January 2010 Archives

Environmental Concerns - Cradle to Cradle Design

By Charles Swanson on January 29, 2010 9:31 PM | No Comments | No TrackBacks

Recently I read Cradle to Cradle by William McDonough and Michael Braungart. These whacky authors presents a truly mind expanding way to approach the design of products. They discuss at some length the differences between two approaches to sustainable design, eco-efficiency and eco-effectiveness.
Eco-efficiency is sustainable design of the sort that a majority of companies practice currently. It is product and process design intended to do less bad or to clean up the act a bit. Eco-efficient designers look around the factory and find places and processes where they can cut waste, use recycled cardboard for packaging, recycle offcuts, use less water or change paint suppliers to acquire lower VOC coatings. It searches through the lens of efficiency, for materials and processes that are less bad. While these efficiencies result in slower environmental degradation, the key words here are less, bad and slower. The trouble with the eco-efficiency model is that in the end, it does nothing to stop products from moving to the landfill. It only provides a way to imbue raw materials with a couple more incarnations and slow the inevitable trip to the earthy, landfill grave. If you have read my previous article on 10,000 Year Thinking you will understand that this is a temporary solution at best.

One of the largest issues with eco-efficient design is the little understood reality that recycled materials are are not really recycled but down-cycled. To see this, think of the case of an aluminum can; the top of the can is a high grade aluminum while the can body is a lower grade. When dutifully recycled and the two grades are melted together, they combine to form a lower grade than required for the tops. Mixing varying grade materials of any kind results in this problem. When regular steels are combined with stainless steel in the recycling process, or when painted auto body panels are re-melted, the combined materials are unable to be used in higher level applications any longer because of the degraded quality of the combination. An additional problem. Paints on steel often contain harmful materials that are released to the atmosphere when melted or are bound into items produced using recycled steel. This potentially results in exposing people to toxins in a way never intended by a product's original designer or the new designer utilizing materials with recycled content.

In describing the vision of eco-effective design on the other hand, the authors present the image of a cherry tree spewing thousands of blossoms and point to the great excess of this event. All that spewing, simply to spawn a single tree. Yet there is no waste in that process because all parts of the blossoms that do not become trees, become food in the local biological closed loop. The natural loop where waste from one living thing in the biosphere automatically becomes food for another. The authors suggest using the same loop model, along with a switch in thinking among designers, to create a similar closed loop in the technical or manufacturing sphere. A loop where products at the end of useful life are reclaimed to extract and reuse materials at the same or even higher level, to become food if you will, for continuing the technological loop. Two separate abundantly producing loops; one biological, one technological. Both being fed by materials already within each system.

If designers are able to create ideal products where the product and packaging at the end of use become food for either the biological loop or the technological loop, humans can continue to manufacture and consume at almost any rate that we wish. You can have the new car, phone or chair anytime you want if all the components of the old one can be simply reformed into a newer one of the same quality. As long as we keep our designs easily de-constructible so that each component is food for either the biological or technological loop we will have no future resource problem.

There is of course, much more to this book than the nutshell presented here and it is an important read for anyone concerned with environmentally responsible design issues. Although the authors seem to ignore the energy requirements of their proposed system, the book has provided food for my biological looping brain.

Using these ideas, I am sure, will generate copious loopiness of another sort. Please check back soon.

Environmental Concerns - 10,000 Year Thinking

By Charles Swanson on January 25, 2010 4:08 PM | No Comments | No TrackBacks

We have a Big Idea that we are working on here at Birth of Venus Studios and it is going to be driving our design for some time to come, I believe. I want to begin by telling you how I stumbled on this line of thought and hopefully bring you along with us on the journey that we are beginning.

Some years ago I read an article about government attempts to create a warning sign for a nuclear waste repository in Nevada at Yucca Mountain. There was some justifiable concern that at some point in the far off, 10,000 year future, whomever happened to still be here on Earth might encounter this place and suffer harm. So there was a gathering of the people who had worked on the Pioneer spacecraft and had already put some thought into universal language communications. They wanted to come up with a symbol in order to warn the above mentioned whomevers that serious danger was lurking below. Fair enough.

Recently, I was recently reading Cradle to Cradle, a fantastic book that for every designer is a must read. The writers began to relate this same story in the text and I thought I knew where they were going with it. Their ending was a bit different, however. They described a participant in the discussion about communicating with the future as having a different point of view. He was a Native American, and said, "Don't worry about it. We don't need a sign. We will tell them." The authors point out that this person has something that most of us lack. That something is sense of ownership and belonging in this world along with a plan to be in it for some time to come. At least 10,000 years.

Then, on TV I saw a commercial. There was an ad encouraging the passage of legislation favorable to natural gas production through the Congress of the United States. The ad said, "We have enough clean, natural gas to power the USA independently for the next 100 years."

This guy, on the other hand, figures that 100 years is enough, even though that 100 years of natural gas will probably not be replaced in the next 100,000 years. "We have it, let's use it up!", he seemed to say.

One more story. I was fortunate enough to visit the beautiful Northern Scotland 10 years ago. On that trip we visited to the Highland Park Distillery on Orkney Island where they have been making Scotch Whiskey for a quite a while. On the tour, it was explained that the distinctive smokey taste comes from the barley that is heated with smoke from burning peat. It was further explained that there was enough peat to last for 300 years. Even then I saw the problem. I assume now that they must be telling people that they have enough peat to last for 290 years. Trouble is, it takes peat 10,000 years to form.

In other words, are we going to be good landlords or the other kind? Will we take care of the property in a way that keeps it attractive, comfortable and rent producing for the future? Or will we squeeeeeze everything possible out the Earth before demolishing it or having the grandchildren do some repairs? How is having 100 years of natural gas or 290 years of peat useful if we have the perspective of needing a place to live, work and create for far longer than that? The first 100 years will be great, and then, even if we are cold, presumably we can at least stay drunk for 190 more. It is the last 9,710 years that are going to really suck.

So what IS the Birth of Venus Big Idea? We plan to fundamentally alter the focus of our company. We have always voiced concern about the environment. For instance, "We are really worried about the environment and it keeps us awake at night." Beginning today, we are going to, imperfectly I am sure, actually do something besides toss and turn and grunt out concerned utterances. We are going to design our our modern fountain and furniture products based in the assumption that we belong here on this Earth and that in 10,000 years we will still be here and are going to need resources to do stuff with.

While this idea is in permanent development we have some beginning principles that we will live by. Our initial focus will be non-obsolescence through extreme durability and timeless design, fair employment practices, a low transportation footprint, concern and action with regard for the environmental impact of our products. A products impact is not just the manufacturing process but throughout the life cycle of our products and giving back to the community that supports us. We will strive to achieve these goals at a median, affordable price point. As an example, here is a description of the materials, processes and goals embodied in one of our new chairs.

Originally designed and engineered for a brutal environment, the shopping mall food court, our stylish and durable SOHO chair will withstand many years of use in almost any environment. The chair's credentials are:

1) North American made (Canada) for fair employment practices and a lower transportation footprint.

2) Thick walled, high strength, cold hardened drawn steel tubing for long life.

3) TGIC free powder coats for improved outdoor air quality, worker safety and a non-toxic end-of-life.

4) FSC certified veneers for prevention of forest depletion.

5) Plastic laminates made from recycled paper for forest preservation.

6) Water based glues for non-toxicity and improved indoor and outdoor air quality.

7) We will accept returns of our furniture for refurbishment or proper recycling when no longer needed.

8) We will neutralize the carbon footprint of the entire life cycle of our products from manufacture to final recycling. We will do this by purchasing credits from the 23 year proven Las Gaviotas Offset Project to recreate sufficient full canopied, poly-cultured rainforest to absorb the emissions from our products.

9) A portion of our revenues will go to organizations such as feedingamerica.org.

This blog will be the place to check in so that I can keep you posted about all the things that we are doing to make our products better and how our thinking about design with the future in mind is developing. Please stay tuned.

Environmental Concerns - Wood Products

By Charles Swanson on January 12, 2010 9:27 PM | No Comments | No TrackBacks

Wood, when sustainably and responsibly harvested, presents as one of the most environmentally friendly materials. The environmental impact of carbon emissions can be classified within two different categories, anthropogenic and biogenic, wood being the latter. Biogenic CO2 emitted in the combustion or processing of wood is considered neutral because during growth, trees sequester carbon dioxide and release oxygen. In this way a wooden chair or other product can be considered a carbon storage device, in the sense that the tree from which it was made absorbed carbon while growing, and the products made from the tree retain that carbon throughout their lifespan. Not only is it essentially carbon neutral in that what ever carbon dioxide is released upon its decomposition or incineration as fuel is equivalent to CO2 that was converted to oxygen throughout the life of the tree, but further since it is very rarely farmed in North America, regional the growth of this resource involves no artificial fertilization or water management. In fact it is widely recognized that by selectively and responsibly harvesting larger trees, smaller trees which have a much faster growth rate are allowed to prosper actually increasing the net carbon absorption of a given area of land. According to the US forestry department, the ratio tree growth to harvesting is approximately 1.6, meaning that currently for every two acres of trees harvested, more than three are added.

We use only FSC Certified woods in the production of our furniture products. Additionally, these woods are sourced as close to the point of manufacture as possible to minimize the material transportation footprint.

Environmental Concerns - Obsolescence

By Charles Swanson on January 11, 2010 4:13 PM | No Comments | No TrackBacks

Obsolescence is a major feature in creating products using the lens of lowest cost manufacturing. If a product can be produced cheaply enough with a 90 day warranty isn't that good enough? In the past, I have designed furniture for projects where the manufacturer specifically has 5 year replacement cycle in mind. If those same pieces had been created with a 10 year cycle in mind, the need for recycling is immediately cut in half. Simply buying more durable or more repairable products, then properly maintaining them, creates the potential to cut vast amounts from the waste stream. If you pay 30 - 50% more for a product that has 200% of the anticipated life, that is a bargain for both you and the environment. I spent a good part of my designer career making hand made, one-of-a-kind furnishings. Furniture designed to last a lifetime, them be handed down to the next lifetime. Fewer objects produced today are worthy of passing on to another generation. Our consumption habits have moved ever more toward maximizing quantity over quality. We want to provide the opportunity for you to choose quality and durability over quantity and offer a choice of products designed and manufactured to be worthy of handing down to the next generation of furniture lovers.

Furniture Thoughts

By Charles Swanson on January 8, 2010 9:22 AM | No Comments | No TrackBacks

I love furniture. I have been a furniture designer for over 20 years now and I still get excited about new work. Our mission is to create a series of products that are aimed squarely at helping you live better, with more style, yet with minimal environmental impact. As a cyclist living in rural New England, I feel fortunate to have clean air and stunning vistas in my daily routine. I want to do all that we can to help preserve this experience for myself and others, now and in the future.

We all love new things, but the issues of where they are manufactured, the materials used in that manufacture and the intended life span are crucial questions that we as a world culture need to answer whenever we buy a product. We humans need encouragement to think long term and to consider some of the additional costs that are not always included in the cash price we pay for a product. How is a person supposed to calculate value when there are carbon footprints and landfill closure and VOC emission costs that are not included in product prices?

Choosing the lowest cost does not equal choosing the best solution for long term environmental efficiency. Simply because a manufacturer or end purchaser does not have to pay these environmental costs out of pocket now doesn't mean that we won't eventually have to pay. Just because we are not explicitly paying a designated environmental cost at the time of purchase does not mean that we won't pay some other way. Whether this cost takes the form of government cleanup expenses or a child's asthma medicine, it is a real cost. So as an exercise, we can look at probable issues created by always selecting the lowest price item as opposed to the highest value item. Just because we are not explicitly paying a cost at the time of purchase does not mean that we have escaped the cost. Lowest cost manufacturers are betting that you do not care. I am creating products hoping that you that do.

« December 2009 | Main Index | Archives | March 2010 »