Cradle to Cradle: Remaking the Way We Make Things
Where to buy Cradle to Cradle: Remaking the Way We Make Things books online?
- ISBN13: 9780865475878
- Condition: NEW
- Notes: Brand New from Publisher. No Remainder Mark.
Product Description
A manifesto for a radically different philosophy and practice of manufacture and environmentalism
“Lower, reuse, recycle” urge environmentalists; in additional words, do more with less in order to minimize hurt. As William McDonough and Michael Braungart argue in their provocative, visionary book, but, this approach perpetuates a one-way, “cradle to grave” manufacturing model that dates to the Manufacturing Revolution and casts off as much as 90 percent of the materials it uses as waste, much of it toxic. Why not challenge the notion that human industry must inevitably hurt the natural world, they question.
In fact, why not take scenery itself as our model? A tree produces thousands of blossoms in order to make another tree, yet we do not consider its plenty wasteful but safe, gorgeous, and highly effective; hence, “waste equals food” is the first principle the book sets into the world. Products might be designed so that, after their useful life, they provide nourishment for something new-either as “biological nutrients” that safely re-enter the environment or as “technical nutrients” that circulate within clogged-loop manufacturing cycles, lacking being “downcycled” into low-grade uses (as most “recyclables” now are).
Elaborating their principles from experience (re)crafty everything from carpeting to corporate campuses, the authors make an exciting and viable case for change.
Amazon.com Review
Paper or plastic? Neither, say William McDonough and Michael Braungart. Why settle for the least harmful alternative when we could have something that is better–say, edible grocery bags! In Cradle to Cradle, the authors present a manifesto calling for a new manufacturing revolution, one that would render both traditional manufacturing and traditional environmentalism obsolete. Recycling, for instance, is really “downcycling,” making hybrids of biological and technical “nutrients” which are then unrecoverable and unusable. The authors, an architect and a chemist, want to eliminate the concept of waste altogether, while preserving commerce and allowing for human scenery. They offer several compelling examples of corporations that are not just doing less harm–they’re really doing some excellent for the environment and their neighborhoods, and building more money in the process. Cradle to Cradle is a refreshing change from the intractable environmental conflicts that dominate headlines. It’s a handbook for 21st-century innovation and should be required reading for business hotshots and environmental activists. –Therese Littleton
Buy Cheap Cradle to Cradle: Remaking the Way We Make Things Online
Related posts:
A tremendous disappointment. The first half of the book recites the same ancient litany of distortions and half-truths well loved with extreme environmentalists. The second half offers promises but disappoints. Don’t look here for new thoughts that will help with balancing economic growth and the environment. The few thoughts are not new. The few examples, though individually excellent, are surrogates for supporting the environmental agenda of the authors. The authors extol the ant for living an environmentally productive life: Humans, on the additional hand, ruin. The authors fail to mention that ants never wrote the Iliad, painted the Sistine Chapel, or composed La Traviata.
Reader’s Rating: 1 / 5
My boss gave this to me to read as suggested reading as I am a Product Manager. It is the only reason I read this book.
These guys are living in la la land. It’s like socialism, sounds excellent on paper striving for the perfect utopia but in reality just falls all apart under its own weight. Case in point; the book describes how Chicago is a participating green city. I work in the loop and the only building worth mentioning that has the dirt and flowers on the roof is city hall. The authors are so obvoiusly NOT from Chicago because they mention that windmills should be used more regularly and Chicago would be a excellent place because it is the “WIndy City”. If you live in Chicago you know the nick name comes from the 1860’s political conventions and all of their hot air, both Democrat and Republican.
Another example of la la land thinking is when they suggest factories be built with a forest on the north side to protect the wind and use sun lights to light the interiors of buildings. Will the government help owners pay the extra cost of buying larger land plots so that we can plant that forest in the north side? Didn’t reflect so.
Thank my lucky stars that:
A) The book is made out of plastic and has thick pages so that it only took me a few hours to read it.
B) We still live in a free non socialist country where we have the right to blow these guys off for the crack pots they are. Have to go cut my one species of grass that I planted out front… See ya!
Reader’s Rating: 1 / 5
Rumor has it that corporations are all going green. Even Ford will become perfectly sustainable. Now they abuse their employees & produce thousands of fossil-fuel-burning cars out of a “green” facility built with materials extracted from where, a green, sustainable mining operation?
This book has some excellent points & quotes, but in the end it’s another propaganda piece for greenwashing corporations.
Reader’s Rating: 1 / 5
It’s about the weight of the book. It might be a detail but the material used for this book makes it a lot more heavier than a normal book. On a large scale shipment and distribution, won’t it have vital consequences on fuel consumption ?
Reader’s Rating: 3 / 5
Any valid points that McDonough and Braungart were trying to make in their novel were lost among two hundred pages supporting the authors’ respective ecological agendas. The authors made no attempt to appeal to readers that may have differing attitudes toward their radical recycling proposals and eco-friendly designs. The authors would have been far more successful in reaching a broader audience had they taken a drastically different approach to the novel and its topics.
The novel provides the reader with a perspective on the changes in ecological policies over time but what the authors failed to derive from their study of environmental practices is that changes are generally made gradually, and that new policies, even if made in one day, can not be adopted all at once. The authors place down the thoughts of building current industries and production processes “less terrible” claiming that as a replacement for these processes should be completely re-vamped.
In theory, the authors have a point. Our goal should be to design processes and products that make more energy than they use. The authors slam our current recycling policies and many industries with scathing criticism. The authors need the cooperation of the people that they criticize the most. Lacking the support of the engineers and industry workers, many of the authors’ thoughts will never be realized: don’t they know not to bite the hand that feeds them?
I agree that products should be designed with their essential disposal in mind, but the authors do not provide concrete examples or facts to support many of their claims and thoughts. For example, the novel would have been more effective had the authors included economic analyses of current practices compared to one of their proposed thoughts. The authors fail to include many substantial examples of putting their eco-friendly thoughts into practice, thus weakening every argument in the novel.
The authors constantly remind readers about the ant. There are many different species of ants, and many different types of people. Ants can work in groups, or alone, just like humans. Ants too, wage war. But ants do not walk on the moon, perform surgeries, renovate life saving medicine, drive, sustain lifelong friendships, and make composition, art or literature. And humans do not lie out in the sun to store energy to bring back to their homes to use for heat, as do ants. In fact, ants are not the choice makers who can place the authors’ thoughts into practice, therefore, it would have been wise for the authors to spend less time praising the ants for their eco-friendly ways of life, and spend a small more time acknowledging that our current recycling practices are building a difference. I know that changes still need to be made, but the authors make our current efforts out to be more damaging than helpful, leaving the reader with a bitter attitude about recycling and the future of our world’s ecological health.
Reader’s Rating: 1 / 5