Lights. Camera. Action.

I would like to expand on a previous post that was based on the concept, “The rediscovery of wonder”.  If people are naturally curious, fulfilling the “being” quality through imagination and creation, then how can we tap into that while at the same time making people aware of their poor sustainability habits?  My answer is through entertainment.  We all like to be entertained by things around us.  Thus, my concept of addressing consumption will be a series of moves all interrelated that proposes an educational component of change.  In short, by manipulating and changing the stories we tell ourselves, we can alter the story of our sustainability.

The specific consumption behavior I would like to target is one of overconsumption.  This is important because put simply overconsumption is the state of consuming too much of any one thing (food, fuel, etc.).  According to the, Design Activism reading this address is important for over-consumers because they need to adopt and implement eco-effective strategies within their lives.  Thus, awareness must be raised to a broad audience in order to show the real impacts of over-consuming, as well as, new ideas on how to live a better life.

The company, Walt Disney has had an interesting journey since their founding in 1923.  Their timeline since has been one that includes animated movies, all-live actions features, theatrical features, radio pictures, theme parks , publication, cable network plans, a video collection, television syndication block, magazines, merchandise, partnerships, video games, etc.  Obviously a company that as of 2012, has had an 89 year run and still going strong, has a reason its successful.  They have made smart business decisions allowing them to tap into multiple venues, diversify themselves, and ENTERTAIN their audiences without fail.  This same concept needs to be incorporated into educating sustainable solutions, a concept of social change.

We need to develop fantastical solutions to everyday sustainability problems.  This further needs to take place by educating viewers without them every feeling as though it was forced upon them.  Through the implementation of films, video games, publications, etc, sustainability education would not be limited to one arena of concentration.  Thus, as the reading offers, we could focus on communication by information.  Within movies this could be projected within the subcategories already offered, including exemplifying the “ideal habit”, redirecting theory and practice, and communication by story.  Different strategies can also be implemented through this variety, such as the critical strategy which sparks discussion or debate.  The series of change could begin with a movie, but it doesn’t have to end there. I would like you to imagine the areas Disney have had success in to this concept of design activism. 

As I conclude my last blog, I would like to reflect on what I am really taking away from this course.  In short, I am taking away a hunger to learn more.  Over the past few years I have been eager to learn environmental design concepts, but never have thought how extensively I could implement this into being a designer or how I could perpetuate change.  As an interior designer I can take steps to incorporate sustainable strategies into my designs.  This begins with choosing environmentally conscious products and last through designing efficient buildings themselves.  I plan to practice these smart decisions, as well as, become a “LEED AP” or a Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design Accredited Professional.

From wood to manure...it’s a stinky matter

With spring in the air and warmer weather upon us I see many people in their yards.  I see them pruning, mowing, and planting, but what about the transportation and packaging of all their products? I’d like to take you through the buying process at your local store, and suggest a few implications for design use from that process. 

You buy a potted tree, but what was the tree transported on?  Cardboard is no match for the heavy weight items, so distributors use wooden palettes.  However, I wondered what happens to the palettes when they are done?  So I asked.  I was told they keep a few of the palettes around for unloading trucks, moving items, etc.  Others are sent back to the company they originated from, IF they are in top shape.  However, if they are damaged, broken or unusable they are trashed.  Which means the general public could not only get an item for free, but within Cradle to Cradle they could use this waste as a food.

If waste equals resources, then the pallets easily fall into this category.  Interior implications for the palettes can fall under both the recycle and reuse category, as well as, be a member of up-cycling.  The original palettes, although useful, did not have a very “valuable” life.  However, what I would like to propose is converting the discarded palettes into furniture.  This could be a headboard, a seating frame, a shelf on the wall, etc.  According to Cradle to Cradle, this concept falls into a technical nutrient cycle, which means to be within a “closed-loop” industrial cycle.  The palettes are used, given new life as a furniture piece, and then can be turned back into parts for new assembly of more palettes.

  Palette Coffee Table

Now let’s discuss the plant you purchased.  It comes in a nice, flexible green dyed pot.  However, although this pot contains your harmless plant, it also contains harmful toxins.  You also purchase fertilizer, or manure, that comes in a plastic bag.  So why not convert these two product into one?  A pot made from manure, which not only can be used to transport the plant from the store to home, but also can be safely planted into the ground and feed the earth.  According to the C2CAD reading, designers need to phase out other products and only select products that are defined as either biological or technical nutrients. To be a biological nutrient a product must be able to be biodegradable, or feed the environment. The product I am suggesting falls under that category. 

Manure Based Pot

Although I thought I was being innovative by developing this product, I did a little Google searching and found that it already exist in some forms.  One product I found is called “CowPots”, which were developed by dairy farmers.  Their process came from a belief that they could use their cow’s manure to manage their nutrient stream.  This reminds me of Anita Ahuja, a designer discussed in the Textile Futures article.  Ahuja is taking trash and transforming it into trendy fashion, the same is being done with CowPots.  One person’s trash is TRULY another person’s treasure.

the house of glass

When I began thinking about interior product usage, as well as, household product usage I thought about the types of materials we are using.  One of which, is glass. Take a second to look around where you are sitting.  Do you see a light bulb? A bottle? A window? All products of glass, but where does the glass go when you’re done with it?

Glass collection points, known as “bottle banks” are very common, but what happens to the glass when we recycle it?  What products are being made, and do they fall into the down-cycling or up-cycling category?  After reading Waste Equals Food, I realized that glass recycling today is mainly a down-cycling process.  The use of recycled glass typically becomes components of other substances of less value such as concrete aggregate, countertops, bricks, etc.  However, I would like to see it become an up-cycle, as well as, a “Technical Metabolism” that consists of technical nutrient. In other words, a material that is worth equal or lesser value. 

Usually when you buy a product of technology you have the knowledge that soon it will be replaced by a better, faster, more advanced product.  However, what if everything was made of recycled glass? I got this idea when reading Waste Equals Food when they mention the byproducts of technology.  Then when watching the video, Rhoner Textiles, I realized we could see glass become a continuous circuit life cycle.

In current devices, we see a surge in the implementation touch screens.  Once I looked into what it means to be a touch “screen” I saw the following video promoting Corning’s “Gorilla Glass”.

A Day Made of Glass Video

Currently Corning is on the forefront of developing a world of glass.  However, my idea is expansive.  We need to develop a product like Gorilla Glass, but the glass would be completely made out of recycled materials.  Using this concept, the technology glass could be continuously recycled into more glass.  Then one-step further, we could eliminate the need for other materials to be used by making the glass devices interchangeable.  For example, if a phone became “obsolete” the entire phone itself would not become outdated, but instead a single chip inside would need to be replaced.  The chip could then be repurposed to develop new chips for new technological advances.  End users would get discounts for recycling unusable or broken products, but the “unusable” items would easily be recycled.  

What we can learn from Alice

As children our imaginations guide us away from reality and into a new fantastical world.  However, as we mature we often lose sight of our inner child as realities of life creep upon us and squash our imaginative nature.  This leaves us with quite the conundrum as we hear our mother earth echo the same requests again and again.  If we stop and listen, we can hear her whispers: “Help us make the world right again”.  “Will you be my champion”?   We say in rebuttal of the current state of sustainability, “this is impossible”.  She slowly shakes her head in disagreement and says, “Only if you believe it is”.

More often than I’d like to admit my mind wonders off one topic to an entirely new one within seconds. For example, while watching the video, Suzanne Lee on Ted.com, I realized on the screen behind Ms. Lee was this statement: The rediscovery of wonder.  Instantly my mind was transported to the cartoon, Alice in Wonderland.  In the cartoon, the creation of such a fantastical place alone plays a vital role in our concept of visioneering a sustainable future.  Our vision should be a fantastical one, but we are trumped by harsh realities that make it difficult to see beyond the current state of our world. 

In the video, Suzanne Lee talks of how she has scientifically reinvented a process for developing clothing. This would mean utilizing the IE principle, Design for the Environment from the book, “Closing the Loops in Commerce: A Business run like a Redwood Forest”.  Or more importantly this would mean design WITH the environment. By manipulating the process of an organism’s growth, she is able to sustainably grow her own clothing.  She has proved her system can work, and even sports a vest made from the tea and sugar base.  She is a pioneer of what it means to take a fantastical concept and grow it (literally) into an obtainable reality.

If we can grow our own products, then we can produce locally.  Cutting down on transportation cost, as well as, the use of crude oil.  By applying the concept of “clothes miles” we can see the foot print of consumption in the textile industry. In the article, Sustainable Fashion and Textiles, Kate Fletcher suggests a principle I would like to adopt as my own: Locally made, globally relevant. Promoting a viable option to global production.  Through this concept there is a celebration of localism, a pride in what one can produce.  We each know the status of our current environment.  We must now envision ways to use the bio-systems we know so well to develop new concepts for textiles.  This vision encompasses my second principle of IE, Optimize rather than Maximize.  Through locally grown products we can produce quality over quantity as our imaginations are stretched.  Also consumers are more aware of what it took to produce the product, therefore are more likely to partake in recycling.

Which brings me to my third principle, Using Waste as a Resource.  It is an exciting time as we see our current use of technology taking us to places we could only imagine before.  One of those end places means utilizing waste.  In the text Midcourse Correction, Ray Anderson suggests that this means we return to our traditional notion of waste.  This is a notion that innovates use for even the most “unusable” items.  For buildings, this can mean generating electricity from landfill waste and pollution.  In the article, Textile Futures, Bradley Quinn suggest this concept must also mean developing a system that solves the abundant post consumer waste while minimizing water pollution and chemical waste.

There is a place, like no place on earth.  Some say to survive it, you need to be as mad as a hatter.  So let us take these principles and become mad.  Let us retrieve our inner child and envision a fantastically real place where we each can make a difference in changing our world.  If within a 3 minute video we can be transported to a new world, why is it so difficult to envision a new world for ourselves?  The three principles discussed trickle to one concept.  This concept is the rediscovery of wonder.  Through wonder we can dream of possible solutions, such as growing our own clothes.  Through wonder we can seek a world where we produce locally.  Through wonder, we can take garbage and produce power.  Through wonder, we can do anything.  All you have to do is believe.

The glass is half full…

From a design prospective, there is never just one way to solve a problem.  There are some ways that are better than others, but more times than not there are an infinite number of solutions.  Our imaginations are the only limiting factor.  As individuals we each process things uniquely to ourselves.  For instance, if I were to say, “picture your first bike” the image that comes to your mind is very different than what comes to mine.  In addition if I said, “picture a yellow bike with a bell and big tires” your mental image would still be very different than my own.  Which supports the idea that our mental modes are reliant on our experiences, assumptions, education and so forth.  In other words, there is not a single right way to develop a sustainable future, but rather there are many different ways.  We just need to all get one the same page or even the same book.  

Since each person is very individualistic, we each have our own perceptions.  Just within the United States my thoughts and actions in the south are very different from northerners.  These cultural identities are amplified in a global aspect.  We need to realize these differences shouldn’t be seen as negative, but rather they should be celebrated in grand collaboration.  According to Visioneering: an essential framework in sustainability science,  “A shared vision stands as the gateway to a community’s sustainable future”.  

The reading Thinking Ahead: The Value of Future Consciousness discusses what it means to have high self-efficacy.  Which is performing in a certain manner to obtain certain goals.  I would like to expand on that and include the concept of self-fulfilling prophecy.  In self-fulfilling prophecy our predictions directly or indirectly cause the outcome to become true.  In other words, if we believe the future has no hope of sustainability then that will inevitably happen.  Let’s change our outcome.  Let’s fulfill our imaginative future as a hopeful one.

Now leap, not climb on board to my vision of the future.  I see a world where we use only materials that are 100% sustainable.  In other words, I envision a time where we can completely close the cycle loop for all of our materials!  We are no longer consuming all of our resources.  We are no longer abusing our planet.  People are not required to “give up” anything, but consumers are only required to participate in recycling everything. Think of how far we have come in “green” thinking in the last ten years, this future looks hopeful.  The glass is half full, now let’s fill it up.

what a load of puffery

Advertisements that make outrageous claims in their ad campaigns are not lying; they are just using “puffery”.  Generally speaking, puffery means to use flattering, or exaggerated claims in promotion.  Puffery isn’t considered false advertising if a person with common sense knows the advertisement isn’t real.  For example, the statement “red bull gives you wings”.  We know red bull won’t actually make you sprout a pair of wings, but companies use claims like this to gain the consumers attention. 

According to Forum for the Future, the term eco-promising is used to understand the practice of environmental claims and communication for a company’s products and services.  They also suggest ways companies should communicate with their end users through the following tactics: companies must be transparent in their claims in order to gain consumers trust, be diverse in their means of communication feeding the eager to be eco-conscious while not off-putting the less committed, and should keep credible to their claims.  However, this doesn’t always happen and consumers are then left feeling uncertain.

Forum for the Future states that eco-promises must be specific and believable in order to be persuasive.  With an overload of information and companies each having their own definition of environmental products it is easy for consumers to feel fatigue, confused, or down right manipulated.  Some companies are guilty of green washing or green marketing, which is deceptively spinning their products to seem environmentally friendly.  According to The Greenwash Guide, there are signs we can look for to determine if we are being “greenwashed”; watch for fluffy language, suggestive pictures, irrelevant claims, and claims that have no proof.  Lets take a look at some good and bad examples of advertisement:

^ Patagonia’s product production ^

^ Poetree: A Funeral Urn that lets you plant a tree from Ashes^

The three pictures above follow the guidelines previously suggested by Forum for the Future, by using transparency in their advertisement.  Patagonia’s website allows you to navigate the good, the bad, and the ugly by explaining how their garments are actually produced.  As a consumer, I appreciate seeing the “footprint” my purchases will make on the environment.  The next pictures are of “Poetree”, a funeral urn that allows your ashes to become interweaved into a biodegradable plant base and put into the earth without negative effects on the environment.

A furniture company out of California called Cisco brothers uses the next two pictures on their website.  After navigating the site their products appear to be environmentally friendly, but where is the proof? In the second picture, they are promoting their products being handmade in South Central LA, but this does not prove that their practices are actually sustainable.  What about their factory or use of transportation?

^Implied Claim by Cisco Brothers^

^Cisco Brothers^

Navigating the world of advertising can be difficult, and it’s hard to know which claims are honest and which are solely promoting products.  It’s important to remember that we can no longer take advertisement claims at face value.  At this point, most businesses are unique in their claims of eco-friendliness.  Thus, we need to dig deeper and see if what the company is claiming is true or puffery.

http://www.patagonia.com/us/footprint/index.jsp

http://www.treehugger.com/sustainable-product-design/poetree-a-funeral-urn-that-lets-you-plant-a-tree-from-ashes.html

http://www.ciscobrothers.com/

Would you rather…?

 Lets play a game; it’s pretty simple in concept and forces you to make a single decision.  Here we go!  Would you rather make quick cash in a short amount of time or earn cash slower and help the environment?  Next question, would you rather have water to drink or a cotton shirt on your back?  Last, would you rather ingest harmful chemicals in your lungs to maintain your crops easier or pour your blood, sweat, and tears into working harder?  Got your answers?  If so, then you’re a cut above the rest.  These issues plague about 20 million cotton farmers across the world and the answers aren’t always easy.

We can now look at some information that could help us navigate answers for these issues because the cultivation of cotton is far from being sustainable.  According to The Sustainability of Cotton article the biodiversity is negatively affected by the use of pesticides and chemicals.  However, due to their ease of use and effectiveness they are widely practiced.  It is estimated that in the 12 leading cotton-producing counties, 12-36% of the area under cotton cultivation is affected by soil salinization (nutrient deficiency).  Over time this can also lead to the farmland being abandoned due to its lack of soil nutrients.  This soil salinization is associated with causing soil erosion.  Adversely, Cotton, Inc. says that cotton growers are making great strides to reduce soil erosion by encouraging soil creation through conservation tillage. They also say it is common practice to rotate cotton with other crops to help production.  We know this is true in some instances, but for some farmers continued use of their land yields a higher profit. 

According to Cotton, Inc.’s video, “The Flexible Water Needs of Cotton” cotton requires little water and is a draught friendly crop.  At face value it would be easy for the general public to believe.  However, most methods of irrigation are inefficient in delivering water to the plants.  It has been estimated that cotton cultivation accounts for 1-6% of the world’s total freshwater withdrawal, which we know is decreasing due to population growth. On a global scale inefficient irrigation systems are only 40% efficient, leaving a whopping 60% of all water used never reaches the plant!

According to Sustainability of Cotton article cotton is produced in more than 100 countries with China as the main producer.  Why China?  As cotton production is blooming, there is a constant need for cost reduction and cheaper cultivation.  It’s a no brainer, cheap labor equals cheap cotton, but at what real cost? China has little to no regulation of its pesticide usage or application leading workers to be exposed to harmful chemicals.  This exposure leads to a minimum consequence of sickness, but can also result in death.  An estimated (global) 40,000 deaths occur each year.  This leaves us wondering if the organic farmers might be on the right track of not using these chemicals at all.

Now empowered by knowledge let me ask you again, would you rather…???