Recycling ist gut, Kreislauf ist besser Circular Economy beats pure recycling Past Co-Chair
The Circular Economy means Decoupling Decoupling natural resource use from economic growth Published by UNEP in 2010
The classical origin of the decoupling idea: The Kuznets-curve of local pollution. Local pollution rich and dirty Decoupling prosperity from dirt Poor and clean rich and clean! Time and prosperity
Decoupling did work for pollution but not for resource use.
The reason is simple: Pollution control means wealth. Small resource use means poverty. Everybody wants wealth, preferably US life styles. But if 7.6 billion people reach US life styles, we d need 5 planets Earth
So the Panel decided to address Decoupling again, this time technologies and policies towards a circular economy Published by UNEP in 2013
We saw the need to distinguish between 1. Decoupling by maturation (overcoming initial clumsiness, saturating infrastructures) 2. Decoupling by trade (problem shifting) 3. Decoupling by intentional increase of resource productivity (trivial!) (hard work!)
An ambitious goal is a five-fold increase of resource productivity.
Meaning a Kuznets Curve of dematerialization! Source: Steinberger et al, 2010 GDP per capita
and assist developing countries tunneling through Source: Steinberger et al, 2010 GDP per capita
2009 2010 2010 2012 2013 2014 We can prove that a five-fold increase in resource productivity is technologically available.
Let us run through some Factor Five examples. Volkswagen s concept car XL1 is five times more fuel efficient than today s fleet Today s fleet 5-10 l/100km Volkswagen XL1 0.9 l/100km Energy efficiency
Passive houses : a factor of ten more heat efficient Energy efficiency
LED replacing incandescent bulbs: a factor of 10 Philips 7W Master LED Energy efficiency
Aluminium from bauxite or from scrap Energy efficiency
103 Lr 102 No 101 Md 100 Fm 99 Es 98 Cf 97 Bk 96 Cm 95 Am 94 Pu 93 Np 92 U 91 Pa 90 Th 89 Ac ** Actinides 71 Lu 70 Yb 69 Tm 68 Er 67 Ho 66 Dy 65 Tb 64 Gd 63 Eu 62 Sm 61 Pm 60 Nd 59 Pr 58 Ce 57 La * Lanthanides 118 Uuo (117) (Uus) 116 Uuh 115 Uup 114 Uuq 113 Uut 112 Uub 111 Rg 110 Ds 109 Mt 108 Hs 107 Bh 106 Sg 105 Db 104 Rf ** 88 Ra 87 Fr 7 86 Rn 85 At 84 Po 83 Bi 82 Pb 81 Tl 80 Hg 79 Au 78 Pt 77 Ir 76 Os 75 Re 74 W 73 Ta 72 Hf * 56 Ba 55 Cs 6 54 Xe 53 I 52 Te 51 Sb 50 Sn 49 In 48 Cd 47 Ag 46 Pd 45 Rh 44 Ru 43 Tc 42 Mo 41 Nb 40 Zr 39 Y 38 Sr 37 Rb 5 36 Kr 35 Br 34 Se 33 As 32 Ge 31 Ga 30 Zn 29 Cu 28 Ni 27 Co 26 Fe 25 Mn 24 Cr 23 V 22 Ti 21 Sc 20 Ca 19 K 4 18 Ar 17 Cl 16 S 15 P 14 Si 13 Al 12 Mg 11 Na 3 10 Ne 9 F 8 O 7 N 6 C 5 B 4 Be 3 Li 2 2 He 1 H 1 Period 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 Group # 103 Lr 102 No 101 Md 100 Fm 99 Es 98 Cf 97 Bk 96 Cm 95 Am 94 Pu 93 Np 92 U 91 Pa 90 Th 89 Ac ** Actinides 71 Lu 70 Yb 69 Tm 68 Er 67 Ho 66 Dy 65 Tb 64 Gd 63 Eu 62 Sm 61 Pm 60 Nd 59 Pr 58 Ce 57 La * Lanthanides 118 Uuo (117) (Uus) 116 Uuh 115 Uup 114 Uuq 113 Uut 112 Uub 111 Rg 110 Ds 109 Mt 108 Hs 107 Bh 106 Sg 105 Db 104 Rf ** 88 Ra 87 Fr 7 86 Rn 85 At 84 Po 83 Bi 82 Pb 81 Tl 80 Hg 79 Au 78 Pt 77 Ir 76 Os 75 Re 74 W 73 Ta 72 Hf * 56 Ba 55 Cs 6 54 Xe 53 I 52 Te 51 Sb 50 Sn 49 In 48 Cd 47 Ag 46 Pd 45 Rh 44 Ru 43 Tc 42 Mo 41 Nb 40 Zr 39 Y 38 Sr 37 Rb 5 36 Kr 35 Br 34 Se 33 As 32 Ge 31 Ga 30 Zn 29 Cu 28 Ni 27 Co 26 Fe 25 Mn 24 Cr 23 V 22 Ti 21 Sc 20 Ca 19 K 4 18 Ar 17 Cl 16 S 15 P 14 Si 13 Al 12 Mg 11 Na 3 10 Ne 9 F 8 O 7 N 6 C 5 B 4 Be 3 Li 2 2 He 1 H 1 Period 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 Group # 103 Lr 102 No 101 Md 100 Fm 99 Es 98 Cf 97 Bk 96 Cm 95 Am 94 Pu 93 Np 92 U 91 Pa 90 Th 89 Ac ** Actinides 71 Lu 70 Yb 69 Tm 68 Er 67 Ho 66 Dy 65 Tb 64 Gd 63 Eu 62 Sm 61 Pm 60 Nd 59 Pr 58 Ce 57 La * Lanthanides 118 Uuo (117) (Uus) 116 Uuh 115 Uup 114 Uuq 113 Uut 112 Uub 111 Rg 110 Ds 109 Mt 108 Hs 107 Bh 106 Sg 105 Db 104 Rf ** 88 Ra 87 Fr 7 86 Rn 85 At 84 Po 83 Bi 82 Pb 81 Tl 80 Hg 79 Au 78 Pt 77 Ir 76 Os 75 Re 74 W 73 Ta 72 Hf * 56 Ba 55 Cs 6 54 Xe 53 I 52 Te 51 Sb 50 Sn 49 In 48 Cd 47 Ag 46 Pd 45 Rh 44 Ru 43 Tc 42 Mo 41 Nb 40 Zr 39 Y 38 Sr 37 Rb 5 36 Kr 35 Br 34 Se 33 As 32 Ge 31 Ga 30 Zn 29 Cu 28 Ni 27 Co 26 Fe 25 Mn 24 Cr 23 V 22 Ti 21 Sc 20 Ca 19 K 4 18 Ar 17 Cl 16 S 15 P 14 Si 13 Al 12 Mg 11 Na 3 10 Ne 9 F 8 O 7 N 6 C 5 B 4 Be 3 Li 2 2 He 1 H 1 Period 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 Group # 103 Lr 102 No 101 Md 100 Fm 99 Es 98 Cf 97 Bk 96 Cm 95 Am 94 Pu 93 Np 92 U 91 Pa 90 Th 89 Ac ** Actinides 71 Lu 70 Yb 69 Tm 68 Er 67 Ho 66 Dy 65 Tb 64 Gd 63 Eu 62 Sm 61 Pm 60 Nd 59 Pr 58 Ce 57 La * Lanthanides 118 Uuo (117) (Uus) 116 Uuh 115 Uup 114 Uuq 113 Uut 112 Uub 111 Rg 110 Ds 109 Mt 108 Hs 107 Bh 106 Sg 105 Db 104 Rf ** 88 Ra 87 Fr 7 86 Rn 85 At 84 Po 83 Bi 82 Pb 81 Tl 80 Hg 79 Au 78 Pt 77 Ir 76 Os 75 Re 74 W 73 Ta 72 Hf * 56 Ba 55 Cs 6 54 Xe 53 I 52 Te 51 Sb 50 Sn 49 In 48 Cd 47 Ag 46 Pd 45 Rh 44 Ru 43 Tc 42 Mo 41 Nb 40 Zr 39 Y 38 Sr 37 Rb 5 36 Kr 35 Br 34 Se 33 As 32 Ge 31 Ga 30 Zn 29 Cu 28 Ni 27 Co 26 Fe 25 Mn 24 Cr 23 V 22 Ti 21 Sc 20 Ca 19 K 4 18 Ar 17 Cl 16 S 15 P 14 Si 13 Al 12 Mg 11 Na 3 10 Ne 9 F 8 O 7 N 6 C 5 B 4 Be 3 Li 2 2 He 1 H 1 Period 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 Group # But recycling rates worldwide are embarrassingly low! High tech metals typically enjoy recycling rates below 1%!! >50% >25-50% >10-25% 1-10% <1%??? Source: Thomas Graedel et al 2011 (in preparation) Recycling Rates of Metals. UNEP, Paris Source: Thomas Graedel for
If Europe (EU 28) is 100% import dependent for several metals! (Source: SOER 2010, EEA, p.7) it makes a lot of sense to recycle those!
Beyond recycling we better change the business model from selling goods to leasing, sharing, repairing, remanufacturing. From: The Lightbulb Conspiracy: The Untold Story of Planned Obsolescence documentarystream.com Walter Stahel Pict: Geneva Association
The circular economy concept does include recycling
But under existing recycling laws our economies are still 91% linear! (figures from Britain ca 2015) 9% ci9rc ular 9% ci9rc ular only 9% circular! greenallianceblog.org
The EllenMacArthur Foundation. is at the vanguard of the Circular Economy. euronews.com
A 2013 report is on Metal Recycling Opportunities, Limits, Infrastructure. It proposes to recycle the big metals as usual, and the small ones by careful design. www.unep.fr/scp/rpanel
The next step for the Panel was looking at Remanufacturing. Classically, products live longer that their components. Then you need maintenance and repair. But today it s often the other way round: components live longer than the product. Then you better design components as modules that can be reused many times, thus especially conserving the precious rare metals. Sue Weisler, Rochester Inst. of Tech. says Prof. Nabil Nasr, member of the International Resource Panel!
Some literature. Growth Within. A circular economy vision for a competitive Europe 2015. Ellen MacArthur Foundation and McKinsey. Quote from page 14: Shifting towards a growth within model would deliver better outcomes for the European economy and yield annual benefits of up to 1.8 trillion by 2030.
Yet more inspiring and more progressive: A Good Disruption by Martin Stuchtey, Per-Anders Enkvist and Klaus Zumwinkel. Bloomsbury, London, 2016
Broader and in part more philosophical: The newest Club of Rome Report Springer: January 2018 Gütersloh: October 2017
Good news from the business sector
Let us turn to policy questions. Basically we have 3 options: Standards and administrative rules <including bans, life cycle responsibility, insurance rules, labels > Tradable permits <worked for some air pollutants, water extraction, land use, but not so well on CO2> Direct pricing <the underestimated, sleeping giant!>
My preference relating to resource efficiency is direct pricing. But we must avoid capital destruction, industry emigration, and social injustice. Make energy and resource prices rise slowly, in proportion to the documented average efficiency increases.
What I am suggesting is a ping-pong between recycling rates and virgin material prices. (for energy: between energy efficiency gains and energy prices.)
The ping-pong idea is 150 years old: Wages rose parallel with labour productivity. Both rose roughly twentyfold in 150 years! Example from the USA from 1910 1960 showing how wages followed labour productivity
The new resource ping-pong could trigger a steady increase, perhaps five-fold, of average resource productivity, in 40 years. It would boost the recycling industry and induce it to incorporate maintenance, reuse, remanufacturing etc. And it would reduce Europe s import dependency!
Two corrections to the price avenue: 1. Life-line tariffs for the poor; 2. Revenue neutrality for endangered branches: like with the Swedish NOx tax of 1992.
Clearly, I am not expecting the paradigm shift to happen very soon. But if Europe and other pioneering countries and companies enjoy first mover advantages, the others will follow. Thank you!