Sustainable Manufacturing Sciences & Common Sense

National Academy of Sciences – Sustainable Manufacturing

The Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences this week announced that the current global manufacturing economy is not based on a sustainable model. Wow! Everyone with half a brain figured that out some decades ago but at least we now have confirmation from the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

Although the National Academy’s examples are based on historic data, their 2008 example shows the dramatic hidden cost of the manufacturing based economy to the World we all live in – the one World we are stripping of resources at ever increasing rates to satisfy mankind’s insatiable desire for “new”.

In 2008, according to the National Academy’s rounded numbers, 10bn tonnes of manufactured goods were traded around the globe. Have a guess how much raw material was used to create those 10bn traded tonnes? Was it 30bn, 50bn or 70bn? If you guessed 70bn then you would be correct.

70bn tonnes of raw materials to produce and export 10bn tonnes of finished goods – much of which had a manufacturer’s warranty of one year or less (my figure, based on a survey of goods on display for sale in the nearest mall). But the figure that really hits home is that, according to the National Academy of Sciences, 28bn tonnes was consumed just to process and export the 10bn tonnes traded.

Put it another way: for every calculator, computer or car you buy it has cost our planet the equivalent in raw materials of seven calculators, computers or cars, to produce it and get it to the store where you buy it.

It is irrelevant the cost of the item you buy, the fact is that on average you are consuming six times more raw materials than are actually in the item you now own. Even grade school math students can work out that that is not sustainable.

The PhDs et al at the National Academy of Sciences are now recommending that before a manufacturer wishes to claim “sustainable manufacture”, that they should be compelled to build-in the quantities of raw materials used in the country of origin during the entire manufacturing process – acquisition of raw materials, processing thereof and shipping.

Currently, sustainable manufacturing can be claimed based only on the calculation of the raw materials actually used within the item produced. The current system of claim does not take into account the raw materials consumed to extract the raw materials needed, ship those raw materials to the factory nor to ship the finished goods from the factory. This of course explains why China, for example, is expanding its acquisition of resources in Africa, Australia, South America and around Asia; for every tonne of goods China produces for export it needs seven tonnes from somewhere else. And to maintain competitiveness it must purchase those seven tonnes really cheap.

In other words, greedy individuals within Africa, Australia, South America and Asia are selling their country’s resources cheap and accepting personal rewards in order to sustain China’s growth.

Historical Significance

Look back in history and see where conflicts start. The need to maintain internal growth and prosperity relies on the ability to control resources. At some point, that control requires physical defense rather than simple political alliance and fiscal incentive. The conclusion is that China will need to exert its physical influence with arms sooner rather than later, if it is to satisfy the aspirations of its own population.

The seas, beaches and rivers around Asia and farther afield will become the highways and landing zones for military conquest “in defense” of China’s external resources – it is a stated contingency within the 500 year plan.

Why is all this important to GetWet-Asia? Venturing out for wakeboarding, sailing, river trekking, scuba diving, snorkeling, boating and kayaking will soon be “at you own risk”.

Sharp Corporation – Sustainable Manufacturing

As a personal footnote on sustainable manufacturing I would like to commend Sharp Corporation for some common sense:

Some 15 years ago I bought a Sharp Carousel microwave unit that has worked reliably throughout – with the exception of replacement of the door catch a couple times. When, in December last, the touch-panel control mechanism failed I was informed by Sharp Philippines that the model was no longer in production and there were no more spare touch-panels anywhere in the World . . . I should consider buying a new Sharp microwave. I pointed out that throwing away 99% of a working unit for the sake of an (albeit important) component would not lead to a sustainable World even if a new unit had been manufactured in a more sustainable way.

It took until June this year and (finally) an email addressed to Sharp Corporation’s CEO, Takashi Okuda, but from somewhere, a replacement touch-panel was miraculously found and it rapidly arrived at my door in the hands of a technician who took about three minutes to affect the repair.

Thank you Okuda san and Sharp Corporation for your efforts towards a sustainable World even if not perfectly sustainable manufacture.