The practicality of the eco-effective approach

McDonough & Braungart give an interesting characterization of our system of design. They remind us that even though activity is seen as prosperity, cultural and environmental effects are not taken into account. Not only has our system of standardization, mechanization, and efficiency successfully depleted and destroyed the Earth, but our solutions are lacking in imagination. Traditionally, we have viewed the environment as a hostile and in need of control.
Instead, McDonough & Braungart recommend looking beyond our conventional environmental approaches that purport to “be less bad” and advise us to embrace what they call an eco-effective approach. That is, we must shift from a system of controlling nature to engaging nature. We must abandon a cradle to grave approach and work towards a cradle to cradle approach. In this way, we must commit to a new paradigm, transform our values, and design products that are both biological nutrients and technical nutrients. The authors imagine “if each new addition to a human community deepened ecological and cultural as well as economic wealth” (90).
I appreciate the authors’ visionary approach to resolving the environmental dilemma. They explain the ways in which cradle to cradle solutions are not only environmental significant but also economically beneficial. Their textile example in which they developed a biologically nutrient fabric, seems to be an important model for shifting to eco-effective approaches. Additionally, Ford’s River Rouge new sustainability manufacturing agenda demonstrates the ability of large and traditionally destructive companies to shift to improve environmental performance without conflicting with financial goals. While these examples seem to demonstrate hope for the eco-effective vision, I am skeptical of the real impact of eco-effectiveness. In theory their idea makes sense, but when applied to the complexities of the economy, solutions to monstrous hybrids seems daunting. I wish that the authors were more keen to outline the financial and political risks to companies of switching from a cheap, harmful, wasteful, and mechanized system to one that prioritizes safe and biodegradable substances with attention to upcycling. I am skeptical that profit-minded companies will easily become eco-effective designers who “consider the purpose of a product or system and consider the whole” (82).