WiserEarth UK
The Wiser UK group aims to bring together WiserEarth members based in the UK. We aim (among other things) to further the vision of WiserEarth and Paul Hawken in helping put up a mirror to the movement, to connect and create alliances between those working towards a more just and sustainable world. We hope that this 'flocking' effect will enable us to improve ...learn more
GROUP DETAILS
Created: Mar 20, 2009
Updated: Nov 24, 2009
Membership: Open
Semi-Private
New: Cradle to Cradle + 1
hi,
it would be good to create an area of interest called
cradle to cradle
under the existing topic 'Sustainable Design'
see http://www.c2c-supporters.org/ for more info...
cradle to cradle moves beyond eco-efficiency to
eco-effectiveness and is thus advocating
sustaining design instead of sustainable design...
tx
g
Folks:
I think we are missing the forest for the trees here. Instead of shifting formalities around, like groups with different arcane names, we need to discuss matters of substance. I have offered a very extensive theory of resource conservation attached to the group Zero Waste as its organizing statement, and present in great detail on my website at www.zerowasteinstitute.org. There is a common reaction to discussions of substance which is to shine it on and just keep on recycling. This is not actually a progressive reaction to issues of how resources can be conserved. Recycling benefits the garbage industry above all, and perpetuates discard at the expense of intelligent redesign. In my opinion, this is the core issue that should be discussed, not creating new groups.
Paul Palmer
creator of Zero Waste group
Comments (1 - 3 of 3)
|
|
I am sure not everyone remembers where the phrase cradle to cradle originated. It came from a play on "cradle to grave" which was the EPA's description of their chemical waste management regulations that they posted in July 1981. These regulations did not contemplate progressive designs for the elimination of garbage, only the regulation of chemical garbage, from its aborted use into a dump, an underground cavern, a waterway or an incinerator. As such, I find the term distasteful since I find the thrust of regulation to be the legalization of pollution and waste forever.
So I ask; why reinvent the wheel? The Zero Waste principles and practice are a fully formed theory of eliminating discard at the source - in the original design of both products and processes. It is already a group on Wiser Earth. It applies to chemicals, radioactives, dental tools, books, containers of every kind, hubcaps, chicken manure and briefcases. In short, nearly everything. It is far more conserving, effective and scientific than recycling (there is no such thing as a theory of recycling). You can absorb more information to your heart's content at www. zerowasteinstitute.org.
Can we all get together to support and promote the most comprehensive, already existing theory of conservation we have? Go to the website and the zero waste group and let's get a conversation going in these times of disappearing resources joined to the elite's campaign to keep wastefulness supreme no matter what.
Paul Palmer Zero Waste Group organizer |
|
Well, the link no longer tracks to the right AofF, but cradle to cradle is represented under Greening of Industry which houses Sustainable Production. I imagine that a "resource entry" for C2C would be in order right there. And unless I hear back on this, that is where I will put it (or g can!). In as much as there is no cradle to grave, i would see no reason for a cradle to cradle, so long as they are both continued as keywords, etc. I am going through a lot of materials on AofF and I am learning more about the taxonomies involved.
any thoughts? @ geertacke? |
I think Life Cycle Assessment is already an Area of Focus, or at least it used to be. Sustainable Materials and other Areas of Focus also overlap with cradle to cradle.
You can link zero waste links and resources to this group and others serving the Cradle to Cradle ideal.