KEEP IT SIMPLE STUPID (KISS)
KEEP IT SIMPLE STUPID (KISS)
The Blue Economy cases that  I have been monitoring, supporting, implementing and learning from  provide me the proof of concept. Substituting something with nothing is  an important guideline to simplify our society that is over-consuming,  accumulating stuff that has no exit, while releasing resources that are  abundant without stressing the Earth beyond the carrying capacity. Time  has come to keep it simple - may I say - stupid!
Kudos to Gunter Paul one of the most genius environmentalists on this planet!
He could realy CHANGE the WORLD if he would work together with the right people
creating a completely new Society 3.0!
Recycling was a great idea, cascading matter even better, the best is to KISS
When the elementary school  teacher wondered how a tree recycles its leaves, common knowledge hit  smack into the face: a tree never even attempts to reattach the leaves  that dropped in the fall to its branches in the spring. While this seems  to be self-evident, it sheds new light on the logic applied by  societies to recycle. We have imagined and imposed closed loops that  turn glass bottles into bottles, and newspapers into paper.
And while we learn the  lesson that glass should perhaps become glass foam, through a chemical  reaction with carbon dioxide, and paper may rather become an insulation  material extending the life of cellulose, we start to understand as a  community that merely recycling comes at a high cost, and that there are  better options. In addition, we fail to see that while recycling is a  great step towards a circular economy, the mere recovery of a waste  stream often perpetuates the very non-sustainable behavior of modern  society that is putting such stress on our limited resources - even when  we recycle. We need to design a society that meets the needs of all by  generating more value while consuming considerably less stuff. That is  the reason why I call for KISS as a design principle.
Since the Club of Rome  shook the establishment and presented a clear logic with the publication  of the 1972 Report entitled “Limits to Growth”, we need to increase  material efficiency in order to render our societies sustainable.  Industry has embarked on the reduce, reuse and recycle concept. While we  applaud all the efforts in that direction including the popular notions  like the circular economy, cradle to cradle, increasing material  efficiency by Factor 4,5 and 10, we must realize that recycling renders  our consumption and production pattern inflexible as we continue to rely  on and thus promote the use of totally unsustainable resources. This  means that we continue to consume too much stuff. The mere reduction of  materials and their recycling is great but not good enough. The rebound  effect makes us consume more as efficiency increases and the continued  population explosion is expected to add an extra 2 billion people  implies that we continue to stress out our limited resources. That is  why we need to go way beyond the mere 3R, and embrace the principle to  substitute something with nothing. Only then can we respond to the basic  needs of all.
While this expression  “substitute something with nothing” seems unrealistic it is urgent that  we embrace simplicity as a core principle in our endeavor to steer  society towards sustainability, and eliminate many of the standard  components, products and processes that we consider part and parcel of  modern life. Take the example of the battery. While the industry  delivers 40 billion batteries a year, most of which end up as  uncontrolled waste, the large majority of mobile and electronic devises  never needed a battery in the first place. The convenience of a power  source like batteries spurs mining, smelting requiring high energy  consumption and a wasteful consumption of precious resources. This  battery approach to the storage of electricity neglects the potential to  exploit a mere difference in temperature, pressure, or pH and the  conversion of pressure from noise to generate sufficient power to  operate 95 percent of all mobile electronic devices. There is no need  for a green battery, we simply need no battery.
We should embark on a broad  initiative to finetune and introduce technologies that eradicate the  need for batteries - as simple as that. This should be one of the global  initiatives in the interest of cost, health and the Earth. When  exceptions apply, we should eliminate all one way batteries by law and  solely operate with power accumulators that can perform the job at least  2,000 times. Or, use water that can be recharged indefinitely as a  power source through the accumulation of heat. This design principle can  be applied to hundreds of products and we should review a few to  clarify how easy it is to have the same quality of life, without all the  stuff that chokes ecosystems, risks our health, relies on too much  mining and energy and was not needed in the first place!
The challenge we are facing  is a dependency on material cycles which are superfluous. While  recycling should be a part of life, as a part of our desire to create a  culture around products of service we continue to consume excessively. I  repeat: many recycling programs perpetuate totally unsustainable  products and services. So instead of promoting recycling and the cradle  to cradle logic, which were great strides forward at their time of  conception, we need to go way beyond and eliminate. We can obtain clean  drinking water without filters, pumps, membranes or chemicals, simply  using the vortex, the swirling movement that rivers have applied thanks  to gravity to remove unwanted particles. 
Take the emerging practice  of burning solid municipal waste under the pretext to generate power.  While we know that incineration produces little energy at high cost, the  capital investments lock in the pattern of turning waste smaller and  more toxic preventing for the next 20-25 years the opportunity to  practice urban mining, recovering the precious components. This  “burning” locks in a destructive process. Even the more sophisticated  versions of pyrolysis and plasma reinforce the closed loop approach for  unsustainable elements, which will continue to be over-exploited since  the worldʼs population continues to grow and ascend to the middle  classes. 
The broadening practice of  burning waste from agriculture ranging from the bagasse of the sugar  cane and the black liquor of paper production destroys the opportunity  to generate more while eliminating the unneeded. Bagasse should never be  incinerated since it provides the core ingredients for mushroom  farming, generating ten times more protein than sugar could ever have  imagined. Why would one not facilitate a ten fold increase in nutrition  knowing that millions of tons of the raw material are available nearly  for free? Even the promise of generating energy should not divert our  attention to secure more quality food at lower cost. The same logic  applies to the processing of pulp and paper. While black liquor has been  traditionally viewed as an energy source, due to its high lignin  content, it should never have been considered as a fuel in the first  place.
Black liquor provides a  rich source of biochemicals which could be converted into a feedstock of  fine and renewable chemicals including the raw material for cathodes, a  core element in the battery which is traditionally produced out of  metals, but could now be manufactured out of bio-based materials. The  same logic could be applied to antennas, screaming at us at high energy  cost and metal intensity competing for waves to reach our phone,  computer or internet
connection. If the new  Superformula by Johan Gielis were widely applied, then we could reduce  the stuff related to this standard equipment by factor one hundred since  transponders, relays and WiFi senders and receivers will not be needed  anymore. 
Custom designed and  powerful antennas can be produced out of recycled plastics, mining the  tremendous excess of thermo-stable petroleum derivates that now pollute  the air (due to indiscriminate incineration) and the seas (through  accumulation in huge plastic islands that need 500 to 1,000 years to  degrade). We can substitute metal antennas, while dramatically cutting  back the energy consumption of antennas that is hardly ever debated. Do  we realize that each cellphone antenna unit that dots the skies  especially along freeways consumes electricity as if it were a Hummer  car?
The conversion of our local  electricity networks from 110 or 220 Volt Alternate Current (AC) to 12 V  Direct Current (DC) while relying on at least seven different sources  of renewable energy forms abundant and available in the immediate  neighborhood of consumption, cuts dramatically back on copper wires  perhaps with factor one hundred, while simplifying all electric and  electronic equipment. About 80 percent of energy efficient systems used  at home or at the office, operate with electronic devices and controls  requiring less than 12V. All electricity needs can be met without the  need for converters and inverters, it even reduces the need for pylons  and transfer station that dot our urban and peri-urban environment  exposing us to poorly understood radiation risks. This would eliminate  the charger business. It is another case of substituting something ...  with nothing.
If we substitute cotton,  the standard natural fiber dressing the world, which consumes an  estimated quarter of the worldʼs agro-chemicals and irrigation water  with nettle fibers and alginates from algae blooms, then we not only  free up land for food production, the nearly 100 million tons of cotton  could become more than 100 million tons of protein for human  consumption. At the same time we eliminate the chemicals and put water  to a better use. The nettles can be farmed on degraded land, clean up  the soil from contaminants, and the algae absorb CO2 cleansing our air.  This substitutes large scale farming of cotton with small scale  industrial units for nettles and alginates processing that are  competitive provided we take all the benefits and externalities into  account and not simply compare a ton for a ton. We substitute water for  irrigation with “no water” since nettles are stronger when stressed in  their growth, and algae convert abundant seawater into a base for  farming, instead of consuming precious drinking water. This approach not  only frees up essentials, it takes the negatives out of the equation.
It is well known that we do  not have enough steel, cement and concrete to meet all the housing  needs. The 200 million homes required over the next decade in the  tropical belt will only be met with poverty and violence if the cement,  brick and mortar approach dominates. Since 100 square meters of land  reserved to farm bamboo provides sufficient space to “grow” a house  every year (after an initial 3 years) for 75 years we can once again add  up what is not needed in modern construction industry: no energy, no  water, no metals, no additives. Even the preservation of the bamboo can  be achieved by converting the non-structural parts into charcoal and the  gases are impregnated eliminating the chemicals that are otherwise  needed to extend the life of the house by protecting it from insects and  fungi. And while we plant thousands of hectares with bamboo forests, we  secure that the hydrological cycles provide local drinking water. A  2,000 hectare bamboo forest secures - as is done in Guayaquil (Ecuador)  42 prefabricated homes a day at a cost of less than one thousand  dollars. The house can be signed up for in the morning and delivered in  the afternoon at a cost of $17 a month. Who said housing is expensive?  Who argued that we should reduce our carbon footprint? We can even have a  negative carbon footprint by providing social housing low cost.
The infamous PET bottles  with PP caps are a disgrace in our modern societies, defying the  intelligence of the human race. How can one use a water container with  ingredients that do not degrade for hundreds of years, and then invent  incineration as the solution to rid ourselves of the excesses of  plastics? It seems to have slipped out of our reality checks that unlike  plastics, glass cannot be destroyed, only transformed. Whereas plastics  can be produced and burned once, that is it. Now if we convert the  end-of-life glass into glass foam while consuming CO2, then we eliminate  the need for fire retardants, considered indispensable in society. This  necessary evil does not have to pursue its search for “less toxic”  ingredients. We can simply eliminate the need by choosing materials that  will not burn!
Kudos to Gunter Paul one of the most genius environmentalists on this planet!
He could realy CHANGE the WORLD if he would work together with the right people
creating a completely new Society 3.0!
Comments
Post a Comment