Customer Reviews

Cradle To Cradle

5 star:		(18)
4 star:		(6)
3 star:		(3)
2 star:		(1)
1 star:		(4)

 

 

This is an extraordinary and unlikely book. It is not printed on paper, but on a waterproof polymer with the heft of good paper and more strength, a substance that reflects the right amount of light, yet holds the ink fast. It seems like an impossible fantasy, but so does much of what the authors propose about design and ecology. They speak with the calm certainty of the ecstatic visionary. Could buildings generate oxygen like trees? Could running shoes release nutrients into the earth? It seems like science fiction. Yet, here is this book, on this paper. The authors make a strong case for change, and just when you're about to say, "if only," they cite a corporation that is implementing their ideas. However, it's hard to believe their concepts would work on a large scale, in the face of powerful economic disincentives. We believe authors do aim some of their criticism at obsolete marketing and manufacturing philosophies, but the overall critique is well worth reading.

McDonough & Braungart are obviously very talented guys. This book is harshly honest as they don't spare the rod in respect to either full-out industrial capitalists or eco-efficiency proponents.

However, I had three issues with this book:

1) It could have been a lot more throught-provoking if the authors had organized the book better. Seriously, it takes 80 or so pages before you get a handle on the author's true point of view. They spend every single word until that point debunking all other approaches in the field. I wish they had interspersed it with their ideas. But they keep their hand hidden until that point. I found it frustrating.

2) There's a big deal made of the book itself, and its 'upcycle potential.' All well and good, but can I point out a rather annoying side-effect? This is a difficult book to read...I mean from an ergonomic perspective. You just can't keep the thing open. And as far as reading it on a bookholder when you're working out: forget it. It will not lie flat. I realize this is an insipid criticism, but this technology is not yet ready for prime-time, in my opinion.

3) The book needs to be more quantitative. Only in the last chapter do we get any hint of realism, when the authors tell you about their work with Ford's River Rouge plant. Up until that point, there were some hints dropped here and there, most notably about the Herman Miller office the duo built. I'm sure they've got reams of quantitative evidence to support their theories. For some reason, they made a decision not to present it, and I think it hurts the book.

Still, depsite these comments, I think 'Cradle to Cradle' is worth your time.

This doesn't feel like a book - literally. It's a different size and shape, the pages are thick, the thing feels significantly heavier than it looks, and it's waterproof.

The design of the book is making a point also made in the text of the book: the current state of recycling generally turns higher quality products into lower quality ones useful only for purposes other than the original product, and then eventually discards them. This is not recycling; it's slow motion waste.

"Cradle to Cradle," the object, is intended to be easily and completely recyclable into a new book of the same quality.

"Cradle to cradle," the phrase, is contrasted to "cradle to grave."

"Cradle to Cradle," the text, argues in favor of making all human productions either recyclable in the way this book is or completely biodegradable so that they can be used as fertilizer.

In the future envisioned and partially created and described by this pair of authors, packaging will be tossed on the ground in response to signs reading "Please litter!" Appliances will be leased and returned to manufacturers to be completely recycled. Objects that must contain both biodegradable and inorganic recyclable elements will be easily separable into those respective parts: you'll toss the soles of your shoes into the garden and give the uppers back to the shoemaker. And the water coming out of factories will be cleaner than what came in, motivating the factory owners to reuse it and eliminating the need for the government to test its toxicity.

These authors teemed up on the 1991 Hannover Principles to guide the design of the 2000 World's Fair. McDonough has an architecture firm in Charlottesville, Va., and from 1994 to 1999 was dean of the University of Virginia's School of Architecture. Braungart is a German chemist who for several years headed the chemistry section of Greenpeace.

This book is superb and should be read by those familiar with the issues of environmental design and those completely new to the topic. It draws on themes common in a long list of books ranging from "Ishmael," by Daniel Quinn to "Natural Capitalism," by Paul Hawken, Amory Lovins, and L. Hunter Lovins. But McDonough and Braungart make no acknowledgements of any such influences and present themselves (just as these other authors have) as the vanguard of a change as radical as the industrial revolution.

Their idea is incredibly important and well stated, but it's not the clear break from current environmental (or for that matter industrial or "Third Way") thinking that they maintain - and for students of evolution why should it need to be, what's wrong with evolving our thinking a helpful bit further, as they have done? What McD and B propose as revolutionary is -- instead of reducing pollution and consumption and having fewer children -- making increased economic activity actually beneficial to the planet.

Three comments. First, this book does not suggest any radical change in behavior for the typical reader. (Have lots of kids, drive lots of cars, buy lots of stuff - what a break through!) This book is, rather, advice for architects, corporations, and municipalities. It is intended to free the typical reader of guilt. I think it should do something else as well, namely urge us to political action, to demanding of our democratically elected representatives that the earth-saving innovations described in the book be taken advantage of. All the descriptions in this book of common household objects, such as sofas, "off-gasing" toxic particles makes me want to take action to change things or at least buy a mask, not go shopping.

Second, the examples of new materials and building and product designs described in the book all build on the environmental thinking that McD and B so loudly reject. Reducing pollution to zero is not a "new paradigm" from reducing pollution to a teeny bit - it's just better.

Third, the vision of rendering mad self-indulgence completely beneficial to all other species is far from a reality, and even the dream described by McD and B would not, in any way that I can imagine, make it possible to place an unlimited number of humans on the planet without hurting anything - more humans than under current practices, yes -- an infinite number, no. But let's remember that most of the people now on the planet do not do nearly as much damage as we do in this country. How many billion Americans the Earth can hold has not been answered.

There is also a disturbing thread of anti-government corporatism in the book. Ford and Nike and other corporations for which the authors have worked are described as heroes for their positive efforts, while their destructive practices are passed over. The authors repeat a distinction (citing Jane Jacobs' "Systems of Survival") between Guardians and Commerce, i.e. paternalistic government and noble corporate heroes:

"Commerce is quick, highly creative, inventive, constantly seeking short- and long-term advantage, and inherently honest: you can't do business with people if they aren't trustworthy."

Is this a joke? Do these guys believe press releases they read from, say, Enron? (Apparently so, because later in the book they write: "...the summer of 2001, when unusually high energy demand in California led to rolling blackouts, skyrocketing prices, even accusations of profiteering...." Accusations! High demand or restrained supply? What rock have these intelligent authors been naturally cooling themselves under? Well, at least they recognize the concept of profiteering, even though it fits poorly with the inherent honesty of commerce.)

Immediately following the "inherently honest" comment (page 60) Mc D and B go on to equate regulation with partial pollution reduction, and to conclude that because complete pollution reduction is desirable and possible, regulation is bad. Instead they should conclude that rather than allowing limited pollution, regulators should ban it entirely (through whatever stages of phasing in that policy prove feasible).

Let's be clear: this book is about ideas.

It's not a "how to" manual. It's not a recipe book. It's about promoting the idea of designing things that "work" over their entire life cycle. Which includes the time they spend, for example, in landfill leaching toxins into the earth.

It's about how many commonly used household products carry all sorts of chemical legacies of their "short cut" design processes. When spending more time in the design process could result in big savings at the factory, at the furniture superstore, and in the amount of toxins off-gassed into your home or into the environment.

And it's about redesigning industrial processes inside large and small organisations to both save a LOT of money, and achieve the goal of "whole life cycle" safety and excellence.

And so, in explaining these concepts, there is little space for pages and pages of graphs and chemical formulas. It's a concept book - not an industrial chemistry manual.

It seems like there are three kinds of people who will read this book:
1) People who know nothing about the topic. Folk like this will be blown away by the possibility this book represents and will ask "WHY!?" the kinds of things outlined in the book aren't done as routine.
2) Industrial Chemists/Scientists. Folk like this will probably say "Yes! At last this stuff is getting publicised!" These people won't need the pages of formulas other reviewers have criticised the book for not having, they will know that stuff already.
3) Pseudo-Intellectuals. These people will likely criticise the book for not having the formulas and graphs they couldn't understand if it did.

If you want ideas, buy this book. If you want a chemistry textbook, buy one.

This is an amazing and transformative book. I ordered it for my boyfriend for Christmas and when it arrived found out it was an AUDIO Book. I didn't even know that there was one for Cradle to Cradle. It should have been much more clearly marked on the vendor page. We have only listened to a few minutes of it to make sure it works (it wouldn't play in his car, but works on the computer). The narrator is alright but I wanted the book so it could be read at its own pace. I was disappointed.

The book is easy to read and very imformative. If manufacturers could apply this approach, the planet may actually survive the impacts of consumerism.

More importantly, the Author and his editor practice what they preach; the book itself is not made of paper!

Cradle to Cradle is the most intelligent book on environmentalism I have ever read, by far.

The most immediately impressive thing about Cradle to Cradle is the material itself. The fact that this book is not printed on paper gives some visceral justification to the theories inside.

However, much more impressive is the Cradle to Cradle (C2C) philosophy. Traditional recycling is flawed - instead, we need to change the way we design things. A cradle to grave philosophy is no longer necessary. We have the technology now to make much of our stuff travel in closed loops, being infinitely reused. We can't keep throwing things 'away' forever - sooner or later we'll run out of 'away'.

I love the pragmatism of Cradle to Cradle. When confronting problems of this scale, its easy to get lost or give up, but the authors instead attempt to provide a way to get there from here, acknowledging that it is unlikely that large numbers of people will decide to stop consuming, so instead focus their energies on making that consumption no longer damaging.

I bought a copy for my Engineering brother, and I hope that every single one of his colleagues reads it.

The authors have been talking about waste=food as long as the climate change people, and once you internalize the concepts of the two you can't help but understand that yes, climate change is bad, but it is only one of an immense amount of negative products (toxins and other pollution) of the fundamental flaws of bad design. It's scary, I'm scared, everyone I know is unless they loose themselves to the pursuit of pleasure: The world is poisoning itself. Sure we can tackle one problem at a time, like climate change, through measures that mitigate but without design, as the authors assert well, we will not be remedying the cause. This book offers a good pragmatic approach to the ideal of sustainability without sacrificing quality of living. It's a short read good for the beach or bath-tub (because the book is waterproof).

This book is a sometimes interesting, often meandering treatise on design. The authors, and American architect and a German chemist, have a very sincere desire to realign the world of design of objects and buildings so that they contribute to the betterment of the environment rather than destroy it. The title of the book "Cradle to Cradle" encapsulates their goal of designing objects that when they are no longer needed, naturally become useful inputs for the production of other objects rather than getting sent to the grave (or buried in a landfill). For example, they would like to see the creation of food packaging that could be thrown on the ground when the contents are consumed and would become fertilizer rather than non-biodegradable litter. (By this measure, the women concessionaires selling steamed rice treats in Indonesian trains are masters of design. The rice is both steamed and packaged in banana leafs, which are simply thrown out the train windows once the rice is consumed. But this practice also creates enormous problems- -since Indonesians have been accustomed to using such environmentally beneficial packaging for generations, they assume that "modern" packaging can be discarded in the same manner, much to the detriment of the Indonesian countryside. If you are living in a world of mixed packaging, some of which can be thrown out the window, and some of which must be discarded by other means, it's hard to keep straight which stuff goes where. That's a vital cultural issue that the authors don't explore here.)

McDounough and Braungart list the goals for their design program. They challenge inventors and industry leaders to design factories that "produce more energy than they consume, and purify their own waste water," and products that "can be tossed on the ground to decompose" or become "high-quality raw materials for new products" rather than simply "down-cycled". At the outset, these goals can sound a bit far-fetched. After, all, a factory that produces more energy than it consumes would seem to violate the Second Law of Thermodynamics. But what the authors really mean here is not that the factory would miraculously produce something from nothing, but that the design of the factory would include such things as solar collectors on the roof and devices to capture heat that could then send energy back out to the power grid, perhaps even in excess of electrical energy coming in. They illustrate their lofty dreams with concrete designs that they have helped develop and implement, such as a cosmetics plant in Germany whose wastewater is actually cleaner than the water coming in to the plant, thanks to the new chemical formulations they recommended. What's more, they point out that such design efforts can be even be good for business, since in this particular example, the company was able to cut costs on hazardous materials handling and storage enough to more than offset slightly increased production costs with the new formulas. Such design efforts are fabulous examples of the potential benefits of thinking "out of the box".

The book contains quite a few additional examples of brilliant design ideas that can save resources as well as money. The book is also filled with surprising tidbits that haven't become general knowledge yet, like the potential hazards of wearing fabric made of recycled plastic bottles, and the fact that PET bottles were found to leach antimony when used as soap containers. The authors point out that the decision to use either recycled paper or virgin paper is not as clear cut as it seems- -while the production of virgin paper necessitates the cutting down of trees, recycling paper requires enormous amounts of bleaching, which produces PCBs. To demonstrate an alternative, the book itself is printed on a paper-free composite of plastics, which could be easily recycled into more book-grade plastics. The informative details and design goals of the book are quite interesting. However, the text often meanders around and through topics that are at best tangential or described better in other volumes. At times, some details or issues are also rehashed repetitively. In these places, it would have been better to focus on explicating McDonough and Braungart's own design program more fully. They've got some neat ideas that are well worth exploring, and it would have been great to be able to read even more about them and less about the general problems of environmental destruction that are described better in other books.

I am a graduate student in a school of architecture that talks alot about doing 'sustainable design' and the 'green' architecture that has become a fad of late. This book makes the designer think not about efficiently designing buildings, but efficiently designing MATERIALS to eliminate the dangers that are inherent to the chemistry of almost every modern building product. It was an eye-opening read for me and has changed the way i think about 'sustainable design' and what the true goal of 'green' architecture should be.