The Circular Economy

Case Studies about the Transition from the Linear Economy

Mika Sillanpaa, Chaker Ncibi

• Publisher: Academic Press
• Year: 2019
• ISBN:
  9780128152683
• Topic: Economics
• Subtopic: Economic Theory
• Index: Economics

The Circular Economy: Case Studies about the Transition from the Linear Economy explores examples of the circular economy in action. Unlike other books that provide narrow perceptions of wide-ranging and highly interconnected paradigms, such as supply chains, recycling, businesses models and waste management, this book provides a comprehensive overview of the circular economy from various perspectives. Its unique insights into the approaches, methods and tools that enable people to make the transformation to a circular economy show how recent research, trends and attitudes have moved beyond the "call to arms" approach to a level of maturity that requires sound scientific thinking.

• Compiles evidence through case studies that illustrate how individuals, organizations, communities and countries are transitioning to a circular economy
• Provides a theoretical and empirical summary of the circular economy that emphasizes what others are actually doing and planning
• Highlights achievements from industry, agriculture, forestry, energy, water and other sectors that show how circular principles are applicable, eco-friendly, profitable, and thus sustainable

Chapter One

Getting hold of the circular economy concept

Abstract

With the global worsening of environmental, geopolitical, and socioeconomic conditions, we became more than ever aware that the current economic model, predominantly based on fossil resources, is inherently unsustainable, and its limitations are being widely witnessed including recurrent economic crisis, global warming, huge amounts of wasted resources, and pollution.

In response to such an alarming situation, a general agreement was reached among scientists, industrialists, and actors in the governmental and financial sectors, namely, the necessity to rethink humanity’s wasteful approach of managing resources, and reestablish a nature mimicking, waste recycling, and value retaining paradigm: Circular economy (CE).

In this first chapter, the origins of the CE concept and the various definitions established around it are presented and critically analyzed, as well as the essential contributions from many key actors. Such joint effort is highly important for wider adoption, promotion, and implementation of this emerging economic model. Various other green concepts are also presented in this chapter, along with the linear economic model and its numerous limitations.

Keywords

Circular economy; Closed loops; Definitions; Green concepts; Origins

1.1. Historical background

1.1.1. Roots of CE

In the last couple of decades, Circular Economy (CE) emerged as a reliable alternative economic concept able to cope with the imminent global sustainability issues, created by the current unidirectional economic model, Linear Economy (LE). The former is often referred to as the “take, make, and dispose” triptych by many scientists and authors discussing or promoting the concept of CE [1–4]. Suh designation, although summarizing the main features of the current production/consumption schemes, is missing key elements in the whole process, which are equally important in generating unsustainable activities such as transportation of resources or goods and the distribution of the end products. We will develop and discuss this matter in Chapter 3 (the “conceptual change” section).

Historically, although the term circular economy is relatively new, the concept itself is well known to humanity for centuries, if not millennia, and it was instinctively and naturally implemented during times when humans and human societies lived in full synergy with nature. Back then, we considered ourselves as part of nature, and we used our curiosity and genius to live better, with the rest. Then, with the sedentary way of life, the fabric and state of mind of human societies profoundly changed, especially with respect to nature. Indeed, we started thinking of domesticating those beasts around us, then why not taming nature altogether. Thus, we started developing new tools and processes for that end, and the more we tamed nature, the more civilized we thought of ourselves. From that point, we became the masters and nature our subject, and since the second half of the 18th century onwards, humanity reached a new level of “virtual” mastership over nature through successive industrial, agricultural, and technological revolutions.

The emergence of new political and economic philosophies, along with new societal aspirations (slowly being adopted as global standards of living), further deteriorated, not only our affiliation with nature but also the relationship between humans. Indeed, with the “almost holy” pursuit of happiness for oneself, the tribe, the country, etc., serious animosities started to emerge around the world as groups of humans thought that they have the right to control the resources of other groups (not without pretexts and brutal force if necessary). Thus, in recent times, the pursuit of one’s happiness, notwithstanding the inflicted misery on others, humans and the environment alike seems to be the best recipe for economic development.

Such a brief historical account might sound a bit dark and biased (more on the negative side of the story, often mediatized as a success story), but if we analyze the course of human history and its relation with nature (mining, intensive agricultural practices, various pollution incidents, landfills, overfishing, and overexploitation of resources in general) and between humans themselves (slavery, colonialism, armed conflicts, etc.), we can agree that the damaging impacts of such economic development schemes, on the environment and societies alike, are too obvious to be ignored and will seriously compromise the survival of future generations on earth if we continue implementing the current economic model, especially in the energetic, industrial, and agricultural sections. We frequently and purposely have used the personal pronoun “we” throughout this section and if one still wonders who we are? We are humanity as a whole.

In response to this alarming global sustainability issue, sporadic wake-up calls tried to alert decisions makers, industrialists, and the general public about the dark side of the story and the urgent need to tackle the serious and, back then, the emerging, economic, and environmental issues related to the various industrial and agricultural activities conducted in their times (mainly, related resources availability, and soil, air, and water contamination by anthropological activities). Such wake-up calls include:

1. • Rachel Carson’s Silent Spring (1962), in which the American scientist and writer concluded that DDT and other pesticides had irrevocably harmed animals and had contaminated the world’s food supply, and accused the chemical industry of spreading disinformation and public officials of acting indifferently, despite the seriousness of the matter [5].
2. • The Limits to Growth, published in 1972 by MIT’s Donella H. Meadows, Dennis L. Meadows, Jørgen Randers, and William W. Behrens III [6]. In this book, the authors tried to build a model to investigate the consequences of five major trends of global concern including accelerating industrialization, rapid population growth, widespread malnutrition, depletion of nonrenewable resources, and a deteriorating environment.
4. • In 1983, former Norwegian Prime Minister and Director-General of the World Health Organization, Gro Harlem Brundtland headed a commission with the main objective of exploring long-term strategies to achieve sustainable development by the year 2000 and beyond. The official mission of the Brundtland Commission ended officially in December 1987 after publishing its report “Our Common Future” (released in October 1987) [7].

After many decades of these, and much more, wake up calls, many scientists are still far from being satisfied with the global movement toward sustainability. Some of them even believe that the already precarious situation back then was further aggravated by insisting on relying on unsustainable mass production and consumption schemes. The reasons for such “odd behavior” are often related to side effects of global phenomena such as the globalization of markets, the emergence of highly populated nations, which is causing an increasing pressure on resources, the deregulation in the financial sector, the development of new and highly efficient extraction and processing technologies, the increasing trend of offshoring to reduce production costs (and sometimes to escape environmental regulations which, although being enforced to promote sustainability, are often perceived as impediments to competitiveness), etc. [8–11].

Overall, the abovementioned pioneering effort was conducted in times when economic growth, national pride, and most of all greed, seemed to have blinded humanity for a while (a century and a half or so), which was enough to cause serious global environmental and societal repercussions (externalities in the economic terminology). Even the main objective, for which such “sacrifice” was made, was not achieved, as global and recurrent economic crises still occur. The same is the observation for armed c...