Circular economy thinking encourages a systems approach to sustainability, taking into account the entire life cycle of a product. Such systemic change could address the limitations of traditional economic thinking, which often focuses primarily on short-term profits. Circular economy principles can also bring social benefits by boosting local economies, creating jobs in the recycling and remanufacturing industry, and promoting community engagement.

While circular economy thinking has the potential to address sustainability challenges, it may not be a complete solution without considering the challenges and complexities involved. Because the transition to a circular economy involves significant challenges, including changes to existing business models, infrastructure and consumer behaviour. Without comprehensive support and incentives, widespread adoption may be difficult to achieve. Circular economy initiatives may come with unintended consequences or trade-offs. For example, a greater focus on recycling may lead to higher energy consumption in some cases. Addressing all externalities and trade-offs requires a nuanced understanding of the entire system.

Overall, this requires incorporating other academic perspectives and a willingness to reassess traditional economic models.

Yai, good day.

You did not attempt to answer the question.

Please read the context supporting this question carefully and think again. Keep in mind, traditional markets, linear or circular are pollution production markets, reason why the WCED 1987 told us to move away from this thinking in order to solve the sustainability crisis they create.

Can you please provide your view to the answer to this specific question and we go from there.

The moment you assign a cost to environmental consequences (eg. a carbon tax) via regulatory or accounting standard mechanisms, you can close this perceived gap. In reality, market pricing needs to reflect all taxes, tariffs, etc.

It is worth observing that traditional economic thinking already fails to accurately account for the dynamics that occur in economic activities related to natural systems.

For example, green assets (such as trees) appreciate in value over time (either for use as lumber, syrup, or nuts) due to natural growth and the increase in value occurs (even in the context of inflation) -- in marked contrast to the traditional notion that the value of an asset in future should be discounted.

For example, a mature maple tree employed for maple syrup production produces more maple syrup (litres) than a younger tree, and the price of that syrup per litre floats with inflation because it is a commodity. So that tree, when viewed as an asset, increases over time instead of depreciating.

One way to bridge this gap, within traditional economics, is to model nature as an economic joint venture partner that contributes value to an activity. Nature absorbs the cost of maintaining and improving the green assets, while the firm remains on the hook for maintaining and improving the black assets employed in the economic activity.

This opens the door to admit impairment of value when green assets are compromised. The impairment is a cost factor that can be applied in an economic analysis.

Note that this occurs directly when green assets are employed by an economic activity and indirectly otherwise. For example, insurance companies are already pricing in higher costs due to natural hazards occurring more frequently, which creates a direct cost from an indirect consequence.

While this does not fully answer your question, it may provide some angles to consider in working thru it.

Not to lose the specific focus of this question I am pasting here the context on which this question is based in case you would like to provide your view on the answer of this question to exchange ideas and in case you are not familiar with the concept of ALTERNATIVE ACADEMIC FACTS I an sharing work on the topic below:

Context guiding/supporting this specific question:

"---The WCED 1987 documented traditional economic thinking as the source of social and/or environmental sustainability as it turned out to be socially and/or environmentally unfriendly.

This is because traditional market pricing only account for the economic costs at a profit, and hence, traditional markets are externalizing social and/or environmental cost associated with economic activity. AS TRADITIONAL MARKET EXPANDS, THE SOCIAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL EXTERNALITIES AND THEIR SUSTAINABILITY GAPS EXPAND.

Hence, Making traditional economic thinking circular still has the social and environmental externality problem associated with it SO IT CAN NOT BE THE SOLUTION OF THE PROBLEMS IT CREATES. This means that selling circular economic thinking as the solution of sustainability problems requires either paradigm shift knowledge gaps or willful academic blindness as the drivers of willful academic tunneling as the mean to present it or promote it.

And this raises the question; Can we make circular economic thinking the solution of critical problems like the environmental unsustainability without the use of alternative academic facts?

I think No, what do you think? Yes, why you think so? No, why you think so?---"

Articles with good food for thoughts on alternative academic facts

Sustainability thought 169: Does defining sustainability as sustainable development requires alternative academic facts? If Yes, what is the nature of these alternative academic facts?

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/362083980_Sustainability_thought_169_Does_defining_sustainability_as_sustainable_development_requires_alternative_academic_facts_If_Yes_what_is_the_nature_of_these_alternative_academic_facts

Sustainability thought 170: What happens to the Thomas Kuhn’s paradigm evolution loop under willful academic blindness? What are the implications of this?

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/362566384_Sustainability_thought_170_What_happens_to_the_Thomas_Kuhn's_paradigm_evolution_loop_under_willful_academic_blindness_What_are_the_implications_of_this