Sharing tittle with abstract of article just published today both in English and in Spanish
Muñoz, Lucio, 2025. Sustainability thought 180: Dwarf green markets vrs traditional circular markets: Which one is environmental pollution production friendly? Why? In: CEBEM-REDESMA Boletin, Año 19, Nº 6, June, La Paz, Bolivia.
https://www.academia.edu/129802467/Sustainability_thought_180_Dwarf_green_markets_vrs_traditional_circular_markets_Which_one_is_environmental_pollution_production_friendly_Why
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/392594816_Sustainability_thought_180_Dwarf_green_markets_vrs_traditional_circular_markets_Which_one_is_environmental_pollution_production_friendly_Why#fullTextFileContent
Abstract
It can be said that the need to address the environmental pollution production problem associated with the environmentally distorted working of the traditional market directly has guided dwarf green market thinking since 2012 Rio + 20 to now. These markets account for some of the environment cost associated with economic activity, contracting that way pollution production as supply and demand contract at higher dwarf green market prices. It can be said that circular traditional markets are geared to address the inefficient use of resources in traditional linear economic markets, not the pollution production problem associated with them; and hence circular traditional markets work under the assumption of environmental externality neutrality as the linear traditional market does, meaning you can increase resource use efficiency without producing environmental problems. Hence, both markets can be linked to environmental pollution production friendliness as both of them are supposed to be corrections of the environmentally distorted traditional market model. And this makes the following questions relevant: Dwarf green markets vrs traditional circular markets: Which one is environmental pollution production friendly? Why? Among the goals of this paper is to provide answers to those questions.
Resúmen
Se puede afirmar que la necesidad de abordar directamente el problema de la producción de contaminación ambiental asociado con el funcionamiento ambientalmente distorsionado del mercado tradicional ha guiado el pensamiento sobre los mercados verdes pretendidos desde Río + 20 de 2012 hasta la actualidad. Estos mercados reflejan parte del costo ambiental asociado a la actividad económica, contractando así la producción de contaminación a medida que la oferta y la demanda se contraen a precios más altos en los mercados verdes pretendidos. Se puede decir que los mercados tradicionales circulares están diseñados para abordar el uso ineficiente de los recursos en los mercados económicos lineales tradicionales, no el problema de la producción de contaminación asociado a ellos; y, por lo tanto, los mercados tradicionales circulares funcionan bajo el supuesto de neutralidad de externalidades ambientales, al igual que el mercado tradicional lineal, lo que significa que se asume que puede aumentar la eficiencia en el uso de recursos sin generar problemas ambientales. Por lo tanto, ambos mercados pueden vincularse con la favorabilidad en cuanto a producción de contaminación ambiental, ya que se supone que ambos son correcciones del modelo de mercado tradicional ambientalmente distorsionado. Esto hace relevantes las siguientes preguntas: Mercados verdes pretendidos vs. mercados circulares tradicionales: ¿Cuál es amigable con la producción de contaminación ambiental? ¿Por qué? Uno de los objetivos de este trabajo es proporcionar respuestas a estas preguntas.
A.K thank you for writing,
The question is not about what is the circular economy, it is about the link circular economy and environmental pollution production problem embedded in it. Can you see the environmental sustainability dilemma this creates?. If yes, what is the nature of this dilemma?
Reading the article helps to see this dilemma and that is why I have shared it.
Respectfully yours;
The science dilemma in circular economy thinking lies in the paradox that reducing pollution and waste through closed-loop systems still requires energy and generates emissions, revealing a trade-off between ecological ideals and thermodynamic realities, thus demanding smarter system design and material innovation.
If you look at it from Thomas Kunh and Karl Popper point of view the dilemma comes from the fact that going from linear polluting behavior to circular polluting behavior violates Kuhn's loop of scientific paradigm evolution as the abnormality embedded in the linear and circulare economic model driving pollution generation is not removed when doing this move and you are applying traditional circular thinking to solve a sustainability problem, the theory does not match the nature of the problem they are supposedly trying to solve violating the theory-practic consistency principle, the environmental sustainability problem can not be solve using circular traditional market thinking.
This makes going from linear to circular a DEEP PARADIGM DOUBLE DOWN MOVE to avoid the scientific paradigm wave lifted in 1987 / WCED that sooner or later will break it down as the ability to disguise really is fading as time passess and the environmental consequnces become even more plainly clear....
The science dilemma in circular market thinking arises from the paradox where efforts to recycle or reuse materials still generate pollution during transformation processes, revealing a trade-off between circularity and environmental externalities, and prompting debates about whether absolute decoupling of growth and emissions is realistically achievable.
The pollution problem in circular market models stems from the contradiction that recycling, repurposing, or upcycling processes themselves often require significant energy and chemical inputs, thus producing emissions—raising the question of whether circularity can truly be clean or if it merely shifts pollution stages.
Chuck, going traditional circularity is a deep double paradigm double down to completedly avoid science based paradigm shift pressures, it a move backwards to pre WCED still assuming environmental externality neutrality, like if the period of evolving economic thought 1987-2022-2023 never happeded, life if the need to go perfect green market is not there, violating Karl Popper and Thomas Kuhn's scienctific paradigm consistency and evolution expectations so violating the theory-practice consistency principle and academic integrity expectations for paradigm change.
You will find the following 2025 article interesting:
Sustainability Thought 200: From linear pollution markets to circular pollution markets: Pointing out the third major blunder in terms of development thinking and critical socio-environmental problem solving
Article Sustainability Thought 200: From linear pollution markets to...
- Badges
- Science topic