Don't throw out that broken toaster: it's key to our prosperity. Redesigning the economy so that all waste is reused or recycled would be good for business, according to two new reports.
For centuries the global economy has been linear. Companies extract resources from the environment, turn them into products and sell them to consumers – who eventually throw them out. As a result we are burning through Earth's natural resources and wasting useful materials.
But it doesn't have to be that way, says Felix Preston of think tank Chatham House in London. Instead, we could have a circular economy in which waste from one product is used in another.
In "A Global Redesign: Shaping the circular economy", Preston argues that reusing resources makes good business sense now that resource prices are high and volatile. He cites a January report by consultants McKinsey & Company which tries to put a value on the circular economy.
"Towards the Circular Economy: Economic and business rationale for an accelerated transition" estimates the circular economy could save the European Union $340 to $630 billion per year in materials costs, about 3 per cent of the EU's GDP.
"The opportunity is enormous," Preston says. "The challenge is how to unlock it."
However, a company wishing to go circular will face considerable upfront costs, and companies that have invested heavily in the existing system will be reluctant to change. Nevertheless some are pushing forward: for instance Renault's Eco2 cars are designed so that 95 per cent of their mass can be recovered and reused.
China is already pushing the circular economy. According to its 12th five-year plan – covering 2011-15 – China will "plan, construct and renovate various kinds of industrial parks according to the requirements of the circular economy".
If you would like to reuse any content from New Scientist, either in print or online, please contact the syndication department first for permission. New Scientist does not own rights to photos, but there are a variety of licensing options available for use of articles and graphics we own the copyright to.
Have your say
Only subscribers may leave comments on this article. Please log in.
Only personal subscribers may leave comments on this article
Start Of Something Better. . .
Thu Mar 01 10:36:36 GMT 2012 by Pres
That is an excellent objective. We have been doing it hit-miss with most metals for years. Now it's good to expand to other waste items as the technology becomes available. If I was going to run a mine I'd head for the nearest landfill to get a higher concentration of materials than most mines offer.
Sat Mar 03 11:09:40 GMT 2012 by Sandy Henderson
That this development,or something like it, will be forced on us, does not alter the human frailty of avoiding as much responsibility as possible. To have a better than evens chance of success, other factors in life , such as politics , law and finance , would require a different mindset , so that power in all it's manifestations was balanced by increasing risk and responsibility. Without that there will remain the temptations to cheat.
Sun Mar 04 18:02:29 GMT 2012 by Michael Dowling
If your local recycler (junk yard) can offer your manufacturing facility a ton of aluminum at 50% the cost of obtaining it from an ore refinery, self-interest will encourage the adoption of the circular economy,so the changeover will involve carrots as well as sticks.
Sun Mar 04 18:06:18 GMT 2012 by Michael Dowling
I find it ironic that one of the world's biggest polluters is the biggest current proponent of the circular economic model.
Mon Mar 05 15:57:02 GMT 2012 by Steve
Per Person they definitely aren't the biggest polluters
All comments should respect the New Scientist House Rules. If you think a particular comment breaks these rules then please use the "Report" link in that comment to report it to us.
If you are having a technical problem posting a comment, please contact technical support.