Life Cycle Thinking Blog

Note the federal government new hires to write and support new regulations in the last year and a half. Unfortunately, notice how all the states have to implement these new regulations and the thousands of companies who have to comply aren’t keeping up. Maybe because the latter aren’t able to print money to hire new people (or consultants). They have to reallocate resources to meet these new requirements. Hopefully, employees and dollars are being pulled from less beneficial activities…..

I agree with the article by Mark McElroy “Do LCAs Measure Up To Sustainability?” He says they do not, because they are too narrowly focused on eco-efficiency only and ignore context.
As I’ve blogged before, sustainability should be about how we do what we do and not a collation of LCA’s. At best LCA’s help inform decisions as we try to understand the dynamic systems of which products and users are a part. I use the phrase “life cycle thinking” to describe how we need to recognize the potential intended and unintended consequences of our actions. Understanding contexts and consequences.

As follow on to its Chemical Action Plan on Bisphenol A (BPA), EPA published an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking July 26, 2011, to develop environmental effects and exposure testing. EPA is not addressing human health effects in this notice as there is ongoing testing work already with other agencies. (See a pointed Trevor Butterworth blog about that work here.)

Kind of ironic:
Industry has submitted a petition to EPA to hold off on getting data on List 2 for the Endocrine Disruptor Screening Program (EDSP) until the Agency reviews and issues final guidance on how they are going to deal with the results they get on the first list of chemicals – especially if the agency is going to change the rules of the game in the middle of testing. Allegedly, one issue of controversy is around Good Laboratory Practices (GLP) – a careful set of documentation, review and recordkeeping requirements to ensure data quality every step of the way for any given written protocol. By following GLP, it should be possible to verify the protocol was followed and any deviations noted so that the test could be replicated (or challenged) by others. Failure to follow GLP leaves open the possibility of biased short-cuts or modifications (or ignoring uncomfortable data points) that make the results unreliable.

Article by Jens Martin Skibsted and Rasmus Bech Hansen illustrates why “sustainability” is just not the right goal:
Over-Innovation Makes U.S. Firms Suck At Sustainability The same forces that drive U.S. companies to become the greatest innovators are the ones that make them the biggest environmental sinners.

Sustainability is about the how and not the why. It is a how to accomplish things with minimum adverse impact now or in the future, preserving resources for continuous use and supporting life using long-range life cycle thinking. Acting sustainably. The “why” is to make this world a better place to live in – a world where everyone has opportunities to thrive physically, intellectually and emotionally. A world of wonderful changes.