Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
DOI 10.1007/s11625-006-0013-6
Received: 1 May 2006 / Accepted: 30 August 2006 / Published online: 21 December 2006
Integrated Research System for Sustainability Science and Springer 2006
M. S. Andersen (&)
Department of Policy Analysis,
National Environmental Research Institute,
Grenaavej 14, 8410 Roende, Denmark
e-mail: msa@dmu.dk
Introduction
The concept of a circular economy currently widely
promoted in Asia has its conceptual roots in industrial ecology, which envisions a form of material symbiosis between otherwise very different companies and
production processes. Industrial ecology emphasises
the benefits of recycling residual waste materials and
by-products through, for example, the development of
complex interlinkages, such as those in the renowned
industrial symbiosis projects (see Jacobsen 2006).
However, in more general terms, it promotes resource
minimisation and the adoption of cleaner technologies
(Andersen 1997, 1999).
In industrial ecology, it is implied that a circular
economy will be beneficial to society and to the
economy as a whole. Benefits will be obtained, not
only by minimising use of the environment as a sink
for residuals but perhaps more importantly by
minimising the use of virgin materials for economic
activity. Intuitively, the potential benefits seem
straightforward, but it is important to stress that the
perspective prevailing within the circular economy
approach is, in fact, based on physical rather than
economic observations.
The assumed benefits are based on the fundamental
observation that the loss of material residuals, in
physical units, is minimised. But how far should society
go in the recycling of materials? While the first and
most straightforward recycling options provide evident
benefits, once the recycling road is embarked upon, the
subsequent benefits gradually become more and more
difficult to achieve. It has to be acknowledged that at
some stage there will be a cut-off point where recycling
will become too difficult and burdensome to provide a
123
134
K
Fig. 1 The conventional open-ended economy. P production, C
consumption, K capital goods, U utility, R natural resources
A circular economy
The conventional perception of the economic system is
that it is open-ended. Production, P, is aimed at producing consumer goods, C, and capital goods, K. In
turn, capital goods produce consumption in the future.
The purpose of consumption is to create utility, U,
or welfare. Sometimes natural resources, R, are also
considered within this linear perspective (Fig. 1).
123
W
r
Environment
as waste sink
Fig. 2 The simplified circular economy. r Recycling, W waste
135
123
136
ER
(-)
(-)
(+)
RR
(-)
h>y
(+)
h>y
h<y
(+)
W
r
(-)
Negative
amenity
(+)
W<A W>A
Flows of materials/energy
Utility flows
123
External effects
Pigou (1920) (predecessor to John Maynard Keynes at
Cambridge) drew attention to the significance of market failures in terms of externalities in the economic
system, including externalities such as environmental
externalities. External effects occur wherever a
transaction between A and B has unwanted, positive or
negative, consequences for third party, but Pigous
favourite example was impacts from pollution.
We can categorise such effects in particular the
negative external effects in terms of the four economic functions of the environment and the economic
concept of sustainability. Economic activities can
hence:
impact amenity values negatively;
lead to excess resource extraction, i.e. depletion;
cause harmful residual flows beyond the assimilative
capacity of biological systems;
reduce the regenerative capacity of life support
systems.
External effects can also be positive, such as the
nutrient effect of airborne nitrate in stimulating crop
137
123
138
Emissions
&
dispersion
Exposure
(GIS)
Impacts
- environment
- health
Costs
- valuation
SO2
NOx
PM2.5
VOCs
Austria
Belgium
Denmark
Finland
France
Germany
Greece
Ireland
Italy
Netherlands
Portugal
Spain
Sweden
UK
EU-15 average
7,200
7,900
3,300
970
7,400
6,100
4,100
2,600
5,000
7,000
3,000
3,700
1,700
4,500
5,200
6,800
4,700
3,300
1,500
8,200
4,100
6,000
2,800
7,100
4,000
4,100
4,700
2,600
2,600
4,200
14,000
22,000
5,400
1,400
15,000
16,000
7,800
4,100
12,000
18,000
5,800
7,900
1,700
9,700
14,000
1,400
3,000
720
490
2,000
2,800
930
1,300
2,800
2,400
1,500
880
680
1,900
2,100
123
Conclusions
Significant advances in the pricing of externalities have
been achieved in recent years by means of complex
139
References
Andersen MS (1997) Evaluation of the cleaner technology
programme, environmental review no. 14. Environmental
Protection Agency, Copenhagen. http://www.mst.dk/publica/01000000.htm
Andersen MS (1999) Governance by green taxes: implementing
clean water policies in Europe 19701990. Environ Econ
Policy Stud 2(1):3963
Baumol WJ, Oates WE (1971) The use of standards and prices
for protection of the environment. Swed J Econ 73(1):142
54
123
140
Baumol WJ, Oates WE (1988) The theory of environmental
economics, 2nd edn. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
European Commission (2002) Benefits table database: estimates
of the marginal external costs of air pollution in Europe,
version E1.02a, Bruxelles. http://www.europa.eu.int/comm/
environment/enveco/air/betaec02aforprinting.pdf
Georgescu-Roegen N (1971) The entropy law and economic
processes. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Mass.
Holland M, Berry J, Forster D (eds) (1999) ExternE externalities
of energy, methodology 1998 update, vol 7. European
Commission, Directorate-General XII, Science, Research
and Development, Brussels. http://www.externe.info/
Jacobsen NB (2006) Industrial symbiosis in Kalundborg
Denmark: a quantitative assessment of economic and
environmental aspects. J Ind Ecol 10(12):239256
Kneese AV, Ayres RV, DArge RC (1970) Economics and the
environment: a materials balance approach. John Hopkins
University Press, Baltimore
123