There seems to be interest in circular economy thinking of the type production-consumption-externality such as produce-use-recycle or firm-consumer-pollution cost, which means this thinking is still business as usual thinking, but with a plus.
-
The Brundtland commission (1987) wanted us to go beyond business as usual to properly address the environmental crisis, which Rio plus 20 conference (UNCSD 2012) took to be to shift to green economy thinking, which would lead us to think that by this time end of 2019 those heavily involved in RIO + 20 2012 should have by now a sound and accepted idea of circular green market economy thinking....But that seems not to be the case.. .and curiosity in my mind is why not?
-
It looks to me that academic attention since 2012 has been misplaced and given to a non-green circular process, which raises the question posted above: Circular economy thinking vrs circular green economy thinking, which type of thinking should be now the priority, if not the rule in the face of the environmental crisis?
-
What do you think? I am interested in the views/ideas of the participants not on views/ideas of third parties.
-
Wish an excellent new year to all!
Dear Ademilade, thank you for taking the time to share your views.
After 2012 Rio plus 20 conference(UNCSD) a must do to transition to the green economy and green growth they called for was to set up the main basis of the circular green economy using perfect green market thinking as under green markets the old economic thinking no longer works....but that has not happened yet...2020....
I see some researchers and forums talking these days about the circular economy like if we were still in the world before rio plus 20, 2012 and acting like Adam Smith's traditional market model did not need an environmental cost externalization fix in its pricing mechanism....
I asked the question to bring attention to this fact.....
Have a nice day!
For me, the main issue is that natural circularity is only taken as a metaphor for economic thinking, which makes it indeed a business as usual exercise. we are in need of a more literal understanding of circularity in business life, but we cannot oversee the consequences of such a normative concept of circularity yet. Together with some of my PhD's and Post-docs, I am working in this field. We also organize a SI of JAGE on this topic. please have a look at the call https://www.springer.com/journal/10806/updates/17328216 . Please find enclosed also some of our philosophical reflections on the topic
Thanks for your comment Vincent.
To be able to frame a circular green economy, you need to think in terms of green micro-economics and of green macro-economics.....you need to think in terms of green agricultural economic thinking.....I noticed your comment about business circularity and your call for papers seems to be within traditional micro-economic, macro-economic, and agricultural economic thinking....
Green market thinking falls outside the box of traditional market thinking.....so from my point of view once we have an acceptable theory of the green consumer and the green producer and a theory of the environmentally friendly economy or the theory of the environmentally friendly agricultural economics....then we can frame it....if you do not have that green based thinking you can not frame a circular green economy....
I ask the question to highlight comments like this....
My attention this year will be on sharing my understanding of why the green circular economy/business is different than the traditional circular economy/business; and then use this to suggest how a general circular green economy can be framed; and after use this to point out the nature of specific types of circular green economies.
Hopefully this will help to redirect our attention on what 2012 Rio plus 20 aimed for "a world of environmentally friendly markets"....
Again thank you for your comments;
Respectfully yours;
Lucio
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Cognitive Science
- Thinking