> WILLIAM MCDONOUGH / ECOLOGICAL GENIUS
>
> It was Einstein who said no problem can be solved by
> the same consciousness that created it ~ and William
> McDonough is attempting to solve our current
> ecological problems by utilizing a new ecological
> consciousness which is already having dramatic
> effects
> throughout the world.
>
> Here's his recent interview with Anne Underwood of
> Newsweek .
>
> Allen L Roland
>
> NEWSWEEK - ecological architect
> May 16, 2005 issue
>
> http://msnbc.msn.com/id/7773650/site/newsweek/
>
> In a new interview series, NEWSWEEK talks to a
> leading
> ecological architect whose goal is nothing less than
> eliminating waste and pollution.
>
> Imagine buildings that generate more energy than
> they
> consume and factories whose waste water is clean
> enough to drink. William McDonough has accomplished
> these tasks and more. Architect, industrial designer
> and founder of McDonough Braungart Design Chemistry
> in
> Charlottesville, Virginia, he's not your traditional
> environmentalist. Others may expend their energy
> fighting for stricter environmental regulations and
> repeating the mantra "reduce, reuse, recycle."
> McDonough's vision for the future includes factories
> so safe they need no regulation, and novel, safe
> materials that can be totally reprocessed into new
> goods, so there's no reason to scale back
> consumption
> (or lose jobs). In short, he wants to overhaul the
> Industrial Revolution -- which would sound crazy if
> he
> weren't working with Fortune 500 companies and the
> government of China to make it happen. The recipient
> of two U.S. presidential honors and the National
> Design Award, McDonough is the former dean of
> architecture at the University of Virginia and
> co-chair of the China-U.S. Center for Sustainable
> Development. He spoke in New York recently with
> NEWSWEEK's Anne Underwood.
>
> UNDERWOOD: Why do we need a new industrial
> revolution?
>
> MCDONOUGH: The Industrial Revolution as a whole was
> not designed. It took shape gradually as
> industrialists and engineers figured out how to make
> things. The result is that we put billions of pounds
> of toxic materials in the air, water and soil every
> year and generate gigantic amounts of waste. If our
> goal is to destroy the world -- to produce global
> warming and toxicity and endocrine disruption --
> we're
> doing great. But if the goal isn't global warming,
> what is it? I want to crank the wheel of industry in
> a
> different direction to produce a world of abundance
> and good design -- a delightful, safe world that our
> children can play in.
>
> You say that recycling, as it's currently practiced,
> is "downcycling."
> What we call recycling is typically the product
> losing
> its quality. Paper gets mixed with other papers,
> re-chlorinated and contaminated with toxic inks. The
> fiber length gets shorter, allowing more particles
> to
> abrade into the air, where they get into your lungs
> and nasal passages, and cause irritation. And you
> end
> up with gray, fuzzy stuff that doesn't really work
> for
> you. That's downcycling.
>
> [My mentor and colleague] Michael Braungart and I
> coined the term upcycling, meaning that the product
> could actually get better as it comes through the
> system. For example, some plastic bottles contain
> the
> resi-dues of heavy-metal catalysts. We can remove
> those residues as the bottles come back to be
> upcycled.
>
> Not all products lend themselves to that.
> Most manufacturers take resources out of the ground
> and convert them to products that are designed to be
> thrown away or incinerated within months. We call
> these "cradle to grave" product flows. Our answer to
> that is "cradle to cradle" design. Everything is
> reused -- either returned to the soil as nontoxic
> "biological nutrients" that will biodegrade safely,
> or
> returned to industry as "technical nutrients" that
> can
> be infinitely recycled. Aluminum is a technical
> nutrient. It takes tremendous energy to make, but
> it's
> easy to recapture and reuse. Since 1880, the human
> species has made 660 million tons of it. We still
> know
> where 440 million tons are today.
>
> Are there products already that meet
> cradle-to-cradle
> goals? If so, how do we find them?
> Within the month, we will be branding cradle to
> cradle. Products that meet our criteria for
> biological
> and technical nutrients can be certified to use our
> logo. A note on the packaging will tell you how to
> recycle it. You'll know: this one goes into my
> tomato
> plot when I'm finished or this one goes back to
> industry forever. We have already approved a nylon,
> some polyester textiles, running tracks, window
> shades, chairs from Herman Miller and Steelcase, and
> carpets from Shaw, which is part of Berkshire
> Hathaway. The first was a Steelcase fabric that can
> go
> back to the soil. We're now working on electronics
> on
> a global scale.
>
> How do paper products like magazines fit into this
> picture?
> Why take something as exquisite as a tree and knock
> it
> down? Trees make oxygen, sequester carbon, distill
> water, build soils, convert solar energy to fuel,
> change colors with the seasons, create microclimates
> and provide habitat.
>
> My book "Cradle to Cradle," which I wrote with
> Michael
> Braungart, is printed on pages made of plastic
> resins
> and inorganic fillers that are infinitely
> recyclable.
> They're too heavy, but we're working with companies
> now to develop lightweight plastic papers. We have
> safe, lightweight inks designed to float off the
> paper
> in a bath of 180 degrees -- hotter than you would
> encounter under normal circumstances. We can
> recapture
> the inks and reuse them without adding chlorine and
> dioxins to the environment. And the pages are clean,
> smooth and white.
>
> So we can keep our trees and have newspapers, too.
> Most environmentalists feel guilty about how society
> behaves, so they say we should make longer-lasting
> products -- for example, a car that lasts 25 years.
> That car will still use compound epoxies and toxic
> adhesives, but the ecological footprint is reduced
> because you've amortized it over a longer time. But
> what's the result? You lose jobs because people
> aren't
> buying as much, and you're using the wrong
> technology
> longer. I want five-year cars. Then you can always
> be
> getting the newest car -- more solar-powered,
> cleaner,
> with the newest air bags and safety features. The
> old
> car gets upcycled into new cars, so there are still
> plenty of jobs. And you don't feel guilty about
> throwing the old one away. People want new
> technology.
> You're not typing on an Underwood, if you know what
> I
> mean.
>
> So growth is good?
> Yes, if you use nature as a model and mentor, if you
> use modern designs and chemicals that are safe.
> Growth
> is destructive if you use energy not from the sun
> and
> a system of chemicals that is toxic, so it's
> anti-life.
>
> Given that industry today fits your definition of
> anti-life, why aren't you fighting for stricter
> environmental regulations?
> If coal plants release mercury -- and mercury is a
> neurotoxin that damages children's brains -- then
> reducing the amount of mercury in emissions doesn't
> stop that. It just says, "We'll tell you at what
> rate
> you can dispense death." Being less bad is not being
> good. Our idea is to make production so clean,
> there's
> nothing bad left to regulate. This is extremely
> interesting to people of all political persuasions
> --
> those who love the environment and those who want
> commerce free of regulation.
>
> Can you really have industry so clean it requires no
> controls?
> [At the Rohner textile plant in Switzerland] we
> designed a fabric safe enough to eat. The
> manufacturing process uses no mutagens, carcinogens,
> endocrine disrupters, heavy-metal contaminants or
> chemicals that cause ozone depletion, allergies,
> skin
> desensitization or plant and fish toxicity. We
> screened 8,000 commonly used chemicals and ended up
> with 38. When inspectors measured the effluent
> water,
> they thought their instruments were broken. The
> water
> was as clean as Swiss drinking water. A garden club
> started using the waste trimmings as mulch. Workers
> no
> longer had to wear protective clothing. And it
> eliminated regulatory paperwork, so they've reduced
> the cost of production by 20 percent. Why spend
> money
> on paperwork, when you can spend it delivering
> service
> or paying your workers a living wage?
>
> Where would I find this fabric?
> It was selected for upholstery on the new Airbus
> 380.
> It's made of worsted wool to keep you at the right
> temperature -- cool when it's hot and warm when it's
> cold -- and [a plant fiber called] ramie to wick
> away
> moisture. It's a high-performance-design product.
> Going ecological doesn't mean downgrading
> performance
> criteria.
>
> How do you get more industries to adopt these
> ideals?
> Industries don't change unless they have to or
> there's
> some commercial benefit. At Herman Miller [the
> furniture company], we designed a factory full of
> daylight and fresh air. Productivity soared. And
> because of all the natural light, they cut lighting
> costs by 50 percent -- overall energy by 30 percent.
> We've been doing this a long time. But now that
> China
> has taken it up, it portends exciting things.
>
> What are you doing in China?
> The China Housing Industry Association has the
> responsibility for building housing for 400 million
> people in the next 12 years. We're working with them
> to design seven new cities. We're identifying
> building
> materials of the future, such as a new polystyrene
> from BASF [with no noxious chemicals]. It can be
> used
> to build walls that are strong, lightweight and
> superinsulating. The building can be heated and
> cooled
> for next to nothing. And it's silent. If there are
> 13
> people in the apartment upstairs, you won't hear
> them.
>
>
> We've designed a luxurious new toilet. The bowl is
> like a lotus leaf -- so smooth, axle grease slips
> right off. Nothing sticks to it, including bacteria.
> A
> light mist when you're done will be enough to flush
> it, so you won't use lots of water. We'll have
> bamboo
> wetlands nearby to purify the waste -- and the
> bamboo,
> which grows a foot a day, can be harvested and used
> for wood.
>
> The Chinese are afraid urbanization will reduce
> productive farmland, so we'll move farms onto
> rooftops. At least, that's what I'm proposing. The
> farmers can live downstairs. And when you look at
> the
> city from a distance, it will look like part of the
> landscape.
>
> Is it practical to put farms on roofs?
> Traditional roofs aren't practical. They degrade
> from
> thermal shock and ultraviolet radiation and have to
> be
> replaced in 20 years. For the Gap's corporate campus
> in San Bruno, Calif., we planted a "green roof" of
> ancient grasses. The roof now damps the sounds of
> jets
> from the San Francisco airport. It absorbs storm
> water, which is important because they have serious
> issues with storm water there. It makes oxygen,
> provides habitat, and it's beautiful. We also made a
> green roof for Ford Motor Co.'s River Rouge plant.
> It
> saved Ford millions of dollars in storm-water
> equipment.
>
> How will you fuel the Chinese cities?
> I want to see solar power cheaper than coal, but to
> get the speed and scale to do that fast, you need a
> place like China. We're not talking about dinky
> solar
> collectors on roofs. Think of square miles of
> marginal
> land covered with them. This could drop the cost of
> solar energy an order of magnitude. And for every
> job
> making solar panels, there are four jobs putting
> them
> in place and maintaining them. We could import these
> panels, and for every job the Chinese give
> themselves,
> we get four. What a gift. And I guarantee you, China
> will never be able to capture an American photon. We
> would have indigenous energy and energy security.
> And
> we wouldn't be throwing our money into holes in the
> ground.
>
> And we wouldn't need nuclear energy.
> I love nuclear energy. I just want to make sure it
> stays where God put it -- 93 million miles away, in
> the sun.
>
> Your ideas are really catching on.
> It's an amazing moment in history. We also have two
> huge new projects in England -- working with the
> cities of Greenwich and Wembley. The developer,
> Adrian
> Wyatt, has asked us to conceive the meta-framework
> for
> the project.
>
> We won't get everything right the first time. Change
> requires experimentation. But no problem can be
> solved
> by the same consciousness that created it. Our job
> is
> to dream -- and to make those dreams happen.
>
_______________________________________________
Biofuel mailing list
Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org
Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html
Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages):
http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
