On The Circular Economy

Basic Ideas and Motivation

To be written =====. For now, visit its Wikipedia article.

Criticisms

From Systems Approach

See The Impossibilities of the Circular Economy, which, in comic format, argues the CE is "not based on reality" and gives the following reasons why it is not a "silver bullet":

It takes a lot of energy and materials to reuse materials - especially to separate elements from alloys and blends. [physical aspect]
To get all that energy from renewables, we don't have enough natural resources to build the infrastructure necessary for that, at the speed and scale required. [economic aspect]
Many people assume the economy can keep on growing if it is circular, but the Earth cannot provide enough for that. [economic, pistic aspect]
CE presupposes total openness in sharing information, but competition, personal gain and administrative hierarchies all prevent that. So do acacemic silos. [lingua, ethical aspects]
Mainstream CE thinking misses the social and justice aspects of going circular. For example, never discussed are the regions, industries and cohorts that will lose out. [juridical aspect]

Sadly, that article presents systems thinking as its 'silver bullet'. Systems thinking is not the silver bullet either. That is why we need our rethink here, which openly addresses all aspects.

Circular Economy Rebound

Zink & Geyer [2017] argue that the circular economy "rebounds", in that paradoxically, production is likely to increase rather than decrease, because consumers think "Oh well, it will be recycled so I can consume more." They blame CE being based on an engineering analogy [formative aspect]. In fact, we see also the hidden influence of mindset and attitude, the pistic and ethical aspects.

Engineering Metaphor

Several people have criticised CE for presupposing the validity of an engineering metaphor [thus reducing the idea to the operation of the formative aspect, without reference to other aspects that impact it]. See the Critiques section in the Wikipedia article.

Other Critiques

To be collected and added.

Our Approach

Listen carefully to all, proponents, critics and also those who try to implement it, and also even those who resist it, to discern valid issues. Use Dooyeweerd's aspects to help separate out the tangle of issues.

Affirm the validity of the Circular Economy idea, using especially the ideas of Good, Harmful and Useless economic activity. Waste is Harmful as a dysfunction meaningful in the economic aspect, but also Harmful impact in the biotic and juridical aspects (pollution, injustice). It is also often a result of Useless economic activity. Responsibility is Good (juridical aspect), esp for our waste. Reuse, repair, recycle enact that responsibility. The activity of reusing and repairing can bring delight and interest that is meaningful in the formative aspect of achievement.

Critique its isolation. It focuses directly on functioning in the economic aspect, propped up by circular and engineering analogies (spatial and formative aspects). These (a) ignore other aspects, (b) confuse by arguing from analogy. Most critiques point to the need to embed the idea among those meaningful in all other aspects.

Enrich the idea of Circular Economy by bringing in functioning in all other aspects. This involves recognising the aspects on which it foundationally depends (earlier aspects, quantitative to social) and those that impact it in ways unforeseen (especially later aspects, aesthetic - pistic). Employ Dooyeweerd's idea of inter-aspect dependency to help us understand.

This page, "http://christianthinking.space/economics/circular.html", is part of the Christian Thinking in Economics project, which itself is within Christian Thinking Space.

Created: 5 December 2023. Last updated: