This makes it clear that the changed attitudes change the basic narratives of our existence. They define the relationships of human to human, human to nature, human to technology, of culture and identity. We therefore take a closer look at these paradigms:

Culture as a habit

Culture was long considered an expression of civilization and thus an antithesis to barbarism, to savagery, to the disordered life of people in other regions of the earth. Culture was thereby classified according to traditions of such as nutrition, work, the formation of family structures, education and other social components. The cultural scientist Prof. Terry Egleton makes clear what the previous definition of the “good of culture” was formulated as a guiding principle and fundamentally questions it for precisely this reason. If culture is only a habit, however, the paradigm of culture itself is called into question.

What we see as a new paradigm is that the debate about what culture is, is now being scientifically reopened as a habitual observation. Behavioral economics therefore plays an important role for the Circular Economy.

Identity as a narrative of the ego

In the previous era of pre-modernity, identity was a function of fixed roles and a traditional system of myths that provided orientation and religious sanction (Kellner, 1992). Moreover, identity was unproblematic and not subject to reflection or discussion. Individuals did not experience identity crises, nor did they radically change their identities. The term “identity” became familiar only when and to the extent that the formation of identity became a problem on a mass scale. This happened mainly against the background of a clash of religions. Zygmunt Bauman states in 1997: “Identity can only exist as a problem, it was a problem from birth, was born as a problem …”

Mancuso and Hevern’s narrative psychology assume that we frame all of our lives and our relationship to the world as narratives. We dream narratively, daydream narratively, remember, anticipate, hope, despair, believe, doubt, plan, revise, criticize, construct, gossip, hate, and love narratively.

In this respect, narration is not a life story that one writes and updates – not all that often – but a fundamental mode of the social construction of reality. Narratives are embedded in social action and are communicated via social media. Our identity emerges as a narrative of the self.

Nature as a partner

The understanding that the world can be controlled by technology has prevailed since the introduction of “divine mathematics” in the Middle Ages. Only God is above man, those who serve him best are above the sheep to be shepherded in the hierarchy. According to this, nature is a resource that may be used. But it has no role or representation of its own in existence. Today scientists also speak of nature forgetfulness. We humans do not perceive ourselves as an element of natural systems, because our imprint was shaped over millennia by the image of Homo Deus, who shapes the world and the future according to the example of God.

This understanding is currently being replaced by the realization of the limitations of our own ability to know (scientific criticism) and global systemic changes, such as climate change.

One example is the work “Life is a connected phenomenon-thinking alongside Lynn Margulis”, published in the Critical Zones of the ZKM, Karlsruhe or by presenting the symbiogenesis of man in nature according to Lynn Margulis.

Systems theory posits humans as one element among many living elements on planet Earth and in the universe, and relates humans to all other systemic functions and elements. This understanding is now found in many theories:

For example, in the design principle of the Circular Economy Cradle to Cradle, in the theory of permaculture, in theories of symbiogenetic development, in regenerative design, the theory of the regenerative city or Transition Towns. They all pursue the goal of creating cycles from materials that are harmless to humans and the environment and of regenerating local ecosystems.

Man as a fellow being

The box office hit movie “Earthlings” has shown how humans treat other species in the world. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R-rDurOJ0B4 It relentlessly shows how we industrially produce meat and has greatly influenced the movement of veganism and vegetarianism. The term speciesism is used analogously to sexism or racism. Jane Goodell’s scientific career on primate research and personal empathy has shown what a new relationship between humans and fellow inhabitants of planet Earth might look like.  Humans as fellow beings on this planet maps this narrative. In particular, her evidence that humans are not the only beings who use tools, can reflect, and have feelings. She demonstrated this in primates, and in doing so, she revolutionized the paradigm of humans being a “better Earthling.”

Innovation for purpose

Innovation has so far taken place in select circles of innovators, funders. Patronage turned exclusively to issues of care. Today the trend is towards self-help, self-efficacy and the strengthening of strengths, i.e. “empowerment”. The search for better systems in all strata of society has begun. GOOD LIFE is described and invoked and safeguarding livelihoods is above all. The methods of Design Thinking and Systemic Thinking are seen here as drivers of innovation, which solves global problems instead of creating further problems. The role of civil society is of particular importance in driving this process from within. The Circular Society Community is already adapting elements from the aforementioned paradigms and integrating them into its concept.

Society is communication – No cloud/cloud only

Digital natives regard their mobile phone as an emotional technical link to other members of society with whom they can communicate constantly without distance. Systems thinker Prof.  Luhmann describes communication as a link that creates society. This is based on the systems theory view that the individual elements of society (individuals, organizations, administration, etc.) must communicate with each other. In this context, rules, laws and norms are also part of communication, which established the connection. Communication is not only about language and understanding, but also about the context of the rule with which the communication is understood and answered, e.g. also through behavior and non-behavior. Luhman says: Not the single individuals with their characteristics, but exclusively the form of communication of society “Are” society. This new understanding of one’s own being as a communicator in systems (bubbles, clouds) is already changing behavior. Especially since the negative effects of communication gone wrong must also be dealt with (stalking, data abuse, loss of face, etc.). Because today not only “celebrities” are in the public communication, but everyone who moves on the Internet and on social media.

How does a tree speak? This is a scientific question and it is answered, for example, by findings from biochemistry. Language is expressed here in processes according to the rules of nature, which can be described by mathematics, physics, chemistry and so on. The rule by which an old tree, for example, supplies a young tree with glucose via the root system is thus called communication. How does the tree know that it must connect its roots with the young tree for this purpose? That is not yet clear. The language of trees and nature still needs many interpreters.

The changing paradigm that society is defined by sets of rules is thus replaced by an understanding of the system in which the elements of the system are capable of self-ordering because they communicate about it.

Rewriting the social contract – best collaborators will win

Darwin’s thesis that the strongest is the winner in survival is outdated. Biology, ecology, behavioral sciences and psychology have proven that the “strength” of a winner in systems arises from all system functions. The insight of systems thinkers shows that “best collaborators will win”. Especially in the field of development science and development economics this insight is gaining ground. The search for methods of best collaboration (networks, process orientation, etc.) has begun.

Performance Economy and Economy of Commons

The growth paradigm is outdated, macroeconomic equilibrium models have had their day, resource finiteness and the importance of public goods (climate, environment) and social balance to maintain peace and security have gained in importance. The new economy in balancing ecology has new names.

The project CRESTING summarizes all theories of the newly evolving Circular Economy. We covered it in another blog, you can find it here.

Der Beitrag Changing paradigms erschien zuerst auf Thinking Circular.

The Circular Economy sometimes puts the cart before the horse. In recent years, the Circular Economy school of thought has focused mainly on how the economy would have to be transformed to keep us within planetary boundaries. But our economy is made up of people acting out of certain principles. And in order to think planetary boundaries holistically, not only the economic systems, but also the people and their patterns of thinking and behavior have to be considered.

Since 2020, the Circular Economy discourse has increasingly been concerned with a Circular Society and the people who are part of the transformation. On the way to a Circular Society, more and more questions emerge about the role of individuals. On the one hand, we have producers. On the other side, we have consumers. What is the mindset of consumers in a Circular Economy? How do Homo Circularis express themselves individually, in society and in a circular economy? Are we still talking about consumers? Or of prosumers? And will these still be two different sides of economy? Are consumers as powerful as they are sometimes made out to be? What values do they follow? How does circular consumption work?

Today, we refer to people who participate in the design and manufacture of products as prosumers. The concept of the prosumer is thought beyond consumption. The production and sale of solar power with one’s own PV system can be cited as an example here. But you can be a prosumer in many areas. For example, visitors to a wiki who occasionally contribute or bloggers who read and comment on other bloggers’ posts are also considered prosumers. Being a prosumer can start with growing your own vegetables. And continues with upcycling products, when a prosumer makes a whole new product out of an old can.

But is the concept of prosumers sufficient? Wouldn’t it be better to talk about stewards in the future? In other words, people who see their role not only in co-designing and co-manufacturing products, but in accompanying and preserving materials? This would make the prosumer a precursor of the steward. Defining and distinguishing the two terms is important because language significantly influences our patterns of thought and behavior.

We must accept that we have only borrowed the earth from our children. These borrowed materials need a companion, a steward – at every point in the value chain. Even in consumption. And this goes beyond the question of which products and services consumers will buy in the future.

To know consumers better is not only interesting for market researchers. What do consumer types look like that are addressed with marketing? Kersty Hobson talks about the emergence of “paradoxical figures” when describing consumer images or so-called personas. We find her critique interesting and have shed some light on it.

Dr. Kersty Hobson – a teacher of human geography at Cardiff University in Wales, UK – is an expert on sustainable consumption patterns. She has conducted research on the topic of sustainable consumption for a long time. Her research dates back to 2002 with her publication “Competing Discourses of Sustainable Consumption: Does the Rationalization of Lifestyles Make Sense?” Since 2016, she has published an increasing number of articles on sustainable consumption in the context of the Circular Economy. Her last paper, published in 2021, was on “The limits of the loops: critical environmental politics and the Circular Economy”.

Kersty Hobson criticizes the Club of Rome’s and SystemIQ’s System Change Compass. The Compass describes a transformation to change our socioeconomic system but still assumes powerful consumers.

The Compass defines consumption as a shift from owning products to using products with “product-as-a-service” representing business models of the future. The Compass argues that such a “reset of foundational premises” can be politically translated. But does that apply to consumption? Hobson is critical. How could it be translated?

SystemIQ and the Club of Rome suggest to:

– educate and empower consumers to make better consumption choices, e.g., through product passports,

– provide consumers with alternative options they can explore by opportunities offered by a less ownership-biased younger generation, and

– enable producer ownership.

Hobson doesn’t think that’s enough. As a scientist, she knows research confirms that “educating consumers” doesn’t necessarily result in behavior changes. Research also shows that it’s naïve to assume that the younger generation is less ownership-oriented. It often depends on circumstances and income. When young people get jobs and have families, this changes significantly. Therefore, it cannot be assumed that younger generations have a certain mindset that enables circular consumption.

If we follow the path of SystemIQ and the Club of Rome, it is likely that our current economic system will remain in the status quo and not be transformed. Hobson suggests that the concept for transformation must go beyond the “product-as-a-service” business model and beyond the “use rather than own” mindset. For example, there is no proven reason for assuming that car sharing creates a sense of obligation that a shared car is a community asset. It may result in a mindset of “if everyone is responsible, no one is responsible”.

What does it take to transform this thinking into an individual, shared, and collective identity? What would it require to transform our collective social-material relations?

Hobson further criticizes the lack of an important perspective in the consideration that is fundamental to mitigating rebound effects. She thus criticizes the conceptual basis of the SystemIQ approach, saying that consumers do not change their behavior just because a product is labeled greener. The jungle of labels makes consumption information even more difficult. Consumers drop out. Instead, they will continue to buy products and services that are better.

This indeed is the case: Assumptions describe that however products are made (better, faster, stronger), consumers will accept them because they are BETTER, not because they need them. Electronic devices offer a good example. They can be more efficient to save energy. But the accumulation of electronic devices in consumers’ attics and basements proves the rebound effect. Here, mountains of resources are lying in storage. Another example could be electromobility. If consumers feel better about driving electric cars and thus drive more environmentally friendly, what is stopping them from driving more? What motivates them to drive less in the future, despite a clear conscience?

Making better or more efficient products cannot be the solution to supporting circular consumption in a Circular Economy. It would rather mean that we keep the economy within the current norms and systems and just “keep going”.

Of course, there will be different consumers. For example, there is the “homo economicus” type of consumer who will always buy the product that serves him best, e.g., because it is the cheapest. Greed is still great.

But there will also be the “Homo Circularis” type of consumer, who sees his role differently. He will not only see products and services that make his life more comfortable, but also the opportunity to actively help shape the world and to engage in “consumption work,” as Hobson calls it.

While “homo economicus” picks up the best option because it serves HIM, “homo circularis” is able and willing to take on “consumption work” in forms of new material relationships, e.g., car sharing, as well as to participate in various forms of local volunteerism, e.g., repair cafes. Hopson argues that theories of “consumption work” show how much the economic system relies on such unpaid work. The Ellen MacArthur Foundation, as well as other key Circular Economy players, see “consumption work” as a benefit to us all. But many studies show that there must be limits on how much work we can all contribute. Shopping needs to be fast…

The European Green Deal (2019) combines making better products and “consumption work” as targets for the Circular Economy Action Plan: The Circular Economy Action Plan will “include measures to encourage businesses to offer, and to allow consumers to choose, reusable, durable and repairable products. The Commission will also analyse the need for a ‘right to repair’, and to curb the built-in obsolescence of devices, in particular for electronics. Consumer policy will help to empower consumers to make informed choices and play an active role in the ecological transition. New business models based on renting and sharing goods and services will play a role as long as they are truly sustainable and affordable.”

This is good, of course, but Hobson warns about the “sacred cow” of consumer sovereignty. Consumers cannot control the nature and scale of production solely through their consumption choices. And without a right to repair, no one would tackle the necessary consumption work, Hobson faults. Strong consumers need strong rights. At the same time, Hobson reminds on the fact that greatest impacts of consumption lie in areas such as travel, housing, and food. This again raises the question of how people think and live in a Circular Economy that goes far beyond buying products.

We think Hobson is right: the slogan “more efficient markets and business models” will lead to ever new rebound effects. That’s why we need to stop talking about the “Circular Consumer” and explore the impact of other concepts.

We are fond of the “steward” concept! The steward buys products that are designed to be recycled. He repairs them for as long as possible. Instead of throwing the product away, he returns it to the life cycle at the end of its useful life: to the producer, to the next user, or to the recycler. In this role as a companion, he thus transfers materials to the next life cycle phase. Similar to a steward or a stewardess on a flight, he or she accompanies the material from A to B. In this way, he or she protects and preserves the material cycle. The steward protects and preserves the value of the resource. This also involves a different mindset. The steward is aware of his responsibility and respects the planetary boundaries. He is aware of his task of transferring the material to the next phase of use in a quality as high as possible. This also clarifies the question of responsibility in car sharing. A Homo Circularis, which describes the idea of a steward, could be a good starting point to implement this concept.

By Eveline Lemke and Charléne Nessel

Find the podcast (in German) about circular consumption here

Der Beitrag Circular consumption – what distinguishes prosumers from stewards erschien zuerst auf Thinking Circular.

Still, we are extracting 100 Billion tons of material every year out of this planet. That’s equivalent to more than 666 million blue whales. Still a number too large to imagine.

Only 9% of all the material is moving in cycles. So, imagine the 10.000 blue whales, that still exist, swimming in the ocean without orientation and only 900 of them a having a clear route. That’s quite a chaos.

For this reason more and more people are asking for an “Intergovernmental Panel for Resources” to find out more about where materials are going. Here as well, growth of interest repeats. Within just a few years, research papers have increased from 300 to 3,000 papers about circular topics. And circularity concepts are also rising.

In 2020, an interactive timeline of circularity school of thoughts was introduced by the CRESTING project. CRESTING is an EU funded research and innovation project. It shows publications cascading up quite clearly:

Source: Cresting Circular Economy

Being the first and only research project that has successfully displayed the development of the 70 current circularity concepts all in one chart, it gives a spectacular overview. And not only that the research team has accepted the challenge of creating a central theme for all the different concepts, it also carved out the different development periods from preamble to validity challenge. As it is an interactive timeline, one can zoom in and out and get more information about the individual concepts through clicking on them.

Here, a warm recommendation of us to take a sneak peak for all of those who are interested in circular economy history.

When looking at the timeline more in detail, it seems like many concepts are influenced by Asiatic ideas which just underlines that circular economy is a topic of global interest and importance.

Scrolling through the different concepts, a question arises: How complete is the picture? We are having a lot of economic theories and general philosophies about the good sustainable life. We are also having displayed the topic of a circular society. What is missing is a counterdraft to the Homo Oeconomicus, the mental model for a linear economy and society. When we want to research for a transformation of take-make-dispose, don’t we have to consider the individual? Can we really exclude him? The mental model of a circular economy and society will be central.

And of course, there are already mental models described out there. Our description of the  Homo Circularis is only one example. The theory of Homo Oecologicus may mentioned as example. The theory of Homo Sustinens is another. (Want to know more? Here you can find the article about the development of mental models).

Nevertheless, when looking at the timeline it becomes clear that the research project has been a gift for future circular development, knitting all lose ends together.

For the CRESTING team, research did not end at the timeline. They have also published some more articles revealing interesting correlations in the green jungle.

One is closely linked to the timeline, aiming on navigating through the different visions of a circular economy. It is worth reading, and you can download it here.

The other paper is concerned with political reality. Doing so, it closes research gaps on the actual circular economy discourse through analyzing words and actions. And though EU policy makers have made quite an achievement already, the analysis shows: There is still room for improvement. And this improvement is central to reaching any of the circular economy visions. From a post-growth perspective, the paper proposes 32 alternative science-based policies to improve EU circular economy policies. It is very well structured and explains clearly the necessities in the field. Therefore, it will help the critical communities and think tanks to put emphasis on missing elements to further push European Commission into the right direction. Missing elements to be supported are put together in a long list that shall not be missing here:

1. Establish limits to total energy recovery rates and/or stricter restrictions on the incineration of recyclable, re-usable or compostable wastes.
2. Heavily restrict or ban the export of waste outside the EU.
3. Ban the destruction of unsold stocks.
4. Establish mandatory product passport with information on all materials and components to facilitate product and material recovery.
5. All Expand eco-design regulations to fast-moving consumer electronics such as mobile phones, tablets and computers.
6. Promote open source innovation (e.g. by mandating that all hardware and software from discontinued products becomes open source).
7. Improve eco-design regulations to ensure repair manuals are completely free and open-source.
8. Establish subsidies for repair services to help low-income groups.
9. Establish EU-wide online platforms for the trading of secondary materials and products.
10. Reduce VAT for reused, remanufactured, refurbished and repaired goods and repair services.
11. Tax resources (especially raw materials) instead of labour.
12. Eliminate subsidies on fossil fuels.
13. Establish mandatory circular and green public procurement targets and requirements.
14. Establish targets on the percentage of secondary materials or sustainable renewable materials in new products and buildings.
15. Improve eco-design regulations by adding measures on product durability, multifunctionality, upgradeability, and modularity.
16. Increase minimum mandatory guarantee periods.
17. Establish mandatory targets to reduce food waste.
18. Establish targets to reduce per capita waste generation, per capita material demand and per capita ecological footprint, and to increase self-sufficiency on raw materials.
19. Revise the Common Agricultural Policy to subsidise farmers based on the social and ecological services they provide.
20. Mandate compulsory information on product durability, especially for electronic goods.
21. Establish mandatory sustainability labels (with product socio-ecological impacts).
22. Promote healthier plant-based diets.
23. Taxes on advertisements and bans on commercials for ecologically harmful goods such as SUVs.
24. Establish carbon-tariffs for imported goods.
25. Update consumer taxes (VAT) based on the socio-ecological footprint of products.
26. Promote non-material aspirations and values and slower, and more convivial ways of life to improve human wellbeing while reducing material consumption.
27. Reduce working hours to 30 or less per week.
28. Establish targets on social aspects of circularity (e.g., job generation, investments in cooperatives and social enterprises working on CE, and percentage of consumption with a recognized socio-ecological certification program).
29. Democratize the EU’s decision-making structure by increasing transparency, improving decision-making procedures and establishing an EU-wide citizens’ assembly.
30. Develop redistributive policies to ensure that the economic burden of a circularity transition does not fall on the most vulnerable.
31. Eliminate financial paradises and establish EU-wide taxes on wealth and financial transactions.
32. Increased financing and technology transfer to the Global South for climate change, biodiversity and circularity projects.

As we can see, calls of “Generation Hope” are already included. Together, the list of this critical points aligned with a young generation striking nerves, calling for more actions than words and moving into decision-making positions, promise acceleration for circular economy. And it shows even more: Stakeholders are all in one boat. Individuals asking why, how, and what to do are driving whole movements in society like vegan trends and Fridays for Future. Science is supporting through research and new insights and putting it all on one table. So that policy can manage and economy can transform.

Even more hungry for information? We have released our new book article, dealing with even more philosophical questions and cheeky answers! You can explore it here

By Charléne Nessel

Der Beitrag Like a whale without orientation erschien zuerst auf Thinking Circular.

About circularity and reality. And what it all has to do with banana bread.

Eveline Lemke, Charléne Nessel

Which statement best describes the future of the Circular Economy? Reality is becoming circular? Or is circularity becoming real? Is there a difference? And is it even true? Aren’t we still miles away from a Circular Economy?

The Circular Economy and the Green Deal are the EU’s big topics, chosen by Ursula von der Leyen. So far, it has hardly met with any criticism, because it promises green growth opportunities and reaches new target groups. It also provides answers as to how we might survive on this planet after all. However, the sustainability movement has learned over the past 35 years that decoupling growth from resource consumption is a difficult thing to do. Moreover, the danger of getting lost in the green deal because of all the green buzzwords and green washing is huge. Can the Circular Economy provide answers that offer orientation in the green jungle?

Why we need to rewrite the Circular Economy: Confusion in neo-ecology.

Currently, there is a presentation of the “Zukunftsinstitut” (German for Foresight Institute) on the table, which depicts so-called buzz words and trends on a map that looks like a map of the Berlin subway: Bio Boom, Sharing Economy, Quality of Life, Mindfulness, Green Tech, Social Business, Post-Growth Economy, Sense Economy, Post-Carbon Society, Circular Economy, Zero-Waste and many more. Futurologists have put these megatrends of neo-ecology on the map as stops. Each transfer option is an interface between two trend terms. Anyone boarding the Neo-Ecology subway line passes buzz-word stations.

Quelle: „Megatrend Map / Megatrend Dokumentation 2018 / Zukunftsinstitut GmbH“

The impression is created that neo-ecology is one-way traffic. If you switch, you leave sustainability. But sustainability encompasses 17 goals and thus more than just one future trend. However, achieving multiple green ideas and other important systemic trends at the same time in the map is impossible. What is the purpose of a map? Maps are meant to provide orientation. They are supposed to help us humans get where we want to go. But the map confuses. At the same time, the Zukunftsinstitut’s map reflects public perception. Is the map just the public’s distorted perception or does this very confusion express the need for clarity in the discussion about future terms and the embedding of sustainable terms?

Right now is the time to provide some clarifications on the philosophy of the Circular Economy and at the same time it is a good opportunity to describe some prerequisites for a Circular Society, which as a concept is still completely missing from the map. It makes sense to first recall key differences between the Circular Economy and classical economic philosophies, and then to address EU policies and goals.

The economic philosophies of the past were all not only oblivious to nature, they also reduced mankind to a few motivational drivers. It was assumed that we are a homo economicus. According to Darwin, we would only survive as the fittest. Consequently, mankind enforces its very own survival interests with avarice and greed. But any management technique can be used for good and for evil. This is part of the systemic paradigm shift. The goal and context, as well as the decisions made, determine whether the result is a good or a bad. But this presupposes that each technique is combined with an ethic. It also requires that we learn to think in systems and use systemic scenarios as a basis for decision-making. The Circular Economy opens up the possibility of building a bridge here.

The mirror of the inhuman can bring us insight into how we want to behave. If our inner drive is not fed by ethical, emotional, empathic principles, but from the demand to get higher, faster, further, the consequences become apparent: Climate change as a mirror of our obliviousness to nature; increasing expectations, lack of self-confidence and increased depression as a mirror of our social dilemma due to social media and co.; industrial slaughterhouses as a mirror of our estrangement from empathy between humans and animals. The list could go on here and become long.

In order to exist in harmony with nature on this planet, we must combine our technology with ethics. This is the only way to create a new social utopia that holds up a different mirror to us: Economizing without pushing the limits of growth. Social media influencers who use their reach not to flaunt their great lives and show what higher, faster, further means today, but to create positive impact for the planet and us humans. A diet that does not support suffering and disease, but treats other living beings and this planet with respect. For example, by baking blueberry pie instead of banana bread. That’s not only just as delicious, but also regional and uses fewer resources.

At its core, all debates about a sustainable economy revolve around giving economic technology a moral that is distancing ourselves from exploitation, obliviousness and inhumanity. The philosophy of the Circular Economy therefore differs from previous economic philosophies because it ascribes a role to nature that has a value of its own. It starts with the assumption of an emotional human being who also behaves rationally, intelligently and learning. It assumes not only that we as Homo Sapiens are shaped by our IQ, but also by our EQ, or emotional intelligence. Homo Circularis thus becomes an element in the natural system and is only one of many species of this time.

In a Circular Society, people are empowered to fit into systems of a world of interdependencies, webs of relationships, natural rules and particularities. People in this circular utopia do not place themselves on a hierarchically higher level than all other species of this world. They do not play blame game all the time. They have respect and take responsibility for mistakes. They are trained to acquire resilient survival mechanisms. And they know they are equals among equals. They feel part of a whole. So, they practice respectful treatment of life on this planet.

Many people in the green movement would perhaps claim that they are already making their contribution to a Circular Society. After all, they separate waste, contribute to the energy transition, save electricity, change their mobility behavior and switch from diesel to an electric car or even convert to veganism. These are all good steps for entering a Circular Society. Because in doing so, we are expanding our understanding of the Circular Economy. What is still missing is a basic cognitive understanding. We have to understand that a Circular Society can only exist if we understand that we do not tick in a purely rational way, as we are described as homo economicus, but that we are human beings who are not only flesh and blood, but also feelings, subconsciousness and energy.  Not a linear one-way street, but rather a network in which nature and the living beings on this planet are interconnected. Our task is not to continue to approach the Circular Economy from behind, looking first at technology, then at society, and then at the individual. But to start with what concerns ourselves, that is, with and within ourselves. How else are we to change a system in which we keep ourselves imprisoned? Gandhi recognized this: “Change yourself and you change the world.” But not only by properly separating garbage at home, but by going in search of our closeness to nature. Every Homo Circularis who finds answers to this question forms the cornerstone for a functioning Circular Society, in which a Circular Economy can exist.

How the new description can succeed: Challenges for the Circular Economy.

At the beginning of the new description of a Circular Economy we can find a Homo Circularis, who has to ask himself some mindset questions while building the new utopia: How does the socio-ecological transformation succeed? What does Circular Economy mean? What should the future of a good life look like? In the search for answers, he must confront radical beliefs. On the one side are the critics of ecological modernization. They do not believe in climate change and are afraid of change. Ecological transformation is neither necessary nor possible, they say. “We can’t crawl back under the stone after all.” On the other side are the technology critics. A Circular Economy is not enough, they say, because we would still be dependent on technology that keeps luring us into rebound traps: “Green technologies can’t work, we’re just technologizing ourselves deeper into misery.” Both voices are justified.

The truth lies somewhere in the middle, between crawling under the stone and green technologies that further exploit nature. Progress means learning from mistakes. The Circular Economy is a further development of economic philosophy, which should build a bridge between a highly technocratic world full of dependencies and lack of empathy to the laws of nature.

Using the example of the energy transition shows the tasks still to be solved and the dilemma of rebound effects: Even if consumables are produced in a renewable way and contribute to the reduction of the greenhouse effect, the energy production plants are far from being eco-friendly. They, too, must become technically recyclable. That means wind turbines and solar plants must be recyclable. Only in this way they can be left in economic use in the long term. After all, the rare metals that make up a large proportion of wind turbines, PV modules and electric cars will soon be in demand in the same way that oil was once. We must also be able to recover them from products. We must use instead of consume.

Mirroring the human cruelty of our economic activity, we see how nearly 100 billion tons of raw materials are dug out of this planet every year. Not even 9% of them remain in the economic cycle. The unimaginable dimension of over 90 billion tons of raw materials per year disappear in unknown uses, as waste in the landscape or as burnt emissions in the air. Copper or titanium mines in Chile or China make it extremely clear to us how green technologies take their toll on nature. There are tasks ahead of us here, otherwise we will not achieve the vision of a world without waste in the Green Deal. Then we continue to do what generations before us have already been unable to solve – only a little differently, by building the destruction of nature on good moral principles.

The European Commission got very specific in defining the Circular Economy, which was surprising. Its definition dates back to 2017. It puts solving the above-mentioned tasks on our agenda. And it corresponds almost entirely to the above-described philosophy.

According to this, the value of products and materials should be preserved as long as possible in an economy. Waste and the use of resources must be minimized. The material cycle should be closed within the economic system, so that products that have reached the end of their useful life serve again as a resource to create value in the future. What is missing from the definition, but has been introduced by the EU, is that in the future there should be no more hazardous substances in circulation. All toxic substances are to be removed from the economic cycle and destroyed. The vision of a world without waste is thus not clearly formulated, but it is not ruled out. Above all, the steps are going in the right direction. One step should be the end of incineration as soon as all hazardous substances have been eliminated. This raises the question of whether the strategic phase-out of incineration should not be negotiated today?

The EU still has a lot of work to do to achieve the goal. And the decision-makers know this, too, because Europe has some experience and has also already spent a lot of time developing the Circular Economy. As early as 1975, the EU issued the first directive on waste management, followed by far-reaching Circular Economy directives in 1996. Then in 2005, the closure of landfills in Europe has been announced. Since 2017, there has been an EU Plastic Strategy and in 2019, the EU Circular Economy Package came into force.  This is cause for celebration for the community of C2C innovators. They can take hope that finally also the eco-design guidelines will be adapted and take effect especially in the member states. C2C based on the design principle of Prof. Dr. Michael Braungart specifies how optimal products for a Circular Economy should be created to ensure clean and endless usability. Those who deal with C2C quickly find out the simple principle of a biological and a technical cycle, according to which consumables may be assigned to the biological cycle and usage goods to the technical cycle. The example here is again the energy transition. If renewable energy is produced from wind, water, sun or biomass and is used as a consumer good, the technical equipment used to produce it should be non-toxic, but durable, dismountable, repairable and recyclable. Therefore, mono-materials are mainly used in the C2C world, which are not glued, but only screwed, so that everything remains repairable by design. Finally, the RESOLVE principle provides a good theoretical basis that works like an economic tool. RESOLVE stands for (REnew, REuse, REpair, REfurbish, REcycle, Share, Optimize, Close the Loop, Virtualize, Exchange).

One of the main tasks of the Circular Economy is to overcome the rebound effect. Eco-effectiveness is the buzzword here. The rebound effect arises unintentionally. When coal replaced the cutting of trees for energy during the first phase of industrial development, hoping that Europe’s forests would recover, people in London were already in danger of suffocating from coal emissions. So, petroleum replaced coal, and later nuclear energy. What followed, however, was ever more rapid development and the devouring of more and more resources. There is not much sign of the decoupling of resources. And this is exactly what endangers our own existence. Now it is time for Homo Circularis to prove his IQ, his EQ and his ability to learn!

What we need to do to make the Circular Economy real: Recycling quotas or EU plastic tax – which works better? A debate that goes round in circles when politics don’t decide.

In early November 2020, the EU’s institutions were able to agree on the next long-term budget 2021-2027 – one component is a plastic tax that should take effect on January 1, 2021. At that point, it still seemed as if China’s Green Fence policy would get Europe moving. But appearances are deceptive: the German debate is slowly moving in circles and the German government is ignoring the issue of the Circular Economy. Only the handling of plastic bags was discussed and decided in the Bundestag – there should be less of them. But that is not enough!

Anyone who now thinks that consumers will notice the tax and that it could therefore have a steering effect is mistaken. Because under the EU’s Multiannual Financial Framework (MFF for short), which was adopted on November 10, 2020, contributions from EU member states are calculated on the basis of the amount of non-recycled plastic packaging waste. This makes it clear that it cannot be a tax, but a calculation method that governs the EU budget and their national contributions to it. So, let’s call it a levy. It will cost about €800 per ton of non-recycled plastic packaging and is intended to increase collection and recycling efforts. The current industry debate about whether product policy would be more effective than material-specific quotas seems to be mutating into a sham.

It is obvious that the federal government is not moving forward decisively enough. Against the backdrop of the Corona crisis, it could support the beleaguered recycling industry by providing grants for investments in sorting facilities or manufacturers for the introduction of product passports to track products and materials. This is where potential can be leveraged directly. We will have to make use of the entire toolbox of regulatory instruments to move forward. This includes not only an ambitious increase in collection and recycling rates, but also product bans on single-use product packaging (which after all accounts for 40% of plastic waste) and an eco-design directive that delivers what the name promises.

Developing a circular industry by 2050 is not utopia. It is a realistic vision. But it needs many who have understood this and are working towards it.

Circular Economy by 2050 – What else does that mean? Recent studies on the consumption of resources on our planet show that up to 100 billion tons of material, liquids or substances are taken from this planet to satisfy our industrial needs. Of course, drinking water, industrial water and biomass are the materials that we can now call the most circular. Only after third place do various metals, for example paper or asphalt, follow. In total, not even 9% of all products flow in a cycle. And science has insufficient information about where 90 billion tons of substances and materials remain each year that we previously extracted from the planet. How is this possible?

On the occasion of the 5th European Resources Forum 2020, the call for an “Intergovernmental Panel for Resources” became louder and louder. Similar to the research work for the climate by the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel for Climate Change), the knowledge work could then contribute to the development of the Circular Economy. Hope is raised by the fact that recently the number of observed research papers has increased. If just a few years ago there were only about 300 publications on circular topics, last year there were about 3000. A start, after all. But this will not be enough to adequately describe or even solve the issue.

The economic dimension of steering mechanisms requires communication. Prof. Stahl teaches the “performance economy” as a building block of the Circular Economy. He describes how an economy that repairs, rebuilds and upcycles more than in a “Take, Make, Dispose” society will also have to pay higher wages and salaries for these very services, i.e. for performance. Reducing or even abolishing taxes on labor suddenly makes a lot of sense as a steering tool. Sharing models, using instead of owning and “product as a service” fit in well here. The taxation of C02 or greenhouse-damaging gases complements the steering instrument. This is how the Circular Economy becomes concrete. And what should a future without Circular Economy even look like?

In the end, the reality is that we can’t build a future without circularity. And circularity cannot exist without embedding itself in reality. A business-as-usual won’t work, nor will the idea that we can say goodbye entirely to previous conveniences. We need a bridge. The Circular Economy can provide that bridge. But an economic theory of circularity will only become a reality when we, as humans, move into action. How does a Homo Circularis act? He repairs instead of throwing away. He grows vegetables instead of importing them. He talks about issues of self-governance. Here is room for discussion on how we as Homo Circularis engage in a Circular Society. To build together the bridge to a future – for our grandchildren.

So, what does all of this have to do with banana bread again? Actually nothing. But somehow everything. It’s about the little things in life and the question of what a good life can look like. And how nice would it be to live in a Circular Society, in which we learned to listen more to our subconscious mind and create circular impact directly by ourselves? And at last: Banana bread sounded juicier than “a philosophical treatise on the limits of the Circular Economy”.

Der Beitrag #Homo Circularis erschien zuerst auf Thinking Circular.

And in the end, the whole of society is forced to go along the throw-away path.

Who can correct the sick throw-away phenomenon? The answer to this question is existential. Reason enough to deal with this phenomenon in the social design lab of the Hans Sauer Foundation.

The central statement of the social design lab is: Following the circular economy principles from the producer’s perspective alone is not enough as a sustainability strategy. Consumers have to come back too. This means that the circular economy can only take place with a socio-political continuity that is operated equally by producers and consumers.

The path could then lead to a circular society, i.e. the opposite of the throwaway society. As the name suggests, the path leads to a circular society. The members of the social design lab want to discuss how this can be done in a joint forum. And the forum should also become a place where ideas, visions and knowledge about the Circular Society can be exchanged. Interested parties are cordially invited.

Your way to the „Circular Society Forum“.

Registration to the Forum  22. – 25. Februar 2021.

Program

Der Beitrag Circular Society? An invitation to the forum erschien zuerst auf Thinking Circular.