What do you think?
Rate this book
The Upcycle: Beyond Sustainability--Designing for Abundance
From the authors of Cradle to Cradle , we learn what's The Upcycle
The Upcycle is the eagerly awaited follow-up to Cradle to Cradle , one of the most consequential ecological manifestoes of our time. Now, drawing on the green living lessons gained from 10 years of putting the Cradle to Cradle concept into practice with businesses, governments, and ordinary people, William McDonough and Michael Braungart envision the next step in the solution to our ecological We don't just use or reuse and recycle resources with greater effectiveness, we actually improve the natural world as we live, create, and build.
For McDonough and Braungart, the questions of resource scarcity and sustainability are questions of design. They are practical-minded They envision beneficial designs of products, buildings, and business practices—and they show us these ideas being put to use around the world as everyday objects like chairs, cars, and factories are being reimagined not just to sustain life on the planet but to grow it . It is an eye-opening, inspiring tour of our green future as it unfolds in front of us.
The Upcycle is as ambitious as such classics as Rachel Carson's Silent Spring —but its mission is very different. McDonough and Braungart want to turn on its head our very understanding of the human role on Instead of protecting the planet from human impact, why not redesign our activity to improve the environment? We can have a beneficial, sustainable footprint. Abundance for all. The goal is within our reach.
The Upcycle is the eagerly awaited follow-up to Cradle to Cradle , one of the most consequential ecological manifestoes of our time. Now, drawing on the green living lessons gained from 10 years of putting the Cradle to Cradle concept into practice with businesses, governments, and ordinary people, William McDonough and Michael Braungart envision the next step in the solution to our ecological We don't just use or reuse and recycle resources with greater effectiveness, we actually improve the natural world as we live, create, and build.
For McDonough and Braungart, the questions of resource scarcity and sustainability are questions of design. They are practical-minded They envision beneficial designs of products, buildings, and business practices—and they show us these ideas being put to use around the world as everyday objects like chairs, cars, and factories are being reimagined not just to sustain life on the planet but to grow it . It is an eye-opening, inspiring tour of our green future as it unfolds in front of us.
The Upcycle is as ambitious as such classics as Rachel Carson's Silent Spring —but its mission is very different. McDonough and Braungart want to turn on its head our very understanding of the human role on Instead of protecting the planet from human impact, why not redesign our activity to improve the environment? We can have a beneficial, sustainable footprint. Abundance for all. The goal is within our reach.
257 pages, Kindle Edition
First published April 16, 2013
181 people are currently reading
3564 people want to read
About the author
William McDonough
18 books126 followersWilliam Andrews McDonough is an American architect and academic. McDonough is the founding principal of William McDonough + Partners and was the dean of the School of Architecture at the University of Virginia. He works in green and sustainable architecture, often incorporating his theory of cradle-to-cradle design.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 116 reviews
August 6, 2013
In The Upcycle: Beyond Sustainability-Designing for Abundance , the author’s argue that companies can solve all of our environmental woes through better design of their products. The book somewhat builds upon their earlier publication Cradle to Cradle, though it’s more a reiteration of the same principles presented in this earlier work.
McDonough and Braungart’s contention is that if every product and process were designed in a way that they not only did not create pollution, but actually benefited the environment, then we’d ride a virtuous circle to a healthy planet. Of course, if pigs had wings, saddles and the maneuvering capabilities of a jet fighter it would make the morning commute a heck of a lot more fun, but we’ve got quite a ways to go before this dream becomes a reality as well.
As an environmentalist, I fully support the measures that the authors are proposing. Renewable energy, non-toxic raw materials, design for re-use are good ideas. By looking at the entire lifecycle of an object it would be possible to benefit and even improve the environment. Who wouldn’t want that? Though the goal is a noble one, I found the book and its ideas to be rather a mess. Here are but a few reasons why.
1. McDonough and Braungart poo-poo environmental regulations despite the fact that they have a long and proven track record of success. Why is the air quality in Beijing so much worse than that of any US city? Because the protections afforded under the Clean Air Act do not permit companies to pollute indiscriminately. China has no such regulatory oversight.
In 1948 twenty residents died and 14,000 were sickened when a toxic cloud emitted from U.S. Steel's Donora Zinc Works and its American Steel & Wire plant engulfed the mill town of Donora, Pennsylvania.
Between 1868 and 1969 the Cuyahoga River in Northeast Ohio caught fire 13 times.
These environmental disasters no longer occur in the US, not thanks to ‘upcycling’, or better design, but due to the Clean Air and Clean Water Acts. Environmental regulations may not solve every problem, but they are effective at solving some problems. The authors should acknowledge this fact, but they don’t because …
2. McDonough and Braungart are in the business of selling their message to corporations; and some corporations don’t like regulatory requirements or having pollution controls imposed upon them.
Here’s the thing though, when it comes to environmental protections, we should use the best evidence available to determine what works rather than rely on a preconceived solution. In some cases environmental regulations may be the best approach, in others recycling, conservation, or even improved design. By taking environmental regulation off the table, the authors reveal that they are not so much interested in solving environment problems, but in selling their particular product. I’m not saying that their product is bad, but only that it is of limited use (as I’ll describe).
This also makes the book read as if it were an extended sales pitch for cradle to cradle certification (which the authors operate). The book is replete with their buzzwords, but instead of ‘just set it and forget it’ we’re treated endlessly to ‘upcycle’, ‘downcycle’, ‘technical nutrient’ and ‘cradle to cradle’. The book has the unsubtle whiff of self-promotional advertising copy.
3. The unflaggingly cheery examples McDonough and Braungart use in the book to illustrate their points may sound good in a corporate boardroom, but they are often nonsensical. By way of example …
The author’s state that a goal of zero emissions from a manufacturing facility is a silly thing because trees emit oxygen and we wouldn’t want zero emissions from trees would we? (I feel like I have to say in all seriousness that I’m not making this up or exaggerating their point in any way). So … at the risk of stating the obvious, when an individual speaks in terms of zero emissions … they are referring to air pollutants. You know … things like benzene, mercury, soot and compounds that form smog. These substances are considered pollutants because they negatively impact people’s health. Oxygen is not a pollutant (obviously), and it is not regulated as a pollutant. The analogy between a manufacturing operation emitting pollution and a tree emitting oxygen is blinkered.
What this illustrates is the author’s desperate attempt to spin pollution (something viewed negatively) in a positive, business-friendly way. And again, this gets back to my second point, they are selling their wares to corporations, and businesses don’t like to hear that they are polluters, that they negatively affect people’s health or that they are wasting/depleting resources.
4. McDonough and Braungart repeatedly speak out of both sides of their faces. A few examples:
They extoll Wal-mart's renewable energy initiative (that’s fine, this behavior should be encouraged), but are silent as to the company’s other practices. For example, the company sells cotton clothing in the US that was made in China and Bangladesh, from cotton grown in the US. Surely, an energy efficient strategy would not involve a trip around the world prior to sale. They also fail to mention how Wal-Mart rates with regards to the author’s stated goal of ‘social fairness’. Perhaps we should ask the survivors of the Bangladesh garment factory fire?
The authors decry CO2 cap and trade regulations in one breath then admit that carbon offsets provide a powerful incentive for renewable energy in the next. They can’t have it both ways.
They propose sweeping change over incremental improvements (making something “less bad”), but everything that they are suggesting in reality is entirely incremental in nature. In fact the C-2-C certification program that they founded is based on incremental improvements.
5. The solutions that McDonough and Braungart are proposing are completely conventional ... renewable energy, non-toxic manufacturing processes, design for reuse. All of these solutions are either partly or wholly available right now. We could cover the country in solar panels and windmills, start driving all electric cars, reconfigure all manufacturing processes to eliminate pollution. So, one must ask, why isn’t this being done? Cost and competitiveness are key to operating a successful business. Even a small cost or market advantage can translate into big profits. So you can be sure that if the things that McDonough and Braungart are proposing worked, they would be readily adopted in practice. Part of this is surely a failure of imagination, but the heart of the matter is that these problems are incredibly difficult, costly to solve and require infrastructure that doesn’t currently exist.
New and safer technologies are adopted when they have been proven to work and shown to be profitable. But McDonough and Braungart’s ideas often rely on voluntary measures, immature technology or strategies that aren’t scalable or cost effective. There is no better example than that of their first book Cradle to Cradle which they printed using recyclable plastic. Plastic books have utterly failed to replace paper books in the marketplace. This idea simply wasn’t ready for prime time. With The Upcycle the authors went back to paper. Though they chose the most environmentally friendly materials they felt were available they could have eliminated the impact on the environment entirely had they chosen to distribute the print and audio book solely through electronic means. What this shows is that they are more interested in sales than the environment. That’s fine, but guess what … this is the same priority of every other business. When forced to choose between $$ and the environment, businesses will choose $$ every time, which of course is why McDonough and Braungart’s voluntary measures are so woefully inadequate to the problem at hand.
This brings us to what I perceive as the biggest problem with the book. The intent of the ideas presented in The Upcycle is to re-invent manufacturing such that all activities lead in a virtuous circle of bettering the environment so that everyone can live in abundance, all the time. Upcycling, they claim, both heals the planet and provides the answer to all of our material needs. As a result, it obviates the need for individuals to change their behavior, sacrifice anything meaningful or be inconvenienced in any way.
But here’s the thing, solving hard problems requires hard work and difficult choices, which in turn often requires sacrifice. If development of sensitive wetlands destroys ecosystems that migratory birds rely on for survival, we may have to stop turning their habitat into condominiums in order to preserve these species. The best solutions to environmental problems should be implemented. If sacrifice, regulations, population curtailment, or end of pipe control measures turn out to be the best solution and they are taken off the table as the authors propose, then ‘having it all’ is nothing but a dangerous delusion.
We truly have become both soft in body and mind if we neither want to do the hard work required to solve our problems or be told inconvenient truths about the negative consequences of our behaviors. It’s this type of symptomatic dysfunction that has infected every aspect of our social and political processes. If the promises of ‘upcycling’ turn out to be empty or overblown (as I believe is the case), then the book is nothing more than an enabling tool for bad behavior, and an excuse to pass the buck. Instead of taking personal action to reduce waste, consumption, pollution, and our heavy footprint on the planet, I fear this book will enable people to rationalize away personal responsibility. Nothing is required of us if we believe upcycling provides the solution to all the planets ills. Yet, like the plastic book itself, upcycling has simply not shown that it is up to the task.
McDonough and Braungart’s contention is that if every product and process were designed in a way that they not only did not create pollution, but actually benefited the environment, then we’d ride a virtuous circle to a healthy planet. Of course, if pigs had wings, saddles and the maneuvering capabilities of a jet fighter it would make the morning commute a heck of a lot more fun, but we’ve got quite a ways to go before this dream becomes a reality as well.
As an environmentalist, I fully support the measures that the authors are proposing. Renewable energy, non-toxic raw materials, design for re-use are good ideas. By looking at the entire lifecycle of an object it would be possible to benefit and even improve the environment. Who wouldn’t want that? Though the goal is a noble one, I found the book and its ideas to be rather a mess. Here are but a few reasons why.
1. McDonough and Braungart poo-poo environmental regulations despite the fact that they have a long and proven track record of success. Why is the air quality in Beijing so much worse than that of any US city? Because the protections afforded under the Clean Air Act do not permit companies to pollute indiscriminately. China has no such regulatory oversight.
In 1948 twenty residents died and 14,000 were sickened when a toxic cloud emitted from U.S. Steel's Donora Zinc Works and its American Steel & Wire plant engulfed the mill town of Donora, Pennsylvania.
Between 1868 and 1969 the Cuyahoga River in Northeast Ohio caught fire 13 times.
These environmental disasters no longer occur in the US, not thanks to ‘upcycling’, or better design, but due to the Clean Air and Clean Water Acts. Environmental regulations may not solve every problem, but they are effective at solving some problems. The authors should acknowledge this fact, but they don’t because …
2. McDonough and Braungart are in the business of selling their message to corporations; and some corporations don’t like regulatory requirements or having pollution controls imposed upon them.
Here’s the thing though, when it comes to environmental protections, we should use the best evidence available to determine what works rather than rely on a preconceived solution. In some cases environmental regulations may be the best approach, in others recycling, conservation, or even improved design. By taking environmental regulation off the table, the authors reveal that they are not so much interested in solving environment problems, but in selling their particular product. I’m not saying that their product is bad, but only that it is of limited use (as I’ll describe).
This also makes the book read as if it were an extended sales pitch for cradle to cradle certification (which the authors operate). The book is replete with their buzzwords, but instead of ‘just set it and forget it’ we’re treated endlessly to ‘upcycle’, ‘downcycle’, ‘technical nutrient’ and ‘cradle to cradle’. The book has the unsubtle whiff of self-promotional advertising copy.
3. The unflaggingly cheery examples McDonough and Braungart use in the book to illustrate their points may sound good in a corporate boardroom, but they are often nonsensical. By way of example …
The author’s state that a goal of zero emissions from a manufacturing facility is a silly thing because trees emit oxygen and we wouldn’t want zero emissions from trees would we? (I feel like I have to say in all seriousness that I’m not making this up or exaggerating their point in any way). So … at the risk of stating the obvious, when an individual speaks in terms of zero emissions … they are referring to air pollutants. You know … things like benzene, mercury, soot and compounds that form smog. These substances are considered pollutants because they negatively impact people’s health. Oxygen is not a pollutant (obviously), and it is not regulated as a pollutant. The analogy between a manufacturing operation emitting pollution and a tree emitting oxygen is blinkered.
What this illustrates is the author’s desperate attempt to spin pollution (something viewed negatively) in a positive, business-friendly way. And again, this gets back to my second point, they are selling their wares to corporations, and businesses don’t like to hear that they are polluters, that they negatively affect people’s health or that they are wasting/depleting resources.
4. McDonough and Braungart repeatedly speak out of both sides of their faces. A few examples:
They extoll Wal-mart's renewable energy initiative (that’s fine, this behavior should be encouraged), but are silent as to the company’s other practices. For example, the company sells cotton clothing in the US that was made in China and Bangladesh, from cotton grown in the US. Surely, an energy efficient strategy would not involve a trip around the world prior to sale. They also fail to mention how Wal-Mart rates with regards to the author’s stated goal of ‘social fairness’. Perhaps we should ask the survivors of the Bangladesh garment factory fire?
The authors decry CO2 cap and trade regulations in one breath then admit that carbon offsets provide a powerful incentive for renewable energy in the next. They can’t have it both ways.
They propose sweeping change over incremental improvements (making something “less bad”), but everything that they are suggesting in reality is entirely incremental in nature. In fact the C-2-C certification program that they founded is based on incremental improvements.
5. The solutions that McDonough and Braungart are proposing are completely conventional ... renewable energy, non-toxic manufacturing processes, design for reuse. All of these solutions are either partly or wholly available right now. We could cover the country in solar panels and windmills, start driving all electric cars, reconfigure all manufacturing processes to eliminate pollution. So, one must ask, why isn’t this being done? Cost and competitiveness are key to operating a successful business. Even a small cost or market advantage can translate into big profits. So you can be sure that if the things that McDonough and Braungart are proposing worked, they would be readily adopted in practice. Part of this is surely a failure of imagination, but the heart of the matter is that these problems are incredibly difficult, costly to solve and require infrastructure that doesn’t currently exist.
New and safer technologies are adopted when they have been proven to work and shown to be profitable. But McDonough and Braungart’s ideas often rely on voluntary measures, immature technology or strategies that aren’t scalable or cost effective. There is no better example than that of their first book Cradle to Cradle which they printed using recyclable plastic. Plastic books have utterly failed to replace paper books in the marketplace. This idea simply wasn’t ready for prime time. With The Upcycle the authors went back to paper. Though they chose the most environmentally friendly materials they felt were available they could have eliminated the impact on the environment entirely had they chosen to distribute the print and audio book solely through electronic means. What this shows is that they are more interested in sales than the environment. That’s fine, but guess what … this is the same priority of every other business. When forced to choose between $$ and the environment, businesses will choose $$ every time, which of course is why McDonough and Braungart’s voluntary measures are so woefully inadequate to the problem at hand.
This brings us to what I perceive as the biggest problem with the book. The intent of the ideas presented in The Upcycle is to re-invent manufacturing such that all activities lead in a virtuous circle of bettering the environment so that everyone can live in abundance, all the time. Upcycling, they claim, both heals the planet and provides the answer to all of our material needs. As a result, it obviates the need for individuals to change their behavior, sacrifice anything meaningful or be inconvenienced in any way.
But here’s the thing, solving hard problems requires hard work and difficult choices, which in turn often requires sacrifice. If development of sensitive wetlands destroys ecosystems that migratory birds rely on for survival, we may have to stop turning their habitat into condominiums in order to preserve these species. The best solutions to environmental problems should be implemented. If sacrifice, regulations, population curtailment, or end of pipe control measures turn out to be the best solution and they are taken off the table as the authors propose, then ‘having it all’ is nothing but a dangerous delusion.
We truly have become both soft in body and mind if we neither want to do the hard work required to solve our problems or be told inconvenient truths about the negative consequences of our behaviors. It’s this type of symptomatic dysfunction that has infected every aspect of our social and political processes. If the promises of ‘upcycling’ turn out to be empty or overblown (as I believe is the case), then the book is nothing more than an enabling tool for bad behavior, and an excuse to pass the buck. Instead of taking personal action to reduce waste, consumption, pollution, and our heavy footprint on the planet, I fear this book will enable people to rationalize away personal responsibility. Nothing is required of us if we believe upcycling provides the solution to all the planets ills. Yet, like the plastic book itself, upcycling has simply not shown that it is up to the task.
January 17, 2021
I read Cradle to Cradle (an earlier book written by the same authors) few years ago and loved it. I want to preface this review with saying that Cradle to Cradle was incredibly influential in my personal life journey in looking at the world in the ways in which it can be redesigned and reimagined. I appreciate that the authors aren't afraid to *really* reimagine the way products are created. There were a few moments in this book that I really enjoyed reading including two different sections: batteries and human waste management (wastewater could provide phosphate for farmers to create needed fertilizer for their fields).
Unfortunately, the book felt like a sales pitch for the authors' company in a way that felt misplaced. The organization felt disjointed and I couldn't really tell what they wanted to achieve with the book that wasn't already achieved in Cradle to Cradle or that could have been achieved with an updated version of Cradle to Cradle. I felt like there was a missed opportunity for a discussion for how the values and principles presented in the book were influenced by or how they overlap with Indigenous perspectives.
I would definitely recommend Cradle to Cradle over this book if you were to choose between the two!
Unfortunately, the book felt like a sales pitch for the authors' company in a way that felt misplaced. The organization felt disjointed and I couldn't really tell what they wanted to achieve with the book that wasn't already achieved in Cradle to Cradle or that could have been achieved with an updated version of Cradle to Cradle. I felt like there was a missed opportunity for a discussion for how the values and principles presented in the book were influenced by or how they overlap with Indigenous perspectives.
I would definitely recommend Cradle to Cradle over this book if you were to choose between the two!
December 29, 2013
This book had some interesting ideas about sustainability, and I am not really in a position to criticize their recommendations on scientific grounds. The overall message is that better design, with an eye to not only human needs but also human desires, is the primary solution to our environmental woes. As the authors note, we tend to design for the first use, not for perpetual use. There is a plethora of optimism in the book, such as in McDonough and Braungart's claim that "we don’t have an energy problem, we have a materials-in-the-wrong-place problem."
That said, we're on Goodreads, and I thought I'd note that this book is repetitive and, at times, ideologically thin. The style is one of exhortation with example citation. Interesting examples make the book readable, but I would not praise this as being an all-inclusive "philosophical work" on how to reorient ourselves toward the environment. The authors' style does not back this optimism up: the argument essentially goes "We did [insert some self-promotional example]; therefore, it is the solution to the sustainability problem." But this doesn't follow. I could imagine people reading this book and concluding: "Government regulation and personal restraint are secondary considerations to obtaining products better designed to meet our every desire." This might be true, but there's no argument for it.
However, if the book is merely a reorientation towards how we engineer things, then it certainly deserves praise, as does its predecessor.
That said, we're on Goodreads, and I thought I'd note that this book is repetitive and, at times, ideologically thin. The style is one of exhortation with example citation. Interesting examples make the book readable, but I would not praise this as being an all-inclusive "philosophical work" on how to reorient ourselves toward the environment. The authors' style does not back this optimism up: the argument essentially goes "We did [insert some self-promotional example]; therefore, it is the solution to the sustainability problem." But this doesn't follow. I could imagine people reading this book and concluding: "Government regulation and personal restraint are secondary considerations to obtaining products better designed to meet our every desire." This might be true, but there's no argument for it.
However, if the book is merely a reorientation towards how we engineer things, then it certainly deserves praise, as does its predecessor.
March 31, 2022
3.67 stars (rounded up). Conflicting feelings about this one.
I present to you: the diluted version of Cradle to Cradle, complete with financial ice cubes and a call to action garnish.
PT: environmental sci books, books recommended by a friend (hi Michael!), books that have been on my TBR for too long
WIL
1) success stories. It's so nice to win in environmental problems. We never hear about the design success stories these days. It's always error correction and acknowledgment of flaws that need redesign rather than a celebration of success. Yay for that!
2) implementable ideas. OHHHH THERE'S SO MANY IDEA SPRINGBOARDS HERE. SO SO many ideas to further research and consider from multiple angles. (see 3)
3) spitballing. If there's one thing architects are known for, it's their ability to spitball and brainstorm to the moon and back. This book truly demonstrates an architect's spirit. McDonough and Braungart have distilled design and systems thinking down to an art and converted it into this book. It's a fascinating look at the most hopeful version of a world that could be.
4) there's hope yet. This is the first modern environmental/sustainability text I've read that has a distinctly optimistic perspective. A nice change from the depressing and nearly fatalistic take provided by most modern environmental lit.
WIDL
1) unobjective "objectivity." The authors are, understandably, biased. They own and operate a company that's responsible for basically being a more functional EPA (I said what I said). Their mission seems morally sound and their principles are thorough, but this book never acknowledges their flaws. The Upcycle is just a whole bunch of pages trying to sell the reader on the Cradle to Cradle company. The text doesn't acknowledge this purpose directly, so it just comes off as trying to be sneaky about selling C2C, and the authors, in my mind, lose some of their credibility as a result. There is little to no evaluation of C2C's flaws, and it is treated as the ultimate source of environmental awareness. C2C is ahead of the game, but it's not omniscient.
2) Expand! So much covered in this book, but so little was really *FULLY* explained. I love that there are a million and one ideas here, but I'd love it even more if the explanations covered some more depth.
3) for the emitters. This book isn't really designed for the environmentalists and conservationists so much as it is designed to sway a financially-conscious individual to consider alternate (environmental) perspectives. It spends a significant amount of words on explaining the financials of upcycling when it probably should've dedicated that material to a different book altogether. It was, I'm sure, the authors' way of trying to hold the attention of their target audience, but man was it dry
NEUTRAL GROUND
1) Advertisement manual for Cradle to Cradle. This point here is the major source of my conflicting opinions. On the one hand, McDonough and Braungart have every right to brag about their company and their achievements; they've done some incredible things! On the other, maybe this book wasn't the place for that. I was expecting a more,, diverse collection of sustainable ideas and products represented here. This basically just amounted to a summary of what Cradle to Cradle (the company/institution) has been doing of late. (It reads a bit like one of those company handbooks you'd find at a reception desk while you wait to meet with a staff member.)
2) downplaying urgency. This is another source of conflict. While it's great to see an environmental text that isn't quite so *loud* in its proclamations of doom, this one does tend to undersell the situation we're in.
3) man do I love carbon capture methods that feed directly into algae tanks that in turn become biofuel. This is here, rather than in WIL, because this was mentioned only in brief and I really really wish it had gotten more attention.
(3.75 stars on Storygraph)
I present to you: the diluted version of Cradle to Cradle, complete with financial ice cubes and a call to action garnish.
PT: environmental sci books, books recommended by a friend (hi Michael!), books that have been on my TBR for too long
WIL
1) success stories. It's so nice to win in environmental problems. We never hear about the design success stories these days. It's always error correction and acknowledgment of flaws that need redesign rather than a celebration of success. Yay for that!
2) implementable ideas. OHHHH THERE'S SO MANY IDEA SPRINGBOARDS HERE. SO SO many ideas to further research and consider from multiple angles. (see 3)
3) spitballing. If there's one thing architects are known for, it's their ability to spitball and brainstorm to the moon and back. This book truly demonstrates an architect's spirit. McDonough and Braungart have distilled design and systems thinking down to an art and converted it into this book. It's a fascinating look at the most hopeful version of a world that could be.
4) there's hope yet. This is the first modern environmental/sustainability text I've read that has a distinctly optimistic perspective. A nice change from the depressing and nearly fatalistic take provided by most modern environmental lit.
WIDL
1) unobjective "objectivity." The authors are, understandably, biased. They own and operate a company that's responsible for basically being a more functional EPA (I said what I said). Their mission seems morally sound and their principles are thorough, but this book never acknowledges their flaws. The Upcycle is just a whole bunch of pages trying to sell the reader on the Cradle to Cradle company. The text doesn't acknowledge this purpose directly, so it just comes off as trying to be sneaky about selling C2C, and the authors, in my mind, lose some of their credibility as a result. There is little to no evaluation of C2C's flaws, and it is treated as the ultimate source of environmental awareness. C2C is ahead of the game, but it's not omniscient.
2) Expand! So much covered in this book, but so little was really *FULLY* explained. I love that there are a million and one ideas here, but I'd love it even more if the explanations covered some more depth.
3) for the emitters. This book isn't really designed for the environmentalists and conservationists so much as it is designed to sway a financially-conscious individual to consider alternate (environmental) perspectives. It spends a significant amount of words on explaining the financials of upcycling when it probably should've dedicated that material to a different book altogether. It was, I'm sure, the authors' way of trying to hold the attention of their target audience, but man was it dry
NEUTRAL GROUND
1) Advertisement manual for Cradle to Cradle. This point here is the major source of my conflicting opinions. On the one hand, McDonough and Braungart have every right to brag about their company and their achievements; they've done some incredible things! On the other, maybe this book wasn't the place for that. I was expecting a more,, diverse collection of sustainable ideas and products represented here. This basically just amounted to a summary of what Cradle to Cradle (the company/institution) has been doing of late. (It reads a bit like one of those company handbooks you'd find at a reception desk while you wait to meet with a staff member.)
2) downplaying urgency. This is another source of conflict. While it's great to see an environmental text that isn't quite so *loud* in its proclamations of doom, this one does tend to undersell the situation we're in.
3) man do I love carbon capture methods that feed directly into algae tanks that in turn become biofuel. This is here, rather than in WIL, because this was mentioned only in brief and I really really wish it had gotten more attention.
(3.75 stars on Storygraph)
June 23, 2013
If someone has told you to read Cradle to Cradle, but you haven't yet, just read this instead. Newer, clearer explanations of the same material.
This book is great content wise. The ideas of how to think about products, resources, etc. are all wonderful. However, I think this is still too naive that all we need to change is the way we go about working in our current consumerist culture, not analyzing the idea that we should and can just consume whatever we want.
This book when combined with “Flourishing: A Frank Conversation about Sustainability” (http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/16...) can yield some excellent discussion, thinking, and cobinatorial viewpoints that can make you think about how and what your “designs” are made of, as well as why you should be designing them in the first place.
Upcycle, like cradle-to-cradle before it, still don't ever really analyze the why you're making things other than that you are a business that makes things... That is unacceptable to me in the greater strive towards sustainability. That said, if you are making stuff, please read this and use their thoughts and directives to help you analyze your decisions and materials.
Good stuff; not quite great stuff.
This book is great content wise. The ideas of how to think about products, resources, etc. are all wonderful. However, I think this is still too naive that all we need to change is the way we go about working in our current consumerist culture, not analyzing the idea that we should and can just consume whatever we want.
This book when combined with “Flourishing: A Frank Conversation about Sustainability” (http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/16...) can yield some excellent discussion, thinking, and cobinatorial viewpoints that can make you think about how and what your “designs” are made of, as well as why you should be designing them in the first place.
Upcycle, like cradle-to-cradle before it, still don't ever really analyze the why you're making things other than that you are a business that makes things... That is unacceptable to me in the greater strive towards sustainability. That said, if you are making stuff, please read this and use their thoughts and directives to help you analyze your decisions and materials.
Good stuff; not quite great stuff.
May 20, 2013
Finally an environmental book with a positive message.
Theirs is a simple idea really: prevent environmental damage by designing things properly from the start to use only those chemicals that won't ever present a problem. Not as simple as it sounds, but as more companies embrace the idea, recalcitrant companies will be forced to since costs will be lower.
The smartest ideas are always the simplest.
Theirs is a simple idea really: prevent environmental damage by designing things properly from the start to use only those chemicals that won't ever present a problem. Not as simple as it sounds, but as more companies embrace the idea, recalcitrant companies will be forced to since costs will be lower.
The smartest ideas are always the simplest.
March 21, 2021
Es hat ein paar Längen und hier und da ein paar (zu) lange Sätze. Daher die vier Sternchen. Das vorgestellte Konzept und Botschaft sind großartig, ururenkeltauglich und zehn Sterne wert. Wir können es besser, also lasst uns nicht das Schlechte reduzieren sondern mit dem Guten beginnen.
January 2, 2020
I find this book inspiring and it challenges me to think more broadly about product design and the potential societal good of manufacturing. Time to be the change from within...
February 4, 2014
The thesis of "The Upcycle" is that...well, here's a quote: "Abundance -- of us, of our products -- is not the scourge: Society can accommodate and encourage even hundreds of thousands of products, from thousands of cultures, and even honor every one of the 10 billion people predicted to be here later in the century."
McDonough and Braungart posit that the idea of lowering one's carbon footprint is a bit too negative, too pessimistic. Instead, humans should seek to add sustainable abundance through intelligent and sustainable use of resources. Just as billions or trillions of ants, for example, exist on earth by contributing to its natural fecundity, so can humans, as when we compost and create fertile soil where none existed, add to the positive environment of earth.
It's a seductive line of thought, especially if you've ever had the sneaking suspicion that the best thing you can do for the environment is, well, die.
But it also gives me pause, and I would love for someone more biologically-trained to take up this question: don't even animal species exceed carrying capacity and endure cataclysmic population crashes? Isn't there finally a limit to what humans, even the most up-cycling, biomass-enhancing, value-adding humans, can do to forestall that fate? Isn't the natural world, with its complete and self-restoring systems, of limited use, finally, as a parallel to the world we have created?
Man, I'd love to see what Bill McKibben would say about this book.
McDonough and Braungart posit that the idea of lowering one's carbon footprint is a bit too negative, too pessimistic. Instead, humans should seek to add sustainable abundance through intelligent and sustainable use of resources. Just as billions or trillions of ants, for example, exist on earth by contributing to its natural fecundity, so can humans, as when we compost and create fertile soil where none existed, add to the positive environment of earth.
It's a seductive line of thought, especially if you've ever had the sneaking suspicion that the best thing you can do for the environment is, well, die.
But it also gives me pause, and I would love for someone more biologically-trained to take up this question: don't even animal species exceed carrying capacity and endure cataclysmic population crashes? Isn't there finally a limit to what humans, even the most up-cycling, biomass-enhancing, value-adding humans, can do to forestall that fate? Isn't the natural world, with its complete and self-restoring systems, of limited use, finally, as a parallel to the world we have created?
Man, I'd love to see what Bill McKibben would say about this book.
April 4, 2017
McDonough and Braungart's follow up to their previous book, Cradle to Cradle, is a solid book to help think more critically and creatively about developing a more sustainable world through human efforts. They highlight a variety of work that is already being done with regards to upcycling and where more work can be done. At its core is the argument is that there isn't a "waste" problem insomuch as there is a design problem that we must think more proactively about design with the full cycle of the products resources and their long-lasting implications. From furniture to clothing to waste management (or more appropriately renamed, nutrient management), they show pathways to making human practices more sustainable.
If you enjoyed this review, feel free to check out my other reviews and writings at By Any Other Nerd /
If you enjoyed this review, feel free to check out my other reviews and writings at By Any Other Nerd /
June 3, 2013
One of the most hopeful books I have read in a long time. We not have an energy problem, we just have our resources in the wrong places. For instance, carbon is great for soil but not the atmosphere. With proper design, all currently scientifically possible, there will be no waste, just nutrients for other things. The sad part about reading such a positive book is it makes it harder to take the nonsense Republicans spew out every day, trying to do their job of winning power so they can further exploit the 99% for short term profit, not of making the nation better.
September 16, 2014
I like the sentiment. Really, I do. However, there is a lot of self-repetition, and gets a bit too syrupy in tone. Also, it doesn't really discuss the macroeconomics of the shift it proposes. Because it is speaking to business execs and bureaucrats, I think it should have better covered how to hurdle those kinds of obstacles rather than just the technical ones.
September 12, 2013
Love this book! Bill is spot on. We need to rethink our use of materials. It starts with being conscious of what we support with our buying power. Wide-scale adoption has a pretty big bell curve, lots of awareness and education needed in this area. Amen to the concept!
December 13, 2018
Enjoyed their first book which helped to introduce me to the concept of the ‘Circular Economy.’ This one wasn’t so good. Disjointed and lacking a clear thread, it wasn’t as valuable as I had hoped. Oh well. You win some, you lose some.
June 21, 2013
It is a just read for everyone. Truly inspiring ideas contains in this book. I enjoyed reading it. I can't wait to see more and more things upcycled!
June 10, 2013
My most often recommended book was Cradle to Cradle. Now it is the Upcycle. Upbeat and right on target. Read it, then change the world.
December 8, 2020
3.5 Stars
I didn't know what Cradle to Cradle Certified was until I read this book's intro; now I look for its label. I love the persistent theme and idea of this book - the circular economy. If you don't know what a circular economy is, a circular economy reduces waste and reuses resources many times over. The "cradle to grave" system, as Mcdonough and Braungart call it, is an example of a linear economy; a raw material gets mined, it gets manufactured, it gets used, and promptly goes into the landfill. A "cradle to cradle" system represents a circular economy; a resource gets extracted, it is manufactured using safe products, it gets used, it goes back to the manufacturer, the manufacturer makes it into something new, repeat the past three steps until you can repeat them no more, the raw material goes back into the ground.
Overall, I had mixed feelings about this book. Some of the overall concepts I loved deeply, but I didn't like all of the little details the authors added to it. For example:
"Less Bad is No Good (or, as I read it "less bad is not good")
I LOVE this quote. I think it is something often forgotten about within the environmentalist community, or even when one is just advocating for a better planet. Reducing your impact does not mean you are inherently doing good, you're just doing less bad, not good. Doing good is doing good. Of course, doing less bad is better than doing a lot of bad, but that does not make it good.
Where I defer from Mcdonough and Braungart in regards to this quote is excuses. I don't think that this idea should be used as an excuse to keep doing all your "bad" and hoping that by increasing your "good" should offset the bad. The authors criticized things like "zero waste" and "zero emissions" as foolish, which I think are noble goals. Of course, some of their examples for their points were, in and of themselves, foolish. For example, when they were criticizing "zero emissions" they talked about how trees produced emissions - oxygen emissions, and that's good ,right? Essentially they were "beating around the bush" (I forget what that logical fallacy is called in academic terms). What I think is that 1) doing "less bad" is not an excuse for doing little good, and 2) "doing good" is not an excuse for still doing bad.
The authors also seem to disagree with environmental governmental regulations, even though they're proven to work. It should be all sectors of the system that help. Industries need to be held accountable for their waste and emissions; individuals should too, for that matter (but especially multi-billion dollar companies).
I also think I'm being sold something throughout this book. I know both Mcdonough and Braungart work with major corporations to better the companies' impact on the world. Thus, I think they are sucking up, maybe a little, to these gigantic organizations. Yes, I do believe that these companies have a chance to do better - and that if they do, maybe we should, just a little, forgive them for their past mistakes (that being said, I do prefer to support [smaller] businesses who were designed to be ethical and sustainable from the start). When I inevitably forget something "sustainable" or run out of something before something more "sustainable" can arrive, I need somewhere to turn to for a quick solution without compromising my values. However, I do not like being told about "ethical" things just so I can be sold something. I hope that makes sense.
I know I criticized the book a lot, but its main points were pretty good, and I liked it! I really support a circular economy, I support a "no us vs. them" attitude, and the writing is pretty good for an academic book. The finer details is what spoil an otherwise good book. I think this book had some really great take home points. I'm glad my bookmark was an index card!
I didn't know what Cradle to Cradle Certified was until I read this book's intro; now I look for its label. I love the persistent theme and idea of this book - the circular economy. If you don't know what a circular economy is, a circular economy reduces waste and reuses resources many times over. The "cradle to grave" system, as Mcdonough and Braungart call it, is an example of a linear economy; a raw material gets mined, it gets manufactured, it gets used, and promptly goes into the landfill. A "cradle to cradle" system represents a circular economy; a resource gets extracted, it is manufactured using safe products, it gets used, it goes back to the manufacturer, the manufacturer makes it into something new, repeat the past three steps until you can repeat them no more, the raw material goes back into the ground.
Overall, I had mixed feelings about this book. Some of the overall concepts I loved deeply, but I didn't like all of the little details the authors added to it. For example:
"Less Bad is No Good (or, as I read it "less bad is not good")
I LOVE this quote. I think it is something often forgotten about within the environmentalist community, or even when one is just advocating for a better planet. Reducing your impact does not mean you are inherently doing good, you're just doing less bad, not good. Doing good is doing good. Of course, doing less bad is better than doing a lot of bad, but that does not make it good.
Where I defer from Mcdonough and Braungart in regards to this quote is excuses. I don't think that this idea should be used as an excuse to keep doing all your "bad" and hoping that by increasing your "good" should offset the bad. The authors criticized things like "zero waste" and "zero emissions" as foolish, which I think are noble goals. Of course, some of their examples for their points were, in and of themselves, foolish. For example, when they were criticizing "zero emissions" they talked about how trees produced emissions - oxygen emissions, and that's good ,right? Essentially they were "beating around the bush" (I forget what that logical fallacy is called in academic terms). What I think is that 1) doing "less bad" is not an excuse for doing little good, and 2) "doing good" is not an excuse for still doing bad.
The authors also seem to disagree with environmental governmental regulations, even though they're proven to work. It should be all sectors of the system that help. Industries need to be held accountable for their waste and emissions; individuals should too, for that matter (but especially multi-billion dollar companies).
I also think I'm being sold something throughout this book. I know both Mcdonough and Braungart work with major corporations to better the companies' impact on the world. Thus, I think they are sucking up, maybe a little, to these gigantic organizations. Yes, I do believe that these companies have a chance to do better - and that if they do, maybe we should, just a little, forgive them for their past mistakes (that being said, I do prefer to support [smaller] businesses who were designed to be ethical and sustainable from the start). When I inevitably forget something "sustainable" or run out of something before something more "sustainable" can arrive, I need somewhere to turn to for a quick solution without compromising my values. However, I do not like being told about "ethical" things just so I can be sold something. I hope that makes sense.
I know I criticized the book a lot, but its main points were pretty good, and I liked it! I really support a circular economy, I support a "no us vs. them" attitude, and the writing is pretty good for an academic book. The finer details is what spoil an otherwise good book. I think this book had some really great take home points. I'm glad my bookmark was an index card!
May 20, 2019
I read in an Arizona State University magazine that ASU President Michael Crow and William McDonough were named in Fortune Magazine as two of the top 50 leaders in the world. I am familiar with Michael Crow but not McDonough, so I bought the book.
I have an engineering background so the ideas presented seem quite logical to me, that is; everything that we make, eat, and buy is made of stuff from the "biosphere" (organic) or the "technosphere" (non-organic … metals, plastics, synthetics, engineered chemicals, etc.). The premise of the book is that we do not live in a world of scarcity … we live in a world of abundance where we don't pay enough attention to how we design what we use. If we approached design from the perspective that everything will be returned to the biosphere and technosphere one day our energy usage, pollution runoff from farms, and need for land and water cleanup would be dramatically reduced.
Great examples in the book and here are a few:
Raw Sewage: the thought of human waste being considered as toxic has been with us for centuries. The water treatments facilities we have in the US consume approximately 4% of our nation's energy. We now have real world city scale projects that purify the liquid naturally to cleaner than tap water and process the solids as fertilizer. Cities like Singapore and San Diego now call this "Nutrient Management". Lower power consumption, more available water, significantly reduced use of chemicals in treatment.
Soil erosion: we are depleting our topsoil at a rate nature cannot replenish so we artificially introduce minerals like phosphate. It turns out human raw sewage precipitates phosphates in crystalline form creating pipeline issues. The city of Vancouver has developed a mechanical "Vortex" device that causes the water to swirl in the pipelines and the mineral precipitation now comes out as pearls of phosphate known as Struvite. It turns out these pellets are ideal for farming as they are slow release and just what farmers need. Large scale "mining" of Struvite from our city wastewater systems would obviate the need for much of the phosphate plowed into farmer fields that runs off into our waterways creating algae blooms in our lakes. Cleaner water, healthy soil & crops, and less phosphate mining.
Large scale usage of Greenhouses and efficient land & nutrient management make the Netherlands hyper productive and 2nd only to the US in terms of value of agricultural exports. The keep their soil nutrients in a closed system, less water usage, and increased yields.
Mixing Biosphere & Technosphere: Carpets generate approximately 1.4 billion pounds of waste per year that goes to our landfills. The sticking point to returning these used materials to the biosphere (back to the soil) is that they have been designed mixing biosphere and technosphere (dyes, acids, plastics, chemicals) materials that are impossible to separate once put together. The Cradle to Cradle Foundation is working with carpet manufacturers to design their products with reuse built in from the start. A major manufacturer mentioned now has 57% of all of its products now certified as C2C.
So many more examples in addition to these that would have major needle moving impact if implemented on a large scale
I have an engineering background so the ideas presented seem quite logical to me, that is; everything that we make, eat, and buy is made of stuff from the "biosphere" (organic) or the "technosphere" (non-organic … metals, plastics, synthetics, engineered chemicals, etc.). The premise of the book is that we do not live in a world of scarcity … we live in a world of abundance where we don't pay enough attention to how we design what we use. If we approached design from the perspective that everything will be returned to the biosphere and technosphere one day our energy usage, pollution runoff from farms, and need for land and water cleanup would be dramatically reduced.
Great examples in the book and here are a few:
Raw Sewage: the thought of human waste being considered as toxic has been with us for centuries. The water treatments facilities we have in the US consume approximately 4% of our nation's energy. We now have real world city scale projects that purify the liquid naturally to cleaner than tap water and process the solids as fertilizer. Cities like Singapore and San Diego now call this "Nutrient Management". Lower power consumption, more available water, significantly reduced use of chemicals in treatment.
Soil erosion: we are depleting our topsoil at a rate nature cannot replenish so we artificially introduce minerals like phosphate. It turns out human raw sewage precipitates phosphates in crystalline form creating pipeline issues. The city of Vancouver has developed a mechanical "Vortex" device that causes the water to swirl in the pipelines and the mineral precipitation now comes out as pearls of phosphate known as Struvite. It turns out these pellets are ideal for farming as they are slow release and just what farmers need. Large scale "mining" of Struvite from our city wastewater systems would obviate the need for much of the phosphate plowed into farmer fields that runs off into our waterways creating algae blooms in our lakes. Cleaner water, healthy soil & crops, and less phosphate mining.
Large scale usage of Greenhouses and efficient land & nutrient management make the Netherlands hyper productive and 2nd only to the US in terms of value of agricultural exports. The keep their soil nutrients in a closed system, less water usage, and increased yields.
Mixing Biosphere & Technosphere: Carpets generate approximately 1.4 billion pounds of waste per year that goes to our landfills. The sticking point to returning these used materials to the biosphere (back to the soil) is that they have been designed mixing biosphere and technosphere (dyes, acids, plastics, chemicals) materials that are impossible to separate once put together. The Cradle to Cradle Foundation is working with carpet manufacturers to design their products with reuse built in from the start. A major manufacturer mentioned now has 57% of all of its products now certified as C2C.
So many more examples in addition to these that would have major needle moving impact if implemented on a large scale
Read
November 4, 2022We learned how we can all benefit from downsizing our homes. Of course, downsizing is not solely about getting rid of our possessions – our efforts would be for nothing if we ended up amassing a bunch of stuff again. Ultimately, this book is not really about the value of downsizing, but the value of living a less materialistic lifestyle. Adopting a more minimalist approach that’s less centered on consumerism is the first step to living sustainably. In The Upcycle, William McDonough and Michael Braungart envision a way of living in which human activity becomes a positive part of the natural cycle of regeneration on Earth. If you want to learn what the next step in living sustainably involves, read The Upcycle.
---
The possessions we accumulate throughout our lives can become a burden.
As we move through different stages in life’s journey, we pick up a few material hitchhikers along the way. These include the clothes we wear, the devices we use, the furniture we decorate our homes with, and all the other things – big and small – that come into our possession over the years.
Collectively, the great cargo of items that we accumulate and carry with us through life constitutes our material convoy. This convoy tends to grow as we get older, usually peaking around middle age.
Many of the objects in our material convoy are well-used and well-loved. In fact, we often exhibit an absurd loyalty to things that may seem worthless to other people. The author once spent more time trying to convince someone to part with an old t-shirt than surgeons often spend convincing patients to part with an organ.
Much of what makes up this convoy, however, isn’t loved and isn’t used. This is the clutter that piles up in our closets, attics, and under the sink. Clutter is that excess stuff in our homes that seems to grow of its own accord – and in the case of what’s under the sink, probably actually does.
Everyone carries some clutter through their lives. But for many people, clutter is all they carry. These are the people desperately in need of a downsize. That’s because clutter is more than just a nuisance; it’s a hindrance to your success.
Clutter can prevent doors from opening – and not just the literal doors in your home, but the figurative ones in your life too. Stuff tends to anchor you in place. This prevents you from jumping at opportunities when they come your way, like a job offer in a different city. In one US study, 78 percent of people around the age of 60 reported feeling reluctant to move homes because of all the stuff they owned.
It can also be very expensive to own a large material convoy. The cost of keeping your belongings in storage, or of shipping them across the country, can often exceed the value of the belongings themselves. The author worked with one family that was still paying rent on a unit 20 years after putting a deceased grandmother’s things in storage.
All that excess baggage you’re lugging through life isn’t doing you any good. The time you spend moving, arranging, cleaning, and fixing stuff could be better allotted to building loving relationships and having meaningful experiences.
That’s why, instead of allowing things to pile up on top of you, you need to learn to let them go.
---
The possessions we accumulate throughout our lives can become a burden.
As we move through different stages in life’s journey, we pick up a few material hitchhikers along the way. These include the clothes we wear, the devices we use, the furniture we decorate our homes with, and all the other things – big and small – that come into our possession over the years.
Collectively, the great cargo of items that we accumulate and carry with us through life constitutes our material convoy. This convoy tends to grow as we get older, usually peaking around middle age.
Many of the objects in our material convoy are well-used and well-loved. In fact, we often exhibit an absurd loyalty to things that may seem worthless to other people. The author once spent more time trying to convince someone to part with an old t-shirt than surgeons often spend convincing patients to part with an organ.
Much of what makes up this convoy, however, isn’t loved and isn’t used. This is the clutter that piles up in our closets, attics, and under the sink. Clutter is that excess stuff in our homes that seems to grow of its own accord – and in the case of what’s under the sink, probably actually does.
Everyone carries some clutter through their lives. But for many people, clutter is all they carry. These are the people desperately in need of a downsize. That’s because clutter is more than just a nuisance; it’s a hindrance to your success.
Clutter can prevent doors from opening – and not just the literal doors in your home, but the figurative ones in your life too. Stuff tends to anchor you in place. This prevents you from jumping at opportunities when they come your way, like a job offer in a different city. In one US study, 78 percent of people around the age of 60 reported feeling reluctant to move homes because of all the stuff they owned.
It can also be very expensive to own a large material convoy. The cost of keeping your belongings in storage, or of shipping them across the country, can often exceed the value of the belongings themselves. The author worked with one family that was still paying rent on a unit 20 years after putting a deceased grandmother’s things in storage.
All that excess baggage you’re lugging through life isn’t doing you any good. The time you spend moving, arranging, cleaning, and fixing stuff could be better allotted to building loving relationships and having meaningful experiences.
That’s why, instead of allowing things to pile up on top of you, you need to learn to let them go.
November 8, 2017
I have not read the authors' first book, Cradle to Cradle, but I don't think that was a great hinderance. The principle ideas from the first book are repeated here. The basic ideas are to make products completely nontoxic to humans and environment, and completely recyclable. I was more interested in reading this book, because the authors have had about a decade of experience in implementing the ideas from the first book in several industries. I wanted to hear how they may have succeeded, and what new ideas they might have. I applaud their work. This is definitely worth implementing. I just wish the writing were of a better quality. It would have made it a more pleasurable experience, and leave me with less skepticism about whether their ideas will become popular enough to make a difference.
I also wonder at the authors' seeming naivety. They are optimistic that any industry will benefit from taking up their practices, which is undoubtedly true from the perspective of the community. However, they never seem to take into account that some of the major polluting industries externalize the cost. The dead zones in our oceans, for example, are caused by the run-off from industrial farms (mostly growing corn for animal feed) and Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations. These industries are subsidized and encouraged by the U.S. government, and are not held accountable for the damage to our waterways. Global Warming is driven primarily by the meat and fossil fuel industries, but they are not held accountable for the natural disasters that they are causing. If they were held accountable, then they would have strong incentive to change. However, as long as they can externalize the costs, they will not likely do anything.
I wish the authors every success. But, since their methods are not addressing the major problem of externalization of costs by big business today, I cannot read this book without a wry smile. I keep thinking that the authors' successes are a little like wielding a bucket to save the sinking Titanic.
I also wonder at the authors' seeming naivety. They are optimistic that any industry will benefit from taking up their practices, which is undoubtedly true from the perspective of the community. However, they never seem to take into account that some of the major polluting industries externalize the cost. The dead zones in our oceans, for example, are caused by the run-off from industrial farms (mostly growing corn for animal feed) and Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations. These industries are subsidized and encouraged by the U.S. government, and are not held accountable for the damage to our waterways. Global Warming is driven primarily by the meat and fossil fuel industries, but they are not held accountable for the natural disasters that they are causing. If they were held accountable, then they would have strong incentive to change. However, as long as they can externalize the costs, they will not likely do anything.
I wish the authors every success. But, since their methods are not addressing the major problem of externalization of costs by big business today, I cannot read this book without a wry smile. I keep thinking that the authors' successes are a little like wielding a bucket to save the sinking Titanic.
July 9, 2019
What a delight this book is! I’ve begun a practice in the past few months of reading a little before getting out of bed in the morning, and this was the first book I finished in that manner. And each of those mornings started with fresh, bright optimism. I found myself convinced that all the problems in the world are just design problems. I’ve been increasingly annoyed with this narrative that people are bad, everything we do is harmful, the earth is dying, and we should all reduce, be less, hold our breaths and prepare for the collapse of civilization. The authors design buildings and products that leave the world better. Not just nontoxic, but regenerative, healing. They talk about thinking of resources in terms of „nutrient cycles“. So, instead of „how do we reduce or reuse this toxic product?“ the question becomes „how do we design products so their components are endlessly recaptured and the manufacturing process cleans the water and air?“ An example that’s very easy to understand: they took those fleece jackets that are made of recycled plastic and redesigned the zippers and snaps so that at the end of the jacket’s useful life it can be raw material once again. Instead of reusing the plastic once, they created an endless cycle. The authors have set up a certification program for products that meet their standards, and they provide services for companies who want to meet the standard. For example, they maintain a list of fabrics that furniture makers can use to create nontoxic products that produce no pollution in the manufacturing process. Another world is possible, we just have to design it.
June 21, 2022
The Upcycle has some good points, and some ugly points. The writing of the book is repetitive and too frequently makes use of “word salad”. I agree wholeheartedly in designing less toxic, more reusable products. Greener, environmentally integrated buildings are a fantastic idea and probably necessary for the advancement of humanity. As a society, we must work to think positively, to set positive, realistic goals. Cynicism is something I’m very guilty of! Where The Upcycle falls short is its near-complete glossing over the inherent flaws of consumerism, and refusal to acknowledge that our economy is flawed. An economy based on a perpetually increasing rate of production will not survive with finite resources. It is true that the ideas in The Upcycle, if implemented in full by an authoritarian regime, would probably save the environment. The Upcycle sadly does not seem to be grounded in reality, and does not suggest many ideas that can realistically be implemented across our entire economy. The authors flippantly blow off economic regulations as a way to reduce carbon emissions, when economic regulations are our best bet in reality. What brought this book from two stars to one was the authors’ blatant endorsement of consumerism when they endorsed consumerism as a service. “Welcome to 2030. I own nothing, have no privacy, and life has never been better” – Ida Auken, Danish Parliament member.
September 13, 2022
I was introduced to this book during college in a research course and going into it I was looking into the perspectives of how luxury fashion is making sustainable efforts in comparison to well-known fast fashion companies' efforts, especially with how the fashion industry is known as the second most polluting.
This book has a lot of interesting thoughts on sustainability, as well as positives, and risks (pros and cons) in the solutions to environmental issues by needing to rethink and redesign existing products and materials more effectively to make an impact on the environment. It often mentions the idea of abundance about how major companies should consider rethinking their operations when it comes to reducing waste that won't end up in landfills and avoiding creating more pollution because of its limited use and cycle. The authors also discuss the existing solutions like instead of over utilizing fossil fuels for creating energy and instead using solar or wind power but to still considering the needs for improvement and the cons. Like with major corporations, some may choose the abundance of money over prioritizing their sustainability and social responsibility which they should try to make the effort to adopt sustainable practices into their operations.
Although I hadn't read their first book Cradle to Cradle, I think this book still gives a good sense of what it's like when wanting to put more effort into sustainability for businesses and everyday life.
This book has a lot of interesting thoughts on sustainability, as well as positives, and risks (pros and cons) in the solutions to environmental issues by needing to rethink and redesign existing products and materials more effectively to make an impact on the environment. It often mentions the idea of abundance about how major companies should consider rethinking their operations when it comes to reducing waste that won't end up in landfills and avoiding creating more pollution because of its limited use and cycle. The authors also discuss the existing solutions like instead of over utilizing fossil fuels for creating energy and instead using solar or wind power but to still considering the needs for improvement and the cons. Like with major corporations, some may choose the abundance of money over prioritizing their sustainability and social responsibility which they should try to make the effort to adopt sustainable practices into their operations.
Although I hadn't read their first book Cradle to Cradle, I think this book still gives a good sense of what it's like when wanting to put more effort into sustainability for businesses and everyday life.
March 17, 2017
Business leaders - please read this book and improve your bottom lines while leaving an improved, if not a positive, imprint on the environment. The Upcycle is a refining of the author's Cradle to Cradle, providing insights learned through their interactions with business in their crusade to make products sustainable. Not by reducing the bad in today's manufactured goods, but rethinking the entire design process to actively find solutions with no negative environmental impacts. Solutions not just for the first use, but through the reuse of component materials without loss of potential - a simple example is keeping PET plastics as food grade recycles and not as a composite plastic polyfill for a jacket.
This is not a how-to book for environmental consumers (outside of awareness of the Cradle to Cradle certification). However, if you wish to be an environmentally friendly businesses, this will show you ways to impact your product design and how to demand the same from your supply chain.
This is not a how-to book for environmental consumers (outside of awareness of the Cradle to Cradle certification). However, if you wish to be an environmentally friendly businesses, this will show you ways to impact your product design and how to demand the same from your supply chain.
October 1, 2020
A great follow-up on Cradle to Cradle, elaborating the original cradle to cradle philosophy. Would definitely recommend it to everyone interested in circular economy (even though the authors point out that their solutions are not to be confused with circular economy itself, arguing that cradle to cradle is not simply a closed loop, it offers a lot of useful hinsight on discovering possible approaches towards greener future.) or playing around the idea of improving certain field or production through responsible business.
It is a manifesto of how to design better solutions for the planet, people living on it now as well as for the next generations. It gives concrete examples of how eco conscious businesses can thrive without compromising their profits. It argues that contrary to the common belief, "greener" solutions do not neccessarily need to be more expensive than currently popular and conventional solutions. They are certainly more complicated, but it might be a journey worth pursuing, finally leading to amazing innovations and improvements.
It is a manifesto of how to design better solutions for the planet, people living on it now as well as for the next generations. It gives concrete examples of how eco conscious businesses can thrive without compromising their profits. It argues that contrary to the common belief, "greener" solutions do not neccessarily need to be more expensive than currently popular and conventional solutions. They are certainly more complicated, but it might be a journey worth pursuing, finally leading to amazing innovations and improvements.
April 29, 2022
The ideas in the book are fascinating, and in general I'm completely on board with upcycling becoming the standard. I just don't think the book was written well. They committed (to me) one of the cardinal sins of criticizing a concept early on, then using that same concept to prove their point later. Specifically, they argue that people who suggest reducing the world population to minimize resource consumption are not thinking big enough, and that world population can continue to grow if we plan better. Later, though, when talking about powering the world, they suggest breaking things down to component parts: if we focus just on lightbulbs, and use this new process that uses less energy, here's how much energy we save! Well, if we had fewer people that needed lightbulbs...even more savings! (No, I'm not advocating actively reducing world population, I'm just not panicking about shrinking birth rates).
August 27, 2021
A disappointing follow up to the brilliant Cradle to Cradle. The book started slowly and did not have a clearly focused introduction. Many fo the passages were redundant and rambling, as if it had been dictated as a first draft rather than carefully composed. Most of the examples were familiar and second hand. When they talk about their original work, it reads like advertising their services. The Upcycle lacks the humble and straight-forward presentation of Cradle to Cradle.
The saving grace came in the last chapter, "What's Next", which really could have been the introduction. Their ten point program seems very solid, and the reader can be saved a lot of time and headache by going straight to the end of the book.
The saving grace came in the last chapter, "What's Next", which really could have been the introduction. Their ten point program seems very solid, and the reader can be saved a lot of time and headache by going straight to the end of the book.
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
June 29, 2019
Amazing book written with contemporary ideologies that spread awareness for change, connecting different regions around the world to educate us to stay united and strong together to change the future of or descendants.
Quoting from chapter 7, the 10 key tules are:
1. We don’t have an energy problem. We have a materials-in-the-wrong-place problem.
2. Get “out of sight” out of mind
3. Always be asking what’s next
4. You are alive. Your toaster is not.
5. Optimize, optimize, optimize.
6. You can and you will
7. Add good on top of subtracting bad
8. Gaze at the world right around you, then begin.
9. The time is now
10. Go forward beneficially
Quoting from chapter 7, the 10 key tules are:
1. We don’t have an energy problem. We have a materials-in-the-wrong-place problem.
2. Get “out of sight” out of mind
3. Always be asking what’s next
4. You are alive. Your toaster is not.
5. Optimize, optimize, optimize.
6. You can and you will
7. Add good on top of subtracting bad
8. Gaze at the world right around you, then begin.
9. The time is now
10. Go forward beneficially
September 23, 2022
يمكن اعتبار الكتاب جزءاً ثانياً للكتاب الأول: من المهد للمهد، وهذه مراجعتي له:
https://www.goodreads.com/review/show...
حيث يتوسع الكاتبان في فكرة (إعادة التدوير للأفضل) من خلال التصميم. بمشاركتهما لحلول عملية من عدة مواقع وشركات حول العالم، ولأمثلة من أعمال قاما بالعمل عليها مع جهات مختلفة.
فيمكننا اعتبار الكتاب خارطة طريق وخطة عمل لكل من يريد الدخول لهذا العالم. وبيان عملي لكل من يشكك في أفكار الكتاب الأول. فهو نداء للتغيير يبدأ بتغيير النية (كيف نقوم بتصميم وصناعة منتجات محبة لكل الأطفال من كل الأنواع الحية في كل الأوقات؟) ولا حدود لنهايته.
أنصح بقراءة الكتابين معاً.
https://www.goodreads.com/review/show...
حيث يتوسع الكاتبان في فكرة (إعادة التدوير للأفضل) من خلال التصميم. بمشاركتهما لحلول عملية من عدة مواقع وشركات حول العالم، ولأمثلة من أعمال قاما بالعمل عليها مع جهات مختلفة.
فيمكننا اعتبار الكتاب خارطة طريق وخطة عمل لكل من يريد الدخول لهذا العالم. وبيان عملي لكل من يشكك في أفكار الكتاب الأول. فهو نداء للتغيير يبدأ بتغيير النية (كيف نقوم بتصميم وصناعة منتجات محبة لكل الأطفال من كل الأنواع الحية في كل الأوقات؟) ولا حدود لنهايته.
أنصح بقراءة الكتابين معاً.
April 26, 2023
Hold onto your shawls, Brian's about to get nit-picky.
I could have done without the idealized thought experiences of how-things-could-be. Discredit my thought by calling me a pessimist, or by saying something like Without these theoretical future states we will never get to that future. Sure. But each one is so unrealistic in its simplicity it hurts to read. Like, suspension of disbelieve is ruined.
However, I do need to keep reading this kind of writing to remember that my actions to have an impact, little decisions are important and we need to strategize now because eventually we'll get to a tomorrow that's too late.
I could have done without the idealized thought experiences of how-things-could-be. Discredit my thought by calling me a pessimist, or by saying something like Without these theoretical future states we will never get to that future. Sure. But each one is so unrealistic in its simplicity it hurts to read. Like, suspension of disbelieve is ruined.
However, I do need to keep reading this kind of writing to remember that my actions to have an impact, little decisions are important and we need to strategize now because eventually we'll get to a tomorrow that's too late.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 116 reviews