When reading Cradle to Cradle, I found myself both excited by and weary of the concepts outlined. Though the authors make fantastic points, I think they are missing components which must be taken into consideration. They stress that our current industrial system causes a lot of our problems because it is designed on a linear, cradle-to-grave model. This model includes the extraction of resources which are made into products and then sold and eventually disposed of. Such a cradle-to-grave design is how most things are manufactured. For example, approximately 90% of materials extracted in the United Sates become waste almost immediately, which is frightening considering this waste is not be reused effectively (if at all) to sustain our environment. Despite the many issues with this, such a system is deemed successful and functioning because it is based on GDP measurements. While this system is a poorly designed one, it nevertheless makes us prosperous in terms of GDP, which is what we strive for. So our industry infrastructure strives solely for economic growth, which has caused serious current issues and will continue to be detrimental in the future. In particular, they stress how we are being harmed as humans by the products we use.

In replace of this system, McDonough and Braungart suggest that we are in need of a cyclical system that is far more sustainable. They refer to such a system as cradle-to-cradle. This system includes eliminating the concept of waste, which is a different approach than that of traditional environmentalists who focus on reduction and minimization. McDonough and Braungart argue that the traditional notion essentially suggests that being “less bad” is acceptable, which is a terrible approach. They argue that rather than having less waste, we need to have no waste. Furthermore, they assert that the assumption that being eco-efficient (meaning doing more with less) is healthy for the environment is also a bad approach because this is what brought about the Industrial Revolution, which set up our current industrial cradle-to-grave system.

Rather than being eco-efficient, it is better to be eco-effective, which refers to making things the right way. This includes designing products without the concept of waste. For example, a television would be purchased for usage rather than the materials themselves, and once the customer was done using it the product would be returned and broken down to create a new one. Other products would be designed in such a way that once the consumer was finished with them, they could throw them on the ground so that they biodegrade. The authors assert that once products are designed without the possibility of waste, our industries and systems can get bigger, which will be beneficial in that they will be able to replenish and nourish the world. They draw a connection to a cherry tree, which provides nutrients through its waste.

While exciting suggestions, they seem difficult to implement. First of all, while a romantic notion, I am not sure our current systems in place will allow us to become like cherry trees. Additionally, asserting that our systems and industries should be larger in order to replenish and nourish the world seems like a dangerous road to take, particularly given growth has caused us so many problems already. They argue that such growth will be based on making products the “right” way, yet fully implementing such a system may be incredibly difficult to do. Furthermore, I am weary of what they say is the “right” way to produce something, given there are always detriments involved. Ultimately, this new system requires a complete overhaul of everything we currently do and a massive shift in how we view and consider certain things. Changing the way we think to open up the door for new and creative possibilities can be incredibly challenging, and something I am not sure people are capable of doing on a large scale given how entrenched we are in our current ways. While it is essential that change does occur given how damaging our current industrial system is, I think the authors need to consider the limitations of humanity’s ability to envision such alternatives as these. There are far too many people relying on our current system, not to mention all of the money sustaining it, for us to make such a transition easily, if at all. It would require massive regulations on international and domestic levels, which McDonough and Braungart argue is not effective because it forces companies to comply or face punishment. While I appreciate their concepts in theory, I think there are far more components to be considered when facing how to best approach our current environmental issues.