For the UN:
"A circular economy entails markets that give incentives to reusing products, rather than scrapping them and then extracting new resources. In such an economy, all forms of waste, such as clothes, scrap metal and obsolete electronics, are returned to the economy or used more efficiently."
https://unctad.org/topic/trade-and-environment/circular-economy#:~:text=A%20circular%20economy%20entails%20markets,economy%20or%20used%20more%20efficiently.
And this raises the question: Is a circular economy focused on reusing waste a green economy or a dwarf green economy?
What do you think?
In my opinion, a circular economy focused on reusing waste can be considered a green economy. The concept of a circular economy is based on the idea of reducing waste and maximizing the use of resources.
By reusing waste, we are reducing the need for new resources and reducing the amount of waste that ends up in landfills or polluting the environment.
A green economy is an economy that is based on sustainable development and seeks to reduce the impact of economic activities on the environment. A circular economy is a key component of a green economy as it promotes the efficient use of resources and reduces waste.
However, it's important to note that a circular economy focused solely on waste reuse may not be enough to fully address environmental challenges. Other factors, such as reducing consumption and production, promoting renewable energy, and protecting biodiversity, also play a crucial role in creating a sustainable and green economy.
Therefore, while a circular economy focused on reusing waste is an important step towards sustainability, it should be seen as one of many components of a comprehensive strategy for a green economy.
Dear Natha, thank you for writing.
With the goal of sharing ideas in a positive environment and if possible expand them, Can you please use your comment to answer the question here: Is a circular economy focused on reusing waste a green economy or a dwarf green economy?
If your answer is "it is a green economy, why you think so?
If your answer is "it is a dwarf green economy, why do you think so?
Just keep in mind a green economy is not a dwarf green economy since a green market is not a dwarf green market.
Respectfully yours;
Lucio
A circular economy focused on reusing waste can be considered a green economy, as it promotes sustainability and reduces waste and resource consumption. However, whether it is a full-fledged green economy or a "dwarf" green economy depends on the scope and extent of the circular economy practices.
A green economy is an economy that is low-carbon, resource-efficient, and socially inclusive, and aims to promote sustainable development while reducing environmental impacts. A circular economy can contribute to these goals by reducing waste and promoting resource efficiency. However, to fully achieve a green economy, circular economy practices must be integrated with other sustainability practices such as renewable energy, sustainable land use, and reducing pollution.
Therefore, a circular economy focused on reusing waste can be seen as a step towards a green economy, but the full transition to a green economy requires a more comprehensive approach that addresses a range of environmental and social issues.
Dear Natha, do you realize that in your comment you are mixing up at least 4 different concepts: traditional market, green market, and dwarf green market, traditional circular economy, green market circularity, and dwarf green circular economy. Defining the green economy as a dwarf green economy requires alternative academic facts as it leads to the same issues of defining sustainability as sustainable development as the UN does.
Could you please use your those ideas to answer the question and we go from there to exchange ideas:
The question is "Is a circular economy focused on reusing waste a green economy or a dwarf green economy?
The possible answers are:
If your answer is "the circular economy based on reusing waste is a green economy, then why you think so?
If your answer is "The circular economy based on reusing wast is a dwarf green economy, then why do you think so?
Respectfully yours;
Lucio
Reading the post and subsequent submissions I conclude that the UN remains full of garbage, poor thinking, and waste! Micro-defining terms of sustainability isn't providing ANY solutions to existing problems. "Green" is already abused to the point of uselessness. Now you want to add "Dwarf Green" to the lexicon??? How useless can it get?
Steven, to simply differenciate from science based facts and alternative academic facts....and then be able to see or at least understand that what is being given to you as science based is not science based....Then later we can not claim academic knowledge gaps and/or ignorance...
You may find the following ideas at least with some good food for thoughts since now you are able to see the type of thinking the UN stakeholders are using:
Beyond Traditional Market Thinking: What is the Structure of the Perfect Green market?
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/302025169_Beyond_Traditional_Market_Thinking_What_is_the_Structure_of_the_Perfect_Green_market
From Traditional Markets to Green Markets: A Look at Markets Under Perfect Green Market Competition
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/330701187_From_Traditional_Markets_to_Green_Markets_A_Look_at_Markets_Under_Perfect_Green_Market_Competition
The Flipping of Traditional Economic Thinking: Contrasting the Working of Dwarf Green Market Thinking with that of Green Market Thinking to Highlight Main Differences and Implications
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/334535200_The_Flipping_of_Traditional_Economic_Thinking_Contrasting_the_Working_of_Dwarf_Green_Market_Thinking_with_that_of_Green_Market_Thinking_to_Highlight_Main_Differences_and_Implications
Sustainability thoughts 109: Linking perfect green market theory to the circular green economy
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/341282635_Sustainability_thoughts_109_Linking_perfect_green_market_theory_to_the_circular_green_economy
Sustainability thought 169: Does defining sustainability as sustainable development requires alternative academic facts? If Yes, what is the nature of these alternative academic facts?
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/362083980_Sustainability_thought_169_Does_defining_sustainability_as_sustainable_development_requires_alternative_academic_facts_If_Yes_what_is_the_nature_of_these_alternative_academic_facts
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?
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/346438700_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
Sustainability thoughts 139: How can the 2012 road to transition from environmental pollution based traditional economies to the environmentally clean economies that the world never built be pointed out?
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/363670571_Sustainability_thoughts_139_How_can_the_2012_road_to_transition_from_environmental_pollution_based_traditional_economies_to_the_environmentally_clean_economies_that_the_world_never_built_be_pointed_ou
Sustainability thought 162: Can we transition from the environmentally dirty economy to the environmental clean economy with the use of dwarf green markets? If no, why not?
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/367498814_Sustainability_thought_162_Can_we_transition_from_the_environmentally_dirty_economy_to_the_environmental_clean_economy_with_the_use_of_dwarf_green_markets_If_no_why_not
Sustainability thoughts 105: An overview of the externality structure of all possible markets and of the specific market illusion under which each of them operates.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/340133824_Sustainability_thoughts_105_An_overview_of_the_externality_structure_of_all_possible_markets_and_of_the_specific_market_illusion_under_which_each_of_them_operates
Thank you, Lucio Muñoz . They are good articles. They do acknowledge that ideology will ignore science. Further, my key objection to many "green" or sustainable proposals is that they simply - and possibly intentionally - ignore the "dirty" parts of their reality! Too many are still just trying to make a quick (dirty) profit from an ignorant (and intentionally fearful) public. We CAN move to a more "sustainable" economic and technology environment, but not if the real detriments of many new technologies are ignored. Total LIfe Cycle Cost Analysis in terms of both materials and the environment are needed, including any "bootstrapping" period of transition. Are we really gaining anything, or just digging a DIFFERENT hole?
Steven, since 1999 I have been writing about sustainability issues, markets issues, environmental issues, social issues, and economic issues from the point of view of what it should have been to contrast it with what it is as mainstream scientists and decision makers decided to go since 1987 away from what it should have been in terms of paradigm shifts needed to address the sustainability issues of the time regardless of the available evidence supporting paradigm change.....
I have been writing and I will continue to write in a way and areas of thoughts that are very relevant knowing that my writings will be ignored, which is fine with me.
So my goal is simply to leave a record of what it should have been so one day, when environmental crashes or social crashes or economic crashes reafirm the need to go back to what it should have been, albeit at a higher cost than before, the information and ideas is already there.
Having a record of what it should have been may help later on to rationalize what went wrong.
Let's leave it here Steven, and have a nice day.
Lucio
- Badges
- Science topic