by Roy Hathaway
Defra Resources Minister Dan Rogerson drew a lot of criticism when he said, at the CIWM/ESA conference in June, that a completely circular economy was neither achievable nor desirable.
It was the second adjective which produced the most surprise and dissent. Pressed to explain his view, the minister argued that there comes a point of diminishing returns when the cost of trying to recover additional material for recycling would outweigh the benefits from doing so – whether in terms of energy use, CO2 emissions, other environmental damage, and/or money.
Predictably this did not go down well with an audience that sees a circular economy as the Holy Grail and regards any expression of doubt about its quest as the equivalent of proclaiming belief in a flat earth.
But rather than dismissing the Minister’s remarks as merely evidence of Defra’s lack of ambition in this policy area, it is worth taking a step back and asking ourselves whether he has a point. Is a circular economy achievable? And irrespective of its achievability, is it desirable?
Squaring the circular
To many in the waste and resources sector, the mantra that “waste is a failure of design” says it all. If we just design our products better, then – it is argued – there will be no waste. Everything we make or use will last longer, be re-used a number of times, and will eventually be dismantled and re-manufactured without any waste arising, and – just as importantly – without requiring the use of any additional virgin raw materials.
This is a great vision and one to which we can and certainly should aspire, at least for many manufactured goods such as electronics and vehicles and perhaps buildings and clothing. Although we are a long way from achieving this now, movement in that direction would undoubtedly bring many economic and environmental benefits.
But a moment’s reflection suggests that this model will not hold true for many other products. What about unavoidable food waste, for example? Can we (or should we even want to) “design out” banana skins or potato peelings? Of course we can recover banana skins into fertiliser and energy, but can we stop unavoidable food waste from contaminating other discarded materials and so helping to perpetuate the existence of residual waste?
How about paper production? After paper has been recycled seven times, the fibres are no longer suitable for further recycling. Virtually all paper products are produced with a mixture of virgin pulp as well as recycled material. Perhaps this doesn’t matter if paper usage continues to decline, and if we use sustainable forestry to source the virgin pulp through a renewable source of primary raw material.
And what about mercury, or asbestos? The argument is that, in time, technology will be developed that will allow hazardous or difficult wastes, which currently have to be disposed of or contained rather than recycled, to instead be designed out or become treatable by new methods. But with so much “legacy” waste already in existence we will be dealing with these dangerous materials for a very long time.
It is interesting to note that the European Commission’s recent proposals on the circular economy and waste legislation aim for a 70% recycling rate, and are rightly regarded as “ambitious”. Annex 1 of the Commission’s Impact Assessment states that the remaining 30% of waste generated “…broadly corresponds to the concept of ‘not recyclable’ waste on the basis of the experience of the most advanced Member States/regions.” The Commission evidently doesn’t believe it will be possible to recycle all waste, let alone design it out altogether, this side of 2030.
So is a fully circular economy achievable? Probably not. Does that mean it’s not worth striving for? Not at all. We have a very long way to go before we come up against the limits of what is achievable, and we can make huge economic and environmental gains on the journey.
Material desires
Surely a circular economy is desirable, even if it is not fully achievable? Wouldn’t an ideal world include a circular economy? Isn’t it just another way of saying that we want to live sustainably, using only one planet’s worth of resources rather than three, and bequeath the world to future generations in good shape? What’s not to like?
Wasteful design: do banana skins represent the inevitability of a circular economy slipping up? Photo by Simon Speed, via Wikimedia Commons
However, might Dan Rogerson have a point when he says that there are instances when trying to be circular can be counter-productive? Going after every last bit of recycling in the waste stream could be too expensive relative to the value of the material to be recovered – you reach a point when the marginal cost of trying to recycle a bit more becomes prohibitive.
His argument assumes that prices are static and that the current combination of taxation, incentives and regulation, which govern the economics, cannot be changed. In practice, of course, government (in the broadest sense) can make re-use more attractive, or disposal costs prohibitive, or even ban some disposal routes altogether, and so move waste up the hierarchy or even out of existence. It has been doing so for a number of years: the current waste market, and the modern waste industry, has been created in response to regulation, mostly from Europe. So if the minister’s view is that a circular economy is not desirable because the economics do not stack up, then one could respond that it is the economic and regulatory landscape should be changed so that they really do support the top of the waste hierarchy and the circular economy.
The minister’s counter-argument might be that by intervening in that way, government would impose higher aggregate costs on waste producers and depress the productive economy. On this view, the overall cost of fixing the policy landscape in favour of a circular economy, in terms of lost growth, output and jobs across the economy as a whole, would be higher than the benefits a more circular economy would bring. The task of deciding who’s right in this debate is one I’ll leave to fully qualified economists.
Force failed
Perhaps the minister believes market forces will produce a circular economy on their own, without the need for government intervention. That might occur if demand for resources grows faster than supply can match, leading to higher raw material prices. Gradually it would then become cheaper and economically more beneficial to exploit secondary resources and move further towards a circular economy. I wonder. Despite all the talk of resource scarcity, my hunch is that we could wait a very long time – perhaps forever – for untrammelled markets to solve our resource management problems for us.
It is more difficult to evaluate the argument that striving for a fully circular economy could result in environmental dis-benefits such as excessive energy use, extra greenhouse gas emissions, or other pollution. As a general rule, recovery of secondary raw materials is environmentally preferable to use of primary raw materials, although the logic becomes more complex in the case of renewable resources such as wood. Again, this issue merits further investigation.
Dan Rogerson may be right when he says that a fully circular economy is not achievable, at least for the foreseeable future. But that does not mean that we should not strive to move in that direction so far and as fast as we can.
His argument that the circular economy is not desirable is harder to sustain, unless one takes the current economic and regulatory framework as a given. If the current policy environment is incompatible with a circular economy and the waste hierarchy, one might hope the Resources Minister would see this as an argument for policy change, not for abandoning the goal of maximising resource efficiency. Provided that the change can be shown to benefit society as a whole, not just for the resource management sector, there is a clear role for government leadership, at both European and national level, to set the necessary fiscal and social incentives in place. Market forces are unlikely to deliver anything approaching a circular economy on their own.
Like other Isonomia authors, Roy writes in a personal capacity. The views above do not necessarily reflect those of the Environmental Services Association.
I agree with the previous comment that opinion-formers in the English government clearly believe that the concept of the circular economy is one that threatens economic growth, in the traditional GDP sense. SPADs with a traditional world view have yet to be convinced that the green economy is one that offers social, environmental AND economic benefits – as evidenced by the coalition’s determination to pursue an old-school fossil fuel energy strategy.
It is surely, therefore, our industry’s collective responsibly to demonstrate that the circular economy, or resource efficiency if a less controversial term, can deliver against all three measures. This should be relatively easily done in a country that has lost the vast majority of its productive capacity. Surely circularity could help us combat our unsustainable trade deficit, provide new jobs domestically and benefit the environment, for example by reducing the need for primary extraction?
Hiding behind a false concern that the circular economy is ultimately 100% unachievable is pretty desperate when we are so, so far away from even approaching that barrier, as Phillip Ward has pointed out in his comment.
I agree with you 100%.
It’s very similar to perpetual motion. We know it’s impossible but there is definitely room to work towards it and gains to be made. Hence the Newton’s Cradle…
Great gains can and will be made witha circular approach but he is correct whee says it’s not achievable.
As for desirable… corporate greed will always intervene. And as others have pointed out, it needs to be rolled out across the whole economy a not just waste management.
Interesting article. I don’t think we can ever achieve a 100% circular economy, due to entropy if nothing else (Ellen MacArthur said as much), but if we want to continue consuming at the rate that we do, then I feel it is the best model out there. I think Dan Rogerson was trying to be pragmatic, but I also think there is confusion over the precise usefulness of recycling in relation to the circular economy; in many ways it prevents us from achieving the tighter circles that are needed around repair and product/material durability. How do we unlock that conundrum given that our infrastructure and systems currently align themselves with materials recovery foremost?
I would also like to add that the circular economy is geared towards continued industrial growth, it benefits business, and does nothing to confront our never-ending desire for consumption. We will still probably end up consuming ourselves to death, just on weaker and more complex material compositions. I wrote a short blog about it here http://www.greendipped.net/2014/08/shared-consumption-where-real-smash-up.html?spref=tw
Couple of quick points to add from our sector’s perspective on the circular economy –
1/ Circular Economy cuts across society and more directly is related to consumerism, and needs to addressed in the generalist sense, not by waste and recycling specialists alone.
2/ Broader society is looking at this and is involved in the Circular Economy even if the term has no meaning to them yet. Retailers and manufacturers are embracing and are involved in activities that could be termed CE, and we in the social economy Reuse sector, I would say, are the closest you’ve got to a visible and buoyant part of CE especially where product lifecycle and lifespan are concerned. Not everyone works to or should I say is governed by strict free-market principles.
I’m disappointed that Roy uses the terms “circular economy” and “recycling” interchangeably (in the paragraph after the banana). The whole point is that in the circular economy products are designed to be easily dismantled and the constituent parts used again. So the law of diminishing returns that we have to deal with in the recycling world doesn’t apply. If we don’t desire this approach, it means we are happy to continue destroying those parts of the world from where our raw materials are taken. That is the opposite of equity, and therefore contrary to any sort of sustainability.
And to say that banana peel is a waste in the same category is clearly wrong, since it epitomises the circular economy. It’s like saying a cherry tree is wasteful (pace Braungart & McDonough).
Thanks Deborah. I appreciate there is more to a circular economy than recycling but I believe recycling is a big part of the circular economy. My point was that there is unavoidable waste which can’t be designed out. Banana skins are waste and those which can’t be home composted have to be collected and recycled in other ways, not designed out.
The whole point about the circular economy is that it changes the focus.
Our current market model is BUILT on waste; items fail or are superseded and replacements can then be sold. Long-lasting items or technology that is stable do not give the market movement that is expected. Look at the ‘failure’ of the stainless steel razor blade that never needed to be replaced.
The circular economy is as much an aim and a mindset as it is a destination. Discussing whether we will ever ‘fully arrive’ is missing the point entirely!
Agree Andy, the journey is worthwhile in itself as we have a long way to go before we need to worry about the limits of circularity
I fully agree with Roy Hathaway, who puts circular economy in a rift and realistic perspective.The cycle philosophy makes school. Circular economy is “trending topic.” That does not mean that the transition from the linear to a circular economic system is a simple process. Realize policy makers and politicians that question? In newspapers and magazines, after all, regularly appear optimistic messages, comments and opinions on the upcoming transition to a real, sometimes even complete circular economy. The desire is apparently the father of the idea, also within the European Commission, which not long ago stood for a juxtaposition of recycling and incineration. ‘Brussels’ recently reported higher ambitions in the promotion of circular economy. In 2030,the average recycling rate should be 70%. In the same year, in Europe a general landfill ban should take effect. Indeed, the political support for circular economy seems growing, also in the European Parliament, which already in 2007 and 2008 took the lead in the tightening of the Waste Framework Directive. But the question remains indeed whether a complete transition from a linear to a circular model is feasible. The finiteness of materials, components and products differ greatly. Moreover, globalization plays an important role, and the free market has its own c the finiteness of materials, components and products differ greatly onditions. The often advocated transition to a ‘lease society’ is possible within some areas, but encounters elsewhere practical difficulties. Added to that the freedom of choice for consumers, and it is clear that not every citizen will waive his right on ownership, whereas producers will claim their assigned responsibilities. Will circular economy not be an empty concept nor a magic formula, much remains to be done in almost all fields: basic and applied scientific research, design and production of (new) materials and products, development of management tools and not at the last place knowledge about all that society needs to function. Without prevention, reuse and recycling circular economy will not leave the ground. Also ‘down-cycling’ should be prevented as much as possible. Furthermore, the emphasis on bio-based economy – for many people the starting point for natural cycles – demands an open eye for the tension with the food issue. The unequal distribution of global wealth is frequently overlooked in discussions on circular economy. The folder with homework for all supporters of the circular economy – who is not actually – is well filled.
Interesting article asking relevant questions. I would say a banana peel and potatoe peels aren’t wasteful designs, they are meant to decompose and we are composting them. Collection of that waste is another story. I guess this is when efficiencies come in. How much GHGe will get generated from landfilling food waste vs how much will be generated if composted (and through which system)? Wasteful design is a slap on the face to society, and a wasteful design includes selling recyclable products in a place where the market isn’t set up to recirculate those items. i.e. Soda bottles in rural Latin America.
I agree with Roy in terms of not being able to achieve full circularity in the foreseeable future, the alternatives are not coming up fast enough, and pyrolysis and gasification, for me, are short term solutions, since they are fixing the mindset of “i’ll design it with the minimal amount of readily available resources and let somebody else deal with the waste problem”. And yes, we need both market and policy shifts, but it will not happen without the majority of people wanting it. So let’s keep raising awareness and figuring out better ways to go about this!
I do worry about Dan Rogerson. By all accounts he is a nice enough person, but he either doesn’t get it or he needs much better PR advice. As Roy says, he should be leading – setting the vision, defining long to medium term goals, and adjusting the policy environment as necessary. Instead he is behaving like an official worrying about delivery. Of course, in the current state of knowledge and market conditions, it is easy to argue that a fully circular economy may be technically too difficult or too expensive but no-one is arguing that we can move swiftly from a linear to a circular model overnight. What we need is a sense of direction and an increase in tempo. There is plenty of scope for that. When we get near to the boundaries we can worry about how far we can go. But it will look different then. Twenty years ago the orthodoxy was that food waste and plastics were not technically or economically recyclable. We have a different view now.
Within the relatively small world of resource management, the term circular economy has great currency. In the wider economy and society this is not yet the case. There are many who do not understand it and are instinctively suspicious of it, coming as they do from a free market perspective. If we continue to be absolutist about the term, we will find it so much harder to win these people over and make the progress we in this arena want to. THAT is why Ministers cannot commit to a circular economy at any cost. But it amazes me still that so many people who should welcome the strong supportive statements from Mr Rogerson instead focus on the elements of realism that Minister MUST include in such things, and choose to emphasise these in a negative light. How does that help move the debate forward?
Colin – your response to me suggests that Dan Rogerson does get it, it which case he needs better PR advice. Given that he has also said that he is looking to industry to do the heavy lifting in this policy area surely his message should be – this is a very interesting concept with good evidence of major benefits to UK business – I encourage them to take this seriously and see how far and how fast they can sensibly go towards this different approach to resource management and I will do what I can to create a supportive regulatory environment.
Taking time out to identify materials that need to be retired from use or for which a circular solution is not yet apparent, does not inject a note of realism, it sends the signal that the concept is flawed and it is therefore OK for sceptics to ignore it.
At last a rational attempt to understand what Mr Rogerson meant!
Clearly, too many in the sector have set out to lampoon Rogerson’s words without recognising the point – I should have thought quite uncontroversial – about diminishing returns. But I have sympathy with Phillip’s point below – is the quite distant risk of over-circularity one that most needs warning against when there remains so much that could cost-effectively be done to take us away from linear resource models?