There's only one way to make the circular economy work: use less stuff.
The Danish Design Center adds a fourth leg to the concept.
The circular economy, as promoted by the Ellen MacArthur Foundation, is “a systems solution framework that tackles global challenges like climate change, biodiversity loss, waste, and pollution.” According to the Foundation, It all starts with design:
By shifting our mindset, we can treat waste as a design flaw. In a circular economy, a specification for any design is that the materials re-enter the economy at the end of their use. By doing this, we take the linear take-make-waste system and make it circular. Many products could be circulated by being maintained, shared, reused, repaired, refurbished, remanufactured, and, as a last resort, recycled. Food and other biological materials that are safe to return to nature can regenerate the land, fuelling the production of new food and materials. With a focus on design, we can eliminate the concept of waste.
I always liked this paragraph, but then I always say everything starts with design. However, the Danish Design Center takes a more sophisticated view in an important article, Debunking Misconceptions on Circular Economy. The authors, Therese Balslev, Julie Hjort, and Andreas Korntved Mortensen, note that design has to evolve.
They restate some of the critiques of the Circular Economy, starting with the critical point that A fully circular economy is impossible because of the Second Law of Thermodynamics, “which states that spontaneous processes tend to move toward greater disorder and randomness-” it takes work to stay circular. They note that it needs new materials and resources:
“In the context of a circular economy, it means that an entirely closed-loop system, even one that recycles, reuses, remanufactures, and refurbishes everything, can still result in excessive resource depletion, pollution, and waste generation as long as it is driven by growth.”
I wish they had written this article a year ago because they did it so well; I would have quoted them in my upcoming book, The Story of Upfront Carbon, from New Society Publishers. I write that the only way to build a circular economy is to use less stuff:
“The circular economy cannot exist in a growing economy; it just takes too much to run. It wants to stay linear because that is how the universe works: things break down to lower energy, disorder, and waste. The only thing we can do is slow down the process; as Jouni Korhonen notes, “the second law of thermodynamics means that every circular economy-type process or project should be carefully analyzed for its global net environmental sustainability contribution. A cyclic flow does not secure a sustainable outcome.” We must make choices, use less, design for repairability and reuse, and stop pretending that recycling is circular; the recycling industry has just co-opted the term.”
The DDC also discusses misconceptions, the first being that the “Circular Economy is all about recycling.” This is a big problem that starts with the Ellen MacArthur Foundation itself, with their fantasy that we can twist the plastics and petrochemical industry into a circle. A few years ago, I went so far as to suggest that the Plastics Industry Is Hijacking the Circular Economy: “This sham of a circular economy is just another way to continue the status quo, with some more expensive reprocessing.” Joel Makower says the same thing, noting that the industry’s claims are a “circular firing squad” that "enables these companies to continue business as usual rather than reducing demand for plastic." The DDC is more explicit:
“We recognize businesses’ tendency to pursue business as usual under the guise of a circular economy, making the circular economy a dangerous excuse for greenwashing.”
The three principles of the Circular Economy, as set out by the MacArthur Foundation, are interpreted by the DDC:
Eliminate waste and pollution
Circulate products and materials (at their highest value)
Regenerate nature.
The DDC concludes that we need a fourth:
4) Redefine a meaningful life with less consumption.
“As the national center for design, we take the critique of the circular economy seriously and are forced to question and challenge the role of design. Therefore, we work to increase the awareness around the fact that we cannot design ourselves out of the problem of the linear economy merely by designing better and more sustainable products as alternatives to the products today. We must design for a systemic shift.
In this transition to a circular society, design skills must therefore be applied to make the circular choice intriguing, relevant, easy, and irresistible – and often, the circular choice means not buying something new, holding on to products for a more extended period, taking better care of products and materials, repairing and sharing instead of owning.”
I was so excited to read this because it is a major point of my new book- good (“intriguing, relevant, easy, and irresistible”) design is key to a life of sufficiency, of enough. They never use the radioactive D-word (degrowth), but it is implicit in their fourth principle.
We can’t go circular without reduced consumption. I write that “we now live in a world where we drive cars powered by fossil fuels to buy food wrapped in single-use plastics, then to the mall to buy polyester socks that are too cheap to repair and fast-fashion clothing that for many people is too cheap even to wash, all shipped over from Asia in ships powered by dirty residual fossil fuels that are alone responsible for 3 percent of global emissions.” The entire point is to be linear and consume as much as possible. The DDC rejects this and writes:
“A fundamental change in consumer behavior, as well as business models (coupled with supporting legislation), is needed in the steps toward a circular and even regenerative economy. At DDC, we acknowledge that the most credible way to reduce humanity’s environmental impact and stay within the planetary boundaries involves a fundamental reduction of energy and material use, particularly in developed countries like Denmark. In this context, the concept of a circular economy is a crucial step on the way, but only insofar it is not pursued within a growth-driven economy alone.”
The Ellen MacArthur Foundation says, “With a focus on design, we can eliminate the concept of waste.” But we also have to focus on using less stuff and on the DDC’s proposed fourth principle. As the DDC notes,
“We are mindful that the circular economy can easily be misunderstood and potentially misused. Highlighting the circular economy as a systemic, societal transition that demands a radical change in our consumption patterns is therefore crucial to our work.”
This is the harsh truth of the circular economy; we can’t just design or recycle our way out of this problem; we have to change how we live.
The Danish Design Center did a fabulous job here of looking at the fundamental problems with the Circular Economy and added the critical fourth leg that might make it actually work.
Read it all here and watch the video.
The DDC notes: “The top priority in the waste hierarchy is prevention, and the most impactful R-strategy to apply is “Refuse.” Another R-strategy we recently discussed that is relevant to this discussion is “recircle.”
"Have less, do less, be less"
Unless, of course, you're one of the beautiful Davos people as they fly hundreds of private jets munching on Waygu beef and other exotics.
No flying, no cars, and only 3 new articles of clothing a year. And bugs - and I bet those will get rationed as well.
Enforced rationing will ensure the "be less" bit.
We are in the process of having to dispose of many of the furnishing of both my Mum & my Mother-in-law. These were all "quality" built to last, some antiques, mostly 60's & 70's traditional / contemporary. As there's not a single Mid Century Modern item, few buyers & even thrift shops saying "no thanks" sadly most items will not have a 2nd or 3rd life but will end up in landfill.