Hi there,
I have read an article today in World Economic Forum (WEF) titled "For a true circular economy, we must redefine waste" (https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2019/11/build-circular-economy-stop-recycling/).
Some of the scenarios mentioned reminded me of my childhood in the former GDR. East Germany was a country deprived of most raw materials, too poor to buy them in quantities consumed in so-called Western countries. People had no choice but to extend life spans of goods like vehicles, house interiors, radios, TVs, clothes etc. For example, in order to own a car you had to register and wait something like 18 years (parents put your name on the waiting list the day you were born. ;-). Once you finally got a car you serviced, repaired and treasured it for the rest of your life. I exaggerate a bit to make the point but it is not very far from how it was. Production of goods was monopolistic (hence standardised) and designed for repair. When it comes to clothes, home-made clothes were common. While watching TV, my mother was knitting pullovers, scarfs and socks for us. If the pullover was too small, we would help her to unravel it so that she could used back the wool thread to knit a new bigger pullover perhaps with a different design. Strings and paper used to wrap our birthday and X-mas presents were re-used many times (so we had to open our presents very carefully ;-). So in some ways we lived in a kind of circular economy back then.
Fast forward I now live and teach environmental courses at UniKL in Malaysia since 2007. There are some recycling (e.g. paper, certain plastics, scrap metal, car lead acid batteries) and service activities (e.g. repair shops for broken TVs and washing machines) going on over here. But, by an large, it is an emerging economy that walks the paths of the linear consumption model (e.g. no waste separation at homes, most waste ends up in landfills that do not collect landfill gas).
When I ponder about true circular economy I get stuck at the following. The circular economy that is talked about worldwide so far comprises of humans (of course) and materials required to satisfy humans' various needs (-> Maslow's pyramid). We are told that we will live in smart cities with buildings of low environmental impacts, extended life span, designed for re-use, with occupants using only a few metre square of living space. We walk or cycle or car pool or take public transport to work, or even work from home. Our jobs are mostly service- and knowledge based. We buy locally produced food, eat less meat, drink mostly water. We use locally generated renewable energy for our fridges, light, heating/cooling, TV and electronic devices. We start to re-engage in leisure activities that are free of charge (sport, singing in choirs, hiking, playing card games, etc). Yes, yes and yes.
But, if we look at that circular economy just from a material's perspective it basically relies on two choices A or B. We either use
A: Finite but renewable materials (e.g. biomass), or
B: Finite non-renewable materials (oil, coal, gas, uranium, metals, minerals) with 0 % loss.
My fundamental problem with choice A is that we have so far not been able to develop next-generation electronic devices, vehicles, buildings/infrastructure, power plants etc. that our societies and economies depend on, that can be made 100% from renewables. If correct this suggests that ultimately we kind of go back to pre-industrial times (agro-based economies). Nobody I know of really wants that.
My fundamental problem with choice B is that 0% loss is improbable. Why? No matter how hard we try, material loss will always happen because it is the result of natural processes such as corrosion, erosion, abrasion and disasters (earthquakes, hurricanes, floods) as well as imperfect collection networks. If correct that suggests that a true circular economy is utopic, which means we ultimately move towards choice A. It may be 100s or 1000s of years away from now, but eventually we will run out of stock of these non-renewable materials. They will be irrevocably dispersed and lost in the environment like rubber abraded from car tires.
So here is my question to you: Is circular economy with 0% loss of non-renewables a realistic proposition or an Utopian concept?
PS: Graph of material share in US economy was added on 16.01.2020
Utopian. Low values are possible, but not 0.
Efficiency is a tricky thing. Increments in efficiency are highly non-linear - James Watt got his name stuck on the unit for Heat because he was able to increase the efficiency of an external combustion engine from 0.03% to 1% = 30x increase. Since then, we've managed to increase efficiency by another 30x. There is a hypothetical direct carbon fuel cell that can take that up to 80% system efficiency - perhaps another 100% improvement on efficiency, but it can't be 200%. We are near the limit of efficiency.
This is the challenge with Technological Development - we see what we have done, and think we can keep doing it. But the incremental improvements decline VERY rapidly - doubling resource availability in Canada would make middle class people have a consumption comparable to the upper class of today, but it would reduce the 900 minutes a day that people use to meet their needs down to 880 min/d/ca. Doubling again would drop that time to 876 minutes.
Reuse, designing for repair, etc. are all ways to vastly improve resource availability without increasing ecological impacts, and I'm all for that. I don't really focus on the concept of a circular economy, where one person's waste is another person's resource - that's just good planning. If each community is trying to ensure their own sustainability, this will likely become de rigueur. But if they can achieve sustainability some other way, that's OK, too.
Oh, and don't ponder Maslow - he's talking about what motivates people - it's really marketing. Focus instead on Ian Gough and/or Manfred Max Neef. They are addressing needs directly.
Daly's rules are still right - we have to transition from non-renewable to renewable or so vast to be effectively permanent. In my math, I would look to see if there will be sufficient NRR available at the end of the project to replace the project. If there isn't, the loss of that resource has to be assumed during the project, decreasing the effective longevity.
Dear Robert,
Thanks for this discussion, just today December 22nd. when exactly 30 years ago, the anti-communist revolution in Romania reached maximum quotas, more than thousand people, especially teenagers and youngsters, paying with their own lives so that today we can live in freedom. I know that there is no any exaggeration in what you have described. Those waiting lists were made not only for purchasing a car, but also for TV-sets, refrigerators, etc., which were then repaired and used for decades or throughout life. Not to mention the very basic food that was strictly rationalized. Now we have everything but the waste of any goods has become quite alarming and huge quantities of food go to landfills.
Regarding your question I would fit the circular economy between the two variants, that is neither realistic proposition nor utopia. From the very pertinent analyzes in the discussion you proposed, I see the concept of circular economy as a medicine that extends the life but does not cure the disease. So, given the demographic growth, the circular economy is not able to solve the multiple problems caused by the exaggerated consumerism, the exhaustion of the conventional materials and energy resources, the increase of the pollution level, etc. This doesn't mean that we should not make efforts to diminish the consequences of our activities, it's obvious that the circular economy would help a lot, but the biggest challenge is to change the habits at the individual level, even by giving up personal comfort and controlling the obsessive desire to purchase new items permanently. I don't think people will do this on their own, outside of financial constraints or forced by penalties. On the other hand, reducing consumerism is affecting the global economy, and this vicious circle creates more complex problems that I don't know who could solve them. I hope you will get more optimistic answers to your question. Best regards.
The concept of Circular Economyhas attractedincreasing attention from scholars in the last tenyears as a new paradigm to reconcile economic value creation with environmental frugality.Hitherto, researchers have mostly tried to foundthis concept onscientific groundsor analyzedhow organizations are trying to implement it. But few works have studied the reasons why Circular Economy gets such a momentum and fosterscollective action within society
Utopian. Low values are possible, but not 0.
Efficiency is a tricky thing. Increments in efficiency are highly non-linear - James Watt got his name stuck on the unit for Heat because he was able to increase the efficiency of an external combustion engine from 0.03% to 1% = 30x increase. Since then, we've managed to increase efficiency by another 30x. There is a hypothetical direct carbon fuel cell that can take that up to 80% system efficiency - perhaps another 100% improvement on efficiency, but it can't be 200%. We are near the limit of efficiency.
This is the challenge with Technological Development - we see what we have done, and think we can keep doing it. But the incremental improvements decline VERY rapidly - doubling resource availability in Canada would make middle class people have a consumption comparable to the upper class of today, but it would reduce the 900 minutes a day that people use to meet their needs down to 880 min/d/ca. Doubling again would drop that time to 876 minutes.
Reuse, designing for repair, etc. are all ways to vastly improve resource availability without increasing ecological impacts, and I'm all for that. I don't really focus on the concept of a circular economy, where one person's waste is another person's resource - that's just good planning. If each community is trying to ensure their own sustainability, this will likely become de rigueur. But if they can achieve sustainability some other way, that's OK, too.
Oh, and don't ponder Maslow - he's talking about what motivates people - it's really marketing. Focus instead on Ian Gough and/or Manfred Max Neef. They are addressing needs directly.
Daly's rules are still right - we have to transition from non-renewable to renewable or so vast to be effectively permanent. In my math, I would look to see if there will be sufficient NRR available at the end of the project to replace the project. If there isn't, the loss of that resource has to be assumed during the project, decreasing the effective longevity.
Quote:"Waste is a human concept. Nothing is wasted in nature as everything is part of a continuous cycle." Henry D. Thoreau
A circular economy with 0% loss of non-renewables an urealistic proposition. We may aim at it but the laws of thermodynamics impede it it happen. However, we should develop systems that aim at achieving it however, inevitable (although reduced) may be the sustainability deficit. Your mother knitting sweaters while watching TV, or unwrapping a gift with care because both paper and string were going to be reused again and again is common picture of my upbringing in Italy (and I believe) also in many other countries. In Europe the tragedy of WWII triggered a circular economy during the years of reconstruction in the 1950s and early 1960s. This life style was quick;y superceded however by an expansion an affluence, which fostered the illusion of a better/prosperous life (e.g.: the American dream) and an establishment (in more recent years) of a global economy and market. The latter cannot withstand time unless major inequalities are conserved and without continuing to maintain extractive economies. E.F. Schumacher's book: Small is Beautiful is a must read (in my opinion) if you are interested in circular economies.
Regarding your question I would fit the circular economy between the two variants, that is neither realistic proposition nor utopia. From the very pertinent analyzes in the discussion you proposed, I see the concept of circular economy as a medicine that extends the life but does not cure the disease. So, given the demographic growth, the circular economy is not able to solve the multiple problems caused by the exaggerated consumerism, the exhaustion of the conventional materials and energy resources, the increase of the pollution level, etc
To make the concept of circular economy more tangible, it is necessary to take into account: 1. It must be synchronized with the convergence nbic / ckts and industry 4.0 2. The accompaniment of what is now called bipolitics 3. Rescue the ancestral knowledge that tends towards ecosystem harmony 4. The implementation of bio-management in companies 5. The flow of investments for bioprospecting
Yes, nature presents us complexities. Yet, human agency is not singular. So, nature will dictate any human effort towards singularity. And that is rather disabling and discomforting. We humans want to assume complete control and ownership. However, we are a custodian. And if we peered into utopia and drew inspiration, we would nudge towards prudent custodianship. That way, the ultimate challenges cease to be overwhelming. They start to inspire us towards doing right.
"For a true circular economy, we must redefine waste" - I agree with this thesis. Legal regulations in Poland are very strict with all waste, and waste is every thing that someone has to get rid of. According to legal regulations, waste management for enterprises is much more difficult than if they had the status of a substance / material / residue. Therefore, in my opinion, a redefinition of waste is needed to facilitate its management. Another issue is the responsibility of producers of goods and product design in accordance with the idea of circular economy - this is the right direction.
Agree on the redefinition of "waste". "Utopian" also means "theoretically possible". Theoretically possible not in the sense of Physics, because physical stuff are converted from low entropic conditions to higher entropic states. However human ingenuity and innovation may be able to reverse this process and recover what was "lost" and "wasted". Though in the final analysis its whether its worth doing so or to find alternative avenues.
The situation reminds me of mining where certain metals and ores were once in abundance. Multiple efforts at prospecting and mining has resulted in waste and environmental degradation. The more viable and feasible way to reverse this is not better ways to use the "wastes" and recycle. But to find alternative uses, such as turning an abandoned mining pool into a gold mine of lakeside residences or theme park.
Unfortunately if we were to be aware of this earlier, we could also not do both things at once. They have to happen sequentially. The miners would have to wait for the process to run its course, and the land developers as well. So "circular" in the sense of sequentially and inter-industry. Not intra-industry.
In addition to redefining waste, we need to redefine "life styles" with the concept of "simplicity, simple living" as a keystone construct. Anthropocentrism, should evolve into Ecocentrism, while making persuasive the case that no -economy can be sustained without giving priority to the well being of living systems, or ecosystems, to which we humans also belong.
Found this UN report by Edgar G. Hertwich , Reid Lifset , Stefan Pauliuk and Niko Heeren on "RESOURCE EFFICIENCY AND CLIMATE CHANGE
Material Efficiency Strategies for a Low-Carbon Future" (https://www.unenvironment.org/resources/report/resource-efficiency-and-climate-change-material-efficiency-strategies-low-carbon).
Main focus of this report are material efficiency strategies for the buildings and mobility sector. The authors advocate the circular economy and how it can help us over the next 30 years or so to live more sustainably. Edgar G. Hertwich and his team define circular economy as "an economy where the value of products, materials and resources is maintained [...] for as long as possible, and the generation of waste minimized." The choice of imprecise words 'as long as possible' and 'waste minimized' indicate that the authors know the limitations of the circular economy model relying on non-renewable materials. Perhaps research is already underway in search of an economy model that harnesses processes to help recover inorganic materials that are scattered in the environment due to erosion, corrosion and abrasion processes (for example biomagnification of minerals with the help of plants)?
Anyway, according to research by the International Resource Panel, "natural resource extraction and processing account for more than 90 % of global biodiversity loss and water stress and approximately half of global greenhouse gas emissions."
Proposed strategies include:
For buildings: "A more intensive use of homes, design with less materials, and improved recycling of construction materials are among the most promising strategies."
For cars: "The largest savings would come from a change in patterns of vehicle use (ride-sharing and car-sharing) and a shift towards more intensive use and trip-appropriate smaller cars."
Policy: "Policies related to material use still largely focus on waste management rather than reduction of greenhouse gas emissions." Something that resonates well with Ilona Olsztyńska and Shian-Loong Bernard Lew I believe. Further, "policy intervention from different angles is required to achieve these savings. Policies can influence how people live, which materials they use, and how they use them. Instruments such as taxation, zoning and land use regulation play a role, but so do consumer preferences and behavior."
Happy reading!
I found this paper by Markus A Reuter , J. Gutzmer , Neill Bartie and Alejandro Abadias Llamas :
Article Challenges of the Circular Economy: A Material, Metallurgica...
In agreement with Bruno Borsari and Douglas Nuttall , the authors stated that "The inconvenient truth is that no CE [circular economy] loop can be fully closed if one considers the exergy of the system (25–27). Exergy is a key aspect that defines the efficiency of the CE and was not discussed by Reck & Graedel (28). The inescapable 2LT governs the efficiency (or inefficiency) of every system ever encountered. In essence, the 2LT suggests that 100% RE is a physical impossibility with respect to both energy and matter: Irreversible losses are an inevitable part of industrial CE systems. Thus, losses and residues of uneconomic value are major causes of open CE loops, and closed loop recycling, i.e., the recycling ofthe same quality ofmaterial back into the same product it originated from, is the ideal."
This idea of circular economy is an elegant concept that implies simplicity in living styles, to be adopted by people who wish to reduce their ecological footprint and support a sustainable development. In my opinion the concept: circular economy is not conveying anything new in counteracting an "explosive affluence" that since the enthusiasm for a global economy has fomented consumerism without limitations.
The circular economy is both interesting and also important topic of international discussion.
A few days ago I came across an article by Jouni Korhonen and Jyri Seppälä who mentioned in their article Article Circular Economy: The Concept and its Limitations
that it is theoretically possible to have no material losses because our earth is an open system and with the help of solar energy we can reduce the entropy on earth (of course the entropy of the universe will still increase). It remains to be seen of how much practical importance this is though.Jouni and his co-workers also emphasized that it is critical that the absolute physical flow of materials and energy in a circular economy must be checked (limited) to be sustainable. One needs to be wary of the rebound effect and Jevon's paradox. There are many more issues raised. If you haven't read this paper feel free to do so, it is worth it!
Hi Douglas Nuttall you mentioned "Daly's rule" in your reply (23.12.2019). I managed to find two books:
1. Book Ecological Economics: Principles and Applications
2. Book Beyond Growth: The Economics of Sustainable Development
In which book can I find the rule?
All the best, Rob.
Daly, H., 1990. Toward some operational principles of sustainable development. Ecological Economics, 2(1), pp. 1-6.
They are:
1. We must use renewable resources slower than they renew
2. We must use non-renewable resources slower than they can be replaced with renewable alternatives
3. We must produce wastes slower than the environment can absorb them or render them harmless
These can be considered 'necessary but insufficient' rules of sustainability. There will be ecosystem rules and social rules that will also be true.
A circular economy with 0% loss of non-renewables is not realistic. As Miller et al (2019) put it succinctly, "if demand is growing, the circle cannot be closed". In this regard, Bocken and Short (2020 advocated a "move from a consumption-oriented society towards a society based, not only on circular economy, but on 'sufficiency'.." This especially applies to the developed world. I have enlarged on these themes in article "Growth in floor area: the blind sport in cutting carbon" (Emerald) Article Growth in floor area: the blind spot in cutting carbon
For a circular economy to be sustainable, per capita consumption will have to reduce in most "developed" countries. Dematerialisation and sufficiency are critical components for sustainable circularity.
There is no magic bullet to continue material consumption, economic growth and transition to a sustainable future at the same time. The EEB published a brilliant report about this, debunking decoupling and green growth well and truly: Book Decoupling Debunked. Evidence and arguments against green gr...
At the same time, we do of course want sustainable and circular companies to develop and outperform companies that are not moving away from unsustainable business models. We also have to be pragmatic, because as much as scientific evidence may suggest that degrowth is the only sustainable way forward in many parts of the world, it seems unlikely that our politicians, businesses and citizens are going to buy into such a narrative. As an alternative, multi-dimensional progress - to strengthen or maintain environmental quality, social well-being and economic prosperity - appears to be an acceptable middle ground in the UK: Article Making the business case for resource recovery
Circular economy theory is underdeveloped in many ways, and I would love to investigate this further with participation action research. This will help to develop a theory that is empirically grounded and maintain progress in practice at the same time.
Please do get in touch if you would like to prepare an article for our special issue on this subject, a shared publication, or a research proposal. There is a lot of research to be done, and it's important that we get this right. It's ok to dream of better futures, but there is no time for going around in fairytales.
Thank you Anne Velenturf for insightful comments.
I have long felt that 'green growth' was too superficial and misleading, by inferring we can 'have our cake and eat it too'.
While the term 'degrowth' turns off politicians and many others, and there may be 'middle ground' , it seems possible for growth in services, social well-being, environmental quality and even profit without growth in consumption of materials and other resources. The response to COVID-19 has shown this is possible via digital, online means without the need for massive facilities. My university, for example, is delivering lectures and seminars totally by digital means.
In this regard, I suggested a 'manifesto' for a way ahead, focussed on built environment, in my book 'The impact of overbuilding on people and the planet' (2019).
https://www.cambridgescholars.com/the-impact-of-overbuilding-on-people-and-the-planet.
You may also be interested in my interview (2016) with Prof Walter Stahel, acknoweldged founder of the circular economy:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b1S-evMyUB8&t=6s
Am interested to discuss further.
Hi David Ness ,
I watched your interview with Walter Stahel on youtube (thanks for the link). Walter mentioned at the beginning an adage which I did not fully capture (soundwise) so I googled the fractions I did understand. The complete adage goes like this: ‘Use It Up, Wear It Out, Make It Do, Or Do Without’. Based on this article (https://www.offthegridnews.com/how-to-2/use-it-up-wear-it-out-make-it-do-or-do-without/) it originates from the USA during WW I. During world wars or periods of economic recession people where 'forced' to be more frugal and extend the life span of whatever possessions they had be it clothes, furniture, vehicles etc. The concept of frugality certainly also applied to food. Things like meat or coffee (which have a big water footprint as we now know) were a luxury and only consumed on special occasions (maybe Sundays).
This historical example shows that if the urgency is felt by the people (and their governments), circular economy will more or less automatically kick in. The challenge is how to convince the people that less (consumption) is more, that stock pile management (of natural, technical and human resources) is the way forward instead of conventional economic growth based on consumption.
Thanks Robert Thomas Bachmann, I heard that adage many years ago but was unaware of origins. But these days, we should not 'wear it out', but extend the useful life of products and systems by their repair, remanufacture and stewardship. 'Value preservation', as Walter Stahel said.
Yes, the challenge is to convince politicians and others that services/functions can be provided with less resource consumption, waste and carbon, with more jobs and less cost. In that regard, pleased to attach notes from my interview with Walter. He pointed out that CE should not just been seen in terms of waste management and environmental policy, but integrated with other policies e.g. job creation, tackling climate change and increased competitiveness. Thus, a strong and persuasive business case needs to be made and discussed.
Also, as explained in my article on 'Growth in floor area: the blind spot in cutting carbon' (latest version below), CE and resource efficiency via reuse and recycling is not enough when demand still increases, as in the high-consuming developed world. ABSOLUTE reduction in resource consumption is required, a message that is even harder to sell in a society obsessed with capitalist accumulation e.g. more and bigger office towers, houses, meals.
As in WW1 you mentioned, the war on COVID-19 shows that we CAN often 'make it do' with less floor area, less travel/commuting and less consumption by 'smaller and smarter' approaches.
Article Growth in floor area: the blind spot in cutting carbon
- Badges
- Science topic