the cycle), disassembled safely, and entirely reprocessed into a new generation of products. Kitchen appliances, cell phones, most vehicle components, and personal computers would be examples of this type of product. Incidentally, the term “circular economy” has found its way into movement jargon and refers to an economic system designed to eliminate resource waste and to continually reuse a material. The previously produced unmarketables (unusable toxins, such as nuclear waste) and monstrous hybrids (combined biodegradable and toxic compounds that now make up the vast majority of our manufactured goods) that fall into neither of the previous two categories would be phased out. At the technology levels currently available, these hybrids cannot be cycled or effectively reused, so they remain as bioavailable poisons that time-release their contamination into the biosphere and into our bodies. Clearly, these materials are examples of poor quality design.
In this new materials protocol, sustainable manufacturers would classify each of their merchandise items as a product of service or a product of consumption. Classification of products would be influenced by a number of factors, such as the logistics of a possible takeback system, materials’ composition and abrasion demands, and life expectancy of the product. Let’s apply this strategy to a common retail item — our clothing. How should we classify apparel?
As a product of consumption in this new paradigm, clothing would be made out of a variety of biodegradable materials, conditioners, and dyes. When the clothing items lose their usefulness, a trip to a composter for decomposition and the eventual return of the nutrients to our agricultural fields or gardens would fittingly complete the biological cycle for these materials. In order to eliminate soil degradation, fossil fuel pollution, synthetic pesticide and fertilizer pollution, and possible aquifer overdraft of conventional agriculture, the basic material used in our clothes (possibly cotton or hemp) would be grown via farming practices that use sustainable energy sources, enrich the soil fertility, and employ local workers at a wage that allows them to support their families.
As a product of service, clothing materials would be designed for use, reprocessing, and reuse for an indefinite number of times. With our considerable experience in crude oil-based synthetic textiles, the most expedient polymer-based raw material for apparel cloth would be petroleum; however, this choice carries environmental and social disadvantages that are similar to those presently associated with crude oil. Although thus far the performance of petroleum-based clothing items has exceeded that of bio-based materials, the more sensible and durable long-term raw material might be plant-based materials harvested from organic farming operations. Apparel companies implementing a product-of-service approach would also have to develop a convenient product return system that would transport worn-out clothing items back to the next-generation textile plants for reprocessing and reward customers for getting the outdated garment back to industry.
As this example implies, the initial product type design decision for clothing producers requires considerable thought, planning, and trial and error. Fortunately, a number of apparel companies have already begun the process. The outdoor-clothing company Patagonia, headquartered in Ventura, California, has taken the product-of-service approach with a line of clothing made from a polyester fabric called Capilene®. Patagonia, through its Common Threads program, accepts worn-out and laundered articles made of Capilene® brought into any local Patagonia retail store or mailed to their service center in Reno, Nevada. The company then ships the worn-out clothing items to a plant in Teijin, China on a nearly empty cargo vessel (China imports relatively little from the U.S.) that repolymerizes the crude oil-based material back into the Capilene® fabric. Patagonia is now planning to move the overseas processing to a western state such as Nevada. This innovation, while significantly increasing its domestic cloth and garment manufacturing facilities, would demonstrate an even deeper commitment to the foundational principles of sustainable business. These efforts would establish additional regional operational connections (as in the natural world) and would keep additional monies and jobs within the U.S.
A number of other clothing companies — Nau, Teko, and Wickers — have decided to take the products-of-consumption approach in the design of their materials with a corn-based fabric called Ingeo™. Other forward-thinking manufacturers are producing lines of clothing using soybean oil, wood fiber, coconut oil, and bamboo. Organic cotton-based clothing items would fall into the product-of-consumption category as long as any dyes and fabric conditioners were also made only from biodegradable compounds. These intrepid companies are committing to these technologies in hopes of spearheading a sustainable trend of apparel production. Does the product-of-service or product-of-consumption direction make more sense? Keep in mind that superior performance, durability, attractiveness, and affordability will accompany successful and intelligent product lines. Time will tell, but participants in the emerging sustainable clothing industry will most likely successfully employ both strategies, at least in the first few decades of the transition.
2.5Two Closed-Loops into One
The previous two closed-loop clothing manufacturing strategies indeed incorporate the natural world theme of continuously reusing all life-supporting materials. But a closer biomimicry-based consideration reveals that nature has no technical nutrient cycle with persistent toxins as part of its materials production process. Sequestering persistent toxins inside a technical closed-loop process is quite different from nature’s production system that uses only safe biodegradable materials for all of her material needs. So if our intention is to follow the universally healthy and dependable materials processes of nature, then part of our new production design plan would include intentionally and continually reducing our products of service and replacing them whenever possible with intelligently designed products of consumption.
The technology currently used in smartphones provides a conventional example. This device not only replaces the yesterday’s telephones but also provides the ability to video chat, text, and e-mail. It easily gathers local, national, and international news and topical information via the Internet. Smartphones provide an audio and visual global positioning system and an endless supply of tunes for our cars, homes, and headphones. In the same vein, smart home hubs from Amazon, Google, Apple, and Bose provide a voice-controlled music and video streaming system, dim lights, control household thermostats and security systems, and make hands-free phone calls. These types of multifunctional products produced in a single closed-loop system would drastically reduce the overall amount of technological products and sequestered toxic compounds.
Another way to reduce the number of products of service might be the removal of ubiquitous items from this group, such as clothing, while transitioning to high-performance bio-based textiles produced in sustainable agricultural operations. Yet another illustration might be a city that invests in a dependable, affordable, clean, comfortable, and safe mass transit system that reduces the number of vehicles (products of service) used by urban residents. The same city might have a visionary real estate company that works with city officials to rebuild residential neighborhoods that include restaurants, retail stores, and recreational opportunities within walking distance, thereby further reducing the need for vehicles.
Keeping toxins out of the biosphere in the near term requires the establishment of technical nutrient cycles for all existing products of service. These production cycles include material-processing facilities, manufacturing operations, take-back systems, and disassembly plants. Decreasing both the overall amount of toxins and the different types of dangerous materials inside technical nutrient cycles would be prudent for business, the natural world, and human communities. One direct benefit would be fewer overall toxins that require tracking and holding in closed-loop systems. Fewer industrial toxins mean less chance for these products-of-service materials to contaminate the environment, where they could be ingested or inhaled by organisms, including man, via food, water, or air. We would see a parallel reduction in hazardous working environments for industry employees who reprocess the noxious materials as well as the elimination of selected closed-loop sequestration systems and corresponding expenses for products that provide diminishing advantages over the product-of-consumption system. Lastly, we would discover the wisdom and longterm rewards of mimicking the natural world in using
