The brundtland commission found in 1987 among other things an environmental pollution production problem and they did not reccomend CIRCULAR sustainable development. The RIO +20 conference in 2012 indicated formally a move towards green markets, which have green circularity, they did not reccomend to go TRADITIONAL MARKET CIRCULARITY as it would not be pollution reduction friendly.
So why the current PUSH towards going traditional market circularity knowing, apparently, that the pollution production problem is still there embedded in that traditional circularity. Are we addressing the environmental crises head on? or are we just trying to kick the can further into the future?. It seems it is the latest. And this raises the question: Is traditional economy circularity the solution to the environmental pollution problem in traditional markets? If not, why not? If yes, why yes?
What do you think?
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Linguistics
- Composition Studies
- Publication