Think about it, the WCED 1987 told us among other things that to be environmentally friendly we have to go beyond business as usual using sustainable development means, which by 2012 Rio + 20 the world had agreed that the WIN-WIN economy and environment model was the way to shift to a world under green markets, green growth, and green economies, BUT then soon since 2012 the environmentally sustainability pretending began as instead of green markets the world ended up with green dwarf green markets, dwarf green growth, and dwarf green economies. But now that PRETENDING seems to be coming to an end AS the world, against 100% the Thomas Kuhn's paradigm evolution loop expectation seems ready to go back to square one as in 1987, but now with CIRCULAR traditional economic thinking and academic tunneling. And this raises the question, Does going traditional circular economic thinking means the environmental sustainability pretending is over?
What do you think? Yes, and why you think so? No, and why you think No?
Although the notion of a circular economy is very helpful in improving the environmental outcomes of economic / business activities, this is far from a perfect concept.
In fact, I think it is even possible to implement circular economic practices that are bad for the environment. E.G. recovering waste poison so that we can reuse it to poison other ecosystems would be consistent with circular economic fundamentals.
Paul, good day. The circular economy, just as the linear economy is a POLLUTION PRODUCITON MARKET, the world is not even suppose to be talking about this, we should be talking about green markets since 2012, but avoiding the shift from traditional market thinking to green market thinking since 2012 and going pretending through dwarf green market thinking has given the opportunity TO RESUCITE a thinking that the WCED 1987 told us to leave behind if we canted to solve the sustainability crises.
When I see articles promoting CIRCULAR ECONOMY today I place the following comment in case the AUTHOR in good faith do not know and to make them think:
--------------------------------------------------------------------
With respect to circular economic thinking:
Are you aware that going circular economy now means making the environmental market failure the WCED documented in 1987 as driving the environmental problem associated with business activity PERMANENT? So development would be under a permanent sustainability market failure as the root cause of the problem, the environmentally distorted traditional market prices, has not been fixed yet UNDER CIRCULAR ECONOMIC THINKING; and therefore, being under permanent market failure in environmental terms should be expected to bring unsustainability in the future.
Hence, the current attention that circular economic thinking has gained seem to be based on a thinking, the traditional market thinking, circular or not, that both the WCED 1987 and the UNCSD 2012 LEFT BEHIND because it is not pollution reduction friendly since the traditional market is in essence a pollution production market. Otherwise, the problem since 1987, traditional market thinking with broken circularity is now the solution to the same problem, JUST BY MAKING IT CIRCULAR NOW.
This means that there are no academic bases that make the cause of the problem, TRADITIONAL MARKET THINKING as indicated by WCED 1987 be the solution to the problem, UNLESS THE GOAL IS TO KEEP THE POLLUTION PRODUCTION MARKET OF ADAM SMITH running at all costs for ever or until the system collapses.
KEEP IN MIND, the root-cause of environmental problems the WCED documented in 1987 is still embedded in the CIRCULAR ECONOMY THINKING you seem to be using as it was OR as it is in traditional market thinking.
All above means that there is a link between circular economy and unsustainability as for example the traditional circular economy is still linked to the environmental pollution production problem as the traditional economy was.
RIO +20 UNCSD 2012 was aiming at a shift from a win only economy model to a win-win economy and environment model, a model away as business as usual AS the WCED 1987 indicated, INSTEAD the scientific world is BACKING NOW a shift FROM A WIN ECONOMY ONLY MODEL to a WIN ECONOMY ONLY MODEL BUT CIRCULAR signaling that the period from 1987 TO now 2023 is a period where the environmental sustainability movement had a total loss as now we are going towards SQUARE ONE, a win-lose economy and environment model.
Have you ever look at these issues from the circular green economy point of view?
Just some food for thoughts with all my respect
Respectfully yours
Lucio
-----------------------------------------------------------
Paul, now can you please provide your view on the answer to this specific question here, the question is:
Does going traditional circular economic thinking means the environmental sustainability pretending is over?
What do you think?
Paul, I see you have no presence in researchgate. so please ignore my question.
Respectfully yours;
:Lucio
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Phytochemistry
- Extracts