MULTIPLE APPROACHES and TOOLS are required to attain sustainability

The articles below propose that it may not be wise to focus on only a single approach when tackling the implementation of sustainability.  The complexity of a paradigm shift in this arena requires multiple approaches and tools.  Specifics are given.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921800921002019

[Integrating the green economy, circular economy and bioeconomy in a strategic sustainability framework]

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2210422416300843?dgcid=raven_sd_recommender_email

Exploring the governance and politics of transformations towards sustainability

From watching/reading the Corporate Media, one would rarely ever be aware of the tremendous comprehensive work being done in the field of sustainability...for at least the last twenty years.  Some of it goes back forty years plus.  More writers and activists should spread the word.  Once in awhile, I get the feeling that some people think "Going Green" is simply a matter of passing laws.  Passing laws may not be easy, but it's a picnic compared to the research and implementation of sustainability for Spaceship Earth. 

................

Not only my opinion.  Be Well

Modern Circular Economy - a Practical Study, AND - The Extraterritorial Commons, Corporate Responsibility, & Governance

 Sustainability | Free Full-Text | Modern Circular Economy: Corporate Strategy, Supply Chain, and Industrial Symbiosis | HTML (mdpi.com)

Published this month in the journal, Sustainability.

...........................

Sustainability | Free Full-Text | The Commons, the Common Good and Extraterritoriality: Seeking Sustainable Global Justice through Corporate Responsibility | HTML (mdpi.com)

Published this month in Sustainability.

This second journal article introduces the innovative concept of the "extraterritorial commons" in relation to corporate responsibility, justice, and extraterritorial governance.  It's a much-needed discussion.

...........................

Not only my opinion.  Be Well

Covid-19, Global Economy, Ecosystems, and Circular Economy Strategies

 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921344920304869

Title:  "A critical analysis of the impacts of COVID-19 on the global economy and ecosystems and opportunities for circular economy strategies".

From the journal, Resources, Conservation, & Recycling.

At least read the conclusion.  The whole piece is a good analysis of a crucial situation.

Again, I don't believe that the Circular Economy approach is the full answer to the socio-eco-econ Crisis we're in, but it is popular.  Perhaps it's a good First Step toward a version of Ecological Economics which will truly address the problems of unlimited growth and overconsumption.

..............

Not only my opinion.  Stay Well

In 2020: On the Circular Economy, Infrastructure, and Sustainability

 The two journal articles at the links below give great insights regarding present and future efforts toward a sustainable world.  [Again, sorry about the copy-and-paste-on-another-page links, but I have no control over that.  As far as I know, that's a Google-Blogger-Blogspot glitch.]

............................

1.  Title - "Circular Futures: What Will They Look Like?"

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S092180091931972X

2.  Title - "Infrastructure Is Key to Make Cities Sustainable"

https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/12/20/8308/htm

...........................

I've noticed on Twitter and elsewhere online that some environmental activists don't understand what's taking so long in regard to a shift to sustainability.  They are a bit frustrated.  I'm guessing these are mostly young people.  No offense intended.  As an old man who has been in this and a couple of related fields for many years (starting in 1970), I offer the following.

First, along with many others, I fully recognize that time - relative to the socio-ecological-economic CRISIS we're in - is short.  The pace of research reflects that; the pace of implementation in most areas of the world does not.  There are many reasons as to why.  In my opinion, here are only two of those reasons, as follows.

1.  Changing Spaceship Earth to genuine sustainability requires a major shift in attitudes, ethics, lifestyle, production, and consumption.  Resistance abounds.  Ignorance abounds.  Propaganda abounds.  Overcoming all that requires patience, and most of all, persistence.

2.  One of the biggest obstacles (perhaps THE biggest) is the fact that mega money largely controls politics.  The overwhelming majority of national politicians are selected, groomed, and financed by the Super-Rich Upper Crust.  Surely by now this is common knowledge.  Unfortunately, most of the Super-Rich are faux "Green".  They've more or less been forced to talk the talk, but have little to no interest in anything ecological or sustainable.  They're short-term thinkers.  Until we get big money out of politics, little will change other than the Crisis getting worse and worse.

..................................

Not only my opinion.  Stay Well, & Persist

Preventing the Circular Economy (CE) Concept From Disintegrating

 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921344917302835?dgcid=raven_sd_recommender_email

In the journal article at the link above, the authors maintain that the CE concept may be in danger of collapse due to a lack of agreement among scholars & practitioners as to exactly what it means.  As a result, they say, certain important elements (e.g., social equity, sustainable development) of CE are slighted in planning.  [Keep in mind, this article was published almost three years ago.]

 After a detailed description of the paper's research methods, the article then presents "the first comprehensive and systematic analysis of CE definitions...".  Essentially--- solicited, written, and qualitative definitions of 114 CE terms/elements were coded, analyzed, and quantified.

Section "4. Conclusion" reveals the important results, and should be read by those working with the CE concept.  A few examples of the results follow:

1.  a much needed definition of CE;

2.  the suggestion that some of the authors of the solicited definitions have no idea what CE is really about; and,

3.  some of those authors entirely equate CE with recycling.

.......................................

In my view, the article contributes to reducing the lack of coherence in the CE arena.  I still maintain, though, that CE appears to be solidly wedded to the concept of "unlimited economic growth".  As such, it ignores the role of entropy in the biophysical world, and the common sense observation that Spaceship Earth is finite.  Relying on Julian Simon's contention that human inventiveness and production efficiency will overcome any obstacles is not realistic.  Nevertheless, given current political climates around the world, CE may be a good FIRST STEP (& only that) toward a genuinely sustainable habitat.  But first, CE researchers, policy makers, and practitioners need to cohere on what constitutes the Circular Economy.  If they don't, the concept likely will dissolve, fade away, or become nothing more than circularity for the sake of circularity.

......................................

Not only my opinion.  Be Well

Key question in late 2020: what does a review of Circular Economy research show regarding CE's potential performance re the environment, sustainability, & consumers?

"The narrative of sustainability and circular economy - A longitudinal review of two decades of research", December, 2020---https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921344920303906

"Circularity for circularity's sake? Scoping review of assessment methods for environmental performance in the circular economy", September, 2020---https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2352550920305236

The two journal articles at the links above arguably could be called the "Bible" of the current state of Circular Economy (CE) research and CE's potential performance regarding environmental problems, sustainability, and consumers.  At least, the two articles together are the "short form" of that Bible.  ["Short form" only because they are not book-length.]

If your interest in CE is not particularly in-depth, but still significant, at least read both Abstracts and Conclusions in these articles.

In my view, while the CE concept is popular and somewhat "Green", it's not sufficient in terms of its ecological and bioeconomical characteristics.  Those aspects of CE appear to be not totally lacking, but also not sufficient enough to address the overall Socio-Eco-Crisis that is upon us.

The Circular Economy concept is a young field of research, still evolving.  It may be that as it matures, it will serve as a good first step toward a complex solution to the human predicament.  As it stands now, however, it's not enough.  Currently, it's beginning to look like "circularity for circularity's sake", and not much else.

................................

Not only my opinion.  Be Well

p.s.  Diagram is from the Millennium Alliance for Humanity and the Biosphere (MAHB) at Stanford University.  https://mahb.stanford.edu/

In the EU, "Is this the end of end-of-waste?", re the Circular Economy in 2020

 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921344919305622?dgcid=raven_sd_recommender_email

At the link above, there's a brief review of the status of the end-of-waste policy in the EU.  End-of-waste is a crucial concept in the whole idea of the Circular Economy.  The EU is having a problem with implementation of the concept.  The authors of the article, Johansson and Forsgren, suggest a new approach involving the "space between waste and products".

[NOTE:  I've used this blogger venue for a bit over thirteen years.  Sometimes it allows active links to be posted, and other times the reader (you) has to copy the link here and then manually post it on a new page.  As far as I know, I have no control over which type of link posts here, i.e., an "active" one or a "copy & paste" one.  I suspect that Google only allows active links for those which go to sites owned by Google (e.g., YouTube), but I really don't know.  Point being:  apologies for all the "copy & paste" links in these posts; I can't do anything about it.]

.................................

Happy Trails

"An urgent call for circular economy advocates to acknowledge its limitations in conserving biodiversity"

 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0048969720321185?via%3Dihub

All I have access to is the Abstract... found at the link above.

Below is a graphic from the Abstract---

As mentioned in previous posts, the Circular Economy (CE) concept is fairly popular in various parts of the world.  It's a mistake, however, to think that it's the best ecological approach to solving our multi-faceted Eco-Crisis.  It's not even close to that.  In fact, it's only slightly "greener" than the "circular" concept claimed by neoclassical/neoliberal economics years ago... which wasn't circular at all.

As cited in other article links previously posted on this blog, CE has numerous problems in the ecological arena.  Biodiversity impact is one of them.

In my view, only non-ecologists would believe that Tech innovations and "substitutions" eventually will "decouple" an economy from reliance on natural resources found in highly complex (and irreplaceable) ecosystems.  I imagine it can be done to some limited degree, but not without disastrous impacts on the Mother of all Ecosystems (so to speak), Spaceship Earth.  Such an attempt on a global scale would be folly.

The CE concept is in need of some adjustments, and in need of collaboration with Bioeconomists, Ecologists, and others in similar fields.  A greener version of Neoclassical Economics is not going to save organized human existence on this finite planet.

...............................

Not only my opinion.  Stay Well

The Idea is Simple & Straightforward - The Implementation of it is Monumentally Complex

 Which "Idea"?  Because unlimited growth and overconsumption on finite Spaceship Earth have proven to be incompatible with the long-term surviving and thriving of Life here, we need to make a paradigm shift to Sustainability.

The four journal articles at the links below show part of the reason why that necessary shift cannot be done in one fell swoop.  

.................................

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921800919316982

["Sustainable Development and Populism"  2020

From the Abstract:  This paper contains the first empirical study of the relationship between the SDGs (17 U.N. Sustainable Development Goals) and populism.]

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0959652619316191?dgcid=raven_sd_recommender_email  

["Thinking green, circular, or bio: ...researchers' perspectives on a sustainable economy..."  2019]

From the Abstract:  This study aims at highlighting combinations of sustainability concepts (circular, green, and bioeconomy) which selected researchers have considered priorities...]

https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/11/20/5705/htm

["Bioeconomy Transitions through the Lens of Coupled Social-Ecological Systems..."  2019

From the Abstract:  ...it remains unclear whether bioeconomy transitions in high income countries are sustainable.  In order to fill a gap in bioeconomy sustainability assessments, we apply...]

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0959652617330706

["Circular economy as an essentially contested concept"  2018

From the Abstract:  ...basic assumptions concerning the values, societal structures, cultures, underlying world-views, and the paradigmatic potential of CE remain largely unexplored.]

.......................................

Although time is pressing, implementation of Sustainability will not happen only by "voting", and will require years of persistent work (which has been & is ongoing).  I mention this obvious truism because:  I've noticed in many venues both online and off that some younger activists seem to be getting extremely impatient AND depressed to one degree or another with what they perceive as a lack of progress in the shift to a sustainable path.  Take heart.  Work and progress are happening all around the world.  Yes, we (as aggregate humanity) need a giant step forward relatively quickly.  I think we're on the cusp of it, so hang in there.

........................................

Not only my opinion.  Be Well

"...Promising the radical, delivering the familiar"

A sneak peek at an upcoming November journal article - all I have is the Abstract, which is telling (link below).  It's looking more & more as though the CIRCULAR ECONOMY (CE) concept is not what it's cracked up to be.  At least, at the present time it's not.

So, why is that important?  1)  CE currently is highly popular in academic and governmental policy making circles.  2)  It's being viewed as an ecological solution to the ongoing Eco-Crisis.  3)  It appears to adhere to the neoclassical/neoliberal false belief that increased efficiency and substitutes can ameliorate the negative environmental "externalities" of unlimited economic growth.  4)  It also appears to ignore the impact of entropy regarding economic throughput and recycling.  5)  And finally, it appears to not take seriously enough the existence of biophysical limitations on Spaceship Earth.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0921800920306091

The CE paradigm is in need of a transformative shift which includes abandoning the idea of unlimited growth and overconsumption on a finite planet.  That path has proven to be disastrous.  It's precisely why the world now is seeking an alternative.  Wrapping a Green ribbon around a neoliberal package is not an adequate solution.  The CE model is not Bioeconomics, Ecological Economics, Donut Economics, or Steady State Economics.  It seems to be merely a greener version of neoliberal economics.

In any case, much more dialectical discourse regarding the details of CE needs to occur.  Our lives, our future depend on that process.

....................

Not only my opinion.  Be Well

Validity Challenges: The Circular Economy Concept

Here's the question:  is the current version of the Circular Economy (CE) genuinely transformational, or merely refurbished and presented as CE 3.0?  More to the point:  does it seriously consider socio-ecological problems involving biophysical limitations in the economic sphere?

The answers are not clear at this point, but the articles at the links below examine the questions in great detail.  CE is not yet crystallized, and could go in any one of a few different directions.  More research and dialectical discourse are needed in order to give the concept a final grounding and direction.

 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921344920302354?dgcid=raven_sd_recommender_email#bib0192

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921344917302756

...........................

Not only my opinion.  Stay Well

The Circular Economy: A Few Implementation Methods

 Although I firmly believe Circular Economics does not go far enough in dealing with our ongoing Ecological Crisis - not far enough mainly because the "circular economy" approach still is wedded to unlimited growth - I nevertheless recognize the approach as a step in the right direction.  In that spirit, the links below may provide a valuable insight or two for researchers, policy makers and others.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/earth-and-planetary-sciences/circular-economy  [An overview, and specific implementation methods.]

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921800918306414   ["Circular, Green, and Bio Economy: How Do Companies in Land-Use Intensive Sectors Align with Sustainability Concepts?"]

.................................

Not only my opinion.  Be Well

More In-Depth Assessments of the "Circular Economy"

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921800918317178
and
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921344920302354?dgcid=raven_sd_recommender_email

While the new Circular Economy and Circular Economics are positive steps forward, they - as presently described - appear to be insufficient in terms of addressing our impending / ongoing eco-catastrophe.  Serious problems are present in the current theory, chief of which are as follows.

1.  Circular economics seems to be wedded to the concepts of unlimited growth and overconsumption.  It's a nice package with a "green" ribbon, but appears to continue to ignore the biophysical constraints of the ecosphere.
2.  The theory is not yet definitively constructed.  There are a few different versions of it.

Neoliberal economics, which certainly adheres to unlimited growth & overconsumption and also ignores biophysical constraints, may be at the root of this new theory.  At this point, it's difficult to know whether or not that's true.

If you're really pressed for time, at least read the short Abstracts at the two links above.
.........................
Not only my opinion.  Be Well

Ignoring Uncomfortable Knowledge

Preface

There's a popular term, the "circular economy", making the rounds in the economic arena and in the halls of policy making... especially in Europe, a region in the forefront of the search for sustainability.  Proponents of the circular economy appear to be on the cusp of finalizing a concept which seems to provide a solution to the vexing problem of saving the ecosphere, the technosphere, the economies of the world, and society in general.  As my father used to say, however, "Hold your horses... not yet.".
............................
Uncomfortable Knowledge

While the "circular" economists acknowledge the dependence of the economy on biophysical elements/flows, they simultaneously ignore the fact that those same elements are subject to thermodynamic constraints.  Their solution to any problems encountered is to:  1) "decouple" the economy from natural resources;  and, 2) to rely on technology, human genius, and the magic of the Market to do so.  In part, such thinking is based on the following.

The agricultural "Green Revolution" increased world food production exponentially in the late 1960's.  That was due mostly to the development of high-yielding cereal grain crops, and from the petrochemical industry, the development of synthetic fertilizers, insecticides, and herbicides.

In addition to the concept of entropy, the uncomfortable knowledge being ignored by proponents of the circular economy are the following facts.
1)  Agricultural and urban/suburban runoff of synthetic nitrogen fertilizers has caused massive eutrophication of bodies of fresh water, thus depleting them of oxygen and essentially killing all life in them.
2)  Synthetic pesticide use has had disastrous results over the decades on both nonhuman and human life.
3)  Synthetic fertilizers have caused a significant negative impact on soil structure, resulting in increased soil erosion in many places.

In other words, using the ag green revolution to encourage reliance on technology, human ingenuity, and the Market to solve social-ecological problems is not a good idea.  It totally ignores the downside of that revolution, and all the downside is not even fully known yet.

For a full (& brilliant) discussion of this topic, see this journal article---
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1462901120302033 ,
From elite folk science to the policy legend of the circular economy.
For anyone studying the crisis in economics, it's a must-read.
..............................
Conclusion

It seems to me that mainstream/neoliberal economists are attempting to repackage their economics as even more "circular" than before, and now "green" as well.  The problem is that they're still promoting unlimited growth and overconsumption.  Meanwhile, our life support systems on Spaceship Earth continue to be negatively impacted.  The "new" circular economy being proposed will not stop that.  And by the way, tick-tock.  Time is getting short.
.............................
Not only my opinion.  Stay Well