Is Your Company Ready for the Circular Economy?

[cantbeserious]

by Eric Hellweg | 2:09 PM January 25, 2013

http://blogs.hbr.org/cs/2013/01/is_your_company_ready_for_the.html



There's nothing like being alone on a highly experimental 75-foot boat five days from anywhere to make you realize some pretty profound things. For Ellen MacArthur, who twice solo circumnavigated the globe on said sailboat — the second time setting the world record for speed in doing so (71 days, 14 hours) — her realization came when she considered the finite resources she had to pack with her for those two-plus months alone. Seeing the world as she did through her trip, she began to appreciate the finite resources of the planet.

Not long after she reached shore, she decided to do something about it. She started an eponymous foundation focused on understanding a better way for the economy to manage its resources. Her investigation led to a concept now known as the "circular economy" — a phrase I heard quite a bit at the World Economic Forum's Annual Meeting in Davos this year. If some of the buzz is any indication — and I believe it will be — it's a concept that will gain a lot of traction this year as more companies look for ways to better manage dwindling natural resources and more consumers demand action on environmental issues.

I had a chance to meet with Ellen in Davos to learn more about the concept of a circular economy. Below is an edited transcript of our conversation.

Snip ....

http://www.ellenmacarthurfoundation.org/

[Tobin S.]

1. I work for a recycler.

[cantbeserious]

2. An Idea Long Overdue For Implementation In A Resource Constrained World

eom

[elehhhhna]

9. I'ma headhunter! WE DEFINE CIRCULAR!

go us!

[cantbeserious]

3. Kick For Importance To Sustainability

eom

[CanonRay]

4. My, the right wing flat earthers are going to love this Circular Economy idea

I read up on it after seeing this post. Great idea, only the Neanderthals in this country will fight it tooth and nail as another UN conspiracy.

[cantbeserious]

5. Extinction Has Its Blessings

eom

[tinrobot]

6. We should trust corporations to own our stuff?

I understand the sentiment, but corporations don't have such a good track record, IMHO. I'm not sure if trusting them to own and maintain our stuff gets at the heart of the problem.

I think we need to simply charge the true cost for items, which includes the cost of recycling and the cost of raw materials.

If you buy a cellphone, you pay for the cost of recycling it up front (kind of like a bottle deposit). When you turn in your old phone, you get some of that money back.

On the corporate side, heavily tax each pound of stuff dug up from the earth. Make using recycled materials far more desirable than extracting raw.

[cantbeserious]

7. How Is A Lease From A Corporation Different Than Any Other Kind Of Lease?

eom

[tinrobot]

11. Why is leasing the answer?

Leasing just means some other person or some other company owns the object being leased. The object still needs to be manufactured and disposed, regardless.

The ownership of the object is not the core issue. Making the object sustainable is the issue.

[klyon]

8. finally... we need to go this direction fast

naming it is a big start

[snot]

10. This makes sense, but

only if we strengthen and start enforcing anti-trust and other consumer-protective laws.

Similar to the concerns re- the Cloud: it's efficient and convenient, until the owners delete or modify your data or allow your privacy to be violated or compromised, intentionally or otherwise.

[abbyjoseph]

12. Seven ways to get serious with North Korea

Yesterday, GPS heard from Cato Scholar Doug Bandow, who suggested a hands off response to North Korea’s latest nuclear test. Today, American Enterprise Institute research fellow Michael Mazza suggests a very different response. The views expressed are his own.
Tuesday morning on the Today show, senior Barack Obama adviser Valerie Jarrett asserted that North Korea’s nuclear program “doesn’t strengthen North Korea. It makes it more vulnerable.” If only that were so. While the North’s nuclear weapons do contribute to its international isolation, it’s not at all clear that Pyongyang has any interest in joining the “world community,” as the president so often suggests.
In fact, North Korea’s nuclear achievements have, to date, made it feel less vulnerable. First, they provide leader Kim Jong-un with fodder for domestic propaganda, which may help shore up the regime. Second, and perhaps more importantly, they enhance its nascent nuclear deterrent. Kim and his cronies are already confident they can act with impunity, as they did in carrying out deadly attacks – indeed, what should be seen as acts of war – on South Korea in 2010 with the sinking of the Cheonan naval vessel and the shelling of Yeonpyeong island. As they continue to deploy their own nuclear capabilities, that confidence will surely only grow.

http://globalpublicsquare.blogs.cnn.com/2013/02/14/seven-ways-to-get-serious-with-north-korea/