Talk:Cradle-to-cradle design/Archives/2013

Definition
What do we define C2C as overall? a model? framework? ideas? concepts? principles? Nick carson (talk) 03:20, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm thinking "model", but I still need opinions. I also added a bunch of basic information, will add more on C2C Certification soon too. 144.131.184.22 (talk) 07:03, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

The term 'C2C Certification' is a protected term of the MBDC consultants. It is a proprietary system of certification. Consequently I suggest that the present page be devoted to simply describing MBDC’s interpretation, and leave it at that. The discussion about the general principles and concepts of sustainable supply chains is better being hosted at the other page which is not vendor-specific:   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supply_chain_sustainability. John Pons (talk) 23:59, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Added description of the MBDC C2C certification criteria under the formerly empty heading of 'Structure'John Pons (talk) 00:12, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

My thinking is that C2C could be better defined as a design theory. Though calling C2C a design model makes sense I believe that examples of C2C projects are models of the C2C theory in pratice.

Spark09 (talk) 07:20, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

I have also heard this called womb-to-tomb which may be a more easily remembered concept. Didn't change anything on article - will let someone else if that is worthwhile.68.35.52.189 (talk) 14:56, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Why is there no mention of the work done by Stahel? It was originally Stahel's work.... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.81.107.239 (talk) 19:00, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Book
For references, the book Cradle to Cradle: remaking the way we make things, ISBN:0613919874 By McDonough and Braungart, 2002, should be added.
 * I agree, although the two are closely linked, will people see it as a conflict of interest? I shouldn't think so. Nick carson (talk) 03:21, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Circular Economy
I'm not sure that the information on the Circular Economy should be removed (see edit here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cradle_to_Cradle&diff=229757173&oldid=229734190). From what I've heard, these concepts are quite similar in that they encourage manufacturing/consumption systems composed of infinite recycling of materials. Both of these concepts go beyond the normal recycling that most people are familiar with. As this article gets expanded, I think the Circular Economy should definitely be mentioned in some context, whether in a "see also" section, or a paragraph comparing/contrasting it with Cradle to Cradle.Mr3641 (talk) 23:59, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
 * It was removed per WP:EL. The idea is not disputed, but rather the content. It would be good for someone to expand on this topic User A1 (talk) 00:55, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Perhaps a Cradle to Cradle Economy article may be created, incorporating the info from this page ?

Products
Some C2C products can be mentioned, such as the ford model T, the Nike-shoes designed with Braungart, the textile paint from the documentary, the Edag light car, ... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.245.163.38 (talk) 10:28, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Criticism
Recently there was serious criticism on the fact that McDonough and Braungart keep consultancy and certification in their inner circle. The authors argue that this prevents C2C to unfold its potential, since competition is not possible now. They plea for a Public Private Partnership overseeing the C2C concept, thus enabling competition and growth of practical applications and services.

This way C2C will appeal to many and can be a substantial driving force for a speedy global development towards a solar powered circular economy, as envisioned by McDonough and Braungart.

See also here 195.240.158.95 (talk) 07:28, 1 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I took the liberty to reword some parts of that section, as well as integrating the two external links to standard Wikipedia reference format. --Agamemnon2 (talk) 09:27, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Merge with book, remove expand tag
This seems pretty in depth so far, does it really still need the tag? Plus, there is a note on the talk page to merge the book into this article. Seems like a good idea to me. Rockingbeat (talk) 21:21, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Technical Error?
This line: "It is safe to say that every production step or resource-transformation step needs a certain amount of energy (Newton's second law). Cradle to cradle approach does not consider this energy requirement nor where or how the energy is created to do so." refers to Newton's Second Law, which is Force = Mass x Acceleration, but the subject refers to energy. After a cursory check, I think the author meant (Second Law of Thermodynamics), which refers to irreversibility of processes and the energy loss of conversion. Not sure if this warrants a rewrite or a [sic] tag if it is quoted material from a book. 72.241.185.211 (talk) 19:05, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Cradle-to cradle material tag
Materials conform to C2C, should be given the tag; see also: Talk:Synthetic_rubber Can someone make the tag ?

91.180.228.95 (talk) 09:20, 28 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Could Nature Based Composites be added as a C2C material ? Its seems to be made from natural fibres and a natural adhesive. (see http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/ind/ijmpt/2009/00000036/F0020001/art00001)

91.182.9.74 (talk) 14:36, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Also, perhaps the CQS Group T Racing Team Odyssee (see http://www.cqsgrouptracingteam.be/nl/odyssee/doelstellingen_o ) can be added to the list 91.182.9.74 (talk) 14:48, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

ReUSE can also be mentioned: http://www.wired.co.uk/magazine/archive/2013/03/start/dunk-your-motherboards-to-recycle-them