Portal de Periódicos da CAPES

Cradle to cradle: Old wine or new spirits?

2010; Wiley; Volume: 6; Issue: 2 Linguagem: Inglês

10.1002/ieam.42

1551-3793

José Potting, Carolien Kroeze,

Agriculture Sustainability and Environmental Impact

The founding fathers of Cradle to Cradle, McDonough and Braungart (2002), consider present environmental policy to be playing too much on guilt and reduction of consumption. Everyone can produce and consume as much as they want, according to the ideas of Cradle to Cradle. Problems caused by overpopulation and depletion of resources would disappear if people would learn, just as termites, to convert all used materials in food cycles. In other words, we should design all products such that they can be fully reused and recycled. Waste becomes food in this way. Waste = Food. That is the appealing metaphor summarizing the philosophy of McDonough and Braungart (2002). The Cradle to Cradle Certification Program (MBDC 2007) claims Cradle to Cradle as a new and revolutionary approach taking its basis in the regenerative productivity of nature that enables creating industry that continuously improves and sustains life and growth. In this Learned Discourse, we reflect upon the originality of Cradle to Cradle by taking a look at the history of the already existing and strongly overlapping philosophy of closing cycles. The first National Environmental Policy Plan in the Netherlands (NEPP 1989) marked a turning point in Dutch environmental policy and served as a source of inspiration for similar plans in several other countries as well as for the Fifth Environmental Action Program from the European Commission in 1993 (Lieffering and van der Zouwen 2004). The NEPP sets out an encompassing strategy for the development of a more sustainable economy by controlling substance flows through the entire cycle of production and consumption. Closing substances cycles, portrayed in Figure 1, is one of the leading principles in NEPP (1989). Figure 1 visualizes the substance streams between and within the ecological system and economic system (from resource extraction, production, and consumption, to disposal and waste management). The policy plan considers opening or changing of substance cycles, more intensive use of energy, and neglect of quality aspects in production processes and products as the common causes for environmental problems. Separating the economic and ecological substance cycles by preventing leaks from the economic substances cycle, as represented by the valves in Figure 1, is put forward as a main strategy to preserve the environment's carrying capacity and its natural resources. This is basically what McDonough and Braungart (2002) advocate, and stimulated us to make a closer comparison of the Cradle to Cradle philosophy with the philosophy of closing (substance) cycles. In doing so, we draw from a long history of being actively involved in the discussions about closing cycles, and in method development and case studies in the field of life cycle assessment since its infancy. Substance streams with 'valves' (NEPP 1989). There is clearly a strong overlap between the Cradle to Cradle philosophy and the philosophy of closing cycles. There is an important difference, however, between the analytical supports of the 2 philosophies. Cradle to Cradle provides a design strategy within clearly set boundaries. These boundaries involve human and ecological health, material reutilization, use of renewable energy, water conservation and discharge, and social criteria. There is a strong emphasis in Cradle to Cradle on human and ecological health, and toxic substances in particular (McDonough et al. 2003; Braungart et al. 2007). Life cycle assessment (LCA), the analytical tool developed in support of the philosophy of closing cycles, is more encompassing than Cradle to Cradle in the environmental issues covered (ISO [International Standards Organization] 14044 dated 2006). LCA does not use clearly set boundaries and targets, but rather analyzes product systems to facilitate system optimizations by evaluating benefits of process or product alternatives. Braungart et al. (2007) explicitly take distance from such optimization strategy as "less bad is no good." Several criticisms exist about Cradle to Cradle, in particular its seemingly belief in the nonhazardousness of natural substances and materials (Reijnders 2008). Rather than hairsplitting about these criticisms, however, we focus here on what we consider as the major contribution of Braungart and McDonough (2002) and their philosophy: the way in which they empower stakeholders to implement Cradle to Cradle in their own practice. This is of crucial importance as policy makers, industry, and consumers are the carriers of sustainable change. The philosophy of Cradle to Cradle now is just as appealing as the philosophy of closing cycles and LCA were in their early days. Both the philosophy of closing cycles and LCA have experienced a diminishing of societal and political attention over the years. Other societal and political problems became important at the expense of the environment. At the same time, the philosophy of closing cycles got thoroughly rooted in our environmental policies, whereas LCA moved up to a highly appreciated member of the environmental toolbox. Both the philosophy and analytical tool grew from innovative eye-catchers into less visible business-as-usual, which in itself, of course, is a very positive development. The difficulties in practice of closing cycles, on the other hand, have also manifested themselves over the course of time. Many products involve complex manufacturing networks that tend to value aspects like company profits and employment more than the environment. Identifying improvement measures also turned out to be not unambiguous. Finally, we may question ourselves whether LCA as an analytical tool has become too sophisticated and comprehensive, and therewith too long winded and complex, specifically against the background of the ongoing debate about uncertainties in results. Cradle to Cradle could learn from that history and avoid some pitfalls of closing cycles and of LCA. The enormous reservoir of knowledge and experience acquired with LCA in particular can help Cradle to Cradle to evaluate whether waste really can become food in an infinitive eco-effective cycle. Another, more crucial lesson, in our opinion, is the importance of remaining appealing for stakeholders. Cradle to Cradle presently functions as an extremely powerful framing for communicating and mobilizing societal and political action. It should not forfeit its appealing character in the course of its further refinement. LCA, on the other hand, could contemplate on possibilities of streamlining its present complexity into a simpler though evenly robust methodological framework. This might help to (re-)build enthusiasm for the tool. Cradle to Cradle is an extremely powerful framing for communicating and mobilizing societal and political action. We consider it more relevant to recognize and use this fact, than to split hairs about similarities and differences with the earlier philosophy of closing cycles and LCA as its supporting analytical framework. It would be a terrible loss to forfeit (again) the energy and enthusiasm for change once embodied in closing cycles and LCA and now reinvigorated in the Cradle to Cradle approach.