10 ms·

Educating towards a circular economy

75 points by endswapper 10y ago

roymurdock 10y ago
What is a circular economy? > The notion of a circular economy has attracted increased attention in recent years. The concept is characterised, more than defined, as an economy that is restorative and regenerative by design and aims to keep products, components, and materials at their highest utility and value at all times, distinguishing between technical and biological cycles. It is conceived as a continuous positive development cycle that preserves and enhances natural capital, optimises resource yields, and minimises system risks by managing finite stocks and renewable flows. It works effectively at every scale. This economic model seeks to ultimately decouple global economic development from finite resource consumption. How do we get there? 1. A key feature of a circular economy is to be restorative and regenerative by design. The recovery of materials and products is not only addressed at end of use, but is enabled at the design level (e.g., by the choice of materials or a design for disassembly). Companies will need to build core competencies in circular design to facilitate product reuse, recycling and cascading. 2. Business models that move from ownership to performancebased payment models are instrumental in translating products designed for reuse into attractive value propositions. By prioritising access over ownership, these models drive a shift from consumers to users. Companies with significant market share and capabilities along several vertical steps of the linear value chain could play a major role in driving circularity into the mainstream by leveraging their scale and vertical integration. 3. A value preserving materials backbone is a core requirement for the transition to a circular economy. To create value from materials and products after their use, they need to be collected and brought back. The "circular economy" sounds like a buzzword for more aggressive recycling and eco-friendly materials use. Disposable goods are cheap. What incentives do companies/governments have to make their products more expensive?
- schmave2 10y ago
  This sounds similar to the "Cradle to Cradle" design philosophy. Some companies might want to design in a "circular" way in order to appeal to a particular market of consumers. Here's a directory of products that are "Cradle to Cradle" certified: http://www.c2ccertified.org/products/registry http://www.c2ccertified.org/products/registry
- Newtopian 10y ago
  Disposable goods are not cheap, they are in fact very expensive. They are perceived as cheap because a very large portion of the true cost is hidden, externalized. Creators have no incentive to create things that are easily recyclable because they are not responsable for what happens to it at the end of it's life. To close the loop one must integrate the economics of garbage management as an integral part of the product being designed on equal footing with production, distribution etc. Taxing pro-rated to the recyclability of a product, tax break on repairs, second-hand markets and other means to give a product a longer life. Make practices like planned obsolencence illegal, criminal even. I'm no expert but there are a great many solutions, implementing them however might require a lot more political good-will than most of our leaders are ready to spend.
  - barrkel 10y ago
    These moves are also a bet on the future: a bet that the future cost of disposal stays high, so that increased costs earlier in the lifetime are justified. The future is discounted for a reason, however. The future is probably wealthier, has better technology, and can reap the reward from investment today. It takes not just political good will, but a leap of faith to make the bet on spending now instead of later. For planned obsolescence: here's another way to look at it. For a designed lifetime, we can coordinate across all the inputs to a product and select the right tradeoff between cost, quality and longevity. If we don't have a designed lifetime, the actual lifetime will only be as long as the shortest-lived part that can't be economically replaced. Making everything economical to replace means compromising on design, and often quality: a phone that plugged together like Lego would be substantially worse than our current integrated devices in weight and size. (The idea of building something without a designed lifetime seems a little bit crazy to me, from an engineering perspective. It frames a whole bunch of decisions and trade-offs. I think it's better to put stuff into more people's hands rather than keep things expensive and exclusionary, which would undoubtedly be a side-effect of outlawing designed lifetimes.)
    - paulryanrogers 10y ago
      "The future is probably wealthier, has better technology, and can reap the reward..." For how long can this be true when there are finite-easily-accessible resources?
- endswapper 10y ago
  You seem to be implying that a circular approach would necessarily be more expensive. I disagree. The large, expensive part already exists in terms of collection. The key principle from the article is valuing materials as resources. To a large degree what we do now is like collecting trash cans of gold and sending them to a landfill. Technologies for depolymerization and carbon capture are scalable to realize fully circular economies. Our recycling rate, however, is only about 34%[0]. This is why educating towards a circular economy is so important. Plastics, among other materials, are fascinating and great, and their challenges are largely the result of consumers. [0] https://www.epa.gov/smm/advancing-sustainable-materials-management-facts-and-figures https://www.epa.gov/smm/advancing-sustainable-materials-mana...
  - roymurdock 10y ago
    From the circular economy PDF: The current economy is surprisingly wasteful in its model of value creation. In Europe, material recycling and waste-based energy recovery captures only 5 percent of the original raw material value. Is that 5% enough to cover the logistical costs of transporting/sorting etc. and energy costs of conversion? No, or else we would have private garbage trucks competing to collect our trash. Bringing the recycling rate up would only increase costs. If recycling were more efficient (read: profitable), we could leave it to private enterprise to work out solutions. Companies would fight tooth and nail to collect our wasted "gold". https://www.ellenmacarthurfoundation.org/circular-economy/overview/principles https://www.ellenmacarthurfoundation.org/circular-economy/ov...
    - nine_k 10y ago
      Things that are easy to recycle, like metal cans, plastic, and glass bottles, are indeed collected by less well-off people for money, sometimes in a competitive fashion. Some people even steal segments of working electric cables and sell them for scrap, because of high profit margins. So there are areas where recycling is commercially viable and prosperous. These areas are few, though. Most of the time the cost of separating valuable materials from each other in a trashed item far exceeds the value of the materials recovered.
    - 10y ago
- greatergoodguy 10y ago
  One idea is moving towards biodegradable plastics so after someone drinks their soda, they could throw it into the soil after use.
- mc32 10y ago
  A circular economy is an economical economy. The kind which existed prior to mass production in the late 1910s to 1920s. As such, this idea would have much better traction in underdeveloped economies, the third world as it were, because it's a population used to economizing and recycling. From there, the bigger economies would catch on to meet this new kind of demand and likely through osmosis bring it back home to developed economies.
  - roymurdock 10y ago
    Recycling is more prevalent in "third world" countries due to a relatively cheap supply of human labor. Recycling is an extremely labor-intensive process. "YOU WON'T FIND a Chinese version of Alan Bachrach [US recycling entrepreneur], just as you won't find an Indian, Kenyan, Vietnamese, or Jordanian one, either. The reason is that most of the world remains poor enough to justify employing people to do what Alan does with star screens and air guns. Consider what happens every night in the courtyard of the Shanghai high-rise where I live. Just past midnight you'll likely hear the clank of a bottle bouncing across concrete. If you follow that bounce back to its source, you'll come to a concrete hut, not much larger than a single-car garage, from which fragrant trash has been spilled several feet into the narrow asphalt road. It doesn't look like American trash: there are few boxes, cans, or bottles. Rather, it's mostly food waste — peels, husks, bones. Move a little closer, and you might see two or three hunched shadows atop the oozing mess, canvas bags swung over their shoulders, scrounging through it with bare hands, searching for metal cans, plastic bottles, or perhaps something better yet — a stray coin. They're not Shanghainese but often families of poor migrants from farms in the less wealthy provinces, making the best living that they can. Families that pick through trash in the middle of the night are just the last screen in a profit-driven process that, if you wait outside my building through the night, begins at the gate at first light. There you'll see a squat and brawny migrant woman wearing a fanny pack stuffed with small money, and carrying a small hand scale. If anyone is the Chinese equivalent of Alan Bachrach, presiding over a system that harvests recyclables from the trash, she is it. Her destination is the pile of cardboard tied with twine that's waited beneath the night watchman's gaze, and a waist-high balance scale of the sort that you might find in a doctor's office. As she pulls out the big scale, the early-rising old ladies in my building wander downstairs carrying a few plastic bottles, perhaps a small cardboard box or two, and maybe a small plastic bag filled with cans. The bottles and cans are priced individually; the boxes are attached to a small hook on the hand scale and weighed. Payment is equivalent to a few pennies, which the early risers take to the wet market, in search of the day's vegetables... There's no need for single-stream schemes to raise the recycling rate in Chinese cities because, in the end, my Chinese neighbors have something that most Americans don't: a recognition that "the recycling" is worth more than virtue. It's worth money." http://theweek.com/articles/455486/inside-world-forprofit-recycling http://theweek.com/articles/455486/inside-world-forprofit-re...
- Qworg 10y ago
  I think people are focusing too much on the recycling and not enough on point #2: access over ownership. It doesn't matter if a good is more expensive because it is meant to be repairable/upgradable if it is shared over many people. Access vs ownership is only going to become more prevalent over time - Uber and Lyft, tool shares and makerspaces, the move from products to services.
  - floatrock 10y ago
    Access vs. ownership is great -- whats the stat on a typical owned car? 90% of the time it is idle and parked. But access-over-ownership is kinda orthogonal to making things repairable and upgradable. You can still make progress on the latter. I read a comment from an engineer somewhere... he said you can take tons of classes on designing for manufacturability, but he's never seen one on designing for maintenance. Back to cars, I think the example he used was there's some makes and models known to mechanics as being complete shitjobs when it comes to regular maintenance... you need to take half the engine apart to get to some regularly-serviceable component like a clutch or whatever. I'm sure it was designed to be put together easily in the factory, but when the maintenance is an externality, you just don't optimize for that. Access over ownership doesn't address that.
    - dflock 10y ago
      It does if the original designer & manufacturer is the one renting it out - and is therefore on the hook for the maintenance costs. This is currently the case with Mercedes/Smart and their car2go service - and is probably going to become more prevalent in the car space.
- floatrock 10y ago
  > What incentives do companies/governments have to make their products more expensive? Policy is one. A few weeks ago there were a few posts about the Swedes giving tax breaks on repair labor, the idea being to create an incentive that encourages reuse over waste: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/sep/19/waste-not-want-not-sweden-tax-breaks-repairs https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/sep/19/waste-not-want... And HN discussion on it: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12579879 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12579879
- nickbauman 10y ago
  Not a buzzword. Has nothing to do with "aggressive recycling". It's a true paradigm shift. Much better explanation comes from Michael Braungart and William McDonough's Cradle to Cradle book explaining what the difference is. https://www.amazon.com/Cradle-Remaking-Way-Make-Things/dp/1400157617 https://www.amazon.com/Cradle-Remaking-Way-Make-Things/dp/14...
jsingleton 10y ago
If you want to get involved in Open Source Circular Economy stuff then OSCEdays is a good community - https://oscedays.org https://oscedays.org
jackcosgrove 10y ago
It's an admirable goal, but it would seem to violate the second law of thermodynamics. There is almost always waste. Even if we could create some reversible processes, adhering to these would require a lot of behavioral enforcement since there would be consumptive alternatives that were easier or cheaper. Our current regime is hardly panglossian, but there are always costs to idealistic schemes that the designers of such fail to anticipate.
- noonespecial 10y ago
  I think the idea is to use energy input collected from the sun to push our material resources in a circle instead of the way we do it now, which is to use previously stored sun energy to push our natural resources in a line from a more useful place/form to a less useful place/form. This linear method leaves us with both less useful material and less easily collected energy when we're done. We will have to change over sooner or later and it gets harder if we wait until later. The thermodynamics of it is simple. The energy input of a nearby star means its not a "closed system". There's plenty of energy input to keep it all going. How to use it is the choice. Eventually the costs of idealistic schemes will balance out, probably with interest, at the point where there is no longer a choice; the stored energy collected and spent, and our material wealth buried in landfills after being reduced to its least useful form.
  - jackcosgrove 10y ago
    That is a viable strategy. If, however, solar energy is eventually cheaper than fossil fuels there will be less incentive to be efficient.
  - marcosdumay 10y ago
    If that is indeed the idea, isn't it much better to push for renewable energy instead of focusing on the use of carbon polymers? Eventually we can just burn all that trash down, and reassemble the carbon the way we want. It's is not the bottleneck for decades already.
BatFastard 10y ago
Good step toward a circular economy, require that the vast majority of things be repairable. The disposable economy is the enemy of the circular economy.
formula1 10y ago
This artical seemed to be more biographical than subject information. That aside, the problem that is worth discussing is how to incentivize more individuals to recycle every chance they get rather than throw everything away. This however, presents a different problem. - can tie inflation to how much is recycled - if a government is willing to pay more money than a peice pf plastic is worth. It can provide insentive for individuals to recycle a lot more. However, it also opens up opportunities to take advantage of the system when done in massive bulk. - can add a tax to plastics - this already exists but the taxes can just be passed on to the consumer. Taxes at an extremety can be offset by High recycleable value. Though this can be considered rediculous overreach by the gov. - limit plastics use to only large quantities - boats, cars, etc. If plastics are not allowed to br used for plastic bags and soaps, controlling the recycling becomes mich easier I would love to hear more insights about this
ilostmykeys 10y ago
Garbage Tax. There should be a Garbage Tax on all manufacturers, distributors and resellers of non-recyclable/non-bio-degradable/non-bio-consumable products. We're all paying for the externalized cost of waste management but the ones who should be paying for it (and penalized for it) are the one who are profiting from it (all those who manufacture, distribute and sell non-reusable products that externalize the waste management cost to the rest of us)
ilaksh 10y ago
A related topic is bioplastic, i.e. plastic from biofuels or biogeneration (on the short term rather than millions of years like plastic derived from petroleum). Maybe educate on that too and the importance in general of replacing petroleum-dependent industrial materials and processes.

75 points by endswapper 10y ago

What is a circular economy? > The notion of a circular economy has attracted increased attention in recent years. The concept is characterised, more than defined, as an economy that is restorative and regenerative by design and aims to keep products, components, and materials at their highest utility and value at all times, distinguishing between technical and biological cycles. It is conceived as a continuous positive development cycle that preserves and enhances natural capital, optimises resource yields, and minimises system risks by managing finite stocks and renewable flows. It works effectively at every scale. This economic model seeks to ultimately decouple global economic development from finite resource consumption. How do we get there? 1. A key feature of a circular economy is to be restorative and regenerative by design. The recovery of materials and products is not only addressed at end of use, but is enabled at the design level (e.g., by the choice of materials or a design for disassembly). Companies will need to build core competencies in circular design to facilitate product reuse, recycling and cascading. 2. Business models that move from ownership to performancebased payment models are instrumental in translating products designed for reuse into attractive value propositions. By prioritising access over ownership, these models drive a shift from consumers to users. Companies with significant market share and capabilities along several vertical steps of the linear value chain could play a major role in driving circularity into the mainstream by leveraging their scale and vertical integration. 3. A value preserving materials backbone is a core requirement for the transition to a circular economy. To create value from materials and products after their use, they need to be collected and brought back. The "circular economy" sounds like a buzzword for more aggressive recycling and eco-friendly materials use. Disposable goods are cheap. What incentives do companies/governments have to make their products more expensive?

schmave2 10y ago
This sounds similar to the "Cradle to Cradle" design philosophy. Some companies might want to design in a "circular" way in order to appeal to a particular market of consumers. Here's a directory of products that are "Cradle to Cradle" certified: http://www.c2ccertified.org/products/registry http://www.c2ccertified.org/products/registry
Newtopian 10y ago
Disposable goods are not cheap, they are in fact very expensive. They are perceived as cheap because a very large portion of the true cost is hidden, externalized. Creators have no incentive to create things that are easily recyclable because they are not responsable for what happens to it at the end of it's life. To close the loop one must integrate the economics of garbage management as an integral part of the product being designed on equal footing with production, distribution etc. Taxing pro-rated to the recyclability of a product, tax break on repairs, second-hand markets and other means to give a product a longer life. Make practices like planned obsolencence illegal, criminal even. I'm no expert but there are a great many solutions, implementing them however might require a lot more political good-will than most of our leaders are ready to spend.
- barrkel 10y ago
  These moves are also a bet on the future: a bet that the future cost of disposal stays high, so that increased costs earlier in the lifetime are justified. The future is discounted for a reason, however. The future is probably wealthier, has better technology, and can reap the reward from investment today. It takes not just political good will, but a leap of faith to make the bet on spending now instead of later. For planned obsolescence: here's another way to look at it. For a designed lifetime, we can coordinate across all the inputs to a product and select the right tradeoff between cost, quality and longevity. If we don't have a designed lifetime, the actual lifetime will only be as long as the shortest-lived part that can't be economically replaced. Making everything economical to replace means compromising on design, and often quality: a phone that plugged together like Lego would be substantially worse than our current integrated devices in weight and size. (The idea of building something without a designed lifetime seems a little bit crazy to me, from an engineering perspective. It frames a whole bunch of decisions and trade-offs. I think it's better to put stuff into more people's hands rather than keep things expensive and exclusionary, which would undoubtedly be a side-effect of outlawing designed lifetimes.)
  - paulryanrogers 10y ago
    "The future is probably wealthier, has better technology, and can reap the reward..." For how long can this be true when there are finite-easily-accessible resources?
endswapper 10y ago
You seem to be implying that a circular approach would necessarily be more expensive. I disagree. The large, expensive part already exists in terms of collection. The key principle from the article is valuing materials as resources. To a large degree what we do now is like collecting trash cans of gold and sending them to a landfill. Technologies for depolymerization and carbon capture are scalable to realize fully circular economies. Our recycling rate, however, is only about 34%[0]. This is why educating towards a circular economy is so important. Plastics, among other materials, are fascinating and great, and their challenges are largely the result of consumers. [0] https://www.epa.gov/smm/advancing-sustainable-materials-management-facts-and-figures https://www.epa.gov/smm/advancing-sustainable-materials-mana...
- roymurdock 10y ago
  From the circular economy PDF: The current economy is surprisingly wasteful in its model of value creation. In Europe, material recycling and waste-based energy recovery captures only 5 percent of the original raw material value. Is that 5% enough to cover the logistical costs of transporting/sorting etc. and energy costs of conversion? No, or else we would have private garbage trucks competing to collect our trash. Bringing the recycling rate up would only increase costs. If recycling were more efficient (read: profitable), we could leave it to private enterprise to work out solutions. Companies would fight tooth and nail to collect our wasted "gold". https://www.ellenmacarthurfoundation.org/circular-economy/overview/principles https://www.ellenmacarthurfoundation.org/circular-economy/ov...
  - nine_k 10y ago
    Things that are easy to recycle, like metal cans, plastic, and glass bottles, are indeed collected by less well-off people for money, sometimes in a competitive fashion. Some people even steal segments of working electric cables and sell them for scrap, because of high profit margins. So there are areas where recycling is commercially viable and prosperous. These areas are few, though. Most of the time the cost of separating valuable materials from each other in a trashed item far exceeds the value of the materials recovered.
  - 10y ago
greatergoodguy 10y ago
One idea is moving towards biodegradable plastics so after someone drinks their soda, they could throw it into the soil after use.
mc32 10y ago
A circular economy is an economical economy. The kind which existed prior to mass production in the late 1910s to 1920s. As such, this idea would have much better traction in underdeveloped economies, the third world as it were, because it's a population used to economizing and recycling. From there, the bigger economies would catch on to meet this new kind of demand and likely through osmosis bring it back home to developed economies.
- roymurdock 10y ago
  Recycling is more prevalent in "third world" countries due to a relatively cheap supply of human labor. Recycling is an extremely labor-intensive process. "YOU WON'T FIND a Chinese version of Alan Bachrach [US recycling entrepreneur], just as you won't find an Indian, Kenyan, Vietnamese, or Jordanian one, either. The reason is that most of the world remains poor enough to justify employing people to do what Alan does with star screens and air guns. Consider what happens every night in the courtyard of the Shanghai high-rise where I live. Just past midnight you'll likely hear the clank of a bottle bouncing across concrete. If you follow that bounce back to its source, you'll come to a concrete hut, not much larger than a single-car garage, from which fragrant trash has been spilled several feet into the narrow asphalt road. It doesn't look like American trash: there are few boxes, cans, or bottles. Rather, it's mostly food waste — peels, husks, bones. Move a little closer, and you might see two or three hunched shadows atop the oozing mess, canvas bags swung over their shoulders, scrounging through it with bare hands, searching for metal cans, plastic bottles, or perhaps something better yet — a stray coin. They're not Shanghainese but often families of poor migrants from farms in the less wealthy provinces, making the best living that they can. Families that pick through trash in the middle of the night are just the last screen in a profit-driven process that, if you wait outside my building through the night, begins at the gate at first light. There you'll see a squat and brawny migrant woman wearing a fanny pack stuffed with small money, and carrying a small hand scale. If anyone is the Chinese equivalent of Alan Bachrach, presiding over a system that harvests recyclables from the trash, she is it. Her destination is the pile of cardboard tied with twine that's waited beneath the night watchman's gaze, and a waist-high balance scale of the sort that you might find in a doctor's office. As she pulls out the big scale, the early-rising old ladies in my building wander downstairs carrying a few plastic bottles, perhaps a small cardboard box or two, and maybe a small plastic bag filled with cans. The bottles and cans are priced individually; the boxes are attached to a small hook on the hand scale and weighed. Payment is equivalent to a few pennies, which the early risers take to the wet market, in search of the day's vegetables... There's no need for single-stream schemes to raise the recycling rate in Chinese cities because, in the end, my Chinese neighbors have something that most Americans don't: a recognition that "the recycling" is worth more than virtue. It's worth money." http://theweek.com/articles/455486/inside-world-forprofit-recycling http://theweek.com/articles/455486/inside-world-forprofit-re...
Qworg 10y ago
I think people are focusing too much on the recycling and not enough on point #2: access over ownership. It doesn't matter if a good is more expensive because it is meant to be repairable/upgradable if it is shared over many people. Access vs ownership is only going to become more prevalent over time - Uber and Lyft, tool shares and makerspaces, the move from products to services.
- floatrock 10y ago
  Access vs. ownership is great -- whats the stat on a typical owned car? 90% of the time it is idle and parked. But access-over-ownership is kinda orthogonal to making things repairable and upgradable. You can still make progress on the latter. I read a comment from an engineer somewhere... he said you can take tons of classes on designing for manufacturability, but he's never seen one on designing for maintenance. Back to cars, I think the example he used was there's some makes and models known to mechanics as being complete shitjobs when it comes to regular maintenance... you need to take half the engine apart to get to some regularly-serviceable component like a clutch or whatever. I'm sure it was designed to be put together easily in the factory, but when the maintenance is an externality, you just don't optimize for that. Access over ownership doesn't address that.
  - dflock 10y ago
    It does if the original designer & manufacturer is the one renting it out - and is therefore on the hook for the maintenance costs. This is currently the case with Mercedes/Smart and their car2go service - and is probably going to become more prevalent in the car space.
floatrock 10y ago
> What incentives do companies/governments have to make their products more expensive? Policy is one. A few weeks ago there were a few posts about the Swedes giving tax breaks on repair labor, the idea being to create an incentive that encourages reuse over waste: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/sep/19/waste-not-want-not-sweden-tax-breaks-repairs https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/sep/19/waste-not-want... And HN discussion on it: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12579879 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12579879
nickbauman 10y ago
Not a buzzword. Has nothing to do with "aggressive recycling". It's a true paradigm shift. Much better explanation comes from Michael Braungart and William McDonough's Cradle to Cradle book explaining what the difference is. https://www.amazon.com/Cradle-Remaking-Way-Make-Things/dp/1400157617 https://www.amazon.com/Cradle-Remaking-Way-Make-Things/dp/14...

jsingleton 10y ago

If you want to get involved in Open Source Circular Economy stuff then OSCEdays is a good community - https://oscedays.org https://oscedays.org

jackcosgrove 10y ago

It's an admirable goal, but it would seem to violate the second law of thermodynamics. There is almost always waste. Even if we could create some reversible processes, adhering to these would require a lot of behavioral enforcement since there would be consumptive alternatives that were easier or cheaper. Our current regime is hardly panglossian, but there are always costs to idealistic schemes that the designers of such fail to anticipate.

noonespecial 10y ago
I think the idea is to use energy input collected from the sun to push our material resources in a circle instead of the way we do it now, which is to use previously stored sun energy to push our natural resources in a line from a more useful place/form to a less useful place/form. This linear method leaves us with both less useful material and less easily collected energy when we're done. We will have to change over sooner or later and it gets harder if we wait until later. The thermodynamics of it is simple. The energy input of a nearby star means its not a "closed system". There's plenty of energy input to keep it all going. How to use it is the choice. Eventually the costs of idealistic schemes will balance out, probably with interest, at the point where there is no longer a choice; the stored energy collected and spent, and our material wealth buried in landfills after being reduced to its least useful form.
- jackcosgrove 10y ago
  That is a viable strategy. If, however, solar energy is eventually cheaper than fossil fuels there will be less incentive to be efficient.
- marcosdumay 10y ago
  If that is indeed the idea, isn't it much better to push for renewable energy instead of focusing on the use of carbon polymers? Eventually we can just burn all that trash down, and reassemble the carbon the way we want. It's is not the bottleneck for decades already.

BatFastard 10y ago

Good step toward a circular economy, require that the vast majority of things be repairable. The disposable economy is the enemy of the circular economy.

formula1 10y ago

This artical seemed to be more biographical than subject information. That aside, the problem that is worth discussing is how to incentivize more individuals to recycle every chance they get rather than throw everything away. This however, presents a different problem. - can tie inflation to how much is recycled - if a government is willing to pay more money than a peice pf plastic is worth. It can provide insentive for individuals to recycle a lot more. However, it also opens up opportunities to take advantage of the system when done in massive bulk. - can add a tax to plastics - this already exists but the taxes can just be passed on to the consumer. Taxes at an extremety can be offset by High recycleable value. Though this can be considered rediculous overreach by the gov. - limit plastics use to only large quantities - boats, cars, etc. If plastics are not allowed to br used for plastic bags and soaps, controlling the recycling becomes mich easier I would love to hear more insights about this

ilostmykeys 10y ago

Garbage Tax. There should be a Garbage Tax on all manufacturers, distributors and resellers of non-recyclable/non-bio-degradable/non-bio-consumable products. We're all paying for the externalized cost of waste management but the ones who should be paying for it (and penalized for it) are the one who are profiting from it (all those who manufacture, distribute and sell non-reusable products that externalize the waste management cost to the rest of us)

ilaksh 10y ago

A related topic is bioplastic, i.e. plastic from biofuels or biogeneration (on the short term rather than millions of years like plastic derived from petroleum). Maybe educate on that too and the importance in general of replacing petroleum-dependent industrial materials and processes.