What do you think?
Rate this book
Cradle to Cradle: Einfach intelligent produzieren
Autos aus Autos? Schuhe als Düngemittel für unsere Balkonblumen? Zukünftig gibt es nur noch zwei Arten von Produkten: Verbrauchsgüter, die vollständig biologisch abgebaut werden können, und Gebrauchsgüter, die sich endlos recyclen lassen. Nicht weniger müssen wir produzieren, sondern verschwenderisch und in technischen und biologischen Kreisläufen. Eine ökologisch-industrielle Revolution steht uns bevor, mit der Natur als Vorbild.
240 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 2002
974 people are currently reading
16907 people want to read
About the author
Michael Braungart
9 books22 followersMichael Braungart is a German chemist who advocates that humans can make a positive instead of a negative environmental impact by redesigning industrial production and therefore that dissipation is not waste. A former Greenpeace activist who once lived in a tree as protest, he is now considered to be a visionary environmental thinker.
Founder of EPEA International Umweltforschung GmbH in Hamburg, Germany, and co-founder of MBDC McDonough Braungart Design Chemistry in Charlottesville, Virginia, Dr. Braungart is currently a professor for Eco-Design at Leuphana University of Lüneburg.
He currently holds the Cradle-to-Cradle chair at the Erasmus University Rotterdam, the Netherlands.
Founder of EPEA International Umweltforschung GmbH in Hamburg, Germany, and co-founder of MBDC McDonough Braungart Design Chemistry in Charlottesville, Virginia, Dr. Braungart is currently a professor for Eco-Design at Leuphana University of Lüneburg.
He currently holds the Cradle-to-Cradle chair at the Erasmus University Rotterdam, the Netherlands.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 1,132 reviews
March 2, 2008
Three stars doesn't quite do justice to this book. Its ideas merit five stars, but the text sags a bit and tends to repeat itself a lot, thereby losing some power.
What the text lacks in eloquence, however, it makes up for in tactility. I couldn't stop petting this book. Its "synthetic paper" pages felt so resilient and smooth and sleek. The authors chose to make a recyclable, "treeless" book from from plastic resins and inorganic fillers. It is waterproof and with a certain treatment its pages can be wiped clean and reprinted with a new text. It has the capacity to be recycled as a book many times over or it could be reincarnated as another plastic item...
....To my experience only vellum and leather beats the overall sensory experience this text offers.
I first learned of McDonough--an architect with an amazing, cavernous mind--when I read a sermon he delievered at the Cathedral of St. John the Divine in New York City entitled "Design, Ecology, Ethics and the Making of Things." The piece is brilliant and beautiful and I wish everyone would read it. It contains many of the ideas presented in Cradle to Cradle in a much more compelling, succinct way.
Here is a link to an awkardly formated, but well-proofed pdf of the piece:
Design, Ecology, Ethics and the Making of Things by William McDonough
This is an HTML version that might be easier to look at in some ways but is sloppy with lots of typos:
Design, Ecology, Ethics and the Making of Things by William McDonough
In Cradle to Cradle, McDonough (an American architect) and Braungart (a German chemist) uncover the way that bio-destructive practices permeate every aspect of our lives. They describe how toxic materials are hidden in almost everything around us: our fabrics and textiles, our machines, our food containers, our food!, our toiletries, our technology, our furniture, our buildings, etc, etc. It's truly staggering.
Their section on water was also particularly memorable. I learned that households are responsible for much more water pollution than I had previously thought. (I formerly saw water pollution as primarily an industrial transgression.) But no, we flush loads of chemicals down the drain in the form of household cleaners/soaps, other home maintenance materials, art supplies, etc. Additionally, we flush chemo, hormones, and other medicated effluents into our waterways from our homes and hospitals. And now, with our culture's obsession with "antibacterial" cleansers, we're suffusing our waste water with bacteria-killing elements that prevent the breakdown of our sewage and slop.
***After reading this section, I went out and bought all non-toxic, biodegreadable (this is key!) soaps and household cleaners: I'm particularly in love with Mrs. Meyers and Method products. For antibacterial action, I've heard it's best to stick with good old fashioned alchohol (applied with friction), which does the job and then becomes inactive in 15 minutes.****
Though McDonough and Braungart expertly outline the disastrous, bio-destructive systems we have created, their book is only about these problems insofar as it seeks to understand them--because it believes we can fix them all through good design. Good design (in an environmental sense) has been nearly dead for over one hundred years and McDonough and Braungart are trying to revive it.
Because the industrial revolution furnished us with the fossil fuel power to override natural systems and natural energy flows, design has paid little attention to natural systems and natural energy flows for the past century. For example, architects no longer situate buildings, their windows, and surrounding trees with regard to the patterns of the sun, instead they disregard this free and powerful energy source and design our buildings with artificial systems--electric lights, AC, central heat, etc.--to regulate light and temperature indoors. And this is how we design most things and most products...
But, we pay through the nose to live this way--to live within poor, unintelligently designed infrastructure that is ignorant of the natural systems and energy flows in which it exists (like a foreign body or alien cancer)--sacrificing huge financial resources, large swaths of land, our health and the health of other living things....even (I believe) sacrificing the peace of nations.
In a grand metaphorical sense, this book wants to take us back to the old New England saltbox house. One that was intelligently built of natural, local materials, with south facing windows and nearby stand of deciduous trees that allow copious sunlight in during the winter months (when the sun is low and the trees are bare) and then alternatively blocks the sunlight during the hot summer months (when the sun is high and reflects off the deep eaves of the roof and is absorbed by the fully maned trees). And I for one want to go there.
What the text lacks in eloquence, however, it makes up for in tactility. I couldn't stop petting this book. Its "synthetic paper" pages felt so resilient and smooth and sleek. The authors chose to make a recyclable, "treeless" book from from plastic resins and inorganic fillers. It is waterproof and with a certain treatment its pages can be wiped clean and reprinted with a new text. It has the capacity to be recycled as a book many times over or it could be reincarnated as another plastic item...
....To my experience only vellum and leather beats the overall sensory experience this text offers.
I first learned of McDonough--an architect with an amazing, cavernous mind--when I read a sermon he delievered at the Cathedral of St. John the Divine in New York City entitled "Design, Ecology, Ethics and the Making of Things." The piece is brilliant and beautiful and I wish everyone would read it. It contains many of the ideas presented in Cradle to Cradle in a much more compelling, succinct way.
Here is a link to an awkardly formated, but well-proofed pdf of the piece:
Design, Ecology, Ethics and the Making of Things by William McDonough
This is an HTML version that might be easier to look at in some ways but is sloppy with lots of typos:
Design, Ecology, Ethics and the Making of Things by William McDonough
In Cradle to Cradle, McDonough (an American architect) and Braungart (a German chemist) uncover the way that bio-destructive practices permeate every aspect of our lives. They describe how toxic materials are hidden in almost everything around us: our fabrics and textiles, our machines, our food containers, our food!, our toiletries, our technology, our furniture, our buildings, etc, etc. It's truly staggering.
Their section on water was also particularly memorable. I learned that households are responsible for much more water pollution than I had previously thought. (I formerly saw water pollution as primarily an industrial transgression.) But no, we flush loads of chemicals down the drain in the form of household cleaners/soaps, other home maintenance materials, art supplies, etc. Additionally, we flush chemo, hormones, and other medicated effluents into our waterways from our homes and hospitals. And now, with our culture's obsession with "antibacterial" cleansers, we're suffusing our waste water with bacteria-killing elements that prevent the breakdown of our sewage and slop.
***After reading this section, I went out and bought all non-toxic, biodegreadable (this is key!) soaps and household cleaners: I'm particularly in love with Mrs. Meyers and Method products. For antibacterial action, I've heard it's best to stick with good old fashioned alchohol (applied with friction), which does the job and then becomes inactive in 15 minutes.****
Though McDonough and Braungart expertly outline the disastrous, bio-destructive systems we have created, their book is only about these problems insofar as it seeks to understand them--because it believes we can fix them all through good design. Good design (in an environmental sense) has been nearly dead for over one hundred years and McDonough and Braungart are trying to revive it.
Because the industrial revolution furnished us with the fossil fuel power to override natural systems and natural energy flows, design has paid little attention to natural systems and natural energy flows for the past century. For example, architects no longer situate buildings, their windows, and surrounding trees with regard to the patterns of the sun, instead they disregard this free and powerful energy source and design our buildings with artificial systems--electric lights, AC, central heat, etc.--to regulate light and temperature indoors. And this is how we design most things and most products...
But, we pay through the nose to live this way--to live within poor, unintelligently designed infrastructure that is ignorant of the natural systems and energy flows in which it exists (like a foreign body or alien cancer)--sacrificing huge financial resources, large swaths of land, our health and the health of other living things....even (I believe) sacrificing the peace of nations.
In a grand metaphorical sense, this book wants to take us back to the old New England saltbox house. One that was intelligently built of natural, local materials, with south facing windows and nearby stand of deciduous trees that allow copious sunlight in during the winter months (when the sun is low and the trees are bare) and then alternatively blocks the sunlight during the hot summer months (when the sun is high and reflects off the deep eaves of the roof and is absorbed by the fully maned trees). And I for one want to go there.
July 7, 2015
TL;DR Defines an obvious problem and then offers no realistic solution to address it.
I enjoyed the first half of this book, which was a staggering indictment of the industrialized consumer economy. The authors then offer a manifesto for reshaping it so that growth could be positive. For example, if cars cleaned the air instead of polluting it, we would see more cars as a positive outcome, not something to lament. Despite the authors working in this field for decades, there weren't a lot of case studies and they all were quite superficial. They helped transform a furniture factory in Germany to produce clean water as its waste output, but didn't explain how.
Like many of these books, when it gets to the practical section, it completely breaks down into blue sky hand-waving. They pretend to be pragmatic and define five compounding steps (177) for a company to take on the path to their ideal of product design and production, but the steps glaze over why a company would care about any of this to begin with. They condemn eco-effectiveness without acknowledging that the only reason it even exists is because it saves money. Who is going to invest in making a car that, instead of having many negative outputs, has positive ones, when our economic system is defined to its very core by rewarding bad behaviors?
The book pretty much devolved into this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DkGMY...
If you want more practical solutions to this problem, I suggest Fight Club.
I enjoyed the first half of this book, which was a staggering indictment of the industrialized consumer economy. The authors then offer a manifesto for reshaping it so that growth could be positive. For example, if cars cleaned the air instead of polluting it, we would see more cars as a positive outcome, not something to lament. Despite the authors working in this field for decades, there weren't a lot of case studies and they all were quite superficial. They helped transform a furniture factory in Germany to produce clean water as its waste output, but didn't explain how.
Like many of these books, when it gets to the practical section, it completely breaks down into blue sky hand-waving. They pretend to be pragmatic and define five compounding steps (177) for a company to take on the path to their ideal of product design and production, but the steps glaze over why a company would care about any of this to begin with. They condemn eco-effectiveness without acknowledging that the only reason it even exists is because it saves money. Who is going to invest in making a car that, instead of having many negative outputs, has positive ones, when our economic system is defined to its very core by rewarding bad behaviors?
The book pretty much devolved into this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DkGMY...
If you want more practical solutions to this problem, I suggest Fight Club.
April 2, 2020
Laimīgie tie, kam izdevās šo dārgakmeni izcelt no lētajām kastēm Grāmatu izstādē!
Pirms kāda laika šī tulkota arī latviski, zināju par tādas esamību un sen gribēju izlasīt, priecājos, ka nu tas ir darīts.
Ļoti svarīga grāmata, nenoliedzami, gan zeroweisteriem, gan piesārņotājiem parastajiem, nu visiem visiem.
Kādam varbūt šķitīs, ka grāmatā par daudz ķīmijas, ražošanas, un es jau neko nevaru ietekmēt, bet tas nav tiesa. Mūs ierobežo mūsu domāšana, kas ir ļoti aktuāli arī šodienā - jāmainās mūsu ieradumiem. Skatījos ziņas ar vītušo puķu kalniem Nīderlandē. Vai mums tiešām vajag sēt, audzēt, uzziedināt, novākt, lidināt pāri pus pasaulei un dāvināt puķes? Varbūt varam iztikt? Vai mums vajag dalīties tajos, kas var kaut kur aizbraukt, un tajos, kas dzīvo tikai no šādiem atbraucējiem? Grāmata gan apskata daudz praktiskākus jautājumus, bet šos principus var pielāgot savā dzīvē.
Es nesaku, ka tagad uzsākšu zero waste dzīvesveidu, daudzus principus tāpat jau ievēroju. Bet savu iespēju robežās centīšos domāt plašāk.
Pirms kāda laika šī tulkota arī latviski, zināju par tādas esamību un sen gribēju izlasīt, priecājos, ka nu tas ir darīts.
Ļoti svarīga grāmata, nenoliedzami, gan zeroweisteriem, gan piesārņotājiem parastajiem, nu visiem visiem.
Kādam varbūt šķitīs, ka grāmatā par daudz ķīmijas, ražošanas, un es jau neko nevaru ietekmēt, bet tas nav tiesa. Mūs ierobežo mūsu domāšana, kas ir ļoti aktuāli arī šodienā - jāmainās mūsu ieradumiem. Skatījos ziņas ar vītušo puķu kalniem Nīderlandē. Vai mums tiešām vajag sēt, audzēt, uzziedināt, novākt, lidināt pāri pus pasaulei un dāvināt puķes? Varbūt varam iztikt? Vai mums vajag dalīties tajos, kas var kaut kur aizbraukt, un tajos, kas dzīvo tikai no šādiem atbraucējiem? Grāmata gan apskata daudz praktiskākus jautājumus, bet šos principus var pielāgot savā dzīvē.
Es nesaku, ka tagad uzsākšu zero waste dzīvesveidu, daudzus principus tāpat jau ievēroju. Bet savu iespēju robežās centīšos domāt plašāk.
January 31, 2008
Everyone on the planet should read this book. The authors, one a chemist, and the other an architect, have thought more deeply about what "green" truly means (in terms of the environment) than anybody else. What they say will surprise you. They are not big fans of recycling, for example, because most things that are recycled were not designed for same, and it takes a lot of energy to cycle them 'down' to a lower use (like recycling paper). Instead, they argue for designing products from the ground up that don't require pollution to be made and can be reused many times without losing value or quality. But it's their designs for buildings that are especially wonderful. They have figured out how to create houses and offices that require virtually no carbon-based energy to heat and cool, and are great spaces to be in as well.
The book itself is printed on a benign plastic that killed no trees in the making and will biodegrade rapidly. Indeed, a seed is bound into the spine, so that if you throw this book away you will literally plant a tree. Cool. Very cool.
The book itself is printed on a benign plastic that killed no trees in the making and will biodegrade rapidly. Indeed, a seed is bound into the spine, so that if you throw this book away you will literally plant a tree. Cool. Very cool.
July 2, 2010
Did you know that before the Industrial Revolution, everyone grew their own food? That it was only during the Industrial Revolution that factory workers no longer had enough time to farm and were forced to move to the city and depend on others for it? That banks and stock markets and what have you all came into existence only during the Industrial Revolution, to support the new-born Capitalist Machine?
Oh, how naïve you were to think non-agrarian middle classes and banks were around for millennia before the Industrial Revolution, and that stock markets date back to the 12th or 13th century!
Alright, so the book's central thesis is straightforward and relatively uncontroversial (and completely apparent from the title); the incredible amount of bullshit it's draped in gets on my nerves.
This nonsense about the Industrial Revolution is only the tip of the iceberg when it comes to fields in which the authors are jarringly ignorant, though admittedly basic history is probably their weakest point (with basic biology being a close second). There's also a lot of handwaving about agriculture, the way people build houses, "chemicals" in consumer products from countries with weaker regulations than ours, "chemicals" in consumer products from poor recycling practices, "chemicals" in consumer products that are legal in our countries but poorly understood, "chemicals" in our fertilisers, "chemicals" in our drinking water from our sewage treatment techniques, the artistic and spiritual aridity of efficiency, the counter-productiveness of many current environmental programs, &c.; sensible things can be said on each (well, most) of these topics, but the authors don't. Instead, they're only there as contentless shibboleths for other brain-dead environmentalists. (Which is ironic, given the authors' attacks on this very group.)
In addition to this, the whole thing is steeped in so much romanticisation of pre-industrial societies and nature in general that it's actually painful to read at times. Apparently cherry trees and ant colonies are wonderful examples of sustainability and balance with nature, as if cherry trees don't want to deprive other plants of as much sunlight as they can possibly get away with, and as if ants don't regularly collapse entire ecosystems. And of course, before the Great Satan Industry reared its ugly head, humans approached nature with reverence and respect, and lived in tune with nature; the fact that, for example, nearly all megafauna disappeared on all continents right about the time the first humans arrived, why, that's just a coincidence.
The sad part is that none of it is even *necessary* to support the authors' thesis, which is that resources are finite and it would therefore be a good idea to stop removing them from the industrial ecosystem entirely when we're done with them for the time being. Any idiot could see that that just makes sense.
Of course, it's hard to fill an entire book with just that. Even with all the nonsense, they didn't even manage to get to 200 pages.
All of that, and the fact that most of their sub-ideas (like products as a service) are just brain-damaged, make Cradle to Cradle the kind of wooly-minded mush that gives environmentalism a bad name. Which is a pity, because it could have been great.
Oh, how naïve you were to think non-agrarian middle classes and banks were around for millennia before the Industrial Revolution, and that stock markets date back to the 12th or 13th century!
Alright, so the book's central thesis is straightforward and relatively uncontroversial (and completely apparent from the title); the incredible amount of bullshit it's draped in gets on my nerves.
This nonsense about the Industrial Revolution is only the tip of the iceberg when it comes to fields in which the authors are jarringly ignorant, though admittedly basic history is probably their weakest point (with basic biology being a close second). There's also a lot of handwaving about agriculture, the way people build houses, "chemicals" in consumer products from countries with weaker regulations than ours, "chemicals" in consumer products from poor recycling practices, "chemicals" in consumer products that are legal in our countries but poorly understood, "chemicals" in our fertilisers, "chemicals" in our drinking water from our sewage treatment techniques, the artistic and spiritual aridity of efficiency, the counter-productiveness of many current environmental programs, &c.; sensible things can be said on each (well, most) of these topics, but the authors don't. Instead, they're only there as contentless shibboleths for other brain-dead environmentalists. (Which is ironic, given the authors' attacks on this very group.)
In addition to this, the whole thing is steeped in so much romanticisation of pre-industrial societies and nature in general that it's actually painful to read at times. Apparently cherry trees and ant colonies are wonderful examples of sustainability and balance with nature, as if cherry trees don't want to deprive other plants of as much sunlight as they can possibly get away with, and as if ants don't regularly collapse entire ecosystems. And of course, before the Great Satan Industry reared its ugly head, humans approached nature with reverence and respect, and lived in tune with nature; the fact that, for example, nearly all megafauna disappeared on all continents right about the time the first humans arrived, why, that's just a coincidence.
The sad part is that none of it is even *necessary* to support the authors' thesis, which is that resources are finite and it would therefore be a good idea to stop removing them from the industrial ecosystem entirely when we're done with them for the time being. Any idiot could see that that just makes sense.
Of course, it's hard to fill an entire book with just that. Even with all the nonsense, they didn't even manage to get to 200 pages.
All of that, and the fact that most of their sub-ideas (like products as a service) are just brain-damaged, make Cradle to Cradle the kind of wooly-minded mush that gives environmentalism a bad name. Which is a pity, because it could have been great.
December 23, 2011
Be more like ants and cherry trees. I just saved you the trouble of reading this repetitive bore.
Other than that, be prepared for rhetorical questions--basically the same one using a different example or with slight variations in phrasing: "What would have happened, we sometimes wonder, if the Industrial Revolution had taken place in societies that emphasize the community over the individual, and where people believed not in a cradle-to-grave life cycle but in reincarnation?"
Seriously, I just saved you 186 pages. Thank me at your leisure.
Pros: You can throw this book in a lake and it will survive.
Cons: It will survive.
Other than that, be prepared for rhetorical questions--basically the same one using a different example or with slight variations in phrasing: "What would have happened, we sometimes wonder, if the Industrial Revolution had taken place in societies that emphasize the community over the individual, and where people believed not in a cradle-to-grave life cycle but in reincarnation?"
Seriously, I just saved you 186 pages. Thank me at your leisure.
Pros: You can throw this book in a lake and it will survive.
Cons: It will survive.
September 23, 2015
What if manufacturers strived to design products that weren't simply "less-bad", but were actually good for the environment?
This is the rhetorical question that the book asks over and over in many forms.
Many of the ideas and the intent of the book are 5-star-worthy; the writing and rhetoric, however, are not.
I thought key flaw in this book was naiveté - the authors were simply overly idealistic. Asking questions like "Imagine how useful it would be if industry had a way to recover that copper instead of constantly losing it". Well, gee, don't you think that thought may have crossed the mind of Mr Copper executive at some point and if there were a good way he would use it? The book is filled with these head-in-the-clouds observations and suggestions.
I would have loved to hear the industry response to some of the suggestions for improving product manufacture - I suspect that many of the authors' suggestions would end up in the "nice but not economically justifiable" pile, due to added complexity, risk, cost etc. Basically, even as someone sympathetic to the intent of the book, I was not fully convinced that the authors knew enough about the nitty-gritty details of these industries to be giving such general suggestions on how to improve operations. For example, the authors brought up using rice husks as a packing material to replace styrofoam. It sounds great on the surface; rice husks are biodegradable, can be used post-delivery as biofuel, insulation, or fertilizer. But no mention was made of the logistics of such a replacement - are rice husks economical? Are they locally available in most parts of the world? Are they a reasonable packing substitute performance-wise? It is easy to spout environmentally friendly recommendations on how to run a business but much more difficult and more complex (not to mention riskier) to implement them economically. Until the tools which we use to evaluate business decisions are fundamentally altered to account for the health of natural capital, the majority of the recommendations made by environmentalists like the authors of this book will never catch on in general industry. And it is naive to think that industrial manufacturers (especially those that are not consumer-facing) will altruistically alter their business because of some chemical off-gassing that is seen as a hazard only in some online tree-hugger forums.
Another idea with which I disagreed was the "why being less bad is no good" theory - that striving for incremental gains in eco-efficiency or reduction "does not halt depletion and destruction - it only slows them down". I think the idea that efficiency should be shunned as some kind of ineffective half-hearted compromise incorrectly ignores the regenerative capacity of the earth and places an unnecessary moral burden on industry. The authors spend a good 5-10 pages demonizing incremental efficiency gains, criticizing German homes' insulation for reducing indoor air quality in pursuit of energy efficiency, and a Turkish housing development's efficient (but probably poor) construction in a building collapse. They were so hard on efficiency, they had to backtrack a little, offering this ridiculous statement : "This is not to condemn all efficiency. When implemented as a tool within a larger, effective system that intends overall positive effects on a wide range of issues- not simply economic ones - efficiency can actually be valuable". Oh, efficiency can actually be valuable?
There were, however, a few good ideas in the book.
One of my favorites was the realization that hardly anything that I ever buy is consumed - it's simply used until it gets thrown out:
"Think about it: you may be referred to as a consumer, but there is very little that you actually consume - some foods, some liquids. Everything else is designed for you to throw away when you are finished with it. But where is "away"? Of course, away does not really exist."
I also agreed with the authors' diagnosis that many of the flaws that plague design and create unintended consequences and waste are largely due to the "brute force over nature vs design with nature" dichotomy. Many design strategies dictate that when something underperforms, just make it bigger! Stronger! Faster! Thicker! Whenever our development encroaches on nature, just grab nature by the neck and force it to do our will! In my line of work, designing canals, levees and drainage structures, this is the conventional approach. However, the authors correctly identify that by taking a more holistic integrated approach to design, and designing with nature, many design challenges can be successfully solved.
I found this book to be useful, as it introduced me to some good and also some flawed ideas about sustainability and how society can overcome the issues facing us.
This is the rhetorical question that the book asks over and over in many forms.
Many of the ideas and the intent of the book are 5-star-worthy; the writing and rhetoric, however, are not.
I thought key flaw in this book was naiveté - the authors were simply overly idealistic. Asking questions like "Imagine how useful it would be if industry had a way to recover that copper instead of constantly losing it". Well, gee, don't you think that thought may have crossed the mind of Mr Copper executive at some point and if there were a good way he would use it? The book is filled with these head-in-the-clouds observations and suggestions.
I would have loved to hear the industry response to some of the suggestions for improving product manufacture - I suspect that many of the authors' suggestions would end up in the "nice but not economically justifiable" pile, due to added complexity, risk, cost etc. Basically, even as someone sympathetic to the intent of the book, I was not fully convinced that the authors knew enough about the nitty-gritty details of these industries to be giving such general suggestions on how to improve operations. For example, the authors brought up using rice husks as a packing material to replace styrofoam. It sounds great on the surface; rice husks are biodegradable, can be used post-delivery as biofuel, insulation, or fertilizer. But no mention was made of the logistics of such a replacement - are rice husks economical? Are they locally available in most parts of the world? Are they a reasonable packing substitute performance-wise? It is easy to spout environmentally friendly recommendations on how to run a business but much more difficult and more complex (not to mention riskier) to implement them economically. Until the tools which we use to evaluate business decisions are fundamentally altered to account for the health of natural capital, the majority of the recommendations made by environmentalists like the authors of this book will never catch on in general industry. And it is naive to think that industrial manufacturers (especially those that are not consumer-facing) will altruistically alter their business because of some chemical off-gassing that is seen as a hazard only in some online tree-hugger forums.
Another idea with which I disagreed was the "why being less bad is no good" theory - that striving for incremental gains in eco-efficiency or reduction "does not halt depletion and destruction - it only slows them down". I think the idea that efficiency should be shunned as some kind of ineffective half-hearted compromise incorrectly ignores the regenerative capacity of the earth and places an unnecessary moral burden on industry. The authors spend a good 5-10 pages demonizing incremental efficiency gains, criticizing German homes' insulation for reducing indoor air quality in pursuit of energy efficiency, and a Turkish housing development's efficient (but probably poor) construction in a building collapse. They were so hard on efficiency, they had to backtrack a little, offering this ridiculous statement : "This is not to condemn all efficiency. When implemented as a tool within a larger, effective system that intends overall positive effects on a wide range of issues- not simply economic ones - efficiency can actually be valuable". Oh, efficiency can actually be valuable?
There were, however, a few good ideas in the book.
One of my favorites was the realization that hardly anything that I ever buy is consumed - it's simply used until it gets thrown out:
"Think about it: you may be referred to as a consumer, but there is very little that you actually consume - some foods, some liquids. Everything else is designed for you to throw away when you are finished with it. But where is "away"? Of course, away does not really exist."
I also agreed with the authors' diagnosis that many of the flaws that plague design and create unintended consequences and waste are largely due to the "brute force over nature vs design with nature" dichotomy. Many design strategies dictate that when something underperforms, just make it bigger! Stronger! Faster! Thicker! Whenever our development encroaches on nature, just grab nature by the neck and force it to do our will! In my line of work, designing canals, levees and drainage structures, this is the conventional approach. However, the authors correctly identify that by taking a more holistic integrated approach to design, and designing with nature, many design challenges can be successfully solved.
I found this book to be useful, as it introduced me to some good and also some flawed ideas about sustainability and how society can overcome the issues facing us.
May 30, 2012
This is an excellent and inspiring account of flourishing, ecologically minded design. At the core of the book is a paradigm shift from eco-efficient design that focuses on simply using less materials (that is, being less bad) to instead eco-effective design that reimagines products that do not simply use less material, but might actually productively contribute to the lives of other persons and the natural world. Thus, instead of designing products that are destined eventually for the landfill, McDonough and Braungart imagine products that can be re-used again and again in the same form or different forms through up-cycling (instead of re-cycling/down-cycling). The book is well written with numerous examples alongside clear articulations of principles and commitments, which I found to be wise and compelling. McDonough and Braungart write with audiences in business as well as from the ecology and social justice camps in mind, and the several groups will find a careful and measured approach that does a great job of pursuing the middle path while still offering a substantial and worthwhile vision for future ecologically minded design. What I most enjoyed about this book was that its authors set forth an argument that is not simply about surviving here on earth, but actually thriving. But don't mistake them for shallow utopians, the authors are deeply attuned to the need for transitional structures, and they offer some constructive ways forward given the present circumstances in the last third of the book. I would highly recommend this book to family and friends.
December 25, 2011
Pretty much as advertised -- a screed (in a good way) against the normal cradle-to-grave paradigm of consumerism and short-sighted product design. For instance: Isn't it funny that in, say, apple juice boxes, the product inside has a shorter shelf life than the packaging? Why would the packaging be more durable than its product? Wouldn't it be cool if packaging was designed to be tossed into your yard, decompose in weeks, and maybe even contain a wildflower seed that would germinate?
Cradle to Cradle is also a scary book (in a good way) about all the chemicals that go into everything we buy. There's this thing called "off-gassing" where they test what chemicals a normal product (a spatula, an iPod speaker, a sneaker sole) gives off as it's used and knocked around. Turns out that as products decompose a bit, their chemicals get into our food and indoor air, and that kind of poisoning generally isn't prohibited or regulated. Or if it is, it's at the chemical level -- there's a "bad list" of proven carcinogens, instead of a good list of chemicals known to be safe.
I agree now: Every product should come with an ingredients list -- so you know if you're buying toxic and carcinogenic chemicals when you buy, say, an extension cord. The more you know.
Read this book, if only to freak you out (in a good way).
Cradle to Cradle is also a scary book (in a good way) about all the chemicals that go into everything we buy. There's this thing called "off-gassing" where they test what chemicals a normal product (a spatula, an iPod speaker, a sneaker sole) gives off as it's used and knocked around. Turns out that as products decompose a bit, their chemicals get into our food and indoor air, and that kind of poisoning generally isn't prohibited or regulated. Or if it is, it's at the chemical level -- there's a "bad list" of proven carcinogens, instead of a good list of chemicals known to be safe.
I agree now: Every product should come with an ingredients list -- so you know if you're buying toxic and carcinogenic chemicals when you buy, say, an extension cord. The more you know.
Read this book, if only to freak you out (in a good way).
December 10, 2020
If you're interested in waste management or ecological sustainability, this book is the best one I have read so far. I am diving deep into this space right now, and this short book has already fuelled my thinking in ways that are exciting and revolutionary.
The authors champion a no-nonsense, holistic attitude towards creating a world that thrives not only ecologically, but economically and socially.
Amazing, amazing.
The authors champion a no-nonsense, holistic attitude towards creating a world that thrives not only ecologically, but economically and socially.
Amazing, amazing.
September 28, 2021
Great way to re-think pretty much everything. Super educational and information, if a little specific sometimes (which is to be expected given that its two guys talking about their own experiences). Really enjoyed all the possible solutions, whether theoretical or anecdotal. Some definitely seemed a little idealistic, but I am excited to look more into the examples and find out more!
September 8, 2007
Cradle to Cradle is a essentially book of questions, and a calling for people to not only re-think the way we make things, but to re-think the way we perceive ourselves as pitted against the natural world, rather than working with the natural world. The age old paradigm of conquering nature and bend (or in many cases break it) to fit our needs is outmoded,short-sighted, and, in fact, harmful not only to humans but the entire natural system.
The concept of Cradle to Cradle replaces the concept of Cradle to Grave, in which "things" (goods) have a entry point and an exit point in the consumption lifecycle. A "thing" is born (manufactured), it is consumed, and then thrown away. Then a new "thing" is purchased. The idea of cradle to cradle proposes a new model of manufacturing and consumption, one in which products are sold as a "product of service", where the manufacturer, in a manner of speaking, leases the product to a customer, the customer uses the product, and at the end of the product's useful life as said product, is returned to the manufacturer, at which time the manufacturer is able to de-construct the product, reuse many of the component pieces and materials embodied in the original product to make a new product. The de-construction of the product (months or years later) is possible only because the product was designed and engineered that way in the first place, which is the central idea of the book.
I gave it a 4-star rating because the book is a little short on concrete examples of the new system the authors are proposing. Books that make me think, and question conventional wisdom are almost always going to get at least 4 stars with me.
The concept of Cradle to Cradle replaces the concept of Cradle to Grave, in which "things" (goods) have a entry point and an exit point in the consumption lifecycle. A "thing" is born (manufactured), it is consumed, and then thrown away. Then a new "thing" is purchased. The idea of cradle to cradle proposes a new model of manufacturing and consumption, one in which products are sold as a "product of service", where the manufacturer, in a manner of speaking, leases the product to a customer, the customer uses the product, and at the end of the product's useful life as said product, is returned to the manufacturer, at which time the manufacturer is able to de-construct the product, reuse many of the component pieces and materials embodied in the original product to make a new product. The de-construction of the product (months or years later) is possible only because the product was designed and engineered that way in the first place, which is the central idea of the book.
I gave it a 4-star rating because the book is a little short on concrete examples of the new system the authors are proposing. Books that make me think, and question conventional wisdom are almost always going to get at least 4 stars with me.
March 15, 2011
A great topic, but not the best presentation. Other books may cover this topic better (such as Slow Death By Rubber Duck maybe).
A lot of important information in here. Even recycled materials can create hazardous dust (phthalates) with normal use. The authors have a very clear concept of how to create products that can be broken down into restructurable components, but the key is in being able to easily separate manufactured and natural ingredients. There are some great examples of how green building design (while keeping local environment in mind) can cost only 10% more to build than non-green buildings, and save a lot of $ in electricity bills in the long run, while creating a much more pleasant environment for workers.
While there was a lot of talk about what these products should look like, though, there was no real discussion of how to make them, only encouragement that people should pursue their design. One of the authors is a chemist and I would have at least liked to see some basic discussion of possible chemical/manufacture ideas that could be expanded on.
I listened to the audio book, and Stephen Hoye was not a good reader for this. He is great at narrating simple, motivational things, but the subject matter did not match his reading style, and it became patterned and a bit monotone.
A lot of important information in here. Even recycled materials can create hazardous dust (phthalates) with normal use. The authors have a very clear concept of how to create products that can be broken down into restructurable components, but the key is in being able to easily separate manufactured and natural ingredients. There are some great examples of how green building design (while keeping local environment in mind) can cost only 10% more to build than non-green buildings, and save a lot of $ in electricity bills in the long run, while creating a much more pleasant environment for workers.
While there was a lot of talk about what these products should look like, though, there was no real discussion of how to make them, only encouragement that people should pursue their design. One of the authors is a chemist and I would have at least liked to see some basic discussion of possible chemical/manufacture ideas that could be expanded on.
I listened to the audio book, and Stephen Hoye was not a good reader for this. He is great at narrating simple, motivational things, but the subject matter did not match his reading style, and it became patterned and a bit monotone.
August 23, 2007
The authors tell an encouraging and interesting story about our approach to product development and use today. One where the product 'lifecycle' is from 'cradle' to 'grave' - a product is made and when it dies it goes 'away.' They give lots of good examples of a) why that is a bad thing and b) how we can do it better by opting for a cradle to cradle mentality.
What I liked most about this book was how they peeled apart the subtle metaphors that strongly affect our outlook today for products. Things like: throwing something 'away' (in a closed system!); a strive for 'efficiency' rather than 'effectiveness;' how recycling is more often 'downcycling' (use in a lower quality product) and how we should strive for 'upcycling' when possible; our outlook that doesn't tend to look much past the current generation; our dominate nature mentality rather than living interdependently; our view of natural 'resources' and ourselves as 'consumers.
They also introduced some of their own metaphors like the biological and technical metabolisms, and up and downcycling.
It is a quick read and it is worth buying to experience the book itself - it's made of plastic and is also waterproof.
What I liked most about this book was how they peeled apart the subtle metaphors that strongly affect our outlook today for products. Things like: throwing something 'away' (in a closed system!); a strive for 'efficiency' rather than 'effectiveness;' how recycling is more often 'downcycling' (use in a lower quality product) and how we should strive for 'upcycling' when possible; our outlook that doesn't tend to look much past the current generation; our dominate nature mentality rather than living interdependently; our view of natural 'resources' and ourselves as 'consumers.
They also introduced some of their own metaphors like the biological and technical metabolisms, and up and downcycling.
It is a quick read and it is worth buying to experience the book itself - it's made of plastic and is also waterproof.
January 8, 2009
Sweet and sour on this book:
Sweet:
-- Is a nice philosophic groundwork for re-thinking our relationship to the earth, to manufacturing, to design. Broad and all-encompassing.
-- Some potent ideas about how processes and materials work can or don't work in an ecologically sensible way. Tying things back to simple logic is a consistent method that is effective here.
-- printed on synthetic paper, a wonderful demonstration of the book's argument
-- a quote from Hildegard von Bingen, for god's sakes!
Sour:
-- Would have benefited from more concrete examples of materials/processes that demonstrate/embody the proposed philosophy.
-- Pictures would have been great too
-- The chapters are somewhat overlapping, and not as clearly distinct at they might have been.
-- Much redundancy throughout.
Sweet:
-- Is a nice philosophic groundwork for re-thinking our relationship to the earth, to manufacturing, to design. Broad and all-encompassing.
-- Some potent ideas about how processes and materials work can or don't work in an ecologically sensible way. Tying things back to simple logic is a consistent method that is effective here.
-- printed on synthetic paper, a wonderful demonstration of the book's argument
-- a quote from Hildegard von Bingen, for god's sakes!
Sour:
-- Would have benefited from more concrete examples of materials/processes that demonstrate/embody the proposed philosophy.
-- Pictures would have been great too
-- The chapters are somewhat overlapping, and not as clearly distinct at they might have been.
-- Much redundancy throughout.
March 23, 2013
I'm not sure what to think of this book. It's kind of like the antithesis of "An Inconvenient Truth." Where Al Gore said humans are destroying the planet, but you can make it all OK by replacing a lightbulb, "Cradle to Cradle" suggests that everything you currently do for the environment is not good enough. The authors attack all recycling as "downcycling" and criticize most energy-conscious building models. But they don't offer clear alternatives or helpful advice for finding products that follow their "cradle to cradle" philosophy. There are some interesting ideas and an impassioned manifesto, but I wish there was more practical advice.
May 1, 2021
Amazing book.
Reusing is splendid.
Recycling is, recycling.
Reducing is even better.
But if we don't stop how things are made, things are still going to deteriorate the earth.
I am a huge fan of choosing what I buy based on how things are packaged - if it is sustainable.
This is another one of those books that will change your life (for the better) if you really take these recommendations to heart.
example: I don't even have a baby, and suddenly I want to use cloth diapers! HAHH!!
Highly recommended for anyone who cares about the planet
4.8/5
Reusing is splendid.
Recycling is, recycling.
Reducing is even better.
But if we don't stop how things are made, things are still going to deteriorate the earth.
I am a huge fan of choosing what I buy based on how things are packaged - if it is sustainable.
This is another one of those books that will change your life (for the better) if you really take these recommendations to heart.
example: I don't even have a baby, and suddenly I want to use cloth diapers! HAHH!!
Highly recommended for anyone who cares about the planet
4.8/5
September 3, 2017
I learned so much from this book. Production and consumerism wasn't really a part of environmentalism that I was overly interested in before this book. I thought it was important. But I also more or less thought it was a lost cause. That we would need huge technological advances before we could make any changes. Apparently, I've just been reading the wrong books.
I would say though that it needs a different introduction. It works just fine for the first two chapters of the book where we discuss mostly doom and gloom: all the problems with our current industrial system, but it did not prepare me for the ideas presented after chapter 2. After all the negative of the first two chapters, the optimistic world proposed seemed utopian and entirely unattainable. I had to suspend my belief for a while before I could jump on board with all these radical ideas.
I also thought that the book did get a little repetitive at times, but when it was making new points I always found them to be very insightful. I also found the notes section at the back of the book to be a little lacking. Some topics that were brought up didn't have any paper referenced in the back which is a shame, because I wanted to know where their information was coming from for a few of the issues addressed where they didn't have a paper cited. I understand that a lot of their examples and theories come from their own experience in the field, but I would have appreciated if they pointed me in the right direction to learn more about some topics.
There are so many examples of the products of the future that rely on eco-effectiveness, and there are a bunch that they have already helped to create: from fabrics to soaps to factory buildings. And imagining a world where all the products are helpful to all facets of the world is remarkable.
I am far more interested in learning more about the manufacturing process now than I used to be. This book has definitely opened the door for me, which is why I found it to be so valuable. I also think this would be a fantastic book for anyone who doesn't know anything about manufacturing or environmental ideals to read, the authors take the time to define main principles and terms, which I found to be useful on a number of occasions.
I would say though that it needs a different introduction. It works just fine for the first two chapters of the book where we discuss mostly doom and gloom: all the problems with our current industrial system, but it did not prepare me for the ideas presented after chapter 2. After all the negative of the first two chapters, the optimistic world proposed seemed utopian and entirely unattainable. I had to suspend my belief for a while before I could jump on board with all these radical ideas.
I also thought that the book did get a little repetitive at times, but when it was making new points I always found them to be very insightful. I also found the notes section at the back of the book to be a little lacking. Some topics that were brought up didn't have any paper referenced in the back which is a shame, because I wanted to know where their information was coming from for a few of the issues addressed where they didn't have a paper cited. I understand that a lot of their examples and theories come from their own experience in the field, but I would have appreciated if they pointed me in the right direction to learn more about some topics.
There are so many examples of the products of the future that rely on eco-effectiveness, and there are a bunch that they have already helped to create: from fabrics to soaps to factory buildings. And imagining a world where all the products are helpful to all facets of the world is remarkable.
I am far more interested in learning more about the manufacturing process now than I used to be. This book has definitely opened the door for me, which is why I found it to be so valuable. I also think this would be a fantastic book for anyone who doesn't know anything about manufacturing or environmental ideals to read, the authors take the time to define main principles and terms, which I found to be useful on a number of occasions.
May 1, 2022
3.25 stars
The authors are an architect and a chemist who work together to make/create more environmentally-friendly/sustainable items. They actually start off by saying that what we mostly do now is not good enough; that is, there are still issues with trying to be not “as bad” vs. all-out bad. They want to make things “good” (for human health, for the environment, and even for company’s/industry’s bottom lines, economically. They say it can be done (and they have examples of things they’ve done working with various companies to do those things).
It’s probably something we need to hear, but it’s new, and so for some things, I had a hard time wrapping my head around the ideas: eco-effective vs eco-efficient, upcycling vs downcycling, biological nutrients and technical nutrients, and more. I think I figured out downcycling -- when we currently recycle, this is what happens. This means that the items we recycle are being reused/remade, but they are of lower quality. Because they are of lower quality, more potential toxins/chemicals need to be added to “shore things up”, so to speak. I’m probably not explaining that well.
They did have some good examples and I think they are probably correct in what they are suggesting, but it was hard for me to figure all of it out. Maybe there needs to be more written on this, as the more I read, I’ll likely clue in a bit better. But what’s unfortunate (and I hadn’t realized) is that this book was published 20 years ago, in 2002. Without having heard much more about these concepts, I’m concerned that they haven’t really taken root, still.
The authors are an architect and a chemist who work together to make/create more environmentally-friendly/sustainable items. They actually start off by saying that what we mostly do now is not good enough; that is, there are still issues with trying to be not “as bad” vs. all-out bad. They want to make things “good” (for human health, for the environment, and even for company’s/industry’s bottom lines, economically. They say it can be done (and they have examples of things they’ve done working with various companies to do those things).
It’s probably something we need to hear, but it’s new, and so for some things, I had a hard time wrapping my head around the ideas: eco-effective vs eco-efficient, upcycling vs downcycling, biological nutrients and technical nutrients, and more. I think I figured out downcycling -- when we currently recycle, this is what happens. This means that the items we recycle are being reused/remade, but they are of lower quality. Because they are of lower quality, more potential toxins/chemicals need to be added to “shore things up”, so to speak. I’m probably not explaining that well.
They did have some good examples and I think they are probably correct in what they are suggesting, but it was hard for me to figure all of it out. Maybe there needs to be more written on this, as the more I read, I’ll likely clue in a bit better. But what’s unfortunate (and I hadn’t realized) is that this book was published 20 years ago, in 2002. Without having heard much more about these concepts, I’m concerned that they haven’t really taken root, still.
June 24, 2023
Das Buch beschreibt die fantastische Grundidee, jedes Produkt und dessen Bestandteile in geschlossenen Kreisläufen zu denken - und zwar ohne Verluste.
Dadurch entstehen mehr Rohstoffe statt weniger, der Mensch ergänzt den Reichtum der Natur mit unschädlichem, menschengemachtem Reichtum. Ein grenzenloses Konsumversprechen ohne die heute allgegenwärtige Kehrseite wäre dann möglich.
Dazu führt es viele Ansätze/Beispiele aus dem Beratungsgeschäft der Autoren auf, die über die heute verbreitete "Ökoeffizienz" (im Buch auch "Cradle to Grave" bezeichnet) hinausgehend das Credo des Buches, nämlich "Ökoeffektivität" erreichen sollen.
Diese Beispiele sind leider alle weder nachhaltig, noch ganzheitlich gedacht, noch wirtschaftlich (wie im Buch versprochen).
Das upcyclefähige Buch konnte keine Verbreitung finden (ich konnte auch nichts über den eigentlichen "Upcycleprozess" dieses Produktes finden), das Model U von Ford war eine reine Studie, seit 2003 wieder in der Schublade. Die "Ikone der nächsten industriellen Revolution", die komplette Umgestaltung der Ford Werke in River Rouge für 2 Mrd. USD war rückblickend eher eine Dachbegrünung mit Biofiltergrauwasserreinigung für 15 Mio Dollar.
Alles nicht schlecht, aber ich hoffe doch dass diese fantastische Idee, in Kreisläufen zu entwickeln, mehr Potential hat.
Leider muss ich diesen Autoren erstmal die Umsetzungskompetenz diesbezüglich absprechen - das Buch, das seit der Ersterscheinung Überarbeitungen erfahren hat, bietet keine brauchbaren Lösungsansätze.
1 Stern für die treffende Formulierung und den Buchtitel für diesen zukunftsweisenden Ansatz - Allerdings hätten 10 Seiten dafür genügt.
Dadurch entstehen mehr Rohstoffe statt weniger, der Mensch ergänzt den Reichtum der Natur mit unschädlichem, menschengemachtem Reichtum. Ein grenzenloses Konsumversprechen ohne die heute allgegenwärtige Kehrseite wäre dann möglich.
Dazu führt es viele Ansätze/Beispiele aus dem Beratungsgeschäft der Autoren auf, die über die heute verbreitete "Ökoeffizienz" (im Buch auch "Cradle to Grave" bezeichnet) hinausgehend das Credo des Buches, nämlich "Ökoeffektivität" erreichen sollen.
Diese Beispiele sind leider alle weder nachhaltig, noch ganzheitlich gedacht, noch wirtschaftlich (wie im Buch versprochen).
Das upcyclefähige Buch konnte keine Verbreitung finden (ich konnte auch nichts über den eigentlichen "Upcycleprozess" dieses Produktes finden), das Model U von Ford war eine reine Studie, seit 2003 wieder in der Schublade. Die "Ikone der nächsten industriellen Revolution", die komplette Umgestaltung der Ford Werke in River Rouge für 2 Mrd. USD war rückblickend eher eine Dachbegrünung mit Biofiltergrauwasserreinigung für 15 Mio Dollar.
Alles nicht schlecht, aber ich hoffe doch dass diese fantastische Idee, in Kreisläufen zu entwickeln, mehr Potential hat.
Leider muss ich diesen Autoren erstmal die Umsetzungskompetenz diesbezüglich absprechen - das Buch, das seit der Ersterscheinung Überarbeitungen erfahren hat, bietet keine brauchbaren Lösungsansätze.
1 Stern für die treffende Formulierung und den Buchtitel für diesen zukunftsweisenden Ansatz - Allerdings hätten 10 Seiten dafür genügt.
June 29, 2020
The main theme of this book is that rather than deplete fresh natural capital to do things with, and then throw away waste products, we should consider tapping waste products for materials of value - and that we should design things in order to better facilitate such circularity. The book is very (very) repetitive. It is also overly simplistic. I am wondering, for example, what to do with mine, now that I have read it. Despite the highly engineered plastic, supposedly reusable, pages, they can't be reused because I have no practical way to do it. On the other hand it will be super easy to throw it in the plastic recycling bin (which will lead to incineration with energy generation in my city). Practical problems don't lend themselves to philosophising, but to real world challenges and solutions. Basically, the philosophising here is fine. Just too long and a bit trite. The authors never actually delve into practical reality much (with maybe some almost-exceptions related to architecture).
January 22, 2020
I dream of the ideas set forth in this book becoming reality. ❤
November 10, 2022
Some of the examples seem a bit dated now, twenty years later, but the key concepts were a shot of adrenaline to my ecological imagination.
February 18, 2024
A push for a big shift in the way that we view design/materials. This book made me think and feel some big things about the world. Good stuff.
March 19, 2024
This book made me change my major 🙏🙏 we can all be conscious of the topics discussed in this book, no matter where in the process of industry we stand.
June 23, 2024
Interesting and useful product/architectural design philosophy. I will keep it in mind for future ideas.
September 4, 2011
A lot of environmental books/movies leave me feeling hopeless and terrified (a la McKibben's Eaarth: Making a Life on a Tough New Planet, the movie The Future of Food, etc.) - but this book provided a high-level overview of how to implement the necessary infrastructural changes to allow society to proceed in a sustainable, non-destructive way.
It deals with the topics of how goods are manufactured both from the perspective of how we expect them to be made (a cradle-to-grave mentality, if they even last that long) and how the manufacturers cater to a population satisfied with disposable goods. It addresses energy infrastructure, and the sometimes dubious methods involved in producing energy for a developed/developing world.
It uses relate-able examples that simplify the task of visualizing such a world.
And the most important thing, for me, was simply that it is so hopeful, without being naively optimistic. It provides for a groundwork for implementing these ideas in a manner that's economically feasible, a requirement in today's increasingly capitalist present-centric (with an increasingly blind eye towards the future) world.
I urge anyone who has any sort of curiosity in these matters to read the book. It's not long, nor a tough read (unlike
The Myth of Sisyphus and Other Essays which had me pausing after every few paragraphs to digest it!) One could even approach it as a whimsical sci-fi book, a portrayal of a not-TOO-different world in which we're not slowly burying ourselves in a rapidly heating world towards a government-sponsored oblivion. Whimsy indeed - we need not all live in yurts to survive the next century.
It deals with the topics of how goods are manufactured both from the perspective of how we expect them to be made (a cradle-to-grave mentality, if they even last that long) and how the manufacturers cater to a population satisfied with disposable goods. It addresses energy infrastructure, and the sometimes dubious methods involved in producing energy for a developed/developing world.
It uses relate-able examples that simplify the task of visualizing such a world.
And the most important thing, for me, was simply that it is so hopeful, without being naively optimistic. It provides for a groundwork for implementing these ideas in a manner that's economically feasible, a requirement in today's increasingly capitalist present-centric (with an increasingly blind eye towards the future) world.
I urge anyone who has any sort of curiosity in these matters to read the book. It's not long, nor a tough read (unlike
The Myth of Sisyphus and Other Essays which had me pausing after every few paragraphs to digest it!) One could even approach it as a whimsical sci-fi book, a portrayal of a not-TOO-different world in which we're not slowly burying ourselves in a rapidly heating world towards a government-sponsored oblivion. Whimsy indeed - we need not all live in yurts to survive the next century.
August 30, 2019
I am wondering why they do not teach this content at schools. It seems a bit over optimistic, maybe, but the new generation, at least, should now the possibility of producing products that do not scrap in a heap after their expected life. I was not aware of that, although always am looking for ways to reduce plastic usage and to recycle… but I was not mindful of Down-cycling, for example, as a main problem of recycling, or about the design of the non-hybrid products in a way that at the end they can be reused either in the natural biological cycle or industrial cycle.
I would suggest reading this book to everyone who cares about this planet and the creatures living on it.
I would suggest reading this book to everyone who cares about this planet and the creatures living on it.
January 4, 2011
One of Cambridge Sustainability's Top 50 Books for Sustainability, as voted for by our alumni network of over 3,000 senior leaders from around the world. To find out more, click here.
Cradle to Cradle begins where eco-efficiency ends. Eco-efficiency, according to McDonough and Braungart, is just about making a bad system a little less bad. Eco-effectiveness, on the other hand, is about redesigning products and services to make them good - bigger and better in a way that replenishes, restores and nourishes the rest of the world. Hence, industry can have a positive impact on the environment, provided it is designed with that positive impact in mind.
Cradle-to-cradle goes beyond 'cradle-to-grave' thinking; rather than simply considering impacts across the life-cycle of a product and trying to minimise waste, the authors argue for closed-loop production, where waste is acceptable only if it is entirely re-used by the system.
Cradle to Cradle begins where eco-efficiency ends. Eco-efficiency, according to McDonough and Braungart, is just about making a bad system a little less bad. Eco-effectiveness, on the other hand, is about redesigning products and services to make them good - bigger and better in a way that replenishes, restores and nourishes the rest of the world. Hence, industry can have a positive impact on the environment, provided it is designed with that positive impact in mind.
Cradle-to-cradle goes beyond 'cradle-to-grave' thinking; rather than simply considering impacts across the life-cycle of a product and trying to minimise waste, the authors argue for closed-loop production, where waste is acceptable only if it is entirely re-used by the system.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 1,132 reviews