1. "Design for a Sustainable World" Margolin 1998 JSTOR. Published in Design Issues, Volume 14, No. 2 (Summer, 1998), pp. 83 - 92, by The MIT Press
In the article Design for a Sustainable World written by Victor Margolin and published by The MIT Press in Design Issues in Summer of 1998, Margolin traces the history of sustainable design from the late 19th century on. When Margolin starts his story on sustainable design he observes that it was “conceived as an art of giving form to products for mass production” ("Design for a Sustainable World" Margolin 1998, at pg. 83). In this manner, American design became the world model for the design of consumer products, and it has been so successful that it is still in use today. However, according to the writer, this has come at a huge cost because the design elements stress the industrial goals of promoting consumerism and not practical, responsible and sustainable production. This is not to say there have been no responsible, innovative designers, Margolin references Papanek’s writings and goes into depth on Buckminster Fuller’s designs (Margolin at page 84) in his article. According to the author other designers, including Gui Bonsiepe, Tomas Maldonado and John Cris Jones have furthered these concepts but have never shaken the foundation on the role of the designer as one that must work within the industrial structure. As a result he puts forth the image that design is one of the elements that contributes to the continued degradation of the environment and is a block to human progress to a “culture of sustainability” (Margolin at page 86). In the end he concludes that designers need to “reinvent industrial design” and if they do not they “will simply become part of the problems whose solutions other professions will need to invent.” ("Design for a Sustainable World" Margolin 1998, at pg. 92).
2. "Five Myths about Green Energy" Bryce 2010 .DOC Published in the Washington Post on Sunday, April 25, 2010 by Robert Bryce.
Q: What are some of the myths regarding Green Energy, according to this commentator?
Robert Brice lists "Five Myths about Green Energy" in the article he published in the Washington Post on Sunday, April 25, 2010. These 5 myths are:
- Solar and wind power are the greenest of them all.
- Going green will reduce our dependence on imports from unsavory regimes.
- A green American economy will create green American jobs.
- Electric cars will substantially reduce demand for oil.
- The United States lags behind other rich countries in going green.
(Brice pages 1 - 3)
He examines these myths in depth. According to the author, solar and wind require too much land area and thereby greatly disturb the environment. One of his ongoing themes, that of efficient battery storage of green energy is introduced in his second point, that of the United States’ dependence upon other nations in order to provide for its energy needs. In this situation, we are trading dependence upon mid-eastern oil for equally unsavory Chinese resources needed to produce high capacity batteries, and other green technology. Competition with China, government subsidies to create jobs and corner global markets are the highlights of his arguments against job creation. A century of electric car design failures and a return to the difficulties of developing efficient batteries are the founding elements of Margolin’s observations on the practically of electric automobiles.
Margolin has a much more positive attitude when it comes to American successes in reducing energy use and maintaing its position in the global move to a more sustainable energy profile. He cites facts and figures to show how the United States has led the world in reducing carbon dioxide emitted and energy consumed in relation to GDP. Margolin observes that the American more towards a service based solution and the increasing use of technology to make all consumer products more effect is the basis for this effect. In the end he concludes that the United States will progress in its course to go green by “allowing engineers and entrepreneurs to do what they do best, make products that are faster, cheaper and more efficient than the ones they made the year before.” (Margolin at page 3)
3. "Dominant Stances on Ecodesign: A Critique" Fletcher/Goggin 2001 JSTOR Published in Design Issues, Volume 17, No. 3 (Summer, 2001), pp. 15 - 25, by The MIT Press
Q: Sum up the gist of Products Focus, Results Focus, and Needs Focus regarding every day activities.
In their article Dominant Stances on Ecodesign: A Critique by Kate T. Fletcher and Phillip A Goggin the writers coin a phrase that they call “Ecodesign” to combine the three strategies of focusing on making existing products more effective, getting the same result, but through a different means by being more result focused and determining what the need really is and if it can be fulfilled in an entirely different manner. To achieve this they use washing machines and the laundering process as an example. They go into an analysis that not only includes the process itself and the current machines that we use to wash our clothes, they look at everything from fabric to a service based laudering system to see how resources use could be maximized and fill the public’s true need for clean, fresh, comfortable clothing with the smallest possible energy footprint. In this they take a long range approach to finding a solution instead of a reactionary response to a general demand for more energy efficient washing machines. the gist of their concentration is that “ a focus on the design of products, services and systems cannot continue without consideration of people’s needs.” (Fletcher/Goggin, at pg. 25). ”
Einstein once observed that the significant problems we face cannot be solved at the level we were at when we created them. I agree with Einstein, and so tend to favor the ideas and concepts raised by Fletcher and Goggin. I believe we must take a deep hard look at what our true needs are and evaluate if they are really needs, or just habitual behavior. I get the feeling from Brice that he delights more in playing “devil’s advocate” more than providing useful information and solutions. This impression is supported by how much of his personal web site is devoted to exposing myths rather than proposing solutions. Margolin’s article on the other hand proved very useful to me and helped me shape my own personal contemplative path in how I consider energy use and solutions. Like Edison, I do not believe I have failed until I stop trying. I know I have just begun in my efforts to construct a more sustainable energy use profile and way of life. I can also see that the global society joins me in this effort. Margolin’s in depth analysis of the different approaches, and the designers who conceived of them, help shape them, and were instrumental in putting forth new methods and technologies to provide a foundation for future advancements is an invaluable asset to the general body of knowledge on this subject.
However, in the end it is Fletcher and Goggin who really did spark my interest and made me question how much of my personal energy usage is necessary. I find myself truly evaluating many of my actions now to see if they are really necessary, or just so ingrained in my psyche as the “right” thing to do that I am wasting my personal energy as well as the planets, on things I do not really need at all. Because of my critical review of these three articles I find I have a new appreciation for the way we always have used energy, our misunderstanding about how energy is used and produced and the paths we can take for a more sustainable future.
