Think big. Start small. Do not 'bash'.
Over a month ago I reacted on a Linkedin post by Jasper van Kuijk in which he expresses being “fed up with design populism, with those simple, appealing but unrealistic solutions to complex problems”. In this post Jasper uses the Dutch start-up Blade–Made as an example. Blade-made harvests discarded blades from on- and off shore wind turbines and re-uses these in playgrounds and sound barriers.
?A few days later I was called by Tonny (Antonia) Wormer , co-founder of Blademade with the question why I was “bashing Blademade” on Linkedin. I explained why my intention is surely not to bash blademade (nor any initiative that helps preventing materials become landfill or incinerated) and I promised to nuance my comment. As apparently what I did intend to write, did not get across clear enough in the few lines I used. It took some time, due to other obligations and a great Christmas holiday with my family, but as I usually try to keep a promise: here some additional lines to hopefully explain myself a little better. Because nuancing takes more words then (apparently) fit in a Linkedin Post, I use an 'article' to clarify.
Thanks Tonny for calling and challenging me in this. The road to circular solutions is long, bumpy and complex. The only way to make progress is to keep moving, to stay curious, not to believe in easy, simple 'single truths' and keep an open dialogue. Although, understandably from our different roles in the field, we both lay different accents in our story; I think we did.
According to the 2022 circularity gap report by CGRI:
Over 91% (!) of over 100 gigatons of material, that we use each year to feed the global needs of mankind, ends up as emission, dispersion, waste, or postponed waste (“net added to stock”).
Reducing this to zero by becoming fully circular is, in my conviction, the main challenge we are facing as mankind, if we want to stay alive and healthy on this planet in co-existence with many other species.
Obviously there is no single ‘silver-bullet’ solution to realise this. Unfortunately. (But frankly: to me as a designer in this era of transition: this complexity is also what makes my daily work so utterly interesting.) Not only do we need tech solutions. We need system, behavioural, mindset changes and less use of materials to begin with, to realise this.
领英推荐
Step by step by step.
Reusing materials that are on their way to landfill or incineration in products that would otherwise be made with ‘virgin’ materials is one of the first ones of these steps. This is what Blademade is doing by using discarded turbine blades in playgrounds and sound barriers. And I applaud Tonny and her team for that.
My objection is not to Blade made. On the contrary. My objection is to when (as I see happening a lot in many industries) an industry player uses this kind of reusing of materials as “smokescreen” to ‘comfort’ their audience and public opinion to pretend that this is good enough. It is not. Blademade playgrounds and soundscreens will also face an end of life. Then what? But at least as important: Even if we would be able to scale initiatives like this and re-use all materials: as long as we keep re-using materials at lower technical value then in their original use, we still need 'virgin' (newly harvested) materials for the original use; in this case the blades of a windturbine. Although this way of working is often optimistically (and marketing friendly) referred to as “upcycling”, factually, technically, it is “downcycling”. Again: Surely better then going straight to landfill or incineration. Thus great as in between step, but not good enough in the long run.
So this is what I mean when I say?“scaleable, feasible, viable and specific solutions are not there (yet).” The good news, as stated in my original response, is that many industry players are fully aware of this. See for example Siemens Gamesa installing recyclable wind turbine blades in July 2022 at the 342 megawatt Kaskasi offshore wind farm in Germany. The materials in these blades (a.o. resin, fiberglass and wood) can be separated and reused. Although Siemens Gamesa claims in their press release of august 1st 2022 that, with this, they “go full-circle”, this is probably still exaggerated. If I read this press release correctly (maybe David Molenaar can confirm or correct?): the re-harvested materials cannot (yet) be reused as new blades, but at lower technical value (probably shorter length fibres) in “products like suitcases or flat screen casings”. So technically, although again a next step from (and thus at its turn better then) using in a playground or soundscreen, we are still looking at “downcycling”.
Hopefully these steps will soon be followed (and when time comes: replaced) by more to come. Up to the point where all, but especially the large, original equipment manufacturers no longer rely on small entrepreneurial others that 'happen to' find “cute and PR friendly” solutions for (a part of) their waste streams, but fully take their responsibility and structurally take care of this themselves by designing real closed loop/ circular value propositions from the very beginning.
Main message for now: Lots to do. Keep moving. Keep experimenting. Keep learning.
Note to self: Be critical. Don't be judgemental nor ‘bash’ circular initiatives. We need all steps. No matter how small.
Note to all: ?Be transparent and open. Do not overpromise or pretend you are “full-circle” if you ('just') made another step (but are not there yet)
Think big. Start small. Start now. Enjoy the ride.
Dare to have some serious fun!
2 年I can confirm Bas that you have read it correctly. An important step has been made, but we are not there yet. We have reached zero subsidy within a decade, our new target is zero waste
Thank you Bas Roelofs for seriously listening and consequently, shedding your light upon our discussion. For the record, I called you (in private) because I could not match your comment to Jasper van Kuijk's post to the way you acted in your role as process facilitator during the sessions of #circotrack windpark Amalia of Eneco dr. Ilse Van Andel. You make it look as if I would call anyone with critical feedback. #imho Critical feedback can only make things better.. and when there are learnings, we take them with us. ? We think that it is super that research and development investments are done to make the production of windturbine blades recyclable in the future. We are also advocating re-use first. Recycling can always be done later. See the cascade my colleague Jos de Krieger mentiones in the comment before mine.
Societal Change Management Expert
2 年Thanks! On my way to radio interview on the existential circularity and green transition questions, it is nice to refresh, how another brilliant mind would put into words the simple truths before we jump forward to the technicalities that we sometimes assume, everyone is on the same page with already.
Architect / Partner at Superuse, Co-Founder Blade–Made
2 年Thanks Bas, I am convinced that even when blade 2 blade as you call it is possible there is still a place for a more cascaded solution where we go blade to Blade–Made to blade. The suitcase is a diversion I am not a fan of, same for other consumer products. The longer we keep materials in a high value loop the lower the embodied energy is in the long run. Yes, we have to track and trace where materials go and make sure they eventually go to high end recycling. In the end prolonging lifespan is creating value and a sustainable part of the whole lifecycle.
Yes, we need all steps. Because small steps can become big steps, as . But what we don't need is marginal steps to suck up lots of attention and divert time and energy away from solutions that are more likely to make a substantial impact. We don't need the steps that put up a smoke screen or that are greenwashing. If someone or something is making a genuine contribution, which sometimes can be small but promising, that is to be praised. However, these often come accompanied by big claims. And THAT was the point of my column. Maybe what I did can be considered bashing, as the tone of my column was sharp (as columns can be). But I don't think that your comments to that can be considered bashing, it was quite a nuanced response. If anything, I think we need *more* discussion about the sustainability of new concepts. Without bashing, but with a constructive critical attitude. Something that you exhibited.