Shades of green

It is not our intention to paint a picture of doom in this ' green and clean design' issue of co-design. In fact quite the reverse. The journal is bursting with information and ideas about how designers can 'clean-up' their act. Initiatives in international organisations like the United Nations, major companies and SME's, as well as in design education, are discussed and provide inspiration, demonstrating that it is possible for design to move towards an activity that is environmentally positive. However, a quick glance at the literature and observing global events, and our immediate environment, inevitably leads us to the conclusion that there is unfortunately a good deal to be gloomy about. Where information about environmental problems does appear, we have attempted to treat known facts as objectively as possible, avoiding,if we can , the sermonising approach and worthy statements about 'motherhood and apple pie'.

We have noticed too, that much of the work in research and practice has a bias towards durable goods. This is probably more a reflection on the need to tackle those more damaging areas of design, rather than inactivity or lack of concern elsewhere. Equally, the approaches adopted by the more material intensive design disciplines are just as applicable in other areas of design.

The key message emerging from the many words and actions is one of shared responsibility. All design impacts on the environment, some more than others, but it is only through collective thought and action that these impacts can be minimised. We all live in a material, and indeed materialistic,culture and it is sometimes difficult to link our everyday decisions, to the detrimental effect it may have elsewhere in the world. Likewise, what others decide and do will affect us. The great thing about being involved in design, is the tremendous opportunities it offers for making decisions about the future.

From Confidence to Concern to Action

In the post war period, the world seemed to have unlimited confidence in the power of science and technology to change all our lives for the better. Certainly, there were intermittent environmental or pollution episodes - London smog; detergent foam on rivers; oils spills, - but these did little to disturb the general feeling of optimism. Technology would surely fix these minor problems- given enough time.

In the 1960's and early 1970's, seminal writers, such as Rachel Carson and Ralph Nader had a substantial impact on public opinion and highlighted the darker side of technology and its uses. Combined with the values emerging from the peace movement and conservation groups, public confidence in science and technology began to dwindle. At this stage however, the sense of unease was largely unfocussed and lacked co-ordination.

It is difficult to generalise, but for many, one of the key events that brought the environment into sharp focus - and provided the spur to action - was the observation of the hole in the ozone layer. The enhanced colour photographs were as spectacular as they were startling, the risk of widespread cancer seemed appalling, and in a way the media impact of the ozone hole turned a whole generation's thoughts towards the environment.

This concern for the environment grew unabated during the 1980's with yet further evidence of environmental threats. Global Warming - like the ozone hole - were problems beyond our control. The limits of the supremacy of humankind over nature became only too apparent. And when - within a few short months - the media brought images of Bhopal, Chernobyl and the Exxon Valdez aground of Newfoundland, our vulnerability appeared to be confirmed.

From early on, this environmental concern found expression in prolific use of the word 'green'. 'Green' political parties were born or renamed; 'green' pressure groups became mainstream; and 'green' issues appeared in marketing campaigns. In the early days, some of these groups were perhaps scientifically naive, whilst others had a political dimension reflected in a tendency to concentrate on single and rather visible issues. Early texts on the relationship between design and the environment often used the phrase 'Green Design' either in the title or prominently within the text. And whilst the term 'green design' remains a familiar shorthand for environmentally sensitive design, still finding its way into book titles, it has been displaced by a variety of more precise, less political or overtly commercial terms.

For all its growth in recent years, the Environmental movement contains a rainbow of attitudes characterised by charities such as 'The Council for the Protection of Rural Britain' on one hand and 'Greenpeace' on the other. These polemic views of the natural environment find expression in the terms 'Deep Greens' who adopt an 'eco-centred' view of the world and acknowledge the rights and value of all organic and inorganic matter for its own sake. To 'Pale Greens', who view the environment from a 'human-centred' position exemplified in technological optimism and a managerial approach to solving ecological problems. Deep Greens tend to be strongly anti-consummerist and aspire to a simple, non-material and autonomous life style in harmony with nature. Whilst Pale Greens recognise the competitive advantage in offering 'environmentally friendly' products and are perhaps content to recycle bottles and cans to save the environment. Aerosols in particular - as one of the main culprits in creating the ozone hole - were among the first goods to receive Pale Green treatment, reappearing as 'ozone friendly' products. Dark Greens however would condemn the very existence of such products.

Within a few years, the more scientific wing of the environmental movement exposed the claims for 'eco friendly' products as little more than marketing hype. It was soon realised that there was no such thing as benign production; all products consume resources and create pollution to some extent. Public scepticism towards questionable environmental claims grew and were reinforced by the 'Green Con' award launched by Friends of the Earth.

The emergence of LCA

Meanwhile, the scientific and business community had, for a number of years, been attempting to develop a standard method for assessing the impact of a product on the environment by considering the whole life of the product from extraction of raw materials, through manufacture, transport, use and disposal. First developed in America in the 1970's and called 'Resource and Environmental Profile Analysis', the now accepted name for this approach is 'Life Cycle Assessment' (LCA).

The development of LCA as a product level tool was seized on by manufacturers and marketing as a way to support claims for sound environmental performance, without the risk of being exposed as a 'green con'. Much progress has been made in understanding LCA, but several distinct issues are still problematic. One of these is the way to deal with the two extreme ends of the lifecycle: extraction and disposal. Whilst reliable data can be obtained for manufacturing, transporting and using products, the extraction and disposal stages are very open ended so that damage may not become apparent for tens or even hundreds of years.

Fig2 - the product lifecycle (I think this is what Eric is referring to)

As well as difficulties with extremes of the lifecycle there are other problems with LCA, such as: aggregating dissimilar data; the need to unravel complex relationships between production systems, time horizons and environmental effects; LCA's produce comparative rather than absolute results (with the need to compare like with like - a washing machine with a washing machine, but not with washing by hand); and ultimately, how do you compare 10 grams of highly toxic Mercury pollution with a tonne of Carbon Dioxide? Which mean together, LCA its best can never deliver precise numerical results of the sort favoured by scientists, managers and politicians. Value judgement will always have a significant part to play in LCA studies.

This is a relatively unsatisfactory situation for the range of different interest groups who feel they need to get clear, watertight answers to environmental questions. There is some pressure to establish a standard method for LCA that delivers a definitive single answer, and although such approaches are beginning to emerge, they cannot remove the problem of the different values humans place on an environment. In low-lying countries such as The Netherlands, Global Warming and rising sea levels is a high priority. Whilst in Australia, skin cancer caused by thinning of the ozone layer is the greatest concern. With other countries it might be clean water, air pollution, deforestation or resource depletion.

Global concerns

Politically, environmental concerns have begun to united governments as never before. At a series of intergovernmental conferences - of which the most significant was the Earth Summit held in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, in 1992 - a number of agreements have been reached. Environmentalists might say that there has been many well intentioned words spoken with too little action, and yes, there is a long way to go. However, initiatives such as 'Agenda 21' and the 'Bio-diversity Treaty' to come out of Rio, and the earlier Montreal Protocol - limiting releases of ozone depleting gases such as CFC's - do represent major steps forward. Other priorities like cutting Carbon Dioxide emissions are proving to be more problematic. What is perhaps more significant though, is the almost universal agreement of the need for 'sustainable development' at global, national and local levels. The implications of this - with a recognition of the links between poverty and environment; population and environment; and, environment and development - are no less revolutionary.

Quite simply, the extent of global inequities amongst the current generation undermines the ability of the planet to sustain development, which in turn threatens future generations. The industrialised nations, for example, who represent 20% of the world's population, consume around 80% of the resources. With the developing countries moving fast towards industrial market economies, combined with staggering population growth, this will place unforeseen pressures on the environment.

One region where perhaps the first lessons in sustainable development will be learnt is China. With almost a quarter of the world's population - more than live in Europe, North America, Russia, Australia and Japan combined - their economic growth is now doubling every seven years. Whilst China's share of resources are limited to only: 3% of forests and woodland; 7%of available fresh water; and 2% of oil reserves. There is simply not enough resources or capacity to deal with pollution for this pace of social and economic transformation to be self sustaining. In some provinces, for example, water tables are dropping at a rate of one metre each year. Which means China will need to draw on resources from other countries of which many are also approaching their limits. India is facing similar problems, as are the liberalised Eastern European countries and the former Soviet Union. This is not to label these the 'bad guys', as in effect, all they are doing is aspiring to the consumer culture in which the West has luxuriated for many years.

Role of design

The drivers of consumerism are, on the one hand, the social status associated with rare, high value and sometimes dubious products (a gas guzzling limo,aluminium lemon squeezer, a mink coat) and on the other hand, the compelling novelty of brand new items (hi-fi,pot noodles and frisbees). The design professions have a central role in generating such products and in assisting with the promotional activities of advertising which further inflame demand. It is rare to find designers who believe in less design in terms of less products, less variety, less novelty and a life style of 'conspicuous thrift' - rather than the norm of 'conspicuous consumption'. It is equally rare to find such preoccupations in our design schools.

Yet the design professions do have the power to create cultural shifts. They are a large part of the apparatus which bestows status on specific kinds of life style... so in theory a 'green' life style could become admirable and copied. A long term thriftiness does not have to engender a penny pinching life where we all compete in a downward spiral of mean austerity: '... a paper bag in the gutter! you were lucky to have a gutter!' (Monty Python)

Possession of novel material goods of course is not the totality of a life style. It is already possible to buy goods which have high status but still derive from clean production and have long life. More than that, quality of life is not merely about quantity of novel goods and possessions, but about health, social integration and comfortable, stress-free environments.

The quality of life

The United Nations has developed a Human Development Index that looks at a range of needs, including: life expectancy; health; food and nutrition; education; income and employment; social participation; and, environment. Out of these it creates an index that measures not crude economic activity (GDP) or simply consumption of goods, but rather assesses quality of life. Clearly, material consumption cannot rise indefinitely in a world with limits. However, it may be that shifting priorities and the way we measure success as individuals, organisations, and nations, may mean that quality of life could be improve for all.

Moving towards this kind of utopia depends upon a consensus about what we want in the long term and changing short term appetites accordingly. Think of the white starched shirt of bleached cotton. This represents high status apparel, especially in countries like India and the Middle East. But the white shirt is now an icon of environmental damage: in bleach; in detergents; in wasted hot water; and even in cotton production which we mistakenly think of as 'natural' and benign ( see Jo Heeley's paper on 'Textiles and the Environment'). Some environmental benefits are easy to achieve if we accept a cold water wash and grey or coloured shirts, neither of which are part of the Ecolabel described in this issue by Robin Roy. This is not a technological barrier but rather a life style entrenchment. So beneath the technologies and the design of artefacts are set cultural attitudes and laissez faire government policy.

The somewhat ambiguous, open ended nature of these issues should not be seen as a threat to designers but more of an opportunity. Who better to bring together such a diverse range of aims and values, and often conflicting aspects of a design, and resolving them in products more in harmony with the environment. It is difficult to imagine any other profession fulfilling this role. In some areas change will come slowly through incremental improvements promoted by initiatives such as 'eco' and 'energy' labels. While in other areas radical innovation like ultrasonic cleaning will lead. Beyond these, changing cultural attitudes will shift the dependency on inappropriate technology to lead fulfilling lives.

There are many ways that designers can improve the 'eco-profile' of their work, many of which are explored in this issue. At its lowest level this might mean choosing materials and processes from an environmental stand-point. More deeply, thinking about a product's lifecycle - whether a poster, item of clothing, chair or electrical item - not only highlights potential impacts but can also creates a wealth of creative possibilities. A stage further, taking on board the tenets of sustainability, designers can begin to refocus their efforts to address present and future needs more equitably. Many believe that at the turn of the century the environment will become the major driver in design: design for low pollution; design for recyclability and reuse; design for optimum life; design that delivers a service without a product; and, design for need; in short, design for sustainable development.

Less without loss.