Free At Last

I've read so many articles like this over the last ten years and like this one, nobody ever mentions human population control as an important part of solving so many of our problems. I will never understand why humans won't even consider this extremely selfish aspect of our behavior.

If your looking for clean,inexspensive and green how about hemp in stead of corn or soybeans. It contains four times as much energy producing substance and can grow without pesticides or fertilizer. If 6% of U.S. cropland were planted to hemp we could be energy independant.

The author must be from another planet. These type of articles are a dime a dozen these days. The only thing me and the author have in common is a desire for energy independence. A plan would be much more comprehensive than this paltry little article that is merely filler for the magazine. We could start by setting defined national and state goals for energy use over the next ten years with the idea of reducing oil imports and domestic power use annually. Massive amounts of research needs to be put into the "clean use" of our most plentiful resources of natural gas, oil shale, and coal.These sources of energy do not have to be defended in foreign lands and can serve as natural bridge fuels for the future. Next we as Americans must come to grips with reality and realize that we can not continue to drive gas gusling SUV's and Sports Cars forever and the ones who choose to continue on this course should be levied a substantial federal energy tax. Next we should immediately set very rigid energy standards for new home construction and substantial tax incentives or grants should be made available to homeowners and building owners to modernize with new energy savings measures for these structures. We should also set up projects for the capture of landfill gas from all large landfills and put the energy back into the grid for use by the local towns an cities. These are the types of things that can and should be done NOW, not pie in the sky. Just my thoughs.

The biggest contribution to a greener planet for businesses would be to produce products which are actually REPAIRABLE and not just REPLACEABLE. There is no product any longer which can be fixed and able to use for years from toasters to computers to automobles. Everything is throw-away quality (lack of) and individuals are forced to constantly REPLACE, REPLACE, THROW AWAY.
Where is the quality of bygone days and why are only the items we have had since 1950 the only ones which still work or can be fixed?

Just another BS story. Good going Newsweak.

Zakaria is correct in his general assessment, but just once I wish the real pioneers of efficiency and sustainability were given credit for their work. McDonough borrows heavily from the work of Walter Stahel, a noted industry analyst from Switzerland who is widely considered to be the priniciple founder of modern industrial sustainability - and who not only coined the phrase 'cradle to cradle', but also worked with the companies McDonough and Friedman cite in their books. To help clear up many misuderstandings in the field and give credit where it is due - as well as for a good fundamental overview of the 'green' principles and practices helping to make astute companies more profitable - download the free book 'Managing the New Frontiers' which is currently being distributed by the European Foundation for Management Development (EFMD) in Brussels, Belgium on its website (www.efmd.org/publications), as well as the websites of the University of Surrey (www.ces-surrey.org.uk) in England, Kozminski University (www.wspiz.edu.pl) in Warsaw, Poland, and the Birla Institute of Management Technology (www.bimtech.ac.in) in India.
This book is very easy to read, it covers most of the basics, and it's FREE!

We're going to have to change. Sounds simple, but many people are still acting like it doesn't mean them. The U.S. has NOT performed well in the area of energy this decade. Bush squandered a golden opportunity after 9/11 to put the country on a drive toward energy independence, and a few years later we're sending $700 billion a year to places like the Middle East. Misplaced deregulation and shortsightedness nearly kills the big 3 automakers, and we get $4 gas in 2008 before the financial meltdown. When the economy starts to recover, the gas prices will pop back up, ensuring that the recovery is painfully slow. Meanwhile, the metrics on global warming keep coming in even as the deniers get more outlandish with the alternative explanations.



Obama's right; we can't just keep punting the problem. We also can't keep thinking the private sector or the "market" will solve it. It hasn't happened in the 36 years or so since the Arab oil embargo, and it won't happen.

Thils article sounds like the old man trying to tell his grandchild how to behave. The idea is good, but how we do it is not explained. The fact is that we do not have the technology to produce enough energy for everybody without fossil fuels, at least for the next 30 years. I'm talking about everybody, not just those pilot projects that can produce some amount of energy for the very few.

So before we cut the wire that gives us energy, lets make sure we have something else ready that will work. This is not going to be an immediate event and it will take time. But in the meantime lets not forget that we all enjoy a quality of life that is still dependent on fossil fuels and will continue to do so for many more years, no matter how much wishfull thinking we employ.

The goal is great, but we need a little of common sense in the interim.

Only one problem... There are a lot of Fat Cats who profit from oil, the control of oil and the exploitation of consumers.

Start with the Criminals at OPEC then go to the oil companies and finally stop at CORRUPTION HILL where you'll find the criminals who perpetuate the Fleecing of America. There will NEVER be energy independence in America. If you check you will see that the oil and utility companies have bought into every possible form of alternative energy so that they have control of all consumable energy. It's all about Mo Money and financial greed to the extreme- which will never change.

WE are approaching the energy problem from the wrong angle. We think by exploring for oil in America and drilling in forbidden places we will solve the crisis. Instead we will just delay the enevitable problem and solution. We cannot continue to burn fossil fuels at incresing rates without facing dire and drastic consequences (I am talking more than global warming too). One of the most abundant fuels is methane, its the seoncd most abundant greenhouse gas and we don't acknowledge if we studied how we produce it and worked on ways to collect it a portion of more than one problem would be solved.

Part of your argument is good, about conservation, and increasing efficiency. However, the part about oil makes you sound alike an agent for the oil industry. Oil is a major source of CO2 emissions currently, and global warming will land mankind in untold misery for generations. This alone is a good reason to get rid of it. Of course, we do not want to replace oil with the current coal burning technology, which is equally polluting.
Due to "free trade", the US will eventulaly have very little to export, so we will all have jobs selling mortgage scams to the rest of the world, or have a standard of living similar to that in the poorest countries. If we can invent a revolution in renewable, non polluting energy production, we will at least cut our oil import bill, in addition to providing jobs to many Americans. Additionally, the next industrial revolution will be based on Robotic technology,.which will allow us to compete in manufacturing with the lowest wage countries, while reducing our dependance on low skill migrnats from south of the border.

We currently do not have the technology or systems in place to recycle everything we produce into either "biological" or "technical" nutrients everywhere they are sold, to use the concept you paraphrase from Bill McDonough. In his less ambitious moments, he acknowledges that this is something to strive toward, not what we already have. As you've probably heard Bill say many times before, he "talks about the future in the present tense." Why is this a problem? First, if it is thought that we can already recycle everything, everywhere into something else, how are we going to get the billions of dollars of funding to actually do the research needed to build out the necessary systems once they are even known? Pretending that such systems exist makes it more likely that they never will. Second, it also undermines the call for sustainability when it is known that so many people speak so many falsehoods. Sure, such claims can be inspirational, and used to help people imagine another world, and strive to build it. But when you speak, as McDonough speaks, as if this world already exists, those of us who know it doesn't have a hard time trusting any of your other arguments.

In best moments, I think Bill is doing admirable things. He is trying to get everyone to realize that we need to do things differently, that we need to make things differently so that it will even be possible to "upcycle" "technical" and "biological" nutrients. But with our current manufacturing processes and systems, we can't. He undermines his mission, as do you, when you write that this is already possible.

In China, Bill led the design, and oversaw the construction of an eco-city, the transformation of the village of Huangbaiyu into an eco-town. One of the materials that he approved of was expanded polystyrene. All the reasons he chose this material are quite complicated, and were affected by corporate sponsorship, but he argued that it was an appropriate material because it is a "technical nutrient" that can be re-used in other forms. How? Where? How are the shavings and wastes from construction in a mountain village going to get anywhere to be used again? When those houses are torn down in the next 5-20 years, is anyone going to know that that material can be reused? Who will have the technology? How much will it cost to transport? Will there be a system in place? No. Because McDonough never worked to put a system in place because he just labeled the polystyrene a "technical nutrient." It theoretically could be reused, but not actually.

I hope that someday we will actually be able to do what Bill hopes for, what he's helped so many people to imagine. But that will only happen if we admit that it isn't yet possible and do the hard, expensive work to get there. Speaking isn't acting, just as wishing isn't willing.

Shannon May, Anthropologist, UC Berkeley

We currently do not have the technology or systems in place to recycle everything we produce into either "biological" or "technical" nutrients everywhere they are sold, to use the concept you paraphrase from Bill McDonough. In his less ambitious moments, he acknowledges that this is something to strive toward, not what we already have. As you've probably heard Bill say many times before, he "talks about the future in the present tense." Why is this a problem? First, if it is thought that we can already recycle everything, everywhere into something else, how are we going to get the billions of dollars of funding to actually do the research needed to build out the necessary systems once they are even known? Pretending that such systems exist makes it more likely that they never will. Second, it also undermines the call for sustainability when it is known that so many people speak so many falsehoods. Sure, such claims can be inspirational, and used to help people imagine another world, and strive to build it. But when you speak, as McDonough speaks, as if this world already exists, those of us who know it doesn't have a hard time trusting any of your other arguments.

In best moments, I think Bill is doing admirable things. He is trying to get everyone to realize that we need to do things differently, that we need to make things differently so that it will even be possible to "upcycle" "technical" and "biological" nutrients. But with our current manufacturing processes and systems, we can't. He undermines his mission, as do you, when you write that this is already possible.

In China, Bill led the design, and oversaw the construction of an eco-city, the transformation of the village of Huangbaiyu into an eco-town. One of the materials that he approved of was expanded polystyrene. All the reasons he chose this material are quite complicated, and were affected by corporate sponsorship, but he argued that it was an appropriate material because it is a "technical nutrient" that can be re-used in other forms. How? Where? How are the shavings and wastes from construction in a mountain village going to get anywhere to be used again? When those houses are torn down in the next 5-20 years, is anyone going to know that that material can be reused? Who will have the technology? How much will it cost to transport? Will there be a system in place? No. Because McDonough never worked to put a system in place because he just labeled the polystyrene a "technical nutrient." It theoretically could be reused, but not actually.

I hope that someday we will actually be able to do what Bill hopes for, what he's helped so many people to imagine. But that will only happen if we admit that it isn't yet possible and do the hard, expensive work to get there. Speaking isn't acting, just as wishing isn't willing.

Shannon May, Anthropologist, UC Berkeley