BY: TYLER FYFE
In nature, the earth is both a starting block and a finish line. So what if we thought about our factories the same way?
Behold the most basic explanation of a circular economy. Imagine if instead of modern societies taking a linear view of consumption, one that begins in a storefront and ends in a landfill, we turned our model into a circle, where products were created with the intention of being disassembled and recycled into other products, packaging and materials were biodegradable and could be used to grow more stuff, and products that couldn’t be composted were simply melted down. The bottom line is a world where products are also resources.
Photo By: Connie Zhou
For years the Ellen Macarthur Foundation has been working to popularize the idea, after it was first dreamed up by John T. Lyle and Walter Stahel in the 1970s. And it’s catching on for good reason—it makes both environmental and commercial sense. Recently Google became a global partner, joining the likes of Cisco, Unilever, Kingfisher, Philips and Renault. This is good news, because with the massive influence multinational corporations have over the global economy, they can incite a mass migration of business models faster than the dragging feet of governments.
The circular economy goes beyond just recycling by designing a restorative model where eliminating waste is the foundation of the design.
Besides ensuring that plastic, silicon and chemical waste don’t end up in landfills or water systems, The Guardian reports that a transition to a circular economy could create 100,000 jobs in the next five years and add $1 trillion to the global economy by 2025. In the EU alone, manufacturers could save up to 630 million dollars annually.
Photo By: Connie Zhou
Transitioning to circularity would call for a drastic change to the economic and cultural foundation of capitalism—obsolescence. Planned obsolescence is the driving force of market consumption whereby wants are promoted as needs. These false needs are done through subconscious marketing tactics that associate material objects with emotions. These trends of mass emotional marketing are the reason why 80% of products end up in the garbage within the first six months of their life. While a circular economy wouldn’t entirely end emotions and materials being synonymous in the eyes of advertisers, it would end the incentive on manufacturers to produce massive amounts of waste for long-term profit and consumers for short-term enjoyment.
But if we are to embrace the circular economy as a practical solution to the increasing environmental stresses of overpopulation, it calls for a change in the way we think about ownership in general. Likely, products would not be owned absolutely by individuals, but rather licensed from manufacturers for the products’ life. While this might seem sinister on the surface, nothing would really change. Your cellphone would still be your cellphone, but when it stopped working you would be responsible for shipping it back to the manufacturer instead of being able to make the irresponsible choice to throw it in the wastebasket. There would likely be a financial incentive to participate, and because less resources were wasted by manufacturers, commodity prices would stabilize in addition to zero toxic waste ending up in the environment.
Photo By: Connie Zhou
When the world’s digital leader—heading global initiatives like Google Books and Google Street View—gets on board, it represents a huge step forward for a future where waste isn’t another word for garbage, but a word that’s synonymous with “resources” or “energy.” A circular economy could be the key to making both environmentalists and corporations happy.
Image sourcing: conniezhou.com
