JiscMail Logo
Email discussion lists for the UK Education and Research communities

Help for PHD-DESIGN Archives


PHD-DESIGN Archives

PHD-DESIGN Archives


PHD-DESIGN@JISCMAIL.AC.UK


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

PHD-DESIGN Home

PHD-DESIGN Home

PHD-DESIGN  2000

PHD-DESIGN 2000

Options

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password

Subject:

Input reduction, reuse, and recycling for sustainable design

From:

Ken Friedman <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Ken Friedman <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Wed, 4 Oct 2000 14:25:12 +0200

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (80 lines)

Ken, Glenn,

Can I instead pass out some recycling figures for the UK - which are
admittedly a little old from 1992.

Amount of post-ue scrap recycled as a proportion of consumption:

Ferrous metals - 45%
Aluminium - 39%
Copper - 45%
Lead - 64%
Zinc - 21%

Energy saved through recycling:

Ferrous metals - 74%
Aluminium - 95%
Copper - 60-96%
Lead - 77%
Zinc - 61%

Ken is correect in pointing out that many industry sectors have recycled
material and included them in new products as matter of historic course and
economic logic as material extraction is so expensive and time consuming.
My own research sector of White Goods, in 1999 Electrolux used around
3,000,000 tonnes of materials, of which 329,000 were recycled from
consumers and 69,000 tonnes within the factory-gates- thats roughly 10-15%.
Not a massive amount, though many products will be in homes (or probably
showrooms knowing what they design!), to be recycled later. Guess what,
over 90% of these products impacts come from energy consumption - nothing
to do with recycled materials at all.

Of course the main problem is where recycling is  most visible - in
people's homes and minds - the recycling rates are pretty much stuck at
around 6% of total household waste.

This discussion does raise an important point for me about notions of
'best' ecodesign practice. Do we define this as the most 'enironmentally
benefitial' or as the most 'visible'.... If its the former, then Stark is
probably far surpassed by many, many , many others whom might not call
themselves sustainable designers. But is its the most visible,
trend-setting, publicity seeking proposals which have the most impact on
society and consciousness.. (which you can't measure in environmental
improvements or even 'measure' at all) then arguable Stark could be in with
a shout!.... My own view is that Stark is nowhere near the most or best
sustainable designer, but we do need his input, showmanship and publicity
generating ability. (See http://www.goodgoods.tm.fr/ for further
Sustarkability)

It also highlights the pointlessness of 'universal' or generic solutions
for sustainability. Recycling is only one (and perhaps not even the best)
strategy in a whole series of design interventions necessary. Waste
management heirarchies suggest we should: REDUCE energy and material use;
REUSE products or components: only then should we RECYCLE materials.. Its
third in the heirarchy, whereas its mythical status often gives it
precedent.

Though I do realise the importance of product-orientated discussion (its
helps make intangible environmental problems real), I'm reluctant to use
them as the basis for the whole discourse.

Ken - post this on the list if you think its not too subject specific.

Chris Sherwin
Researcher
Eco Innovations Group
Cranfield University
MK43 0AL
[log in to unmask]
Tel: 01234 754191



--




%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

JiscMail Tools


RSS Feeds and Sharing


Advanced Options


Archives

August 2019
July 2019
June 2019
May 2019
April 2019
March 2019
February 2019
January 2019
December 2018
November 2018
October 2018
September 2018
August 2018
July 2018
June 2018
May 2018
April 2018
March 2018
February 2018
January 2018
December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
2006
2005
2004
2003
2002
2001
2000
1999
1998


JiscMail is a Jisc service.

View our service policies at https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/policyandsecurity/ and Jisc's privacy policy at https://www.jisc.ac.uk/website/privacy-notice

Secured by F-Secure Anti-Virus CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager