Learning at an early age

I have recently started a new job at an elementary school as a teacher’s assistant.  I’ve always worked with children and I have always been really fascinated with how much they like to learn and how much they look up to older people.  In this week’s concept I want to stress the importance of teaching sustainability issues at an early age.  I want to be able to educate children about over consumers and how being an over consumer can affect our environment.  When addressing an over consumer, I want children to learn that an over consumer is one who “uses more materials or products that are unnecessary to use”. 

This concept would work as a class for children during the school year.  At the school I work at, every class has an hour set aside for a “special” which is consider to be free time for either P.E., computer class or the counsel comes in and has an attractively planned out for them to do.  I think an environmental class would be a perfect way to educate children at an early age.  This class could be designed to be a “special” class so that children at an early age could learn the basic knowledge about living a sustainable life and helping out our environment.  

The concept of this class would carry on into junior high and high school level but would actually be consider a required class so that kids would continue to learn about ways we can prevent harming our environment and ways we can help our environment to become more sustainable. 

Fuad Luke states “sustainability is learning about living well but consuming (much) less; it is a social learning process and will involve moving from a ‘product – based well being ‘ to thinking about products, dematerialized product, services and enabling solutions to satisfy our needs”.   This is a great explain on how this class can be developed as children move into junior high and high school.  The basic concepts of living a sustainable life style can be taught during an early age and as they move on to junior high the class could require the children to develop a product and apply the their sustainable life style to the product or their concept.  They can continue to develop their concept as they enter high school and finalize their product for a senior project it they chose too.

Using our Resources

When I started to read this weeks readings, I was sitting in my living room when I noticed how much glass is used in the interior industry.  We use glass for windows, decorative fixtures, light blubs and many other appliances (ex. televisions, DVD players, computer screens, iphones…etc.) Of course I imminently thought what happens to all of this glass once the consumer is done using it?

Normally this is what the recycling process of a glass bottles would be like:

I thought I would share a couple of interesting facts about glass. 

• ·      Glass is one of the only materials that never wears out and can be recycled forever. 
• ·      As well as being recyclable, it also reduces pollution by 14-20%.
• ·      Recycling one glass bottle saves enough electricity to light a 100-watt bulb for four hours.

As you can see, glass is one of the most efficient resources out there.  The question is why aren’t we using glass as a main source in other products or materials in order for them to be recyclable and reusable?  Glass has inspired me to use the method “technical nutrients”, which are products that are manmade and can be fully recycled into high quality materials for subsequent product generations. 

In the interior industry glass is highly used in many products.   After doing some research I found that they are already making glass that is stronger than steel and is known to be the toughest, strongest material to be produce.  This glass is known as metallic glass.  Since glass is a recyclable product, I believe that we should start designing more products that contain glass in order for them to be recycled and reused.  For example one concept that has already been in the works is Corning’s Gorilla Glass.  This glass is used in cell phones, laptops and TV's.  This glass is chemically strengthened with compressions, which helps prevent cracks and chips.  To better understand the ability of this glass, I’ve provided a video for you to watch. 

 http://youtu.be/6Cf7IL_eZ38

This video provides a vision of what 2050 could potentially be like, but it’s also one that is far technologically advanced.  The concept behind this idea is to start designing structures, furniture systems and other components with glass that would be integrated into a house or a commercial building in order for this materials to be recyclable and reusable and for us to move towards a sustainable environment.  

Nothing goes to waste

“We can’t solve problems using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them” (Albert Einstein).  As we all know the industrial revolution was a time of rapid growth and new developments. Most of these inventions and technologies improved quality of life, and therefore were a positive addition to society. Today we are informed of the damaging impact that the interiors and the architectures industries have had on our natural environment and need to develop a new tactic to design with respect for nature.

40% of all carbon emissions are generated through buildings. Construction, maintenance, heating, lighting and refitting interiors all contribute to this. There is a longing ideal that if we all went back to living in bamboo tree houses the world would become more sustainable as nature and humans would once again be balanced. But realistically, we all know that our society wouldn not go back to living in those conditions. The cradle-to-cradle concept, however, has a different method. McDonough and Braungart break up all matter into two types of nutrients: Biological nutrients, which are products that are (biodegradable, natural, ex.wood), and technical nutrients, which are (manmade, ex. plastic). Both of these have value, in contrast to the common idea of using only compostable materials in construction. In my concept I want to use both of the nutrients created by McDonough and Braungart, because this will allow companies to reuse manmade construction materials and allow them to compose new materials from existing ones.  Instead of ignoring and discarding these manmade materials that we already have available, why not keep them in a “close loop cycle”, where they can be used over and over again? Instead of putting valuable materials in landfill, we could be breaking down and reusing valuable resources.

What if we start to design with the life of a product (or building) in mind and think about what will happen to it after its ‘life’? A wealth of opportunity arises. Manufacturers will start reusing parts or packaging from products that are over their lifespan and non consumable. Is it really necessary to knock down existing buildings in an attempt to build new structures just to stimulate the architect’s ego? It makes business sense to reuse. In the long run, everyone wins. The producer, the consumer and our environment.

In the past decade,s designers have been debating efficiency; How to get the most out of the least resources. Efficiency and sustainability seem to have got so overwhelmed with technical solutions that other design qualities have been compromised. We begin to excuse ugly monumental buildings and interiors if they are ‘energy efficient’. How can we be inspired by interiors that are minimal in every aspect? Michael Braungart says “what would life be like if everything were efficient? Its just the minimum.” (Lets Cradle Congress, Nov 07)

As an interior designer, I have learned that there will always be constraints on materials, space and money. The overwhelming factor is almost always money. Meaning the building that costs the least is the winning plan. What if we considered the value of our natural surroundings not as a given, usable resource but as an indispensable one, such as coal or oil? A resource that will eventually run out. If we measure value by scarcity, meaning the greater the availability is of something, the cheaper it becomes, eventually the natural unharmed world will be invaluable.

With the idea of reusing structures and their building components, could help the interior and the architecture industry become sustainable.  Not only should designers take into consideration what materials they should use to build a new structure but they should also take into consideration nature.  If we start to consider how our environment works when designing a building we could become more efficient.  For example we can utilize mother nature by the placement of windows.  In cooler climates, we can design buildings that that have more windows on the south side of the structure in order to allow natural lighting to enter the structure.  This could eventually reduce the energy use. 

This concept will ensure that less money would be used if we reuse the structures that are already built and when building new structure less money will eventually be used because it will be built in aspects of efficiency and sustainability.  

Creating New Products By Utilizing What We Have

During my internship as and an Interior Designer, I was able to work with many manufacture companies when it came to finish samples.  I’m sure whether you are an interior designer/merchandising student or apparel student you are aware of the abundance of samples that are distributed to companies in order to get them to use their products.  Towards the end of my internship I was asked if I wanted to take any of the sample that they had accumulated in their library.  Obviously, I didn’t think much about it then, but now I wish I could have brought back some samples and made something useful out of them. 

In this week’s concept I want to focus on “Optimizing, Not Maximizing” and “Using Materials Sparingly”.  According to Benyus, “eighty–five percent of manufactured items quickly become waste”.  We all know that sample items are never intended to have a function other than to be a showpiece.  But what if we developed a company that would restore all of the sample materials and finishes that companies produce and turn them into renewable items or materials? Take-back laws are being implanted in countries like Europe and Germany that require manufacturers to take back their products and recycle them at the end of their life cycle.  I believe that this concept should be developed into the apparel and especially in the interior design industry.  This concept can help develop the idea of “refurbished” products which is the theory described by Quinn as discarded materials having a potential to procure a fresh life. 

The theory behind my concept is to have interior design and architecture companies donate their unwanted samples and turn the samples into a functional piece of furniture or materials.  As well as producing new furniture pieces from samples, they could be designed to be multifunctional in order to use the materials sparingly. By designing multifunctional products we could achieve lightness according to Flecter, which will allow the development to produce products with many functions but with less materials.  With implementations of developing lighter materials such as wood and metal, we could achieve a sustainable production with upcycled sample materials. 

This concept has been developed by website like Pinterest where they have DIY (do it yourself) projects ideas.  However, I want to take this concept into a bigger approach and develop a company that will actually make furniture pieces out of scraps of samples.  Below is an example of what I would like for my company to develop with scraps of wood or other materials.   

This beautiful credenza was made out of scraps of wood from an old broken down cabinet.  

http://inhabitat.com/diy-turn-a-broken-down-cabinet-into-beautiful-credenza-with-scrap-wood/

Seeing nothing as WASTE

As we continue to consume at unsustainable rates, dealing with waste is becoming a tending topic.  When we think of waste, we think of something that is no use.  We usually associate the term with solid waste; the kind we send ‘away’ to one of our many growing piles of unwanted substance.  However, if we think beyond solid waste and start asking ourselves whether waste really is something of no use, we find some interesting things. 

The concepts from How Will We Conduct Business, “using waste as a resource”, made me think of waste in a different form.  For example, a car is of no use to you until you need to drive somewhere, so technically when it is parked it is waste.  Furthermore, if something is of no use to someone, it doesn’t mean there is no use for it elsewhere.  The idea of not allowing products to become waste until it has fully reached its life cycle is where I’m headed. 

One of the detrimental problems our environment is facing is the over production of products.  According to Benyus, manufacturing production has doubled in size since 1970, essentially producing an abundance of products that are unnecessary in our environment. I want to propose the concept of sharing and trading.  Since I’ve started this class, I have realized that I do not necessarily need to own something, but rather simply have access to it.  In order to cut back on waste we need to fully utilize products and not let them go to waste.  In the interiors industry, the over productions of furniture pieces can be seen as harmful to our environment.  The concept of sharing and trading would help consumers eliminate unwanted furniture pieces that they own by sharing or trading them for something they may essentially need.  This could potentially lower over production of furniture and could essentially help our environment more towards a sustainable future. 

Part 1: Visioneering Project

Do the stories you tell yourself contribute to the optimism or pessimism?  What might you need to change to enable you to envision a sustainable future?

Before taking this course I thought I was fully aware of what being eco-friendly truly meant.  However, I have learned more through these seven weeks by reading the articles and doing a little extra research to find out that we are the ones causing the harm to our environment.  Of course I have always been pessimistic and never really thought that I could make a difference in our environment.  I have always felt that I needed to do more in order to make a difference. However because of being pessimistic I never realized that I could make a difference as an individual.  It only takes one person to make an impact on a group of people to make them see your views and how we can make a change in our environment.   Mahatma Gandhi saying, “Be the change you want to see in the world” is exactly what we all need to be doing.  If we want things to change we have to learn as individuals to change and adapt to new circumstances. 

In order to envision a sustainable future, I need to be able to change the way I live and they way I think about our environment. 

What are the key tenets or characteristics that define your vision?

• ·      Education on a sustainable environment
• ·      Limiting consumption
• ·      Utilizing local product
• ·      Reduce, Reuse and Recycle

What are the mental modes, which will be required to create that future? What would one have to believe to bring about your vision?

• ·      I feel like everyone should be required to take a sustainable course in order to be educated on the environment and the impact we have on it.
• ·      I feel that in today’s society people value having more than what is necessary but over consumption isn’t doing anything for their well-being or for our environment. 
• ·      People don’t realize how much domestic products have an impact on our environment.  By using domestic products, results in air pollution emissions from the transportation of imported goods can be reduced.
• ·      By reducing, reusing and recycling products we can meet the needs that we require to live and more towards a sustainable environment.

What are some habitual beliefs, which may present barriers to your vision?

In order to bring my vision of the future people must give up the way they think it is expectable to live in today’s society.  In other words people need to learn how to live their lives with only utilizing what they need to survive.  Educating people about the environmental impact we have on it, is were we need to start. If we want to see a change in our environment we need to educate people.   As mention by Kim and Oki, authors of Visioneering: An Essential Framework in Sustainability, “visioneering requires the synergy of inspiration, conviction, action, determination and completion”.  We need to be able to believe that we can make a difference in our environment and take action towards become a more sustainable environment. 

How might you communicate and engage other in your vision that will compel them to follow?

In order to engage my vision to others I would have to educate them in a simple matter.  When I read something for the first time I always read the bullet point first.  People don’t have time to sit and research everything they consume, so in order to compel people to follow my vision they must be educated in simple matter in order to help them understand how they can become an impact to our environment.

Miracle Fibers

 “Why use up the forest which were centuries in the making and the mines which require ages to lay down, if we can get the equivalent of forest and mineral products in the annual growth of the hemp field?” – Henry Ford

The argument towards politics and hemp advocators has been going on for years whether to legalize industrial hemp.  Currently hemp is not legal to be cultivated in the United States under Federal law for the reason that of its relation to marijuana and any imported hemp products must meet a zero tolerance level.  Hemp is considered a controlled substance under the Controlled Substance Act, which regulates farmer’s form growing this crop. 

In the video Hempster: Plant the Seed, three arguments are made to why industrial hemp should stay illegal.  The first argument is that law enforcement officials won’t be able to distinguish hemp from marijuana. The second argument is that farmers could conceal illegal marijuana in legal hemp fields. And the third argument is that legalizing hemp would send the wrong message to children.  Theses arguments make since until you realize how beneficial industrial hemp is to our environment.

“Hemp is one of the faster growing biomasses known and can produce up to 25 tones of dry matter per hectare per year”.  Not only is hemp used for biomass but it is also environmentally friendly because it does not require pesticides.  Hemp can produce paper, textiles, biodegradable plastics, construction, health food and fuel.  As seen hemp is a diverse plant that can be used in many forms and can produce numerous products that would help us achieve a sustainable planet. Hemp is sustainable in many forms.  Because hemp can be cultivated in as little as 100 days it can produce more products and help save forests. Hemp also slows ozone depletion because hemp fuels derived from the plant itself.  These are some of the arguments that hemp advocators are making to make industrial hemp legal. 

Both of these arguments hold valuable points.  The arguments that the politicians are making are addressed for the best interest of the people and the arguments that the hemp advocators are making are addressed for our environment.  The issues that surround both arguments are whether to look after the people of the United States or our environment.  The argument of not be able to distinguish hemp from marijuana can be easily settled.  The two plants come from the same species but they do not look alike.  Because hemp is used in a different form than marijuana it is cultivated differently.  Secondly, if farmers where to farm marijuana in their legal hemp fields they are running the risk of losing their farmer’s license and their business.  As for the third argument, I find that it is important not to send a wrong message to our children about the growth of hemp.  However, I believe that children can be educated to know the difference between the two plants and how industrial hemp is used as a resource to help our environment become sustainable.

In order to counsel consumers about the legalization of industrial hemp I would provide them with the same information that was given to us and inform them how industrial hemp will be more beneficial to our environment than harmful.  The truth is that most people are misinformed about the process of cultivating industrial hemp.  I believe that if more people were educated about industrial hemp, we would be able to achieve a sustainable planet.  The quote from Henry Ford says it all, why destroy our planet when there are other valuable resources that can be used to produce products.    

Natural versus Synthetic Materials

Many people have been contemplating the benefits of natural fibers and how much less destructive they are for the environment. However, when it comes to building materials one needs to take into consideration the entire life cycle of the material, the energy use, the pollution and toxicity impact, the manufacturing phase, the packaging and transport phase, the installation and the end of life phase.   The entire process needs to be taken into account before wide assumptions are made about which materials are better for the environment.  While natural materials are more harmful to the immediate environment (meaning the water and soil) while synthetics take a larger toll on the air and non-renewable resources.  It is up to the consumers to demand that manufactures take a closer look at the process to produce product and find the best way to make it healthier for everyone involved.

From our pass readings we have learned that organic growth is much better for the environment it terms of less toxicity during the growing and materials phase, but it is more harmful to the environment than conventional growth in the production phase due to the dyeing and finishing of the materials. 

When discussing building materials in form of natural versus synthetic materials, the Sustainable Commercial Interiors articles suggests several factors that should be taken into account when selecting materials.  These considerations can be taken into account towards interior finishes, flooring, cabinetry and trim and insulation materials.

• ·      Select products with low or no VOC content (Volatile Organic Compounds are a class of chemical compounds that can cause short or long-term health problems.  Low or zero VOC paints and coatings improve indoor air quality and occupant health), and choose water based finishes.
• ·      Consider materials and finishes with out acetone, formaldehyde or ethylene glycol
• ·      Consider materials made with recycled content
• ·      Avoid using tropical woods.
• ·      Choose products based on their total life cycle cost
• ·      Use products that consist of naturally renewable resources

When taking these factors into consideration when designing a product or structure, natural versus synthetic materials can either be beneficial or harmful to the environment.  While most building materials contain formaldehyde, which can cause health problems there are other building materials that can be used in order to have a more sustainable design.

During Charline Ducas video, she mentions how the industry is moving towards sustainability by being eco efficient.  In this video she talks about how there are six ways to be more sustainable.  The six categories are:

1. Reducing recycling and up cycling
2. Renewables
3. Re-exploring naturals
4. Doing more for less
5. Water less
6. New ways 

She later goes into detail on how each one of these six steps could help the textile industry move towards a more sustainable environment.  There a innovations that are coming out in order to reduce the usage of water, producing bio degradable products, exploring other fibers besides cotton, and finding new ways to print textiles with out using dye form. 

If learn the ways we can prevent from using harmful materials our environment could move towards a more sustainable environment.  However we need to learn what is more harmful to the environment in their entire life cycle.  As mentioned before both natural and synthetic fiber have there advantages and disadvantages but one needs to take into account what the end life cycle of the material will be and how it can be biodegradable.  

A guilty conscience is the mother of invention….

 As fashion plays an important social role in today’s society, it also plays a negative environmental impact.  The apparel industry has a significant effect on the earth’s environment because of the life cycle it takes to produce clothing and the after care.  Not only is the apparel industry production harmful to the earth’s environment, it is also harmful to humans.  There are a many hazardous condition that the apparel industry as acquired over time that many people are unaware of, unless they work in the apparel industry.  The issues that are seen throughout the apparel industry production are the harmful pesticides chemicals, the over use of water, electricity, and diesel fuel. While these are some of the aspects that are harmful to the environment there are also hazardous aspects such as producing non-biodegradable fibers and unhealthy working conditions that the apparel industry provides.

I believe that the apparel industry is guilty for the changes we have seen in the ecosystems for the past fifty years.  The reasoning for my assumption is because if the apparel industry were not guilty, there would not be a move to make it sustainable.  It is stated in the Fashion Sustainability article that “10 tones of water are used to grow enough cotton to make one pair of jeans”.  The over use of water to produce clothing is outrageous and is increasingly affecting our environment. “1.1 billion people still lack access to improved water supply and more than 2.6 billion lack access to improved sanitation.  Since 1960, the ratio of water use to accessible supply has grown by 20% per decade”(ESMA). Not only do can we see that we are harming the environment by the production of clothing but we are also harming humans that are in need of water that is being over used for the apparel industry. When reading the study of Walsh and Brown, suggestions are implemented that the apparel industry should move towards organic farming rather than conventional farming because the outcome of organic farming verse conventional farming when producing cotton is less harmful to the environment and to workers of the apparel industry.  Not only is organic farming better for our environment, it’s cost is almost half has much as conventional farming. Other implementation are made from the Fashion Sustainability article where more companies are moving towards sustainable options such as; fair trade products, producing renewable materials and using other natural materials that require less pesticide. If the apparel industry would move towards making the industry more sustainable, there would not be so many issues regarding the over use of the environments natural resource to produce clothing and it would not be as harmful to employees that work for the apparel industry.

The connection between the Ecosystem Assessment and Fashion Sustainability are that they both focus on how human’s over use of the earth’s resources and are slowly affecting the ecosystems. Since humans are consistently polluting the environment more and more ecosystems are being affected.  If the apparel industry would take action to become more sustainable, I believe that they would need to start in the growing phase of natural fibers in order to become sustainable.  The suggestions that are made from both Fashion Sustainability and Walsh and Brown’s article are reasonable to carry out for the apparel industry but it all comes back to the how humans should take their part in making the apparel industry more sustainable by the after care of their clothing.  One should take into consideration whether it is worth harming both the environment and humans in order to stay in style.  

Are the environmental problems we face today new?

Many would argue that the environmental problems we face today is nothing out of the ordinary.  We have been facing environmental problems since as early as 1550 when the theory of Easter Island was developed.  

In Anderson’s article, The lesson of Easter Island, she mentions Heyerdahl’s theory on how humans are a prime reason why we are facing environmental problems.  Thor Heyerdahl is the author of the book Aku-Aku, in which he discusses his theory on how the Easter Island was developed. 

“The Easter Island lies in the Pacific Ocean, 3,200 kilometers off the west coast of South America” (Anderson, 2007). The island is well known for the massive stone status that are scattered across the island that average to be over six meters high.  Many anthropologists have considered Easter Island a ‘mystery’ in which many theories have been developed on how the massive stone status were scattered across the island.  Heyerdahl’s “argues that the island was first settled from South America and that from there, the people inherited a tradition of monumental sculpture and stonework”(Anderson, 2007).  

The Polynesians were the first settlers of Easter Island and quickly discovered that they had very little resources but managed to live on the island with a diet of sweet potatoes and chicken.  Because the crop production took very little effort and there was plenty of time, the Polynesians “engaged in elaborate rituals and monument construction”(Anderson, 2007).   As the Polynesians developed their monuments transporting them became a problem.  However, they quickly found a solution to their problem in which they used tree trunks as rollers to transport their monuments across the island.  They relied on human power to drag the statues across the island because the lacked any type of animal force.  Because the developed of the status became famous the population of Easter Island grow 7,000 at its peak in 1550.  When the Easter Island “was at its peak, it suddenly collapsed, leaving over half the statues only partially completed around Fano Raraku quarry.  “The cause of the collapse and the key to understanding the ‘mysteries’ of Easter Island was massive environmental degradation brought on by deforestation of the whole island”(Anderson, 2007). 

In the eighteenth century the first Europeans that visited Easter Island found that it was completely treeless.  The theory behind the Polynesians having to do with the deforestation applies in this situation. Scientists have found that since the Polynesians used tress to transport their monuments they cut done most of the forest as well as cleared their path to transport the monuments across the island.  As the Polynesians continued to cut down tree resources started to decrease, which affected most of the Polynesians life styles.  “The storage of trees was forcing many people to abandon building houses from timber and live in caves, and when the wood eventually ran out altogether about a century later everyone had to use the only materials left”(Anderson, 2007).   The life style of the Polynesians became more difficult because of the deforestation they caused on the Easter Island when building and transporting their monuments.  Humans are a prime example of how we are the reason for environmental problems.  We as humans are taking the earths resources for granted and are taking more resources than needed.

As seen in the Ecosystems and Human Well-Being: Synthesis, (figure 2) one can see how they have conducted a study to show how much the earth’s land is becoming deforested. 

Just as early as the 1550’s the earths land has been deforested and is becoming an environmental problem because it will start affecting other products that are produced by wood. 

According to the article “Global Deforestation” states that humans have removed forest mostly for fuel, building materials and to clear land for farming.  Just like the Polynesians, we are removing forest to benefit us in other ways but are harming the earth’s resources by taking away its resources.  The argument here is that we as humans will eventually take away the earth’s resources to the extent of not being able to produce the product that are produced by the earth’s resource like wood.