles of Green Engineering, we can see them as steps moving toward a larger transformation of industry.

From a Cradle-to-Cradle perspective, green engineering represents a practical approach to the transformation of industry. Applied to the goals of the Cradle-to-Cradle Framework, the Twelve Principles of Green Engineering can help achieve the long-term goal of designing a commercially productive[no example or principle has explicitly addressed social issues in this paper] and ecologically intelligent industrial system. Together, they create a useful framework for doing the right things right.


Children need nature

Downloads

Every Child Outdoors (1.1Mb)

We believe that every child should be entitled to regular contact with the natural environment.

Our Every Child Outdoors research draws together the findings from the wide range of research into the positive impacts contact with nature has for children, as well as the environment. These include the educational benefits, contributions to physical health and mental wellbeing, as well as development of personal and social skills.

It also explores some of the consequences of the reduction of such experiences and, sadly, the increasingly-used term of Nature Deficit Disorder to describe the phenomenon.

The report includes new independent research from Ipsos MORI, commissioned by the RSPB, on the most remembered childhood experiences of nature amongst the general public. This discovered that 92% of people agree that these experiences are still important to children today, and that 82% agree that schools should play a role in providing them to all children.

The RSPB is committed to continuing to play our part in ensuring as many children as possible have contact with nature, and working with partner organisations to do so. We believe it is essential that all parts of government and society play their role too.

To complement our research, we produced a short film showing many of the inspiring experiences children and young people have on our reserves.

Tuesday, November 2, 2010

Key role for biodiversity in the battle against poverty and climate change

The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity (TEEB) study is a major international initiative to draw attention to the global economic benefits of biodiversity, to highlight the growing costs of biodiversity loss and ecosystem degradation, and to draw together expertise from the fields of science, economics and policy to enable practical actions moving forward. 

Nature's riches can play a major role in poverty eradication, but only if governments and businesses recognise the true economic value of the goods and services our environment provides us.

That's the central message of a free book published today by the International Institute for Environment and Development (IIED), BirdLife International and Pavan Sukhdev — leader of The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity study.

It warns that biodiversity loss is not only an environmental problem but also a fundamental threat to people’s livelihoods, wellbeing and ability to confront the impacts of climate change.

The full colour publication — which is written in clear, engaging language and aimed at policymakers, journalists and the general public — comes on the eve of the world's biggest international conference on biodiversity, in Nagoya, Japan.

"The ongoing decline of the world’s biological resources — such as rainforests, coral reefs and agricultural biodiversity — threatens to increase poverty and people’s vulnerability to climate change," says Dr Dilys Roe, a senior researcher at IIED. "These challenges must be tackled together rather than in isolation."

The book shows how nature provides humanity with goods and services worth trillions of dollars. But it warns that these benefits are threatened by policies that fail to treat the environment and human wellbeing as two sides of the same coin.

Biodiversity includes the crops we eat and the insects that pollinate them; the plants we use for both traditional medicines and modern drugs; the bacteria that help create the soil that sustains farming; and the microscopic plankton at the base of food chains that end with fish on our dinner plates. It includes ecosystems such as forests that regulate water supplies and the global climate.

While millions of the world's poorest people depend heavily on nature for their livelihoods, efforts to use biodiversity to boost incomes often fail — because of poor policies and legal frameworks that govern how biological resources are used and by whom.

"Systems that communities have developed over generations to sustainably manage their natural resources have often been swept aside by policies that favour short-term commercial gains," says David Thomas of BirdLife International. "By supporting these communities' long-term stewardship of the land and the sea, policymakers can tackle two urgent global issues – extreme poverty and the loss of biodiversity – at the same time."

The book outlines the economic, scientific and moral arguments for shifting to a new way of managing the Earth’s resources that brings benefits to all in a sustainable way.

It argues that biological resources can lift people out of poverty and help countries to build green economies but says that for this to happen the true value of biodiversity must be included in economic valuations and government policies.

Next week, governments from around the world will gather in Nagoya, Japan for the 10th Conference of Parties to the UN Convention on Biological Diversity. They are set to make key decisions that could determine whether current and future generations continue to benefit from nature’s riches.



Living Planet Report 2010

Family cycling along a country road in Wales, UK
13 October 2010
The protection of biodiversity and ecosystems must be a priority in our quest to build a stronger, fairer and cleaner world economy. Rather than an excuse to delay further action, the recent financial and economic crisis should serve as a reminder of the urgency of developing greener economies. Both WWF and the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) are contributing to this goal.

The Living Planet Report is helping raise public awareness of the pressures on the biosphere and spreading the message that “business as usual” is not an option. The report contributes to fostering action, as what gets measured gets managed.



Downloads

Living Planet Report 2010

Sunday, October 31, 2010

Earth Charter + 10 celebrations in INDIA!

Over the ten years since its formal launch in 2000, the Earth Charter has gained recognition as a global consensus on the meaning of sustainability, the challenge and vision of sustainable development, and the principles by which sustainable development is to be achieved. It is today accepted that there are many dimensions to the concept of sustainability, all of which need to be supported by an underlying ethical framework.

The Earth Charter has been an important guiding influence on the UN Decade of Education for Sustainable Development. As we approach the end of the decade in 2014, the Earth Charter’s vision of “a global society founded on a shared ethical framework that includes respect and care for the community of life, ecological integrity, universal human rights, respect for diversity, economic justice, democracy, and a culture of peace” is more relevant and inspirational than ever before.

The Conference will set the context for evolving appropriate techniques, processes and indicators relating to the application of the EC framework and principles within the larger canvas of Education for Sustainable Development by reviewing and strengthening these principles and values. It will specifically identify the different areas of life and work across different sectors from international organizations and business enterprises to formal education with which such principles resonate.

A major focus of this conference is to explore the meaning of sustainable development and education for sustainable development through the lens of the Earth Charter, drawing on the experiences of a range of Earth Charter and other educators and activists

Thematic workshops at the conference will focus on the sustainability challenges faced by various sectors and how using the Earth Charter can help accelerate our much needed transition to a just, sustainable and peaceful future. Participants will explore how Earth Charter education for sustainable ways of living can help realize and deepen the emerging understanding of ESD in the context of the UN Decade of Education for Sustainable Development. Each workshop will include case studies of projects using the Earth Charter or other initiatives that combine values with sustainability.

Each workshop will involve

• Sharing of experiences and good practices.
• Exploring and clarifying how the Earth Charter as an ethical framework and guide to action can be used most effectively in each area.
• Exploring ways to develop the resources and tools needed to support EC activities in each area.
• Strengthen partnerships with the EC
• Capture the spirit of the events related to EC + 10 and to use the ideas to discuss and launch the vision for the EC for the next decade (2011-2020) 

A summary of the discussion at the workshops will be posted on the Conference website each day. Each workshop will come up with a final report on day three.The report will include a road map for the future and a set of recommendations for the Rio plus 20 Conference proposed in Brazil 2012, the end of the Decade of Education for Sustainable Development (DESD) Conference in Japan in 2014, as well as for the next decade of the Earth Charter 2010 - 2020.

Thursday, October 28, 2010

Blue economy

The Earth’s limited resources pose “carrying capacities” for populations of species – the number of individuals an environment can sustain. Yet through efficient use of resources and energy, and evolving clever mechanisms to adapt to and overcome environmental conditions and challenges, ecosystems have maximised the sustainable sizes of diverse populations. Nature constantly increases its efficiency and has proven to be the most economic actor of our planet.

The first industrial revolution lead to modern day pollution; the second industrial revolution allowed humans to grasp the extent of threat this destruction poses to our own lives: we have recklessly passed our carrying capacity. The general public feels helpless in finding a way out. Human production and consumption patterns are no longer sustainable.

Numerous examples around the world prove that we can imitate nature's designs, perfected over millions of years, in our own production – using the waste of one product as the input for another. These innovations will revolutionize the industries they are applied in, making consumption of those products a positive action. Thus, it will become possible to live in a sustainable way, responding to all basic needs for water, food, energy, health and shelter. Thinking in systems and cycles, we become metabolists – witness the dawn of the 3rd industrial revolution! 

The Principles of The Blue Economy

  1. Solutions are first and foremost based on physics. Deciding factors are Pressure and Temperature as found on site.
  2. Substitute something with Nothing – question any ressource regarding its necessity for production.
  3. Natural systems cascade nutrients, matter and energy – waste does not exist. Any by-product is the source for a new product.
  4. Nature evolved from few species to a rich biodiversity. Wealth means diversity. Industrial standardization is the contrary.
  5. Nature provides room for entrepreneurs who do more with less. Nature is contrary to monopolization.
  6. Gravity is main source of energy, solar energy is the second renewable fuel.
  7. Water is the primary solvent (no complex, chemical, toxic catalysts).
  8. In nature the constant is change. Innovations take place in every moment.
  9. Nature only works with what is locally available. Sustainable business evolves with respect not only for local ressources, but also for culture and tradition.
  10. Nature responds to basic needs and then evolves from sufficiency to abundance. The present economic model relies on scarcity as a basis for production and consumption.
  11. Natural systems are non-linear.
  12. In Nature everything is biodegradable – it is just a matter of time.
  13. In natural systems everything is connected and evolving towards symbiosis.
  14. In Nature water, air, and soil are the commons, free and abundant.
  15. In Nature one process generates multiple benefits.
  16. Natural systems share risks. Any risk is a motivator for innovations.
  17. Nature is efficient. So sustainable business maximizes use of available material and energy, which reduces the unit price for the consumer.
  18. Nature searches for the optimum for all involucrated elements.
  19. In Nature negatives are converted into positives. Problems are opportunities.
  20. Nature searches for economies of scope. One natural innovation carries various benefits for all.
  21. Respond to basic needs with what you have, introducing innovations inspired by nature, generating multiple benefits, including jobs and social capital, offering more with less: This is the Blue Economy.
http://www.community.blueeconomy.de/


    Vision and long-term planning make sustainable cities

    Forum for the Future’s annual Sustainable Cities Index tracks progress on sustainability in Britain’s 20 largest cities - highlighting their environmental performance, quality of life and their readiness for the challenges of the future.

    The index is intended to highlight and reward cities’ achievements, encourage healthy competition, and give citizens the tools to hold their leaders to account. It attracts considerable media attention, raising awareness of what it means to be a sustainable city.

    Newcastle is the leader for the second year running and Bristol and Brighton topped the table in 2008 and 2007. The index has succeeded in showcasing what they have achieved to their citizens and to other cities.
    “Forum for the Future’s Sustainable Cities Index has driven real change by inspiring cities to adopt more ambitious sustainability strategies and by providing a framework against which they can benchmark their efforts.” Margaret Eaton, Chairman, Local Government Association
    We measure 13 indicators in three broad baskets:
    • Environmental impact – the city’s impact in terms of resource use and pollution;
    • Quality of life – what the city is like for people to live in;
    • Future-proofing – how well the city is preparing for a sustainable future.
    The indicators are designed to give a snapshot of sustainability in each city and chosen to reflect areas in which local authorities have the power to enhance the sustainability of their city.

    The index has also gone international. Darwin topped the first Australian index, which was compiled by the Australian Conservation Foundation adapting Forum's methodology.

    The 2010 results
    Download the Sustainable Cities Index 2010

    Cities with strong visions of a successful future lead the 2010 Sustainable Cities Index which is sponsored by GE.

    Newcastle, top for the second year running, and Leicester, in second place, are outpacing rivals Brighton, Bristol and London. But all five have set themselves ambitious targets and are guided by long-term visions of how to improve life for their citizens by reducing their impact on the environment and seizing new opportunities in the green economy.

    Newcastle, which was eighth in 2007, has extended its lead over a tight cluster of four rivals. “Sustainability is right at the top of our agenda, and we intend to keep it there,” said Barry Rowland, Chief Executive of Newcastle City Council.

    It has placed itself at the centre of an increasingly vibrant clean tech cluster in the North East and aims to become a world class centre of science and innovation, benefiting economically and socially from the green economy. It aspires to become the UK’s “electric car capital” and has started installing 580 charging points in the region.

    Leicester, in 14th place four years ago, is second and leads on environmental performance. It has the lowest ecological footprint, produces the least household waste and is best at managing its biodiversity. It has a strong climate change plan, a high recycling rate and an emerging new business sector pursuing opportunities in sustainability and environmental management.

    Brighton, third, scores well for quality of life and future-proofing, with a healthy, highly skilled population and a vibrant economy, but high-consumption lifestyles give it the worst ecological footprint of any city.
    Bristol falls to fourth place but retains the top spot in the quality of life basket, with a low unemployment rate, highly skilled and qualified residents, and improving school standards.

    London is fifth and comes top on future-proofing with strong new plans to reduce emissions and adapt to climate change and the highest level of business start-ups. It has the longest life expectancy, but by far the worst air quality and one of the largest ecological footprints.

    Overall city rankings
    Click on city for detailed factsheet.  
    2010 rank (2009) [2008] {2007} 
    1. Newcastle -----(1)-------[4]------{8}
    2. Leicester-------(4)-------[8]-----{14}
    3. Brighton--------(3)-------[2]------{1}
    4. Bristol-----------(2)-------[1]------{3}
    5. London---------(5)-------[9]-----{10}
    6. Leeds-----------(6)------[13]------{5}
    7. Coventry------(11)-----[14]-----{17}
    8. Plymouth------(12)------[3]------{4}
    9. Edinburgh------(7)-------[6]------{2}
    10. Sheffield--------(9)-------[7]------{7}
    11. Cardiff---------(10)-------[5]------{6}
    12. Nottingham----(8)------[10=]---{11}
    13. Manchester---(14)-----[15]-----{12}
    14. Liverpool------(15)-----[17]------{20}
    15. Birmingham--(17)----[19]------{19}
    16. Sunderland---(13)-----[12]------{13}
    17. Derby – First year in index
    18. Bradford------(16)-----[10=]-----{9}
    19. Glasgow------(19)-----[18]------{15}
    20. Hull------------(20)-----[20]------{18} 

    Vision and long-term planning make sustainable cities

    Newcastle has extended its lead as Britain’s most sustainable major city, we announce today. What makes a city sustainable and what progress are our cities making?

    Forum for the Future’s annual Sustainable Cities Index ranks Britain’s 20 largest cities on their environmental performance, quality of life and how well they are preparing for the challenges of the future.

    Newcastle takes the top spot for the second year in a row, followed by the same four cities as last year: Leicester, Brighton, Bristol and London with only the smallest of margins between their overall scores, although their strengths and weaknesses lie in different areas.

    These leading cities have not always performed well... it takes time, vision and long-term planning.  What they have in common is high aspirations, strong governance structures and civic leaders who see sustainability as a priority. A supportive population also helps – Brighton has the UK’s first Green Party MP, while Bristol, Brighton and London all have green party councillors.

    Since we started the index in 2007 most cities have improved in most areas. We look at 13 indicators – from air quality to action on climate change – and 11 have improved. The exceptions are employment, which has followed national trends, and provision of allotments, which has seen a slight decline  potentially because urban space is at a premium and recent planning and development policy has driven inner city regeneration.
    But it's the places that are improving faster than average that move up the ranks.  Newcastle was eighth in 2007, Leicester has moved from 14th to 2nd in the same time and Coventry from 17th to 7th.

    One disturbing trend that has emerged is the widening gap between the top and bottom performers. Those already performing relatively well are improving faster than others which have the furthest to go.

    And none of Britain's cities can in any way be complacent.  We have a long way to go to match the best from across the globe, such as Freiburg in Germany, Stockholm in Sweden or Whistler in Canada.

    It’s important that cities now accelerate the speed of change to a low-carbon economy, and low-impact future, that supports the complexity and diversity of our collective and individual needs.