The WCED 1987 documented that business as usual was socially and/or environmentally irresponsible and needed to be made socially and/or environmentally responsible by means beyond traditional economic/development thinking.
The current circular economy thinking appears directed at magically, without addressing the root causes of social and/or environmental problems highlighted by the WCED 1987/Our Common Future, making the irresponsible traditional market thinking responsible just by making it circular.
A linear pollution production problem is solved by a circular pollution production problem apparently, do you see the signs of an academic paradox/contradiction?, which raises the question: Can an irresponsible market/the problem be made responsible/the solution just by making the problem circular?
If you think yes, why? If you think no, why?
I think No!
Am in agreement with your analysis Lucio Muñoz =no; just adding a sustainability option to an unsustainable economic system is not enough.
Thanks for this timely topic, Lucio. Cl.early, as you imply, magical thinking is always a counter-productive waste of both time and opportunity
The goals of the circular economy require Pigouvian taxes and subsidies, which is easier said than done.
Here is a link that discusses Pigouvian subsidies: https://energyeducation.ca/encyclopedia/Pigouvian_subsidy
Stephen, I am glad to see we are in agreement, but keep in mind 'circularity" sounds like a sustainability option added, but it is not as we are offering a circular pollution production problem as the solution to a linear pollution production problem if the root cause of unsustainability as pointed out by WCED 1987 embedded in the pricing mechanism is left untouched. Just as in the traditional market the expansion of circular markets should be expected to expand pollution production as both of them are pollution production markets.
Kevin, as both the linear economy and the circular economy only reflect the economic cost of doing business plus profit margin they are based on DISTORTED MARKET PRICING that allows them to maximize externality cost externalization to maximize profits and when both EXPAND the pollution production problem they have attached expands.
Kevin, have you thought about the problem from the CIRCULAR GREEN ECONOMY point of view,,,, You do not need green taxes there unless there is a green market failure.
Now Kevin, do you have a view on the answer to the relevant question here: Can an irresponsible market/the problem be made responsible/the solution just by making the problem circular? Yes, why? or No, why?
Respectfully yours;
Lucio
Dear Lucio,
In my opinion, Pigovuan taxes/subsidies are needed to make the outcome efficient, i.e., recognition of market failure is not enough.
Sincerely
Kevin
Kevin, good day.
As you know there are root causes(SOCIALLY AND/OR ENVIRONMENTALLY DISTORTED MARMET PRICES) and there are consequences(social and/or environmental problems such as POLLUTION). To fix that root cause the WCED told us we needed to go BEYOND ECONOMIC THINKINGNAS USUAL.
If we focus on managing the consequence or taxing markets with distorted market pricing YOU are ADDING another layer of distortions. You know or should know, that for example, if we add the environmental cost of production to perfect traditional market pricing you shift it to a higher level perfect market called PERFECT GREEN MARKET.
NOW do you have a view on the question here, does going from linear to circular makes traditional economic thinking environmentally responsible?
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Human-Computer Interaction
- Collaboration