According to undp.org, a circular green economy is a system that aims to reduce waste and the continual use of resources. This system can be achieved through long-lasting design, maintenance, repair, reuse, remanufacturing, refurbishing, and recycling1. It’s a sustainable paradigm shift from a “take-make-waste” linear system to a circular system.

The concept of a circular economy is not solely dependent on green markets. It’s about creating a system where we minimize the use of the world’s resources, reduce waste, and decrease carbon emissions. This involves keeping products in use for as long as possible through repairing, recycling, and redesigning.

However, green markets can significantly promote and facilitate the transition to a circular economy. They can incentivize businesses to adopt more sustainable practices and consumers to choose more sustainable products.

In conclusion, while it might be theoretically possible to have a circular green economy without green markets, in practice, green markets can be an important tool in promoting and achieving the goals of a circular economy.

Good day Jorge, thank you for taking the time to comment.

I hope you read the context on which this question is based as it is aimed at narrowing the scope of the answer to make the exchange of ideas easier.

There are root-causes and there are consequences in any sustainability problem including in the environmental sustainability problem.

The UN and all researchers supporting the UN are focused on dealing with the consequences knowing that they are leaving the root cause of the problem still embedded in the pollution production market untouched when advocating for green circularity as the supposedly "UN Circular green economy" will need for ever a supply of pollution from the pollution production market behind it to keep those pollution management markets in business.

See your own post at the beginning shows they are focus on dealing with the consequences like WASTE by putting a circular green market filter to the pollution production market a la Adam Smith with is still polluting in the background, nothing is said about dealing with the root cause producing that waste we now must clean in the name of the pollution production market’s producers and consumers: “According to undp.org, a circular green economy is a system that aims to reduce waste and the continual use of resources. This system can be achieved through long-lasting design, maintenance, repair, reuse, remanufacturing, refurbishing, and recycling1. It’s a sustainable paradigm shift from a “take-make-waste” linear system to a circular system.”

Actually the pollution production market a la Adam Smith has always been assumed to be circular by virtue of the environmental externality neutrality assumption that the economy can grow for ever without producing externalities....but in reality the model had BROKEN CIRCULARITY as it did not account for the environmental cost of production associated with business activity in the case of the environment, which lead the environmental crisis the Brundtland Commission documented in 1987.

When the UN says there that they are going from a linear system/traditional market thinking by assumption to a circular system/dwarf green market thinking, in reality they are trying to go from broken circularity to circularity, but to make the broken circularity circular green you need green markets as you need to internalize for once and for all the environmental cost of doing business. Otherwise, you are just providing an environmental patch to keep the old pollution production market of Adam Smith still running contrary to the call made the WCED in 1987/Our Common Future to go beyond business as usual to solve the social and environmental sustainability problems they documented and linked to the failure of business as usual.

See there is an enviromental cost in the taking, there is an environmental cost in the making, and there is an environmental cost of waste management, which means that in the UN CIRCULAR GREEN ECONOMY environmental cost externalization is still active.

The UN and the whole world has been focused since 2012 and currently now on managing the consequences of the root cause of environmental problems without addressing the root cause of those environmental problems(DISTORTED TRADITIONAL MARKET PRICES) through different Non-green market/dwarf green market means, and the environmental crisis compared to 1987 is appears to be heading in the negative direction towards worsening since then.

Jorge, have you seen the 2020 article below, it has some good food for thoughts.

Sustainability thoughts 106: Can we solve an environmental sustainability problem by managing the consequences of that problem? If not, why not?

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/340442676_Sustainability_thoughts_106_Can_we_solve_an_environmental_sustainability_problem_by_managing_the_consequences_of_that_problem_If_not_why_not

Respectfully yours;

Lucio

They are interdependent

Murtala, can you indicate why you think they are a Independent in your view? I hope you know the academic implications of saying that!

With due respect, Prof.,

I didn't say "independent" rather interdependent

Murtala, sorry with all my respect I misread the word,BUT THEN it IS WORSE, that means you misread the question or that you do not understand the question OR are you saying that you can have a circular green economy without green markets BECAUSE THEY ARE INTERDEPENDENT?, l

THINK carefully! Read the question again.

With all due respect Prof.,

The answer to the question is "no".

Good Murrala, the answer is NO as you say as then the theory-practice consistency principle is not violated.

Thank you for taking the time to write.

Respectfully yours;

Lucio

You are highly welcome, Prof.

The following articles have good and related food for thoughts

Sustainability thoughts 130: Can green economies and green growth exist without green markets? If not, why not? What is the current main development implication of this?

Article Sustainability thoughts 130: Can green economies and green g...

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

Article Sustainability thought 169: Does defining sustainability as ...