Circular Economy & Recycling & e-Waste

[psionl0]

Investment certainly can contribute to growth (seems to me that's a good thing, but that's a separate question).

But is it good for the planet?

But consider a world in which debt facilitates additional production. The lenders receive more than they lent, and then eat the excess leaving just enough to lend out again next year. Next year debt begins at exactly the same level as it did this year.

This assumes a closed economy where all of the interest payments find their way back into circulation again. The idea that the lenders "eat the excess leaving just enough to lend out again next year" is idealistic. There are more ways to accumulate and consume wealth than just stuffing it down your throat.

In an open economy where at least some of the interest payments disappear down a black hole, debt will rise exponentially as long as businesses are able to increase production and find consumers for their product.

 

[Startz]

In this case, the lender accumulates more wealth, which he will lend to another farmer, increasing his need to produce.

But is it good for the planet?


This assumes a closed economy where all of the interest payments find their way back into circulation again. The idea that the lenders "eat the excess leaving just enough to lend out again next year" is idealistic. There are more ways to accumulate and consume wealth than just stuffing it down your throat.

In an open economy where at least some of the interest payments disappear down a black hole, debt will rise exponentially as long as businesses are able to increase production and find consumers for their product.

Ah, maybe we don't disagree that much. Certainly, most modern economies do grow.

The "Is it good for the planet" part is a different question...probably the most critical question we face.

 

[psionl0]

Ah, maybe we don't disagree that much. Certainly, most modern economies do grow.

I should hope not. Otherwise, I would have to stop looking forward to your posts.

The "Is it good for the planet" part is a different question...probably the most critical question we face.

That seems to be the topic of this thread. Can we have an economy where individuals re-use and recycle instead of consume and discard?

 

[8enotto]

There is a point of balance. Joe Sixpack won't be harvesting gold off circuit boards in his back yard. He may be keeping and old truck or tractor alive as long as possible but then he is not in a position to be buying a new truck every four years to haul firewood.

Each product dictates it's own useful life span, a farm tractor is decades and a phone about two years.

Unless a fool like me comes along and seeks five year old phones because I get old models from top brands at new off brand base model prices, or less.

But one of me isn't going to offset the thousands of others that do change phones about yearly.

Cars barely run two days after the warranty expires now so that is factory designed to ensure one buys a new car. Old ones won't pass smog and the used market is thinner than decades passed.

Laws won't even let you drive a seven year old car in some major cities now. Even if it passes smog.
Older cars get recycled in greater numbers with laws like that, and new car sales are boosted.

The challenge is finding that point of balance for new goods to sell and to get old stuff either a secondary use or back to raw materials in a cost effective manner.

 

[Orphia Nay]

We have more than enough people to produce food, cars, clothes (as is evident by the wasted new products, food waste, and landfill).

Technology means everything is becoming more efficient and productive: energy, agriculture, recycling, sustainability, design, food distribution.

Design efficient things that last. (Cars, phones).

More productivity and efficiency (circular economy) of food and things and medical treatment (and stable population growth> better distribution > UBI or Universal Basic Needs.

UBN.

Disclaimer: better politics and oversight required too, to avoid Soviet food lines e.g.

 

[psionl0]

Disclaimer: better politics and oversight required too, to avoid Soviet food lines e.g.

That's the rub. Until we have an economic system that doesn't mandate mindless consumption, all that you have posted will be just a dream.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

I want Machines managing our economy.

 

[Cheetah]

Not those, these.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

Not those, these.

What kind of Superintelligences do you usually have here?

Oh, we got both kinds, Minds and Machines.​

 

[Orphia Nay]

That's the rub. Until we have an economic system that doesn't mandate mindless consumption, all that you have posted will be just a dream.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/jun/10/uk-obsessing-gdp-wellbeing-new-zealand

"Yet last week, New Zealand broke new ground by eschewing GDP in favour of wellbeing as a guiding indicator when setting budgets and assessing government policy. Bids to the Treasury for money from now on will not only need a cost-benefit analysis, but an assessment of their wellbeing impact. Decisions about spending will be made on the basis of a project’s contribution to the wellbeing of the population, measured through four dimensions: human capital; social capital; natural capital; and financial and physical capital. It follows the Welsh government’s innovative Well-being of Future Generations Act, which places a legal requirement on public bodies in Wales to think about the long-term social, cultural, environmental and economic wellbeing impact of their decisions."

See also Bhutan's "Gross National Happiness".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gross_National_Happiness

"While Harvey remains “hopeful” about the government’s commitment to helping the country’s most vulnerable people, he remains concerned that structural change – such as the introduction of a capital gains tax – have been ruled out by Ardern.

“I agree with putting money into a wellbeing budget but they are periphery things,” says Harvey. “This country is run by the rich to exploit the poor and lets face it, and say it, and plan for it.”

Robertson admits inter-generational transformation will take decades, but the building blocks of changing New Zealanders lives from the bottom up have now been put in place."

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2...ealanders-cautiously-welcome-wellbeing-budget


I think we're in a period of transition towards my "dream".

It could all happen eventually by happening gradually, and in fact, it does seem to be.

I remember my father with his head in his hands when he first heard David Suzuki tell the world about the need to recycle plastic and paper, in 1986.

I remember when our suburban recycling collection began in 1988.

This week, I've bought recyclable food packaging, and biodegradable sticky tape, pen, and document wallets. I've signed up to be notified about new stock of compostable shoes. My father wouldn't have believed that.

I've been reading a lot about the boom in recycling/sustainable industry and manufacturing.

There's your economic growth (at least for now) until the dream takes greater shape.

 

[Orphia Nay]

https://businessfinland.fi/en/whats...vironment-underpins-circular-economy-success/

"These are exciting times in the development of the circular economy in Finland. As the first country in the world to publish national road maps for the circular economy and plastics, Finland has resolutely signalled its commitment to a more sustainable future – aiming be a global circular economy leader by 2025. Now the ambition is starting to turn into reality as many Finnish companies, cities and municipalities, research institutions, universities and schools are increasingly engaged in the circular economy transformation."

"Finland's growing circular economy is constantly creating new business opportunities. The Finnish Innovation Fund Sitra estimates that Finland's circular economy can generate EUR 2–3 billion in added value each year by 2030. According to Sitra, Finnish expertise in digitalization, artificial intelligence and robotics will also contribute to making the circular economy more efficient.

"Today only 1% of municipal waste in Finland ends up in a landfill site and about 90% of beverage packaging is recycled."

 

[Francesca R]

In spite of the buzzword "economy", this article does not address the fundamental weakness of the economic system. It can only function if there is endless exponential growth.

Presumably you mean positive growth rate which can be constant. That does indeed mean that the level of output/income would be an exponential function of time ("log linear trend")

Similarly, although the article expounds on the virtues of re-use and recycling, it does not establish a link between that and increased consumption.

Conditions for a log-linear trend of output versus time do not include waste per se, it does not have to exist. In the calculation of GDP (which is by no means complete) waste is assumed to be consumed and to have positive value (because people pay for it) whereas in reality they capture nothing from it, so there is no separate waste term in the equation. From that perspective it is internalised. However the likely negative external cost of waste is not measured and so GDP is biased upwards as a result of this. But if it was internalised such as through regulation growth could still continue, though it might be slower.

 

[Francesca R]

True, current economic models need constant growth, but we can pick growth of what.
Eco-friendliness could just as easily be the benchmark as revenue.

Revenue isn't really a benchmark, return after accounting for the cost of capital is.

"Eco friendliness" as a unit would seem to require that its benefit can be privately captured and that this exceeds the dollar-cost of supplying it in the first place. A significant difficulty with that is that eco-friendliness is usually a public good.

 

[Francesca R]

I'm trying to understand why quite a few people here think that an economy with investments necessarily requires some kind of unsustainable growth.

Classical economists would believe that any and all growth is unsustainable and would be snuffed out by a population explosion each time. But since there are likely very few who actually believe that, calling for persistent growth, even exponential growth of output versus time, is not necessarily asking for anything unsustainable.

 

[Francesca R]

Technology means everything is becoming more efficient and productive: energy, agriculture, recycling, sustainability, design, food distribution.

Tech can also be disruptive and cause stuff not to last so long all by itself, because it becomes obsolete and its hard to future-proof things even if you wanted to. My 2006 ipod still works fine--seems it was actually "built to last"--except it has been completely cannibalised by phones/spotify etc so it is rather useless. My 2010 ipad won't run anything at all even though there is no wear and tear on the gadget except the battery.

As I said in another response if you can convince people to pay for the cost of shortened life for stuff and that is the only waste there is, then it isn't actually formally a waste and there is no system-wide loss. However that isn't the only waste there is and sustainability is about negative costs that nobody privately pays for and that therefore approximately nobody has a private incentive to cure (until it's "too late").

Innovations can also tackle one problem but create others, the agriculture green revolution doubled crop yields (which is efficient in my book) but trebled water use to get it (which is inefficient when water isn't free/valueless)

 

[Loss Leader]

I read a book where the author traveled to China and lived with a family that pulls rare metals out of junked (recycled) electronics. Both the father and young child worked all day in piles of metals in basically poverty conditions (abject, by US standards), and they were exposed to all manner of toxins.

Recycling can be good for the economy - but it has a very human cost that isn't being priced into the system. Like all grey market problems, there is no easy answer. If we demand propper pay and safety for these workers, the business will just flow somewhere else and they won't have jobs at all. At the same time, our lifestyles are largely built upon a mountain of human misery.

 

[Francesca R]

See also Bhutan's "Gross National Happiness".

Pure utilitarianism can be as unequal and un-egalitarian as economic growth, and this is one of the criticisms of it. Unless of course "less inequality" is deliberately deemed to be a desideratum of national happiness which it probably is in some cases.

But then for it to work as a driver of activity, it needs to be possible to privately obtain benefits from it that exceed the cost of supplying it. Otherwise we're back to it being mandated by regulation or law which probably works a bit but faces a lot of hazards

 

[Francesca R]

I've heard that claim before. For thousands of years, farmers invested every spring and reaped every fall. No growth, no calamity.

(PS I think the calamities were when the harvest failed some autumns; no food and debt default to boot)

 

[Orphia Nay]

Tech can also be disruptive and cause stuff not to last so long all by itself, because it becomes obsolete and its hard to future-proof things even if you wanted to.

True, but we can make things that don't last long last longer, thus reducing the energy required to re-use the materials.

My 2010 ipad won't run anything at all even though there is no wear and tear on the gadget except the battery.

Hahaha, yep, I gave up trying to use mine for the internet a few years ago. Last I know it was OK for casting to a TV.

As I said in another response if you can convince people to pay for the cost of shortened life for stuff and that is the only waste there is, then it isn't actually formally a waste and there is no system-wide loss. However that isn't the only waste there is and sustainability is about negative costs that nobody privately pays for and that therefore approximately nobody has a private incentive to cure (until it's "too late").

Just today on Facebook, I've seen a couple of people in Africa say they recycle everything in their country, and don't buy new things, and yet here they are, having free time on the internet (of things).

Innovations can also tackle one problem but create others, the agriculture green revolution doubled crop yields (which is efficient in my book) but trebled water use to get it (which is inefficient when water isn't free/valueless)

Not getting into the Green Revolution vs Organic debate, which is pretty much in the past anyway, as "conventional" becomes more sustainable, and "organic" becomes harder to define.


I can't tell from your replies - do you think we are in transition towards an eventually almost-circular economy, less growth-based capitalism, and away from plutocracy?


I don't think we've gone down the road yet in this thread about government/law.

I've been watching videos with Jeremy Rifkin and about his The Third Industrial Revolution and The Zero Marginal Cost Society.

He seems to be the visionary that outlined the blueprint for the EU and countries like Finland to be 100% no landfill by 2025.

I'm not sure who the visionary is for the future form of laws and government, though I've seen mention on that topic of "The Collaborist Era", and I think that hinted likening it to music/video streaming, copyleft, open source, green energy networks, compared to the top-down directed mega-corporations and coal powered state energy.

The answer may emerge out of networking.


I'm enjoying this discussion a great deal. Really happy to have you participate.

 

[Francesca R]

I can't tell from your replies - do you think we are in transition towards an eventually almost-circular economy, less growth-based capitalism, and away from plutocracy?

I don't think I have a position on that. But I would be fairly certain that "almost circular" which is an extreme would probably be net wasteful and so not optimal or efficient. Also environmentalists are not immune from neglecting to include some costs in the assessment of their actions (for example if you have to wash out a small glass container extensively in order to pop it into the recycle collection it may be better to save the water and throw it away)