What’s that totally overused expression – hindsight is 20/20? I guess it’s used so often because there’s a certain amount of truth in it. And in looking back over the past three months that have been the UCLA Extension program winter quarter, I may have learned far more than my students did. [...]]]>

What’s that totally overused expression – hindsight is 20/20? I guess it’s used so often because there’s a certain amount of truth in it. And in looking back over the past three months that have been the UCLA Extension program winter quarter, I may have learned far more than my students did. I have to admit that I began the course following a pattern that’s become my routine. I will often get a commitment for something new, like a lecture, or in this case a teaching gig, and only partially pre-prepare. I intentionally try not to figure it all out. I like generating opportunities for serendipity. When it works well, I’m able to create an atmosphere of compression that forces things to happen. With just enough planning, it forces a higher level of performance.

For those who work with me there are moments of stress. And with this course, I’m certain my students experienced many moments of anxiety. To further complicate matters, this was the first time the course had been offered, so I was testing much of the content on these students. So what worked and what didn’t?

Let me start with what went well. I believe the students were beginning to comprehend the complexity of closed loop systems by the end. I know that half way through, many were scratching their heads wondering where we were headed. After six classes we hadn’t covered enough material to start connecting meaningful dots and linking concepts. Cradle to cradle, or closed loop systems thinking is more than just a matter of rethinking waste. Transitioning from the linear path of current industrial systems to cyclical ones requires a broader understanding of contributing factors. Elsewhere on this site you can read about our own transition template where we’re attempting to establish a framework of strategies and decision making. In it we identify twelve issues to consider – resource preservation, waste reduction, closed loop, energy conservation, embodied energy, alternative supply, toxin elimination, community engagement, nurturing environments, net zero cost, life cycle cost, and ecosystem cost. The course was too short to cover all twelve, but we did cover eight in varying depth.

One of the highlights came during the third week when Ray C. Anderson, visionary industrialist and founder of Interface, presented on the same night and time. It was an incredible stroke of luck. I’ve been wanting to see Mr. Anderson speak for years. I consider him an inspirational hero. We not only saw him present material from his latest book, Confessions of a Radical Industrialist, but we were able to get some one-on-one time after his presentation. It was a special evening with a singularly amazing individual.

The three profile research projects which focused on materials & resources, companies & people, and certifications & labels didn’t work as well as I hoped. They required a great deal of energy to complete. Had they been the only assignments, the work load would have been adequate. But students were also required to do a disassembly project. They had to select an everyday object, disassemble it, catalog its parts, trace the origins of those components, and evaluate potential methods for environmental improvement. Here too, had it been the only assignment, it alone would have significantly taxed their available time. Though it was my intention for the three profile projects and the disassembly project to work together, that link wasn’t as strong as it should have been. Each project required significant effort and students were feverishly working on each in linear succession – complete one, move to the next. Unfortunately, that perpetuated an isolated strategy that didn’t easily permit the kind of coordinated investigation I wanted. I think it would have been better had they done either the profiles or the disassembly, or done the profile projects as an integral part of the disassembly project. Overall the students did amazing work, but it was pretty clear that the work load was taxing them by the end.

Another thing I would change without a moment’s thought is the course name. The school believed that by naming the class Cradle to Cradle we would potentially attract greater student interest than the original name I had proposed – Closed Loop Systems. They were hoping to tap the popularity and notoriety of the McDonough & Braungart book of the same name. Even though we used the book for reference, it was not used as a textbook. It’s an excellent work, but didn’t go far enough for the course as planned. The name had the desired affect; twenty students showed up on the first night, eighteen signed up, then two dropped to bring the class to sixteen – six more than I was anticipating. The unintended consequence, however, was that many students were attracted by the potential connection to the book and were fully expecting a greater link between it and class content. I mentioned several times how the course would not follow the book, but some students continued to be frustrated by that.

I don’t yet know if the course will be offered again. I hope that I’ll be able to refine the content, implement the adjustments mentioned in this post, and apply what I’ve learned in teaching it. Hindsight suggests the content worked well, but will work even better with a few careful adjustments.

Click on the icon below for a text only download version of this post:

Our twelfth class was also the last of the quarter. The past three months have passed so quickly. I have to admit, I had a crisis of conscience just past the mid point. I was concerned that we had not yet covered enough of the material outlined in the [...]]]>

Image courtesy of Wiki Commons

Our twelfth class was also the last of the quarter. The past three months have passed so quickly. I have to admit, I had a crisis of conscience just past the mid point. I was concerned that we had not yet covered enough of the material outlined in the syllabus, still had many concepts and ideas to present, and it seemed likely that we would run out of time. I did make some adjustments, and we did manage to discuss all the topics I had intended. Looking back now, I’m pretty amazed at how much we were able to accomplish in twelve evenings.

Since it was our final class, we spent the bulk of the time discussing the quarter long Disassembly Project. With it, their task was to select an every-day object seen or used regularly, disassemble it, catalog all the component parts, analyze the materials those parts are made of, trace the origins of those materials, research any organizations or agencies that regulate manufacturing standards or regulations, and make suggestions for how the object and its production could be improved to diminish environmental impact. Students were also responsible for three other research projects, discussed in earlier posts, which investigated materials/resources, companies/people, and certificates/labels. In assigning those three in conjunction with the Disassembly Project I hoped students would begin to see the complexity of products we take for granted.

Cradle to cradle, or closed loop, systems are more than just converting waste to useful raw material. To consider changing even the smallest elements of any production framework requires some understanding of materials and resources, the total impact and sources of waste, how much energy is consumed, how much water is embodied, what unintended toxins are present, how far materials travel, and much more. To contemplate a transition from current linear industrial production to sustainable alternatives demands investigating more than rerouting or repurposing waste material.

When I first introduced the students to the Disassembly Project, my description was met with blank stares. A few weeks later when I talked about it again, blank stares were replaced with horror. And half way through the quarter, when it was clear that very few students had even selected an object to disassemble, I knew there was something wrong. I have to admit the title I gave it was part of the problem. Some students were concerned about their ability to actually take an object apart. Others were worried I was looking for an object with an overwhelming level of complexity.

In the end, I was amazed at how unexpected the chosen objects were. One of my favorite surprises was a Ticonderoga number 2 pencil. Can you get any more every-day than that? And you might think at first that it’s too simple an object to learn anything, but the average pencil is composed of several simple yet deceptively complex parts – the wood body, the graphite core, the paint finish, the eraser, and a metal ferule which holds the eraser. Tracing these components and their constituent materials uncovers more than thirty elements, chemicals, and compounds used – materials such as butadiene, brass, epoxy resin, pumice, zinc, and titanium oxide. It’s like reading the ingredients list on a junk food package. Other objects selected include marmoleum flooring, an alkaline battery, a pair of glasses, a bottle of wine, a coffee maker, a pair of shoes, a greeting card that sings happy birthday with burps, a water pitcher with built-in filter, and a milk carton.

Our class discussion of these objects was just the tip of the iceberg, this coming week I have to dig into a dozen reports in detail. I’m pretty excited about what I’ve seen so far and I’m anxious to get to work. I’ll let you know what the students discovered in a later post.

Click on the icon below for a text only download version of this post:

For our eleventh class, we spent the first half discussing the third Profile Project focused on certifications and labels. As I mentioned in an earlier post, the students did three profile projects – one about materials and/or resources, one about companies and/or people, and one about certifications and/or labels. Survey the green [...]]]>

For our eleventh class, we spent the first half discussing the third Profile Project focused on certifications and labels. As I mentioned in an earlier post, the students did three profile projects – one about materials and/or resources, one about companies and/or people, and one about certifications and/or labels. Survey the green product landscape and you’ll quickly find a large variety of labels, logos, and certifications from an assortment of government, trade, and third-party organizations. How is anyone to know who to trust or what labels are authentic? A quick search on-line will reveal page after page of how black is the new green, how red is the new green, how yellow is the new green, and on and on. It’s impossible to know what green really is when media is telling us that every color is somehow the new green.

This is the context in which I asked the students to find a certification or label that interests them and research its background, development, and positive aspects. Again the students dove in and selected some very interesting programs to research. Here are some of the certifications and labels they chose to profile:

• US Department of Agriculture Organic – Over the past twenty years, consumers have become accustomed to seeing the USDA Organic label on products in stores such as Whole Foods Market that meet certain growing, harvesting, production, and raising practices. Yet, how many really know the details of that criteria? Do consumers take for granted that a federal government agency is a trusted evaluator? These are interesting questions for a program that has had its opponents regarding corporate participation in setting standards.
• US Green Building Council LEED – The Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) program created by the USGBC in 1993 has become a considerable powerhouse in the area of green building design. This non-profit organization has become the de-facto standard in architecture and interior design when looking for a credible, objective, and authentic third party certification.
• Private – One of my students is developing his own green certification label program. Since it’s still in development, and some aspects of his proposed program are potentially proprietary, for now I’ll have to refrain from writing anything. But it’s comprehensive and I’m excited to see where he’ll go with it.
• California Sustainable Winegrowing Certification – Two vintners and winegrower advocacy groups joined forces in 2002 to form the California Sustainable Winegrowing Program to help growers and vintners develop tools to increase their knowledge of sustainable practices.
• Forest Stewardship Council – FSC has become one of the most respected  international certification programs. It’s transparent organizational structure, clear evaluation criteria, and emphasis on chain of custody set it apart from many other programs.
• EcoLogo – This program started more than twenty years ago as a Canadian government program, but due to funding issues in 1995 was taken over by its employees and went private under the name TerraChoice Environmental Marketing. This firm also authored the excellent publication The Seven Sins of Greenwashing.
• Fair Trade – This program is administered by Fairtrade Labeling Organizations International and is different than many of the others profiled in that it focuses on trade practices relative to working conditions.
• Cradle to Cradle – This program was developed by William McDonough and Michael Braungart and is based on the principals proposed in their seminal book Cradle to Cradle: Remaking the Way We Make Things. It’s a comprehensive multi-attribute evaluation system that looks at virtually every aspect of how a product is manufactured, including every material component, its chemical composition, what can be done with it at its end of life, whether or not it is a biological or technical nutrient, and much more.
• Cleaner and Greener Certification – This program was created by and administered by the non-profit Leonardo Academy. It addresses issues of energy efficiency and emissions for events, buildings, and organizations. It has a focus on, and a grading system based on, multi-pollutant emission reductions and offset achievements.

What was most interesting about the programs selected by the students was how much variety there was in organizational structure, governance, implementation, and more. Every certification and label explored showed a different and unique approach. No single pattern emerged and no two programs were alike. It was as eye opening for me as it was for the students.

Click on the icon below for a text only download version of this post:

For our tenth class, we continued a discussion begun the week prior during our field trip to Steelcase regarding toxic substances. Prior to the Nutrition Labeling and Education Act of 1990 knowing what was in our food or what nutritional its ingredients contained was anyone’s guess. Even though many people today, after [...]]]>

For our tenth class, we continued a discussion begun the week prior during our field trip to Steelcase regarding toxic substances. Prior to the Nutrition Labeling and Education Act of 1990 knowing what was in our food or what nutritional its ingredients contained was anyone’s guess. Even though many people today, after twenty years, still don’t know how to read or understand the ingredients list or nutritional facts label. Even though that information does not currently include notification of genetically modified content, can be confusing, and some ingredients difficult to pronounce, at least it offers consumers help in making purchasing decisions based on dietary of health needs. The same is not true of other products that have equally important impact on our health. The EPA estimates that we spend more than 90% of our time indoors in buildings with no direct access to outside air. And unless you’ve done significant research ahead of time, few of us know what ingredients those indoor environments are composed of. The same is true for the vast majority of the consumer products we purchase and use in those buildings.

In 1976 the US Congress passed the Toxic Substances Control Act which also created the Environmental Protection Agency. At the time, it was decided that too many existing chemicals and compounds were already on the market to test for long term human or environmental exposure. Therefore, 62,000 substances were grandfathered in and added to their database. Since then, another 35,000 substances have been added, yet few have ever undergone extensive testing for safety. The EPA itself estimates that 95% of all chemicals and compounds on the market today have never undergone rigorous testing for potential human health risks or environmental impacts. In the thirty-four years of its existence, the EPA has only banned five substances – lead-based ingredients (such as paints and gasoline), PCBs, Asbestos, DDT, and CFCs.

Our class discussion focused on volatile organic compounds (VOCs), added formaldehyde, mercury, vinyl or polyvinyl chloride (PVC), brominated flame retardants, dioxin, bisphenol A, and phthalates. Most of these are substances  are regulated by the EPA and found in many common products. Phthalates and bisphenol A are both plasticizers. Phthalates are added to plastics and polymers to make them more pliant and soft. Everyone is familiar with that new car smell – that’s phthalates being released. They off-gas from the dashboard and other interior components for as much as two years. Phthalates have been linked to reproductive damage and can have a dramatic effect on young boys by diminishing their production of testosterone. Bisphenol A is added to clear plastics to harden them. It mimics human hormones and does not follow the normal patterns of toxicity. Generally speaking, for most potentially harmful substances, the greater the exposure the greater the risk of impact, and the smaller the exposure the smaller the risk. But hormones do not follow this same pattern. Small, even trace, amounts can have large and continual impact. The normal toxicity exposure to impact ration is not applicable, which is one reason so many are actively pressing the EPA to ban bisphenol A.

The reason to discuss chemicals and compounds and understand potential human and environmental exposure concerns is that the issue relates to life cycle assessment, or LCA. No material or resource can be harvested, mined, or extracted, then manufactured, manipulated, or used without impact. Making informed material decisions requires some knowledge about potential impacts so that they can be evaluated as part of an overall assessment. The EPA identifies five phases of production to consider in an LCA – raw materials, manufacturing, packaging and transport, use and maintenance, and recycling or waste. With each of these phases, there are inputs and outputs. For example, during the packaging and transport phase there is fuel consumed as input, and potential solid wastes generated as output. Both input and output can be weighted and prioritized to determine whether there significant value gained or probable impact experienced. These can be interpreted and analyzed by each individual to direct selection decisions.

It’s also important to understand the potential harm substances pose to people or the environment as part of a cradle to cradle system. If a chemical is a known carcinogen or ecosystem contaminant, then keeping them within a closed loop system potentially perpetuates their impact. For some substances, continued exposure mean accumulation of damage. Nature cannot process some chemicals and compounds. They are persistently bio-accumulative. From the list discussed in class, formaldehyde, mercury, and dioxin fall into this category.

Although it was a tough subject to cover, I feel we all have a better understanding of why we all need to be vigilant in pressing manufacturers to be transparent about ingredients were possible so we can make informed decisions. Designers and consumers alike have to know what’s in the materials we specify and consume in our move toward healthier sustainable processes.

Click on the icon below for a text only download version of this post:

For our ninth class we return to our normal class room, but at an alternate time and date. This week was a make-up class required due to a scheduling conflict. We continued discussion of an earlier topic – waste reduction – and transitioned to resource preservation.

In previous classes where waste [...]]]>

For our ninth class we return to our normal class room, but at an alternate time and date. This week was a make-up class required due to a scheduling conflict. We continued discussion of an earlier topic – waste reduction – and transitioned to resource preservation.

In previous classes where waste was discussed, we focused only on  municipal solid waste (MSW). What we see at the curb in trash cans, in dumpsters, in garbage trucks, and eventually in landfills is just the tip of a very large waste iceberg. MSW represents just one percent of all waste produced in the United States. The other 99% is waste produced that does not go through the MSW system and does not end up in municipal landfills. 57% is classified as waste produced by industrial processes. The average consumer product generates many more times as much waste as finished product. Another 40% is classified as special and usually includes hospital or medical waste, dangerous or possibly toxic chemicals, or other waste that requires special treatment as part of its disposal. And a final 2% is classified as hazardous and is usually military, government, or highly controlled, such as nuclear waste. What’s not typically counted, yet represents an even larger amount, is agricultural waste. It’s not usually included in waste calculations because it’s difficult to measure and usually stays on the property where it was generated.

Over the past two hundred years, industrialized processes have become very efficient, yet continue to produce a significantly larger percentage of waste material in comparison to finished product. One-size-fits-all and other monoculture strategies rely on brute force to produce the greatest amount of mass consumable product following universal design strategies at the lowest possible cost. McDonough and Braungart give an excellent example of this in their book Cradle to Cradle by describing how “major soap manufacturers design one detergent for all parts of the United States or Europe, even though water qualities and community needs differ.” Some regions of the country have hard water, requiring more detergent to work. Other regions have soft water, requiring less detergent to work. The product is designed to work under any condition in any location. Therefore, waste is inevitable. In addition to reconceptualizing the idea of what constitutes waste, cradle to cradle strategies need to rethink the use of raw materials and preserve natural resources by using less and developing selection strategies that reduce waste.

Within the building materials world, there are new products being introduced every month. Some of them are taking a serious look at resource management. Designers of all kinds, whether they be architects, interior designers, industrial designers, graphic designers, set designers, product designers, or any other need to look at materials, resources, and their sourcing prior to or in conjunction with design. I can say that in the architectural world, too much design is done before materials are considered. Like the detergent example, this inevitably leads to inefficiency and waste.

We’ve developed our own material selection criteria and group products in six categories – those with a high percentage of recycled content (with a grading scale of A, B, and C for both post-consumer and post-industrial content), those that can be reused or repurposed, those made with rapidly renewable resources (with a grading of renewable, rapidly-renewable, and hyper-renewable based on time to reach biological maturity), those that contribute to the reduced use of virgin sources, those that rethink technology, and those that are locally cultivated. We’ve posted about this subject several times (read here) so we won’t go into detail with this post.

There is a rapidly growing collection of excellent sustainable materials. The class and I had a great time looking at and discussing these potential options. As the market begins to prove its viability, new companies are entering the marketplace and older established companies are starting to change their existing practices. Significant movement is underway, even while the world economy is struggling. Companies old and new are seeking new processes and new options for raw materials that reduces waste produced before the product reaches the consumer. Which is where most of the waste is generated. I’m very optimistic that progress is being made and we’re moving in the right direction.