 |
| Source |
I’m writing this last post in New York, where a state of emergency has just been declared; there’s talk of a ‘bomb cyclone’. Climate karma perhaps? I’m not too sure; I’ll leave that up to the climate scientists. What I have become certain of over the course of this blog is that something must change.
The Circular Economy
Could the circular economy
be the grand ‘solution’ to our overconsumption?
Having started this
geography module with a background in economics, it seems fitting that my last
post is an amalgamation of the two. The intuitive appeal of the circular
economy from an environmental perspective is obvious: changing a linear system
of production as problematized in my second post to a circular one would
greatly reduce the strain on the natural resource base. But lets not forget
that the theory is in essence an economic
one – so let us explore the associated economic model.
 |
| The blue line (primary production activity) is steeper than the grey one (circular economy activity), indicating that there are greater environmental impacts for every unit of production. This model sees 4 possible scenarios: 1). No rebound occurs*. In this case production stays the same, and we reap the full benefit (E0 – E2) of less environmental impacts. 2). The circular economy rebounds, and production increases (yellow arrow), reducing the size of the net benefit to (E1 – E2). 3). The rebound is so large that production increases to a level where there are no net benefits (E0 – E2 = 0). 4). Backfire occurs, production increases even more - impacts are higher than they would have been in the original state (E0 – E2 < 0). Model adapted from Zinc and Geyer (2017). *rebound is a theory stating that increased efficiency makes a good relatively cheaper and thus people consume more of it |
Granted, it is not yet entirely clear which scenario will prevail, but from where I’m standing it seems highly unlikely that this transition would see no rebound whatsoever. Zinc and Geyer (2017) scrutinize consultancies like McKinsey for advising clients that marketing secondary products - i.e. those refurbished, recycled, and reused through the circular economy - in a way that doesn’t offset primary production (the current state of production), will engender the largest profits.
Yet again, conversation
seems to be preoccupied with production cycles and growth. All throughout this
blog I’ve put consumption and social/environmental welfare at the forefront of
the debate, perhaps we should do the same in the circular economy debate. Or as Allwood writes; “A circular economy could be
achieved if global demand for both
the volume and composition of products stabilized. That 12-word condition
describes an environmental nirvana that defies all imagination in current growth-driven economies…” (2014).
In my opinion, the way to
change this destructive environmental course is by changing the focus from
consumption, growth and GDP to other metrics: happiness, perhaps.
 |
| My journey roadmap |
Comments
Post a Comment