Circularity in reusing waste implies a world under ongoing waste production disconnected from green supply and green demand dynamics.
The UN works seems not to even think about the need to link circular economic thinking with clean economy thinking so as to envision one day such a transition
https://unctad.org/topic/trade-and-environment/circular-economy#:~:text=A%20circular%20economy%20entails%20markets,economy%20or%20used%20more%20efficiently.
And this raises the question: Can we transition to the environmentally clean economy through the use of reducing waste based circular economies?
I think No, what do you think?
What do you think, Yes or No, and why you think so?
The transition to an environmentally clean economy requires a multifaceted approach, and while reducing waste through circular economies can certainly be a part of that approach, it is unlikely to be sufficient on its own.
Circular economies can help reduce waste and improve resource efficiency, but they do not necessarily address other environmental challenges such as reducing greenhouse gas emissions, promoting renewable energy, and protecting biodiversity. A comprehensive approach to the transition to an environmentally clean economy should involve a combination of measures, including circular economy strategies, clean energy development, sustainable land use practices, and policies to reduce pollution and protect natural ecosystems.
Furthermore, circular economies themselves must also be designed with environmental considerations in mind, as not all circular economy models are necessarily sustainable or environmentally beneficial. For example, a circular economy that relies heavily on the use of fossil fuels or other environmentally damaging practices may not be effective in achieving environmental goals.
In summary, while circular economies can certainly contribute to the transition to an environmentally clean economy, they are unlikely to be the sole solution. A comprehensive approach that includes multiple strategies and takes into account the environmental impacts of circular economy models is needed to achieve a truly sustainable and environmentally
It is true that transitioning to a circular economy based on reducing waste can promote an environmentally sound economy. By recycling, reusing, and repurposing materials, a circular economy minimizes waste and maximizes the use of resources. By implementing circular economy principles, we can reduce waste and decrease our reliance on finite resources, such as fossil fuels and minerals. By doing this, we can create an economy that is more sustainable. In order to achieve environmental sustainability, the Life Cycle Assessment tool must be integrated.
Dear Natha and Hazem, thank you for taking the time to write a comment.
I asked this question because when I found the definition the UN is using of Circular Economy as you can see in the link above I noticed that it is inconsistent with perfect green market thinking, with perfect environmentally clean market thinking, and with the need to transition from the environmentally dirty economy to environmentally clean economy.
I would appreciate, in order to exchange and expand ideas, if you use the ideas in your comments to provide your answer to the specific question at hand here and we go from there:
The question is about transition from one economy to another: Can we transition to the environmentally clean economy through the use of reducing waste based circular economies? Yes, then why? No, then why not?
Respectfully yours
Lucio
Phil, thank you for commenting. The question is designed for the answer of yes and why or not and why not.
You think to agree with me that the transition this way is not possible so the answer is No, but can you indicate why you think that transition way is not possible?
I will reply if you indicate your view of why
Respectfully yours;
Lucio
Lucio Muñoz
I think i was clear - the volume is trivial, recovery/conversions/application is much too costly in terms of energy, emissions and quality is limited.
It is not cost effective or even cost neutral. Further, "waste" is useful in only narrow and trivial application.
It is easy and popular to speak of "circular economy" - significant functional and cost effective examples are rarely if ever offered.
Phil, Good day. The link circular dwarf green market a la pollution reusing and environmentally clean markets is not within your comments, that is why I asked you to expand.
Sharing my views here respectfully:
a) In the environmentally clean economy, there is no environmental pollution so the environmental cost of production is zero(EM = 0).
b) In the dwarf green market world, circular or not, environmental pollution is still being produced while environmental pollution management and environmental pollution reusing takes place.
c) Hence, as long as there is pollution still being produced, even when reuse, there is still an environmental pollution problem separating the dwarf green economy from the environmentally clean economy. And
d) Since there is no incentive for dwarf green producers to produce at the lowest environmental pollution cost possible as they are happy making money and polluting at the levels allowed by the assigned dwarf green margin and since there would be no incentives for pollution reusers to profit in an environmental clean markets as there would be no environmental pollution to reuse, a transition from dwarf green markets, circular or not, to the environmentally clean economy is not possible as dwarf green markets plus environmental pollution reusing markets mean the world is set up to be under pollution management and reuse for ever or at least until the market crashes.
Respectfully yours;
Lucio Muñoz
Suggest you move from rhetoric to reality.
a) The "environmentally clean economy" is fantasy.
b) The "dwarf green economy" is fantasy.
c) environmental pollution generally has decreased steadily beginning last century
d) as a and b are nonexistent this disscussion is irrelevant.
Phil, now I understand why you could not see the no transition link between the dwarf green economy, circular or no, with the environmentally clean economy as you think in FANTASY terms so you cannot see outside the box.....
Do you know that FANTASY is the main ingredient driving the growth of knowledge under THE THOMAS KUHN paradigm evolution framework as it drives the conditions for paradigm change, which only gets broken under WILLFUL ACADEMIC BLINDNES?
In 2012 the Thomas Kuhn loop was leading to going the way of green markets, green economies and green growth, and they were not taking about this as FANTASY, but then willfully they went the way of dwarf green markets, dwarf economies, and dwarf green growth having no other option than having to call SCIENCE based facts FANTASY as they deemed it politically difficult to implement.
This explains indirectly why we have been trying to deal with the environmental pollution problem since 1987 WCED without a clear plan or intention to transition to clean economies,,,,,FANTASY is in the way,
Let's leave it here Phil; there is no more to add as you know.
Respectfully yours;
Lucio
Lucio Muñoz
I do understand your circular and dwarf green market are fantasy. there is everything to add - as in reality: real mass balance, real reuse/reapplication numbers, etc..
Do you really expect others who must operate in the real world to follow a pompous cartoonish fantasy from someone who clearly has no sense of reality?
Phil, I am glad you can see that going from dwarf green markets to environmentally clean markets is not possible, the goal of this question.
Have a nice day!
Lucio
Dear friends, here I am sharing some food for thoughts in good faith for those who may find them interesting:
Complex and Man-made Markets: Are We Currently Approaching Sustainability in a Backward and More Chaotic Way in Terms of Economic Thinking?
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/281277199_Complex_and_Man-made_Markets_Are_We_Currently_Approaching_Sustainability_in_a_Backward_and_More_Chaotic_Way_in_Terms_of_Economic_Thinking
Chapter 2 Paradigm Evolution and Sustainability Thinking: Using a Sustainability Inversegram to State Paradigm Death and Shift Expectations Under Win-Win and No Win-Win Situations
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/333866783_Chapter_2_Paradigm_Evolution_and_Sustainability_Thinking_Using_a_Sustainability_Inversegram_to_State_Paradigm_Death_and_Shift_Expectations_Under_Win-Win_and_No_Win-Win_Situations
The Unintended Consequences of Paradigm Death and Shift: Was the Arrow Impossibility Theorem Left Behind?
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/299879934_The_Unintended_Consequences_of_Paradigm_Death_and_Shift_Was_the_Arrow_Impossibility_Theorem_Left_Behind
Beyond traditional sustainable development: Stating specific and general sustainability theory and sustainability indices using ideal present-absent qualitative comparative conditions
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/281276522_Beyond_traditional_sustainable_development_Stating_specific_and_general_sustainability_theory_and_sustainability_indices_using_ideal_present-absent_qualitative_comparative_conditions
Linking Sustainable Development Indicators by Means of Present/Absent Sustainability Theory and Indices: The Case of Agenda 21
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/298654455_Linking_Sustainable_Development_Indicators_by_Means_of_PresentAbsent_Sustainability_Theory_and_Indices_The_Case_of_Agenda_21
- Badges
- Science topic