Why The Circular Economy Matters Despite Its Many Shortcomings
An answer to detractors
About the author: Akhoy Jyoti Chaudhury is the creator of Balding Green Hills (https://www.baldinggreenhills.com/). He grew up in the hills of North-east India, and couldn’t help but draw a parallel between the deforestation and the balding heads of people. He decided it was time he did something about the issue.
Is Circular Economy the Next Big Green Scam Targeting Your Money?
Short answer:
No — but completely dismissing detractors would be our doom
Long answer:
“One man’s poop is another man’s food”
That might not be the most refined way to define the “Circular Economy” but it sure gives you a solid idea of what this sustainability buzzword stands for.
The European Parliament’s definition is along similar lines, albeit more nuanced:
A model of production and consumption, which involves sharing, leasing, reusing, repairing, refurbishing and recycling existing materials and products as long as possible. In this way, the life cycle of products is extended.
The Circular Economy is humanity’s hope for a better, regenerative future, where waste is drastically minimized and the ills wrought by the linear economy model cease to exist.
But Circular Economy or “Circularity” as it is sometimes called may seem too good to be true to the sceptic — and rightly so, as Circularity promises a harmonious coexistence with nature that might sound picture perfect in theory but implementing it in practice could prove a herculean task.
Let’s analyze in detail the challenges that the Circular Economy must overcome before it can be actualized.
People care but do not care for the environment
Reduce, reuse, recycle — The three core words of the circular economy. Notice how the three words are ordered. Matters get more complicated as we progress towards the right. If we simply reduce the number of unnecessary items we purchase, we needn’t force ourselves to reuse or bear the additional pains that come with recycling a product.
If you interview people on the street about pollution and climate change topics, they would speak at length on how much they love the environment, and how evil all the big corporations are.
But they forget that they have a good deal of power in their own hands.
Just leading a minimalistic lifestyle would alleviate the pressure on the environment as well as our bank balances.
But how many are willing to do that?
Personal vehicles and fast food chains are a major contributor to pollution. Yet, I frequently see people driving to perfectly walkable distances. Personal health hasn’t stopped us from gobbling fast food, we aren’t saying ‘No’ to the bag of crispy chips for Mother Nature’s well being anytime soon.
Then, let’s not forget the almighty neighbor. We want all the possessions of Mr & Mrs Next Door. In fact, we go a step further in our quest and buy better and more expensive products. A bigger car. The new TV with the huge display and ultra realistic colors. The list goes on.
Societal pressure is a thing. People taunt me for walking to the grocery store and for using public transport, believe it or not. One needs a lot of resilience to stick to what is right. Resilience that is often sucked away beforehand by the trials and tribulations of everyday life.
And yes, big corporations do deserve their own share of the blame.
Businesses pursue profits. If a CEO sees a lucrative but non-environment-friendly method to double the company’s profits, his mind would justify grabbing the opportunity by focusing on all the new jobs that would be created. His mind would paint him as a hero.
It is not just the narratives in the outside world that we need to beware of, sometimes the stories running in our heads are the most deceiving.
A circular economy that doesn’t take profit generation into account would crumble in no time.
The multiple drawbacks of ‘long-lasting’ products
The idea of a circular economy is based on products with long life spans that do not deteriorate easily. But do buyers really want products that are as good as new decades after purchase?
We have a Philips boom box in our house. Dust bunnies hop around it. The book box was in perfect condition the last time I checked, but as a consumer I have no interest in listening to it sing again. It merely serves as a memorabilia.
That is an example of a product that has become outdated despite its durability.
Clothes can last a long time, if worn with care. But clothes go out of fashion. Would you wear the same jacket in ten, fifteen years? Perhaps– on occasions– to show that you value old things and click a selfie. But that’s about it.
BUT a much more disconcerting trend is that of people ditching usable products before they are outdated.
With the rise of home deliveries and the ease of one-click purchases a new culture of buying new things just because they are new has emerged. How many times did you get a new phone in the past five years although the old one worked just fine?
Or perhaps we can say that the concept of something becoming ‘outdated’ has taken on a whole new meaning.
I sought a better definition for ‘long lasting products’. And internet searches finally revealed the following:
products that are durable and considered to be useful and desirable by users for a long period of time, while simultaneously providing a viable business.
“… providing a viable business”. Indeed, why should a manufacturer launch a product that lasts an eternity, when they can make one with a shorter lifespan and hence mine recurring revenue from the target market?
Recycling is far from perfect
The word ‘recycling’ conjures images of a knight in shining Armor to the rescue. Except the knight’s sword is smeared with blood, and you wonder whose side he is really on. Remember, throughout history, knights have been known to carry out atrocities too.
Poor forms of recycling create more pollution than it fixes. There are whole illicit recycling facilities that form a part of the larger organized crime scene, quite a parallel to the drug markets. Exploited workers processing waste to retrieve valuable substances are often exposed to a range of harmful pollutants.
A case to study is copper recyclers in developing countries, who set heaps of wires ablaze in order to incinerate the outer insulation and acquire the copper. These people have no other choice to eke out a living. The fumes produced in the fire add to air pollution as well as deteriorate their health.
There is another angle to the recycling tale. Developed nations often send recyclable materials to countries with poorer infrastructure. While this might look good, even generous on paper, instead of being recycled the waste ends up in landfills and oceans. This is the equivalent of these nations being treated as receptacles of waste.
However, we must realize that blaming developed nations is not a solution to this complex issue. Blame games are fun but they lead nowhere.
Unintended consequences
You will see a cyclical process in history. Humans solve problems, the solutions create more problems, humans solve problems again… and so it repeats.
Suppose scientists create genetically modified microbes that can decompose plastic into harmless substances efficiently. You can well imagine that such an organism will be welcomed into the circular economy. However, what if the microbe breaks loose and causes a pandemic that puts the covid outbreak to shame?
Another scenario — Scientists create a plant using biotechnology from which we can derive a lot of oil, using a fraction of the land area that other plants take to produce. A versatile plant whose oil has applications in countless industries ranging from cosmetics to food to biofuels. Imagine, such a plant could slash our dependence on fossil fuels like petroleum. So eco-friendly indeed.
Such a plant already exists. The genus is Elaeis, popularly known as the palm oil plant. It is controversial enough that you have most probably heard of it — and it is ubiquitous enough that you have likely used it. Because the palm oil plant is so efficient, there is a lot of demand. Because there is high demand, it is cultivated much more than other oil crops. This in turn causes breakneck deforestation in SE Asia. So far tens of thousands of Orangutans have perished thanks to this efficient plant — consequences.
Failing forward to success
I have taken a pragmatic approach to the fairy-tale-ish concept of the Circular Economy. But a focus on being realistic doesn’t need to give way to pessimism. Circular Economy still holds boundless potential. While minor issues might always remain, with enough persistence, the economic model can indeed be transformed into a circular wonderland.
In past centuries, the institution of slavery was an economic pillar. Now it is officially banned in all countries. Abolishing slavery caused a disbalance in job markets for some time, but in the long run, it vastly benefited humanity. The greater good is more important than temporary inconveniences, and if timed right damages can be minimized.
The linear economy must be eventually dismantled. In the forthcoming decades, it would become a tradeoff situation. We all know that the rewards of pushing for a circular economy far exceed the risks. While our actions might hit the fan sometimes, no threat is greater than the possibility of the planet becoming unlivable.
An important component of the circular economy is renewable energy. Wind, solar, hydropower, biomass etc come with their fair share of problems. But they are a step in the right direction. Instead of sweeping their issues under the rug, we must highlight their drawbacks. Not necessarily to demonize renewable energy sources, but to encourage their improvement.
The same principle applies to new technology like biodegradable plastics. They have their flaws– they take time to decompose, they may not break down in cold ocean waters, they are difficult to isolate from other plastics in waste streams and so on. But the fact that they can decompose at all is a feat in itself. It is a forward step. If we keep at it, we will fix the cons associated with biodegradable plastics. Already mycelium is emerging as a material with huge potential for creating plastic alternatives that are compostable. Advancements in cruelty-free mycelium meat could bring down our dependence on animals.
And in the example of the copper recyclers above, instead of cutting off their sole source of livelihood, we can assist them to adopt safer recycling practices.
We humans are known for our ingenuity. We learn from our mistakes. We use inventions from wartime to save lives. We must fail forward in our quest to achieve a circular economy.
Finally, let’s reexamine the first sentence of this article:
“One man’s poop is another man’s food.”
While this summons disgusting imagery of gooey unwanted things being served on a porcelain plate, treated human excreta can be used as fertilizer for growing healthy crops and even be used as biodiesel. Talk about poop-powered cars! A change in cultural perception, as well as better processes to eliminate pathogens, would aid in the wholehearted embracement of waste as a resource.
The glass is definitely half-filled, not half-empty, as far as the circular economy is concerned.
I have a dream — Martin Luter King
Dreams may be vague sometimes, but they can be realized.
References
African scientists say GMOs could help solve plastic pollution problem — Alliance for Science. (2020, September 15). Alliance for Science. https://allianceforscience.org/blog/2018/12/african-scientists-say-gmos-help-solve-plastic-pollution-problem/#
Calma, J. (2020, October 30). The US is one of the world’s biggest sources of plastic pollution. The Verge. https://www.theverge.com/2020/10/30/21542109/plastic-waste-united-states-ocean-pollution-study
Camero, K. (2020, August 11). Fast food from these chains is “packaged in pollution,” report says. Does it matter? medicalxpress.com. https://medicalxpress.com/news/2020-08-fast-food-chains-packaged-pollution.html
Gayle, D. (2023, May 24). Recycled plastic can be more toxic and is no fix for pollution, Greenpeace warns. The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/may/24/recycled-plastic-more-toxic-no-fix-pollution-greenpeace-warns#
Jensen, P. B., Laursen, L. N., & Haase, L. M. (2021, September 1). Barriers to product longevity: A review of business, product development and user perspectives. Journal of Cleaner Production. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.127951
Ritchie, H. (2021, February 9). Forests and deforestation. Our World in Data. https://ourworldindata.org/palm-oil
The environmental impact of food packaging — FoodPrint. (2023, May 8). FoodPrint. https://foodprint.org/issues/the-environmental-impact-of-food-packaging/
