So imagine, you're in the supermarket, you're buying some groceries, and you get given the option for a plastic or a paper shopping bag. Which one do you choose if you want to do the right thing by the environment?
Zamislite da ste u supermarketu, kupujete neke namirnice, i data vam je opcija između najlonske i papirne kese. Koju ćete izabrati ukoliko želite da uradite pravu stvar za okolinu?
Most people do pick the paper. Okay, let's think of why. It's brown to start with. Therefore, it must be good for the environment. It's biodegradable. It's reusable. In some cases, it's recyclable. So when people are looking at the plastic bag, it's likely they're thinking of something like this, which we all know is absolutely terrible, and we should be avoiding at all expenses these kinds of environmental damages. But people are often not thinking of something like this, which is the other end of the spectrum. When we produce materials, we need to extract them from the environment, and we need a whole bunch of environmental impacts.
Najveći broj ljudi izabraće papir. Hajde da razmislimo zašto. Za početak, smeđ je. Zbog toga mora biti dobar za okolinu. Biorazgradiv je. Može se ponovo koristiti. U nekim slučajevima, može se reciklirati. Kad ljudi pogledaju najlonsku kesu, verovatno misle nešto od ovoga, što svi znamo da je apsolutno užasno, i trebalo bi po svaku cenu da izbegavamo ove vrste zagađivanja prirode. Ali ljudi često ne pomišljaju na nešto ovakvo, što je suprotna strana ovog gledišta. Kada proizvodimo materijale, moramo ih uzeti iz prirode, i za to nam je potrebna gomila uticaja na prirodu.
You see, what happens is, when we need to make complex choices, us humans like really simple solutions, and so we often ask for simple solutions. And I work in design. I advise designers and innovators around sustainability, and everyone always says to me, "Oh Leyla, I just want the eco-materials."
Vidite, dešava se da, kada moramo da napravimo složene izbore, mi ljudi volimo veoma jednostavna rešenja, i zbog toga najčešće i tragamo za njima. Ja radim u oblasti dizajna. Savetujem dizajnere i inovatore o održivosti, i svi mi uvek kažu: ,,O, Lejla, ja samo želim eko-materijal.''
And I say, "Well, that's very complex, and we'll have to spend four hours talking about what exactly an eco-material means, because everything at some point comes from nature, and it's how you use the material that dictates the environmental impact. So what happens is, we have to rely on some sort of intuitive framework when we make decisions. So I like to call that intuitive framework our environmental folklore. It's either the little voice at the back of your head, or it's that gut feeling you get when you've done the right thing, so when you've picked the paper bag or when you've bought a fuel-efficient car. And environmental folklore is a really important thing because we're trying to do the right thing. But how do we know if we're actually reducing the net environmental impacts that our actions as individuals and as professionals and as a society are actually having on the natural environment?
A ja im odgovorim: ,,To je veoma složeno, i moraćemo da provedemo sate pričajući o tome šta tačno znači eko-materijal, jer je u nekom momentu sve došlo iz prirode, i tek je način upotrebe ono što utiče na okolinu. Dešava se to da moramo da se oslonimo na neku vrstu intuitivnog okvira kada donosimo odluke. Volim da taj intuitivni okvir nazivam našim prirodnim folklorom. To je poput glasa koji imate u podsvesti, ili onaj osećaj koji dobijete kada uradite nešto kako treba, kao kada ste odabrali papirnu kesu ili kupili auto sa smanjenom potrošnjom. A prirodni folklor je zaista važna stvar jer se trudimo da nešto uradimo ispravno. Ali kako možemo da znamo da li zaista smanjujemo uticaj koji naše akcije kao pojedinaca, profesionalaca i kao društva imaju na našu okolinu?
So the thing about environmental folklore is it tends to be based on our experiences, the things we've heard from other people. It doesn't tend to be based on any scientific framework. And this is really hard, because we live in incredibly complex systems. We have the human systems of how we communicate and interrelate and have our whole constructed society, We have the industrial systems, which is essentially the entire economy, and then all of that has to operate within the biggest system, and, I would argue, the most important, the ecosystem. And you see, the choices that we make as an individual, but the choices that we make in every single job that we have, no matter how high or low you are in the pecking order, has an impact on all of these systems. And the thing is that we have to find ways if we're actually going to address sustainability of interlocking those complex systems and making better choices that result in net environmental gains. What we need to do is we need to learn to do more with less. We have an increasing population, and everybody likes their mobile phones, especially in this situation here. So we need to find innovative ways of solving some of these problems that we face.
Prirodni folklor je nešto što se zasniva na našem iskustvu, stvarima koje smo čuli od drugih ljudi. Retko ima osnove u nekom naučnom okviru. To je veoma teško, iz razloga što živimo u neverovatno kompleksnom sistemu. Mi imamo ljudske načine da komuniciramo i da se povezujemo i imamo u potpunosti izgrađeno društvo. Imamo industrijske sisteme, koji predstavljaju čitavu ekonomiju, i sve to mora da funkcioniše u okviru većeg sistema. I najbitnije, u okviru ekosistema. Vidite, odluke koje pravimo kao pojedinci, ali one odluke koje pravimo u svakoj obavezi koju imamo, bez obzira na to gde smo u hijerarhiji, utiče na sve ove sisteme. Poenta je u tome da moramo naći način ako zaista želimo da se izborimo za održivost neraskidivosti tih kompleksnih sistema i da pravimo odluke koje će rezultirati poboljšanjem uslova u okruženju. Ono što svi moramo da naučimo je da uradimo što više sa što manje. Populacija raste, i svi vole svoje mobilne telefone, posebno u ovoj situaciji. Moramo da nađemo način da rešimo probleme sa kojima se suočavamo.
And that's where this process called life cycle thinking comes in. So essentially, everything that is created goes through a series of life cycle stages, and we use this scientific process called life cycle assessment, or in America, you guys say life cycle analysis, in order to have a clearer picture of how everything that we do in the technical part of those systems affects the natural environment. So we go all the way back to the extraction of raw materials, and then we look at manufacturing, we look at packaging and transportation, use, and end of life, and at every single one of these stages, the things that we do have an interaction with the natural environment, and we can monitor how that interaction is actually affecting the systems and services that make life on Earth possible. And through doing this, we've learned some absolutely fascinating things. And we've busted a bunch of myths.
I tad dolazi razmišljanje o toku života. U suštini, sve što je stvoreno prolazi kroz razne periode života, i mi koristimo naučni proces koji se zove procena životnog toka, ili kako vi u Americi kažete, analiza, da stvorimo bolju sliku o tome kako sve što radimo u tehničkom delu sistema utiče na naše prirodno okruženje. Vraćamo se nazad sve do uzimanja sirovina, zatim proučavamo proizvodnju, pakovanje i transport, korišćenje i kraj života, i u svakom od ovih perioda stvari koje činimo imaju uticaj na prirodu, i mi možemo da pratimo kako ta interakcija zapravo utiče na sistem i ono što čini život na Zemlji mogućim. Radeći ovo, naučili smo potpuno fascinantne stvari. I otkrili smo gomilu mitova.
So to start with, there's a word that's used a lot. It's used a lot in marketing, and it's used a lot, I think, in our conversation when we're talking about sustainability, and that's the word biodegradability. Now biodegradability is a material property; it is not a definition of environmental benefits. Allow me to explain. When something natural, something that's made from a cellulose fiber like a piece of bread, even, or any food waste, or even a piece of paper, when something natural ends up in the natural environment, it degrades normally. Its little carbon molecules that it stored up as it was growing are naturally released back into the atmosphere as carbon dioxide, but this is a net situation. Most natural things don't actually end up in nature. Most of the things, the waste that we produce, end up in landfill. Landfill is a different environment. In landfill, those same carbon molecules degrade in a different way, because a landfill is anaerobic. It's got no oxygen. It's tightly compacted and hot. Those same molecules, they become methane, and methane is a 25 times more potent greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide. So our old lettuces and products that we have thrown out that are made out of biodegradable materials, if they end up in landfill, contribute to climate change. You see, there are facilities now that can actually capture that methane and generate power, displacing the need for fossil fuel power, but we need to be smart about this. We need to identify how we can start to leverage these types of things that are already happening and start to design systems and services that alleviate these problems. Because right now, what people do is they turn around and they say, "Let's ban plastic bags. We'll give people paper because that is better for the environment." But if you're throwing it in the bin, and your local landfill facility is just a normal one, then we're having what's called a double negative.
Za početak, evo reči koju mnogo koristimo. Dosta se koristi u marketingu, i mislim da se mnogo koristi u razgovorima kada pričamo o održivosti, a to je reč biorazgradivost. Biorazgradivost je osobina materijala; ne definicija nečega dobrog za okolinu. Dozvolićete mi da objasnim. Kada nešto prirodno, nešto sastavljeno od vlakana celuloze poput parčeta hleba ili ostataka hrane, ili čak parčeta papira, kada nešto prirodno završi u prirodnoj okolini, normalno se razgradi. Mali molekuli ugljenika koji su čuvani za vreme rasta se prirodno oslobađaju nazad u atmosferu u vidu ugljendioksida, ali ovo je redak slučaj. Većina prirodnih stvari zapravo, ne završi u prirodi. Većina stvari završava na otpadima. Otpad je drugačija sredina. Na otpadima, isti ti molekuli ugljenika se razgrađuju na drugačiji način, jer su otpadi bezvazdušna mesta. Nema kiseonika. Kompaktno je i vruće. Isti ti molekuli postaju metan, a metan 25 puta više doprinosi efektu staklene bašte od ugljendioksida. Tako naša uvela salata i proizvodi koje bacamo a napravljeni su od biorazgradivih materijala, ukoliko završe na otpadu, doprinose klimatskim promenama. Vidite, sada postoje ustanove koje zapravo koriste taj metan za proizvodnju energije, izmeštajući potrebu za fosilnim gorivom, ali treba da budemo pametniji u vezi sa tim. Moramo da nađemo način da iskoristimo stvari koje se već dešavaju i da počnemo da pravimo sisteme koji će ublažiti postojeće probleme. Ljudi se sada okreću i kažu: ,,Hajde da zabranimo plastične kese. Daćemo ljudima papir, jer je bolji.'' Ali ukoliko taj papir bacite u kantu, a lokalni otpad je kao i svi ostali, imamo ono što se naziva duplim problemom. Ja sam dizajner po zanimanju.
I'm a product designer by trade. I then did social science. And so I'm absolutely fascinated by consumer goods and how the consumer goods that we have kind of become immune to that fill our lives have an impact on the natural environment. And these guys are, like, serial offenders, and I'm pretty sure everyone in this room has a refrigerator. Now America has this amazing ability to keep growing refrigerators. In the last few years, they've grown one cubic foot on average, the standard size of a refrigerator. And the problem is, they're so big now, it's easier for us to buy more food that we can't eat or find. I mean, I have things at the back of my refrigerator that have been there for years, all right? And so what happens is, we waste more food. And as I was just explaining, food waste is a problem. In fact, here in the U.S., 40 percent of food purchased for the home is wasted. Half of the world's produced food is wasted. That's the latest U.N. stats. Up to half of the food. It's insane. It's 1.3 billion tons of food per annum. And I blame it on the refrigerator, well, especially in Western cultures, because it makes it easier. I mean, there's a lot of complex systems going on here. I don't want to make it so simplistic.
Bavila sam se i društvenim naukama, i u potpunosti sam fascinirana konzumentskim dobrima i načinom na koji smo postali imuni na to da ono čime ispunjavamo život ima uticaj na okolinu. Ove stvari su poput serijskih prestupnika, i prilično sam sigurna da svi prisutni ovde imaju frižider. Amerika sada ima neverovatnu sposobnost da neprestano povećava frižidere. Poslednjih nekoliko godina, oni su porasli 30 kubnih centimetara u proseku, za standardnu veličinu jednog frižidera. Problem je što su oni sada toliko veliki da nam olakšavaju da kupujemo više hrane koju ne možemo da pojedemo ili pronađemo. Mislim, imam stvari u pozadini frižidera koje tamo stoje godinama, u redu? I tako se dešava da traćimo više hrane. Kao što sam objasnila, ostaci su problem. U stvari, ovde u Americi, 40 posto hrane koja se kupi se baci. Polovina hrane proizvedene u svetu se baci. To je najnovija statistika UN-a. Polovina. Ludost. To je 1,3 milijarde tona godišnje. I ja za to krivim frižidere, posebno u zapadnim kulturama, jer to olakšavaju. Mislim, postoji mnogo složenih sistema. Ne želim da ih toliko pojednostavim.
But the refrigerator is a serious contributor to this, and one of the features of it is the crisper drawer. You all got crisper drawers? The drawer that you put your lettuces in? Lettuces have a habit of going soggy in the crisper drawers, don't they? Yeah? Soggy lettuces? In the U.K., this is such a problem that there was a government report a few years ago that actually said the second biggest offender of wasted food in the U.K. is the soggy lettuce. It was called the Soggy Lettuce Report. Okay? So this is a problem, people. These poor little lettuces are getting thrown out left, right and center because the crisper drawers are not designed to actually keep things crisp. Okay. You need a tight environment. You need, like, an airless environment to prevent the degrading that would happen naturally. But the crisper drawers, they're just a drawer with a slightly better seal. Anyway, I'm clearly obsessed. Don't ever invite me over because I'll just start going through your refrigerator and looking at all sorts of things like that. But essentially, this is a big problem. Because when we lose something like the lettuce from the system, not only do we have that impact I just explained at the end of life, but we actually have had to grow that lettuce. The life cycle impact of that lettuce is astronomical. We've had to clear land. We've had to plant seeds, phosphorus, fertilizers, nutrients, water, sunlight. All of the embodied impacts in that lettuce get lost from the system, which makes it a far bigger environmental impact than the loss of the energy from the fridge. So we need to design things like this far better if we're going to start addressing serious environmental problems. We could start with the crisper drawer and the size. For those of you in the room who do design fridges, that would be great.
Frižideri su zaista mnogo doprineli ovome, i jedna stavka toga je fioka za sveže namirnice. Je l' imate svi te fioke? One fioke u koje stavljate salatu? Salata ima naviku da postane gnjecava u tim fiokama, zar ne? Zar ne? Gnjecava salata? U Britaniji, ovo je toliki problem da je nedavno vlada sastavljala izveštaj gde se navodi da je drugi najveći krivac za protraćenu hranu gnjecava salata. Izveštaj je nosio naziv Gnjecava Salata. Ok? Tako da, ovo je problem, ljudi. Ova jadna mala salata biva bačena jer fioke za sveže namirnice nisu u stvari napravljene da održe stvari svežim. Okej. Treba vam mali prostor. Treba vam, u stvari, bezvazdušna sredina da sprečite prirodno uvenuće. Ali fioke za sveže namirnice su samo fioke sa malo boljim zatvaranjem. Bilo kako bilo, očigledno sam opsednuta. Nemojte me nikada pozvati u goste, počeću da vam razgledam po frižideru. Ali u suštini, ovo je veliki problem. Kad izgubimo nešto poput salate u sistemu, to ne samo da utiče kao što sam objasnila, već iznova moramo da uzgajamo tu salatu. Uticaj životnog toka salate je astronomski. Moramo da očistimo zemljište. Moramo da posadimo seme, stavimo fosfor, đubrivo, prehranu, vodu, sunčevu svetlost. Svi uticaji u toj salati se izgube iz sistema, što ima daleko veći uticaj na okolinu od gubitka energije koju utroši frižider. Moramo da osmislimo ovakve stvari bolje da bismo rešili ozbiljne ekološke probleme. Počećemo od fioka i veličine frižidera. Svi prisutni ovde koji ih dizajnirate, to bi bilo sjajno.
The problem is, imagine if we actually started to reconsider how we designed things. So I look at the refrigerator as a sign of modernity, but we actually haven't really changed the design of them that much since the 1950s. A little bit, but essentially they're still big boxes, cold boxes that we store stuff in. So imagine if we actually really started to identify these problems and use that as the foundation for finding innovative and elegant design solutions that will solve those problems. This is design-led system change, design dictating the way in which the system can be far more sustainable. Forty percent food waste is a major problem. Imagine if we designed fridges that halved that.
Zamislite kad bismo morali da počnemo da razmišljamo o tome kako dizajniramo. Ja posmatram frižider kao znak modernog iako se njihov dizajn nije mnogo promenio od 1950-ih godina. Malo, ali to su i dalje velike kutije, hladne kutije u koje odlažemo stvari. Zamislite kada bismo zaista počeli da prepoznajemo probleme i to iskoristimo kao osnov za nalaženje inovativnog rešenja za dizajn koji bi rešio probleme. Ovo je sistematska promena koju predvodi dizajn koji diktira način da sistem bude daleko održiviji. 40% bačene hrane je veliki problem. Zamislite frižidere koji bi to prepolovili.
Another item that I find fascinating is the electric tea kettle, which I found out that you don't do tea kettles in this country, really, do you? But that's really big in the U.K. Ninety-seven percent of households in the United Kingdom own an electric tea kettle. So they're very popular. And, I mean, if I were to work with a design firm or a designer, and they were designing one of these, and they wanted to do it eco, they'd usually ask me two things. They'd say, "Leyla, how do I make it technically efficient?" Because obviously energy's a problem with this product. Or, "How do I make it green materials? How do I make the materials green in the manufacturing?" Would you ask me those questions? They seem logical, right? Yeah. Well I'd say, "You're looking at the wrong problems." Because the problem is with use. It's with how people use the product. Sixty-five percent of Brits admit to over-filling their kettle when they only need one cup of tea. All of this extra water that's being boiled requires energy, and it's been calculated that in one day of extra energy use from boiling kettles is enough to light all of the streetlights in England for a night.
Još jedna stvar koja mi je fascinantna je električni čajnik, mada sam otkrila da se vi ovde baš i ne bavite čajnicima. Ali to je velika stvar u Engleskoj, 97 procenata domaćinstava poseduje električni čajnik. Oni su veoma popularni. Mislim, kada bih ja radila sa kompanijom, ili dizajnerom koji bi kreirao neki od njih i ako bi želeli da urade to ekološki verovatno bi me pitali dve stvari. Lejla, kako da učinim da budu efikasni? Jer energija je očigledan problem sa ovim. Ili: ,,Kako da napravim ekološki materijal? Kako napraviti ekološki materijal u proizvodnji?'' Da li biste me i vi to pitali? To zvuči logično, zar ne? Sagledavate pogrešan problem. Problem je u upotrebi. Način na koji ga ljudi koriste. 65 procenata Britanaca priznaje da prepunjava čajnike kada im je potrebna samo jedna šolja čaja. Sva voda viška koja ključa zahteva energiju, i procenjuje se da jednodnevni višak energije nastao radom čajnika bude dovoljan da osvetli ulice Engleske tokom cele noći.
But this is the thing. This is what I call a product-person failure. But we've got a product-system failure going on with these little guys, and they're so ubiquitous, you don't even notice they're there. And this guy over here, though, he does. He's named Simon. Simon works for the national electricity company in the U.K. He has a very important job of monitoring all of the electricity coming into the system to make sure there is enough so it powers everybody's homes. He's also watching television. The reason is because there's a unique phenomenon that happens in the U.K. the moment that very popular TV shows end. The minute the ad break comes on, this man has to rush to buy nuclear power from France, because everybody turns their kettles on at the same time. (Laughter) 1.5 million kettles, seriously problematic. So imagine if you designed kettles, you actually found a way to solve these system failures, because this is a huge amount of pressure on the system, just because the product hasn't thought about the problem that it's going to have when it exists in the world. Now, I looked at a number of kettles available on the market, and found the minimum fill lines, so the little piece of information that tells you how much you need to put in there, was between two and a five-and-a-half cups of water just to make one cup of tea. So this kettle here is an example of one where it actually has two reservoirs. One's a boiling chamber, and one's the water holder. The user actually has to push that button to get their hot water boiled, which means, because we're all lazy, you only fill exactly what you need. And this is what I call behavior-changing products: products, systems or services that intervene and solve these problems up front.
U ovome je problem. Greška na relaciji proizvod-potrošač. Imamo i grešku na relaciji proizvod-sistem toliko prisutnu, da je i ne primećujemo. Ali ovaj čovek primećuje. Zove se Sajmon. Sajmon radi za elektranu u U.K. On radi na jako bitnom poslu praćenja sve električne energije u sistemu da bi bio siguran da je ima dovoljno za snabdevanje svih domaćinstava. On takođe gleda televiziju. Iz prostog razloga što postoji jedinstven fenomen koj se dešava u U.K. u momentu kad se popularna emisija završi. Onog momenta kada nastupe reklame, ovaj čovek mora hitno da kupi nuklearnu energiju od Francuske jer svi uključuju svoje čajnike u isto vreme. (Smeh) 1,5 miliona čajnika je ozbiljan problem. Zamislite da vi dizajnirate čajnike, da ste našli rešenje ovih nedostataka, jer je to zaista ozbiljno opterećenje za sistem, samo zvog toga što nije razmišljano o problemu koji će nastati kada počne korišćenje. Pogledala sam čajnike dostupne na tržištu, i gledala minimalne količine punjenja, onaj mali natpis koji vam govori koliko treba da stavite vode unutra i pisalo je dve do pet i po šolja vode da bi se napravila jedna šolja čaja. Ovaj čajnik ovde je primer gde u stvari postoje dva rezervoara. Jedan za kuvanje, i jedan za držanje vode. Korisnik pritisne dugme da voda proključa, što znači, pošto smo svi mi lenji, tačno onoliko vode koliko treba. To je proizvod koji menja navike: proizvodi, sistemi ili usluge koji reaguju i rešavaju probleme.
Now, this is a technology arena, so obviously these things are quite popular, but I think if we're going to keep designing, buying and using and throwing out these kinds of products at the rate we currently do, which is astronomically high, there are seven billion people who live in the world right now. There are six billion mobile phone subscriptions as of last year. Every single year, 1.5 billion mobile phones roll off production lines, and some companies report their production rate as being greater than the human birth rate. One hundred fifty-two million phones were thrown out in the U.S. last year; only 11 percent were recycled. I'm from Australia. We have a population of 22 million -- don't laugh -- and it's been reported that 22 million phones are in people's drawers. We need to find ways of solving the problems around this, because these things are so complicated. They have so much locked up inside them. Gold! Did you know that it's actually cheaper now to get gold out of a ton of old mobile phones than it is out of a ton of gold ore? There's a number of highly complex and valuable materials embodied inside these things, so we need to find ways of encouraging disassembly, because this is otherwise what happens. This is a community in Ghana, and e-waste is reported, or electronic waste is reported by the U.N. as being up to 50 million tons trafficked. This is how they get the gold and the other valuable materials out. They burn the electronic waste in open spaces. These are communities, and this is happening all over the world. And because we don't see the ramifications of the choices that we make as designers, as businesspeople, as consumers, then these kinds of externalities happen, and these are people's lives. So we need to find smarter, more systems-based, innovative solutions to these problems, if we're going to start to live sustainably within this world.
Ovo je dvorana tehnologije, i ove stvari su prilično popularne, ali mislim da ako planiramo da nastavimo sa proizvodnjom, kupovinom i bacanjem proizvoda u meri u kojoj to sada činimo, a koja je astronomski visoka... Postoji sedam milijardi ljudi u svetu trenutno. Od toga šest su korisnici mobilnih telefona po podacima iz prošle godine. Svake godine, 1,5 milijarda mobilnih biva proizvedena, i neke kompanije prijavljuju da imaju veću proizvodnju od broja rođene dece. 152 miliona telefona u Americi je bačeno prošle godine, a samo 11% reciklirano. Ja sam iz Australije. Broj stanovnika je 22 miliona, a istraživanja pokazuju da ima 22 miliona telefona koji stoje u fiokama. Moramo da nađemo način da rešimo ovo, jer je to jako komplikovano. Ovde postoji toliko stvari. Zlato! Znate li da je zapravo jeftinije izvući zlato iz tone starih mobilnih telefona, nego iz tone zlatne rude? Veliki je broj složenih i vrednih materijala iskorišćen u proizvodnji, i treba ohrabriti rastavljanje, jer će se u suprotnom dogoditi sledeće. Ovo je zajednica u Gani, i e-otpad, iliti elektronski otpad koji je zabeležen od strane UN-a je oko 50 miliona tona. A ovo je način na koji oni izvlače zlato i druge vredne materijale iz toga. Pale elektronski otpad na otvorenim prostorima. Ovo su zajednice, i to se dešava svuda. Zbog toga što ne vidimo posledice izbora koje pravimo kao proizvođači, poslovni ljudi, konzumenti, onda se dešavaju stvari poput ove, i to su životi ljudi. Potrebno je naći pametnija, sistemska, inovativna rešenja za ove probleme, ako želimo da živimo održivo u ovom svetu.
So imagine if, when you bought your mobile phone, your new one because you replaced your old one -- after 15 to 18 months is the average time that people replace their phones, by the way — so if we're going to keep this kind of expedient mobile phone replacing, then we should be looking at closing the loop on these systems. The people who produce these phones, and some of which I'm sure are in the room right now, could potentially look at doing what we call closed-loop systems, or product system services, so identifying that there is a market demand and that market demand's not going to go anywhere, so you design the product to solve the problem. Design for disassembly, design for light-weighting. We heard some of those kinds of strategies being used in the Tesla Motors car today. These kinds of approaches are not hard, but understanding the system and then looking for viable, market-driven consumer demand alternatives is how we can start radically altering the sustainability agenda, because I hate to break it to you all: Consumption is the biggest problem. But design is one of the best solutions.
Zamislite, kada kupite mobilni telefon, nov, jer želite da promenite, inače, 15-18 meseci je prosek na kom ljudi menjaju svoje telefone, i ako želimo ovom brzinom da menjamo telefone, onda bi trebalo da razmrsimo i petlje u ovim sistemima. Ljudi koji proizvode ove telefone, od kojih su neki ovde, sigurna sam, mogli bi da razmisle o sistemima zatvorene petlje, ili sistemskim uslugama proizvodnje, prepoznavanju potražnje na tržištu i toga da ta potražnja neće odvesti nikuda, pa proizvodite nešto što će rešiti problem. Proizvodite lake, rastavljive proizvode. Čujemo da se neke od ovih strategija danas koriste na vozilima kompanije Tesla Motors. Ovi pristupi nisu komplikovani, ali razumevanje sistema i traženje alternativa koje će zadovoljiti zahteve konzumenata je način na koji ćemo radikalno promeniti priču o održivosti i žao mi je što moram da vam saopštim to: potrošnja je najveći problem. Ali proizvodnja je najbolje rešenje.
These kinds of products are everywhere. By identifying alternative ways of doing things, we can actually start to innovate, and I say actually start to innovate. I'm sure everyone in this room is very innovative. But in the regards to using sustainability as a parameter, as a criteria for fueling systems-based solutions, because as I've just demonstrated with these simple products, they're participating in these major problems. So we need to look across the entire life of the things that we do.
Ove vrste proizvoda su svuda. Prepoznajući alternativne načine, zapravo počinjemo nešto inovativno, i upotrebiću zaista tu reč, jer su svi ovde prisutni jako inovativni. Ali s obzirom na korišćenje održivosti kao parametra, kriterijuma za pokretanje sistemskih rešenja, kao što sam pokazala na ovim jednostavnim proizvodima, oni učestvuju u velikim problemima. Moramo da sagledamo čitav tok stvari koje radimo.
If you just had paper or plastic -- obviously reusable is far more beneficial -- then the paper is worse, and the paper is worse because it weighs four to 10 times more than the plastic, and when we actually compare, from a life cycle perspective, a kilo of plastic and a kilo of paper, the paper is far better, but the functionality of a plastic or a paper bag to carry your groceries home is not done with a kilo of each material. It's done with a very small amount of plastic and quite a lot more paper. Because functionality defines environmental impact, and I said earlier that the designers always ask me for the eco-materials. I say, there's only a few materials that you should completely avoid. The rest of them, it's all about application, and at the end of the day, everything we design and produce in the economy or buy as consumers is done so for function. We want something, therefore we buy it. So breaking things back down and delivering smartly, elegantly, sophisticated solutions that take into consideration the entire system and the entire life of the thing, everything, all the way back to the extraction through to the end of life, we can start to actually find really innovative solutions.
Ako ste upravo izabrali papir ili plastiku, a očigledno je isplativije ono što se može opet koristiti, onda je papir gori, a gori je jer je teži od četiri do deset puta od plastike, i to, upoređeno sa gledišta životnog toka, kilo plastike za kilo papira, papir je daleko bolji, ali sposobnost plastike ili papira da nose namirnice ne meri se u kilaži. Meri se u jako maloj količini plastike, i dosta većoj količini papira. Funkcionalnost definiše uticaj, i pomenuh da me uvek pitaju za eko-materijale. Postoje materijali koje treba izbegavati. Za ostale, sve je do upotrebe, na kraju, sve što osmislimo i proizvedemo ili kupimo je zbog upotrebne vrednosti. Poželimo nešto, i to i kupimo. Prekidajući ovo i donoseći pametna, sofisticirana rešenja koja će uzeti u obzir čitav sistem i postojanje neke stvari, od početka do kraja, možemo zaista naći inovativna rešenja.
And I'll just leave you with one very quick thing that a designer said to me recently who I work with, a senior designer. I said, "How come you're not doing sustainability? I know you know this." And he said, "Well, recently I pitched a sustainability project to a client, and turned and he said to me, 'I know it's going to cost less, I know it's going to sell more, but we're not pioneers, because pioneers have arrows in their backs.'"
Reći ću vam jednu stvar koju mi je skoro rekao kolega dizajner. Pitala sam što ne radi održive projekte. A on je rekao: ,,Pa, skoro sam predložio projekat održivosti klijentu, a on se okrenuo i rekao mi: Znam, koštaće manje, isplatiće se, ali mi nismo pokretači jer oni dobiju strele u leđa''.
I think we've got a roomful of pioneers, and I hope there are far more pioneers out there, because we need to solve these problems.
Mislim da imamo pokretača i nadam se da ih je još mnogo, jer moramo da rešimo ovo.
Thank you.
Hvala vam.
(Applause)
(Aplauz)