Yes, circular green market thinking is often inconsistent with traditional circular market thinking — and the inconsistency lies in their fundamental assumptions about value, growth, and externalities.

Here’s why:

In short: Traditional circular economy = optimize resources to continue growing the economy. Green circular economy = redesign the economy to sustain life itself.

They both loop materials — but they loop them for very different ultimate ends. That’s why there's an underlying inconsistency between the two.

Sindani, your comments reads like CHATGPT reading my work.

The two fundamental differences are : 1) circular green markets work on the idea of environmental cost internalization and circular traditional markets still work on the idea of environmental cost externalization neutrality; and 2) Circular green markets address the environmental pollution problem created by the linear market and traditional circular markets address the resource use inefficiency problems of the linear market that are driving by profitable cost externalization processes.

I appreciate the time it took you to comment.

According to different sources, at first glance, “circular green market thinking” and “circular traditional market thinking” might seem to share a common goal—creating a closed-loop, resource-efficient system. However, they represent two distinct approaches with different underlying assumptions and end goals.

Circular green market thinking is fundamentally about transforming economic activity. Its intent is not just to add recycling or resource efficiency measures to the existing system but to restructure market incentives by internalizing environmental externalities and redefining value creation. This approach urges a shift toward business models and governance structures prioritizing ecological regeneration and social well-being over short-term financial gains. Essentially, it seeks to break traditional market distortions by ensuring that costs associated with environmental degradation are incorporated into the price mechanism from the outset.

On the other hand, circular traditional market thinking tends to operate within the existing market framework. Here, circularity is introduced as an additional layer—such as improving waste management or implementing recycling programs—but it does not fundamentally alter the profit-centric logic or address the root causes of market failure. In this view, practices like recovering materials and reducing waste are seen as incremental “patches” rather than transformative shifts. Critics argue that this approach risks greenwashing, as it can mask underlying issues of environmental and social inequity without truly overhauling the system.

The inconsistency between the two emerges from these different intents. While both adopt circular principles, the green market approach is transformative, aiming to holistically realign the market with sustainability, whereas the traditional version remains largely incremental. It reuses established market structures that may already be compromised by their inability to address deep-rooted externalities, meaning that any circular measures integrated into this system may fall short of driving genuine sustainability improvements.

This tension raises important questions: Can we reconcile the drive for a sustainable, regenerative economy with market mechanisms originally designed for linear, profit-driven processes? Or is the push for a circular green market a necessary reorientation that requires us to leave behind certain market logics altogether? Some proponents believe that only by fundamentally altering market dynamics can we hope to achieve long-term environmental and social resilience, while others argue that incorporating circular principles into existing frameworks could be a pragmatic stepping stone toward broader sustainability.

Dear Jorge, thank you for taking the time to comment, you highlight some similarities and differences, and a soft inconsistency from the point of view of different intent. You did not put in the context of the ENVIRIONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY PROBLEM THEY ARE SUPPOSED TO BE ADDRESSING.....

Green markets are POLLUTION PRODUCTION REDUCTION MARKETS AND traditional circular markets, just as linear, are POLLUTION PRODUCTION MARKETS, while green markets address the environmental pollution production problem head on producing profitable eco-economic efficiencies in the process while circular economies assumed, just as the linear model does/did environmental externality neutrality so they focus on improving the economically inefficient use of resources while the root-cause we know drives the pollution production problem is left untouched. One is an environmental pollution production reduction fix and the other is simple a status quo paradigm deep double down, IT IS NOT NEIGHTER A PATCH as you said... just the same business as usual, but circular...

You can also point out differences in terms which one respect the theory-practice consistency principle from the environmental sustainability problem solving point of view, also from the respect of the Thomas Kuhn's scientific paradigm evolution loop expectation, and also from the point of view of which one addresses the problem directly and which one ignores the problem all together.

I appreciate your comments

Respectfully yours;

Lucio

Dear Lucio,

Thank you for your comments on my observations related to the topic. I'm simply trying to engage in the debate with other experts in the field, so I am not covering all the important elements associated with it.

Best regards, Jorge

I appreciate your comment Jorge, it provides a wider view of "think about it".

These similarities and differences can be framed to summarize key inconsistencies if you place the two ways of thinking at the same point of analysis and paradigm evolution related to environmental problem solving tools or paradigm double down tools.

Let's leave it here

Respectfully yours;

Lucio

Dear friends, there are sustainability markets, green markets, dwarf green markets, linear traditional markets and circular traditional markets....they are linked or can be linked through the pollution production problem theory.....to identify different blunders in term of development thinking that have materialized since 1987/WCED.

Below I shared food for thoughts on the THIRD BLUNDER, which has thinking related to this question, but it deals with being in a dwarf green market based world in 2023 or so and going circular thinking to solve the inefficient use of resources associated with linear thinking, not the environmental pollution production problem that goes too with linear thinking:

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

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/391458201_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_so