The Brundtland Commission told us in 1987 in "Our Common Future" that the traditional development model has failed us as it has brought with it deep social and environmental sustainability problems, and to leave TRADITIONAL ECONOMIC THINKING BEHIND they recommended sustainable development thinking, sadly they did not set priorities such as to focus sustainable development thinking to fix the social sustainability problem first, then the environmental sustainability problem or to focus on the environmental sustainability problem first, and then the social sustainability problem or focus on solving both problems, the social and environmental sustainability problems at the same time.
Notice, the WCED did not recommend to go CIRCULAR SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT to lead traditional thinking behind.
This lack of foresight led to a very active competition between different sustainable development schools of thoughts, where in 2012 Rio +20 the WIN-WIN ECONOMY AND ENVIRONMENTA MODEL or the ECO-ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT SCHOOL OF THOUGHT WON the sustainable development contest; and they indicated the need to go green market, green growth, and green economies in THE FUTURE WE WANT(UNCSD 2012) as now, there was a priority, to solve the environmental sustainability problem first through green market circularity as WIN-WIN meant that now the environmental cost associated with economic activities were going to be reflected in green market prices.
Notice, that RIO +20 conference did not recommend to go CIRCULAR TRADITIONAL ECONOMY then because they knew it is not pollution reduction friendly as it only account for economic cost of production; and hence it is not consistent with the environmental responsibility priority they had set to advance now environmentally friendly development models.
Both the WCED 1987 approach and the UNCSD 2012 approach are approaches leading the world away from BUSINESS AS USUAL as both of them knew that the sustainability issues they were tasked to solve are driven by irresponsible market behavior in social and/or environmental terms.
Now like if the WCED 1987 process and the UNCSD 2012 process never took place, out of no where the world is systematically pushing the idea of CIRCULAR TRADITIONAL ECONOMY to solve the development problems IT HAS CREATED as documented by those 2 different but linked processes.
They are presenting the idea of the CIRCULAR TRADITIONAL ECONOMY as a solution to the environmental market failure the WCED and the UNCSD linked to traditional market thinking under broken circularity in practice, but circular in theory by the environmental externality neutrality assumption given to us by Adam Smith in 1776 and under which his market can expand for ever without producing environmental externalities. Hence, it seems like the market supporting this CIRCULAR TRADITIONAL ECONOMY is no longer a traditional market, and hence, it is no longer AN ENVIRONMENTAL POLLUTION PRODUCTION MARKET.
And this raises the question, What type of market and price structure is behind this current push on traditional economy circularity?
What do you think?
The type of market that incentivise recycling of used products, rather than scrapping them and then extracting new resources. For instance, used clothe, used metals, outdated equipment and machines and so on. Further more, more preference is given to renewable natural resources like production and utilisation of plant-based energy sources (ethanols from Jatroph, cassava, sugarcane etc) than continuous usage of fossil-fuel.
Ofcourse, win win situation persosts for circular economy where resources are used, re used, recycled, refurbished and re-reused. If this theory of circular economy was think earlier then we could save millions of money as well as non renewable resources. Circular economy clubbed with Sustainable Development Goals will optimize the resource consumption at one and, and uplift the lives of citizens. Thus Win-Win-Win situation will prevail.
Of course, I concur. Only government and her agencies would accept the paradigm of re-use and recycling a million times, a sustainable development is attainable all over the world, both for the present and future generation. Then a win win situation definitely becomes substainable.
Adebayo, thank you for commenting. You did not say anything about the type of market price that would clear that circular recycling market? And you should keep in mind, that the products you are mentioning there that can be recycle ARE NOT GREEN PRODUCTS as they are not produce within green markets..... Circular economies have the same limitations as the circular traditional market economy by assumption as THEY APPARENTLY CAN EXPAND FOR EVER without producing social and/or environmental externalities, which we know today IS NOT TRUE.
Adebayo, I am sharing here some food for thoughts that will help you to rethink the issue as addressing the sustainability issues properly, as the WCED 1987 and the UNCSD 2012 told us WE NEED TO THINK BEYOND TRADITIONAL MARKET THINKING
Sustainability thought 177: What are environmental pollution production markets, environmental pollution reduction markets, environmental pollution management markets and no environmental pollution production markets? How do they work?
Article Sustainability thought 177: What are environmental pollution...
Ankur, the only WIN-WIN economy and environment model is the ECO-ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT MODEL OR ENVIRONMENTALLY FRIENDLY CAPITALISM OR GREEN MARKET. The circular economy idea they are trying to push now, JUST LIKE the Circular by assumption traditional market idea of Adam Smith is a WIN-LOSE ECONOMY AND ENVIRONMENT MODEL as the environmental cost associated with business activity are not still accounted for. So the goods produced are not green, the goods consumed are not green, and the goods reused are not green, and the environmental market failure that comes along by not accounted for the environmental costs is still active.
Do you know that the WCED 1987 recommended us to go BEYOUND TRADITIONAL ECONOMIC THINKING, LINEAR OR CIRCULAR, AS THEY HAVE IN THE MODEL EMBEDDED THE ROOT CAUSE OF SUSTAINABILITY PROBLEMS.
See, the sustainable development thinking the WCED recommended in 1987 led to a very active competition between different schools of thoughts, where in 2012 the WIN-WIN ECONOMY-ENVIRONMENT MODEL won, the UNCSD in Rio +20 did not call for TRADITIONAL MARKET CIRCULARITY as they knew it is not environmental pollution reduction friendly, they recommended the way of green market circularity through green markets, green economies and green growth as key aspects of THE FUTURE WE WANT/2012. It did not recommend going business as usual but circular, they recommended green market circularity, but later they went a la environmental externality management markets.
Hence, since the price that clears the circular market, just as the price that clears the traditional market, it is a fact, is not environmentally friendly as environmental cost externalization allows it to tend to produce, consume and recycle at the lowest market price possible,
I appreciate your comment
Respectfully yours;
Lucio
Thanks Prof. Lucio. I appreciate your contribution quite very well. I understand perfectly the essence of green economy and that was why I mentioned the adoption and utilistation of green fuel as substitute to hydrocarbon fuel to enforce an environmental sustainability all the world over. Thanks once again for your submission Sir.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Social Science
- Sociology