The transition from a linear to a circular economy is commonly assumed to involve incremental steps, modifying existing industry and business practices—reducing, reusing, recycling. This paper questions whether these incremental adjustments to the status quo can lead to a zero-waste economy or if, instead, a paradigm shift is required to an altogether different economic system. It is argued that without a clear vision—describing the characteristics of a 100% circular, zero waste economy—one cannot be certain that any actions, however well intentioned, will assist in achieving the intended outcome of a truly circular economy (CE). After contrasting incremental strategies with paradigm shifts, the justification for transitioning from a linear to a circular economy is examined. While acknowledging that not all advocates for a circular economy do so as a means of achieving sustainability outcomes, this is the author’s objective. In this instance, the goal of 100% circularity would correspond with achieving the 17 UN Sustainable Development Goals—including a world with no hunger (SDG2), clean water (SDG7), and clean energy (SDG8) for all people living in sustainable cities and communities (SDG11). The sustainability mantra ‘think global, act local’ could then be translated into a vision for the future that is structured as a global network of local circular economies, forming a sustainable pattern of production and consumption (SDG12). One thread of the literature identifies three different levels at which the CE is explored—micro, meso, and macro—with the meso-level referring to the place-based clustering of economic activity. The vision or goal, as proposed in this paper, towards which all CE actions should strive is of a macro-level network of meso-level CE precincts. The nodes in this network must necessarily be designed to mimic natural systems where there is no waste, continually circulating water, energy, and nutrients for food to provide the resident community with their foundational economic needs.
Steven Liaros (Wed,) studied this question.