Probably not a new idea to those interested in environmentalism , but seems to have been jazzed up for the corporate world.
from wiki,
Cradle to Cradle "Simply, it is a holistic economic, industrial and social framework that seeks to create systems that are not just efficient but essentially waste free. The model in its broadest sense is not limited to industrial design and manufacturing; it can be applied to many different aspects of human civilization such as urban environments, buildings, economics and social systems."

there's a conference on the idea in Bradford , 29th of November to 1st of December 2010

http://www.ellenmacarthurfoundation.org/education/business-and-education-summit-the-bradford-101-conference

"The conference, aimed at high level business and education stakeholders, will be an opportunity to hear some of the world’s leading closed loop economy thinkers (see below). Ten guest lectures around one key perspective on the transition to a sustainable economy. The focus will be on skills, jobs and entrepreneurial opportunities in a ‘cradle to cradle’ or ‘closed materials loop economy’.
This lecture series will be introduced by Professor Michael Braungart, one of the world’s leading designers and industrial consultants. It will discuss the implications for business, community and education of moving from a linear, ‘take-make-dump’ economy to a circular economy where economic systems thinking and design is based on ecological principles. Waste is designed out of the equation and the economy features closed materials loops increasingly powered by renewable energy. Considerations of place, scale, resource and diversity will be at the core of development."


Michael Braungart one of the authors of Cradle to cradle
"Holisticially good products "
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MPgjHqp9tTM&feature=related

"Wear a tie to save the energy produced by 21 EU powerstations"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B1ga4lZNjrc&feature=related

William McDonough: The wisdom of designing Cradle to Cradle and "Eco cities"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IoRjz8iTVoo&feature=related

Interesting stuff

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cradle_to_Cradle_Design
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cradle_to_Cradle:_Remaking_the_Way_We_Make_Things

Yes , I guess it would be called regenerative design or something along those lines.
I recall you mentioned these ideas in previous posts.
In simple energy terms the 'activehouse' would be one good example , more than passivhaus , producing energy above and beyond its own need .
Then construction out of fully reusable elements, natural and synthetic is required
Waste to energy recycling ( not burning ) or waste to reproduction , closed loop nutrient cycles
The next stages seem much hard to achieve or even conceive!

But to repair damage done , I wonder how feasible this would be in practical terms , do we have the available technology , or the will.
We seem to be struggling just to get on the first step of the sustainable economy , let alone a regenerative one.

William McDonough description of the Chinese eco city seems to , design wise, be heading towards this active role

Posted By: jamesingramBut to repair damage done , I wonder how feasible this would be in practical terms , do we have the available technology , or the will.

Or the time.

What always intrigues me about 'green gurus' and 'we have a better way' is the lack of hard evidence. Seems to be heading down the lines of a perpetual motion machine, a case of 'if we just did this' or 'I know it will work'. I have just done a Google and an OU search for academic publications by McDonough and Braungart (also Anasta and Zimmerman), found a few where they seem to reference themselves (and others) and most of it ten years or more old.
Now I am not saying that their opinion is not valid or that it cannot work, just that it is not really sustainability, as the time element is not taken into account (as usual). Just a bit more 'greenwash' and 'eco-spin'.
Has anyone here read the Rational Optimist by Matt Ridley? Puts an alternative slant on it, but I am only a third of the way through.

Edit:
Just read a bit more on the Dame Ellen MacArthur site and C2C and there seems to be only one reference to food production and that was comparing the numbers of burger flippers to steel workers. Rather missed out a huge chunk of sustainability there.

Damon

Can you post it on here, even though I hate football, had the unfortunate pleasure of going out with the brother of a Derby player once, but a colleague of mine writes football books.

Edit:
Just thought, that is probably a 'real' book

Damon, why so coy?? From the blurb it's EXACTLY what's been needed these past thirty-odd years. I can see me buying it as a Christmas present for at least nine of my friends/relatives!!

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Climate-Change-Football-Fans-Matter/dp/1906860351

Joiner: because the publisher is a friend of mine and I think it's not right for me to use GBF to hard-sell his stuff.

Rgds

Damon

Like you ST I want to believe it is possible, I hope it's possible. The alternatives are just too bleak. What I can't get out of my head however, is the painfully slow implementation of anything approaching a solution, and, the inexorable human population rise, and it's consequential demand; for everything; homes, travel, trinkets, food. One step forward two steps back. The virtuous and a vicious circles are only a whisper apart. If a real difference is to be made then let me see the tough decisions, in our hearts we all know nothing less will suffice. As a species we simply can't go on with the take take take, that has characterised modern life. A revised human attitude to what makes a decent life is what is required. Whether that change is forced upon us by social and fiscal measures or by some great enlightenment, I don't know, but I don't see much chance of it happening.

eg. Air travel at least halved, and quickly
Concrete usage halved and quickl;y
rainforest imports stopped instantly and globally
factory fishng stopped instantly and globally
personal vehicular transport curtailled
unsustainable food production curtailed
human population growth where do we begin, just too difficult to discuss.
The list is endless, depending on your personal take.

These are just a few casual and quick things off the top of my head, please don't take me to task, it is Friday and I do have work to do. Of course all these are with grave economic consequenses, and social order. However, if sustainability and with it impending climate change is to be seriously tackled then these sorts of things will have to be addressed, and quickly. It seems to me no ammount of blue sky theorising is going to tackle them. Add to that the prospect of global agreement and,..... Inertia ....?????

The problem is that the climate will change anyway, so humanity needs to be ready to adapt. The next solar cycle needs watching, if its as low as the current one, we could be headed for another dalton minimum which would be catastrophic.

As Clarkson says: We should all be looking forward to global warming; no need to fly abroad for our holidays so fewer air-miles.

Trouble with Clarkson is that I'd be laughing so much I don't think I could aim straight enough to poke him in the eye.

Steamy tea you hit the nail on the head. There is no ideal climate. this is probably the greatest error of the AGW movement, trying to preserve a none existant "perfect" climate. We just happen to have lived ina relativly "warm" and pleasant nano second of earths climate. I wish more AGW amateurs would do some climate history research to get an idea of the bigger picture.

Shades of Konrad Lorenz...

http://www.google.co.uk/images?q=konrad+lorenz&oe=utf-8&rls=org.mozilla:en-GB:official&client=firefox-a&um=1&ie=UTF-8&source=univ&ei=CFK4TLDRLsSa4Abm-82RDg&sa=X&oi=image_result_group&ct=title&resnum=5&ved=0CD4QsAQwBA&biw=1024&bih=583

But on a more serious note (and sincere apologies for the spread)...

[From Wikipedia] Lorenz also predicted the relationship between market economics and the threat of ecological catastrophe. In his 1973 book, Civilized Man's Eight Deadly Sins, Konrad Lorenz addresses the following paradox:

"All the advantages that man has gained from his ever-deepening understanding of the natural world that surrounds him, his technological, chemical and medical progress, all of which should seem to alleviate human suffering... tends instead to favor humanity's destruction" [2]

Lorenz adopts an ecological model to attempt to grasp the mechanisms behind this contradiction. Thus "all species... are adapted to their environment... including not only inorganic components... but all the other living beings that inhabit the locality." p31.

Fundamental to Lorenz' theory of ecology is the function of feedback mechanisms, especially negative ones which, in hierarchical fashion, dampen impulses that occur beneath a certain threshold. The thresholds themselves are the product of the interaction of contrasting mechanisms. Thus pain and pleasure act as checks on each other:

"To gain a desired prey, a dog or wolf will do things that, in other contexts, they would shy away from: run through thorn bushes, jump into cold water and expose themselves to risks which would normally frighten them. All these inhibitory mechanisms... act as a counterweight to the effects of learning mechanisms... The organism cannot allow itself to pay a price which is not worth paying". p53.

In nature, these mechanisms tend towards a 'stable state' among the living beings of an ecology:

"A closer examination shows that these beings... not only do not damage each other, but often constitute a community of interests. It is obvious that the predator is strongly interested in the survival of that species, animal or vegetable, which constitutes its prey. ... It is not uncommon that the prey species derives specific benefits from its interaction with the predator species..." pp31–33.

Lorenz states that humanity is the one species not bound by these mechanisms, being the only one that has defined its own environment:

"[The pace of human ecology] is determined by the progress of man's technology (p35)... human ecology (economy) is governed by mechanisms of POSITIVE feedback, defined as a mechanism which tends to encourage behavior rather than to attenuate it (p43). Positive feedback always involves the danger of an 'avalanche' effect... One particular kind of positive feedback occurs when individuals OF THE SAME SPECIES enter into competition among themselves... For many animal species, environmental factors keep... intraspecies selection from [leading to] disaster... But there is no force which exercises this type of healthy regulatory effect on humanity's cultural development; unfortunately for itself, humanity has learned to overcome all those environmental forces which are external to itself" p44.

Lorenz does not see human independence from natural ecological processes as necessarily bad. Indeed, he states that:

"A completely new [ecology] which corresponds in every way to [humanity's] desires... could, theoretically, prove as durable as that which would have existed without his intervention (36).

However, the principle of competition, typical of Western societies, destroys any chance of this:

"The competition between human beings destroys with cold and diabolic brutality... Under the pressure of this competitive fury we have not only forgotten what is useful to humanity as a whole, but even that which is good and advantageous to the individual. [...] One asks, which is more damaging to modern humanity: the thirst for money or consuming haste... in either case, fear plays a very important role: the fear of being overtaken by one's competitors, the fear of becoming poor, the fear of making wrong decisions or the fear of not being up to snuff..." pp45–47.

In this book, Lorenz proposes that the best hope for mankind lies in our looking for mates based on the kindness of their hearts rather than good looks or wealth. He illustrates this with a Jewish story, explicitly described as such.

Lorenz was one of the early scientists who recognised the significance of overpopulation. The number one deadly sin of civilized man in his book is overpopulation, what leads to aggression. [End quote]

It was a reading of his 'On Aggression' that prompted me to get 'Civilized Man's Eight Deadly Sins'. I went on a trawl through the bookcases to get a quote from the latter for this thread, but found I only still have the former. Thank god for Wikipedia.

That long section from the 8 deadlies more or less sums up what we've all been saying!

I think I might watch 'High Society' this evening to cheer me up!!!!

Sorry, ST. "But" to what?

Ah, thanks for that. Couldn't see how it linked to the "esoterics" preceding it. Doh.

<blockquote><cite>Posted By: SteamyTea</cite>The but is that this bit of modelling is showing that non-condensing gasses in the atmosphere seem to be more important than we first thought. So that means that we may be affecting the climate more than first thought. It is a 'simple' model and was not designed to predict future climate/temperatures, but interesting research.</blockquote>

2 problems with this report, firstly it comes from the stable of James Hanson, Mann etc and therefore needs to be taken with extreme caution

Also it is based on ...... computer models. So far Hansons climate models/predictions have failed every time.


There is another observation to make. UHI.

This graph shows historic temperatures for Australia broken down by population density and therefore urban growth over the last century. Areas with little or no population growth show no significant warming.

Sorry, Infact that graph is for the entire state of california going back more than a century.
This is a map to go with it showing the readings are taken from across california and clearly show again that over the 20th century, the only warming ha taken place around urbanised areas, LA, San fran, Reno etc