February 25th, 2019
The circular economy is a revolutionary idea of transforming how we use and value resources. It is a chance to make the idea of ‘waste’ something for the history books – zero waste by using resources effectively, environmentally and intelligently. The ‘make, use, dispose’ linear economy has no future in a world of finite resource.
This means the circular economy is not just an option, it is a
necessity. Otherwise, we will choke the planet with waste to the point of our
own extinction. To our own detriment, the EU is just fancying with the idea and
enjoying the soundbite, rather than implementing this radical way of reorganising
society.
The new Single Use Plastics Directive was a test for the EU to
show its true colours on the circular economy in practice. The Commission
brought forward a proposal to reduce the impact of plastic on the environment,
including some elements on eco-design – notably the tethered caps on plastic
beverage bottles.
While reciting the vague references to the circular economy principles
in the proposal, we cannot say that it was really incorporated in the substance
of the provisions. There are major challenges in smoothing out the wrinkles in
the interface of chemical, product and waste legislation – and this directive
could have been the moment to show this interplay and make clear that the
plastics economy must be closed loop.
The reason the circular economy has trouble catching on in
Brussels is because it is an anti-capitalist idea. If it were recognised for
what it is, the circular economy itself would be binned and landfilled. But
it’s true – the idea of a circular economy undermines the necessity to
constantly extract resources from our planet, which is a threat to industries
and big corporations that capitalise from the constant need to consume new
things.
The circular economy is a fight against disposability, but mass
disposability is a profitable game. If we do not throw things out then we are
not going to run to the shop to buy new replacements. The circular economy is
massive market interference – telling companies how to design their products
and making the private sector responsible throughout the product’s lifecycle.
Circular economy means less energy, less oil, less intermediaries. So if the circular economy relies on a post-growth economy, it can only go against the grain of the EU’s unlimited-growth-style capitalism.
This is why the EU, in its current form, cannot fully embrace the
concept. The corporate hold on the EU’s institutions is quietly, but firmly,
resisting the true meaning of circular economy.
Many corporations will greenwash their way into the conversation,
speaking of ‘new business opportunities’ it offers and proposing their circular
economy business plans. These attempts to reduce the circular economy to
rhetoric are succeeding, while the true revolution within the concept is
waning, losing its significance all together.
The Commission could revive the rebellious notion of circular
economy by undertaking major reforms. One obstacle to the realisation of a
circular economy is the systemic problem of lack of transparency around the EU
institutions.
No circular economy can be established unless it is accompanied by
radical reforms on the secrecy and opacity of the European Commission, and
Council in particular. The reach of the corporate arm into the institutions is
derailing any chances of a shift away from the constant-growth mind-set.
The Commission, of course, will not go down this route. Instead,
it tokenises the circular economy concept, most recently in its 2050 long-term
strategy for greenhouse gas emissions, an essential strategy for decarbonising
the EU economy in line with the Paris Agreement.
However, in the strategy, the circular economy is coupled quite
awkwardly with “competitive industry” as one of the seven strategic areas on
the road to climate neutrality. Moreover, only one of the eight scenarios
explored for decarbonisation is based on a ‘highly circular economy’.
Without going any further, we can see the Commission’s commitment,
or lack thereof, to the circular economy principles in its hollow words in this
strategy. The long-term strategy, like the circular economy itself, ought to be
a far-reaching, radically transformative, new road to a greener future.
Instead, the Commission will use radical notions as window dressing for the
same old business as usual policies.
Looking back at the Single Use Plastics Directive, the Parliament
adopted a relatively positive report, upholding the producer responsibility
provisions and keeping derogations to a minimum. When the Council, on the other
hand, brought forward its general approach, industry was spread all over it –
delayed deadlines, loopholes, derogations and clauses to rein in ambition, all
Council red lines of course.
The Parliament, as usual, was bullied into conceding on pretty
much everything. We have no record of whom the Permanent Representations met
with, no publically available documents on amendments submitted by Member
States and no vote record to scrutinise.
So as long as the corporate cosiness thrives in the EU, the
circular economy cannot find its place. Instead, it will be thrown around
jargonistically by the Commission to convince itself that it is on the right
path – a lie that goes in circles.
By Lynn Boylan
Lynn is a member of Sinn Fein and has served as an MEP since 2014, with a background in ecology and experience as a community programme coordinator in the environmental sector. This article was originally printed in the Parliament Magazine on 18th February 2019.
The post Circular Economy in Europe – little success so far appeared first on Green News Ireland.
