The Death of Environmentalism (.PDF), by Michael Schellenberger and Ted Nordhaus
Cradle to Cradle, by Bill McDonough and Michael Braumgart
Intro and Ch. 1
Okala Design Guide (partial version)
Okala Design Guide PART 2 (partial version)
Is Environmentalism Dead?, by Adam Werbach
Design + Environment, by Helen Lewis and John Gertsakis: Chapter 4, Chapter 5.
This Guy Can Get 59 MPG in a Plain Old Accord. Beat That, Punk., by Dennis Gaffney
Green Marketing Myopia, by Jacquelyn A. Ottoman, Edwin R. Stafford, and Cathy L. Hartman
Natural Capitalism, by Amory B. Lovins, L. Hunter Lovins, and Paul Hawken: Chapter 4
The Bicycling Paradox by Karl T. Ulrich
The Bicycling Paradox Revisted, by Adam Stein, Terrapass
Places to Intervene in a System, Donella Meadows (for the Sustainability Institute)
Supplemental Readings:
Cradle to Cradle Certification Criteria, McDonough Braungart Design Chemistry
EPEAT Certification Criteria, IEEE Computer Society
Applying Cradle to Cradle Principles to the Product Development Process, GreenBlue
Natural Capitalism, by Amory B. Lovins, L. Hunter Lovins, and Paul Hawken: Roadmap, Chapter 1
Jeremy Faludi’s Worldchanging posts:
Biomimicry 101
Green Chemistry: Changing an Industry
A Carbon-Negative Fuel
The Eco-Nutrition Label
Green Kaizen
Saving the World, Drip By Drip
Archive
Readings 2007
May 4, 2009 at 4:36 am |
So, this isn’t based on a reading we did in class, but it’s close… anyways, A week ago I read a San Jose Mercury article about a new electric motorcycle going on sale soon for 10,000 dollars, which can hit a top speed of 60 mph and travel 60 miles on one charge. I was immediately excited about this new technology—I suppose that I was optimistic that developments like this one would end up being a major solution to our general societal sustainability issues.
Then, just this past Friday the New York times featured an article about how shoppers in the English town of Tunbridge Wells were raiding stores for incandescent bulbs before a government ban of incandescent bulbs came into effect 9sheculed for 2012, I believe). Their rationale: that compact fluorescent bulbs, while far more efficient…
“protrude from small light shades, … take a long time to reach full brightness, … cannot be dimmed by switches, … [and] contain mercury and therefore require special disposal.”
Shoppers also complain about the “awful” quality of the light, claiming that incandescent bulbs are the only ones that can be used whenever you “really want to see things.”
This, for me, was one of those I-hate-people moments, when I just grew disappointed with the human race, and when I slightly despaired about our ability to successfully meet the challenges of our coming environmental crisis.
Though it’s a bit of a morose last line to end on, I just can’t help but voice this fear—that what good is it to have a newfangled all-electric motorcycle if consumers still—nostalgically, aesthetically, whatever—prefer the good ol’ gas-sipping modern machines?
June 3, 2009 at 9:44 am |
One of the articles that I read, The Bicycling Paradox by Karl T. Ulrich, was especially interesting. For those who didn’t read it, it basically explored the benefits of trading a car for bike transportation, and even gave some numeric calculations. However, I thought it was interesting that he didn’t really include any reason for why people don’t bike, or offer any suggestions about how to encourage more people to bike (other than the fact that it’s healthy). For instance, I lived and worked near LA this past summer (Redondo Beach), and needless to say, it isn’t a very bike friendly city. I was less than a flat 3 miles away from work, but I couldn’t get myself to wake up 15 minutes earlier and brave the 10 minute bike ride on the boulevards and busy roads. Also, I really didn’t want to show up to work sweaty and have to plan ahead with clothes. My point is, even though I recognize all the great benefits to biking, I don’t do it because it is an inconvenience in many ways.
June 4, 2009 at 5:28 pm |
Stafford’s article “Green Marketing Myopia” is primarily about the balance between consumer needs and how energy efficient products actually are. The term “green marketing myopia” refers to situations where the sustainability of a product is emphasized more heavily than its actual appeal to people – this is summed up in the statement that “designers and marketers need to align environmental products’ consumer value to relevant consumer market segments.”
I like this article because it touts an energy program in my hometown – Austin – that has been particularly successful. Growing up in Austin, I was always relatively conscious of how our city differed from the rest of the state, and I understood that issues like green energy would always be more important to Austinites than to people living out in East Texas. However, it seems that Austin Energy has hit a perfect balance in avoiding the “myopia” that is so common among green designers. By appealing to “Texas loyalties” and giving corporations (a major part of the Texas economy) incentives to buy green energy, they could expand their reach to areas far beyond Austin.
Another point of the article is that green products are much more successful when they are not marketed as “green” – but more often as “cost effective” or something similar. I think this is probably true for the majority of the country now, but as more and more people become educated about sustainability issues, it may change.