Economy
5 opportunities of a circular economy | Greenbiz – GreenBiz
More than 100 billion tons of resources enter the economy every year — everything from metals, minerals and fossil fuels to organic materials from plants and animals. Just 8.6 percent gets recycled and used again. Use of resources has tripled (automatic PDF download) since 1970 and could double again by 2050 if business continues as usual. We would need 1.5 Earths to sustainably support our current resource use.
This rampant consumption has devastating effects for humans, wildlife and the planet. It is more urgent than ever to shift from linear, use-it-up-and-throw-it-away models to a circular economy: where waste and pollution are designed out, products and materials are kept in use for longer, and natural systems can regenerate.
A circular economy isn’t just about fixing environmental wrongs, though: Evidence shows it can bring big opportunities and positive impacts across industries, sectors and lives.
A growing number of businesses, governments and civil society organizations are coming together to drive the change through the Platform for Accelerating the Circular Economy (PACE). More than 200 experts from 100 organizations helped develop the Circular Economy Action Agenda, a set of publications that analyze the potential impact and call for action across five key sectors: plastics, textiles, electronics, food and capital equipment (machinery and large tools such as medical scanners, agricultural equipment and manufacturing infrastructure). The Action Agenda demonstrates five opportunities associated with the shift to a circular economy:
1. Make better use of finite resources
The circular economy concept is all about making better use of natural resources such as forests, soil, water, air, metals and minerals.
Take the textiles industry. Each year, huge quantities of fossil fuels are used to produce clothes from synthetic fibers each year. Textile production (including cotton farming) uses almost 100 billion cubic meters of water per year, about 4 percent of global freshwater withdrawal. At the same time, people throw away still-wearable clothes worth an estimated $460 billion each year.
Creating a circular economy for textiles means shifting to recycled and recyclable materials in order to reduce the amount of land, water and fossil fuels used to produce new clothes. It means changing consumption patterns to reduce new purchases and keep clothes in use for longer, for instance by developing the second-hand and rental markets as well as changing the culture of fast fashion. Research suggests that the purchase of 100 second-hand garments can displace the production of 85 new garments. And finally, it means ensuring that clothes at the end of their life are collected and recycled or repurposed into new clothes, further reducing resource use.
2. Reduce emissions
About 45 percent of global greenhouse gas emissions come from product use and manufacturing, as well as food production. Circular economy strategies that reduce our use of resources can cut global greenhouse gas emissions by 39 percent (22.8 billion tons) and play a crucial role in averting the dangerous impacts of climate change.
For example, shifting towards recycled materials would alleviate the need to produce virgin plastics and synthetic fibers, which would significantly reduce fossil fuel use and associated emissions. Changing consumption patterns is also crucial: For example, if the average number of times a garment is worn were doubled, greenhouse gas emissions from the textiles industry would be 44 percent lower.
The world produces around 300 million tons of plastic waste every year, nearly equivalent to the weight of the entire human population.
Creating a circular economy for food by reducing loss and waste is particularly crucial to lowering emissions: If food loss and waste were a country, it would be the third-largest emitter after the United States and China.
3. Protect human health and biodiversity
Every year, more than 9 million deaths occur due to air, water and soil pollution. This pollution also threatens biodiversity.
Working towards a circular economy helps protect human health and biodiversity in many ways, including by making better use of natural resources (protecting water and land), and by mitigating the climate crisis. One of the clearest and most direct impacts of the shift to a circular economy will come from how we deal with products at the end of their life.
The world produces around 300 million tons of plastic waste every year, nearly equivalent to the weight of the entire human population. This is on top of 54 million tons of electronic waste (e-waste), of which just 17.4 percent gets collected and recycled. This waste becomes hazardous for human health and for biodiversity when it is mismanaged, either leaking into the natural environment or disposed of through open burning, landfills or substandard recycling.
Designing products to be kept in use for longer reduces the amount of waste produced. Creating proper collection and processing systems protects workers and the environment from hazardous materials. For instance, using existing solutions such as replacing plastic other materials, designing plastics so that they can be more easily recycled and scaling up collection and recycling could reduce the flow of plastic waste into the ocean by 80 percent in 20 years — a shift that would be enormously beneficial for human health and biodiversity.
4. Boost economies
Research shows that the circular economy offers a $4.5 trillion economic opportunity by reducing waste, stimulating innovation and creating employment. New business models focused on reuse, repair, remanufacturing and sharing models offer significant innovation opportunities.
For example, a circular economy for plastics offers considerable economic benefits. Less plastic waste in the ocean would benefit industries such as fishing and tourism, as plastic pollution leads to $13 billion in costs and economic losses per year. Reducing the pollution and toxic emissions that come from the open burning of plastic waste would lower healthcare costs, while reducing fossil fuel use for plastic production would help mitigate climate change and its associated costs.
Many of these economic benefits and opportunities are long-term, indirect and require significant investment; a long-term view is key, as are short-term incentives to drive the change. This can include policies that create more immediate financial incentives for businesses to develop innovative new business models and enable the efficient flow of reused and recycled materials across global value chains.
5. Create more and better jobs
Transitioning to a circular economy could create a net increase of 6 million jobs by 2030. Making the most of this opportunity will require a clear focus on social and environmental justice.
Jobs may be lost in more linear businesses; however, new jobs will be created in fields such as recycling, services such as repair and rental, or in new enterprises that spring up to make innovative use of secondary materials. These new jobs cannot be considered direct replacements, as they may be in different locations and require different skills. For instance, we must consider the millions of garment workers — mostly women — whose employment depends on the continuation of the fast fashion industry. Investing in a just transition via social dialogue, social protection and reskilling programs is key.
While a net increase in jobs is important, another value-add of circularity is the opportunity to provide formal work and improved working conditions for informal laborers. Around 15 million people worldwide work as “waste pickers,” salvaging reusable or recyclable materials from garbage. Bringing these informal waste pickers into formal work in collection or recycling is a major opportunity to offer safer, more secure employment.
Maximizing the impact of the circular economy
Of course, there are always trade-offs to be considered and managed when working towards large-scale, systemic change. For example, shifting to bio-based plastics and natural, recyclable textiles such as cotton will use less fossil fuels than traditional plastics or synthetic fibers, but may increase demands for land and water to grow such materials. Shifting to natural materials is a crucial part of the solution, but only if those materials are produced in a sustainable way — and only if consumption habits change, too.
A long-term view is key, as are short-term incentives to drive the change.
It’s also important to recognize the interconnected nature of the global economy. Many minerals and metals used in electronics are byproducts from the mining of aluminum, copper, lead and zinc, which are used across industries. Going circular in the electronics industry alone would not do much to reduce dependence on these resources. Multiple industries must shift to create systemic change.
Finally, it will be crucial to keep social well-being and equity top-of-mind. For example, moving to a circular economy can shift investment and employment away from production and manufacturing (which tends to happen in lower-income countries) and towards later stages of the value chain, such as repair, resale, sorting and recycling (often concentrated in wealthier countries). We’ll need to ensure that economic benefits are equitably distributed to maximize the opportunity of a circular economy.
A role for everyone
The above five impact areas exhibit some of the social, environmental and economic benefits of a circular economy, but realizing these benefits will require ambitious action. Governments, businesses, civil society, finance institutions, research organizations — everyone has a role to play. The new Circular Economy Action Agenda is a good place to start.
Canada stands to bear a greater economic burden than the United States if Donald Trump wins the upcoming presidential election and imposes promised tax cuts and tariffs on all U.S. imports, a new report warns.
The analysis released Tuesday by Scotiabank Economics says if Trump returns to the White House and follows through on his vow to slap a 10-per cent tariff on all imported goods — with the exception of China, which would face a 60-per cent carve-out on its U.S. exports — and countries retaliate with their own, there would be “substantial negative impacts” on the U.S. economy. GDP would likely fall by more than two per cent by 2027 relative to current forecasts, while inflation would rise 1.5 per cent, leading to a two per cent interest rate hike.
In Canada, the economic impact would be even more stark with an expected GDP drop of 3.6 per cent, given its reliance on trade with the U.S. Inflation and interest rates would also be pushed up for the next two years — 1.7 per cent and 190 basis points, respectively — the report suggests.
“What Trump is looking to do is much broader, and much more concerning, than the tariffs he imposed during his first term,” said Scotiabank’s chief economist Jean-François Perrault, who authored the report.
The report also serves as another reminder that Canada needs to urgently address its issues with lagging productivity, warning the problem makes Canada more vulnerable to economic shocks brought by trade policy changes in the U.S. and abroad.
Perrault says it’s far too late to fix the problem in time for the U.S. election in November.
“It takes a long time to change direction on productivity,” he said in an interview. “Maybe you can make up some ground over the next few quarters, but we need massive amounts of progress to get to where we need to be (to withstand U.S. economic shocks).”
Trump’s policies seen as more likely than Biden’s
Although the analysis examined the impact of policies proposed by both Trump and U.S. President Joe Biden, it focuses more on the fallout from Trump’s promises.
That’s because they’re not only more potentially harmful, Perrault said, but also because they’re more likely to be implemented than Biden’s vow to raise the corporate tax rate.
“There’s really no appetite in the U.S. right now for any kind of tax hike,” Perrault said.
Implementing a change to the corporate tax rate would require Biden’s Democrat party to control both chambers of Congress — a scenario seen as highly unlikely, given recent polling. Trump’s proposals, meanwhile, are seen as more likely to be implemented quickly and without congressional approval, particularly his expanded tariffs.
During his presidency, Trump imposed tariffs on about US$50 billion worth of Chinese goods imported to the U.S., later expanding to another US$300 billion, sparking a trade war with China. Many of those tariffs have remained in place under the Biden administration.
Trump also slapped tariffs up to 25 per cent on imported washing machines, solar panels, steel and aluminum in 2018. Canada and Mexico were later exempted from the steel and aluminum tariffs in 2019, although the Canadian aluminum tariff was briefly reintroduced in 2020.
U.S. government data shows those tariffs — none of which were legislated or approved by Congress — have cost American manufacturers more than US$230 billion as of March 2024 and have shrunk the U.S. economy by 0.3 per cent.
Trump has repeatedly claimed tariffs serve to punish unfair trade practices from other countries, despite agreement among economists that they raise prices for American consumers, and says he wants to expand them to 10 per cent on all imported goods from every country if he wins in November. He has also said he will seek a 100 per cent tariff on imported cars, and carve out a 60 per cent tariff for Chinese imports specifically.
The most likely scenario — a continuation of Trump’s 2017 tax cuts beyond their 2025 expiration combined with across-the-board tariffs — would see Canada’s GDP stay three per cent lower long-term, and just over one-per cent lower in the U.S.
The Scotiabank report says the economic harm from the tariffs can be reduced on both sides of the Canada-U.S. border if Canada and Mexico negotiate an exemption with the U.S. under the Canada-United States-Mexico Agreement (CUSMA), which replaced the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) during the Trump administration.
Scotiabank predicts in that scenario, Canada’s GDP would only fall by 1.4 per cent in the short term — half the drop forecast without an exemption — and 0.3 per cent in the long term, while U.S. GDP would fall 1.7 per cent and 1.2 per cent, respectively.
Perrault says he’s “hopeful” such a carve-out could be negotiated, even though Trump would likely insist on further concessions that benefit U.S. trade. That “bigger stick” approach could be somewhat limited compared to the contentious CUSMA negotiations, however.
“Trump owns CUSMA, so he wouldn’t be in as much of a position to throw it away,” he said. “So maybe we get a little bit of a break.”
The report also examines the impact of Trump’s repeated vow to mass deport roughly 10 million undocumented immigrants living illegally in the U.S., which Perrault admits would be “politically and logistically infeasible.” It would also be economically harmful, the analysis found, permanently reducing both U.S. employment and GDP by three per cent, though the impact on Canada would be negligible.
The analysis says Canada and the U.S. could see additional economic impacts due to a number of scenarios it didn’t explore, including China retaliating to tariffs by unloading its U.S. Treasury holdings; further debt ceiling and budgetary crises in the U.S.; Trump’s appeasement of aggressive foreign adversaries like Russia and China; and domestic civil disorder regardless of who wins the U.S. elections.
Perrault said the findings also underscore the key difference between Trump and Biden as Canadian trade partners.
“Biden seems to view negotiations from a collaborative approach: how can everyone come away with a win?” he said. “Trump doesn’t see it that way. He’s very much in the mindset of, ‘How will this benefit me?’”
More on Money
© 2024 Global News, a division of Corus Entertainment Inc.
More than six months into the devastating Gaza war, its impact on the Israeli and Palestinian economies has been huge.
Nearly all economic activity in Gaza has been wiped out and the World Bank says the war has also hit Palestinian businesses in the occupied West Bank hard.
As Israelis mark the Jewish festival of Passover, the much-vaunted “start-up nation” is also trying to remain an attractive proposition for investors.
The cobbled streets of Jerusalem’s Old City are eerily quiet. There are none of the long queues to visit the holy sites – at least those that remain open.
Just after Easter and Ramadan and right in the middle of Passover, all four quarters of the Old City should be teeming with visitors.
Just 68,000 tourists arrived in Israel in February, according to the country’s Central Bureau of Statistics. That’s down massively from 319,100 visitors in the same month last year.
While it may be surprising that any visitors pass through Jerusalem at a time of such tension, many of those who do are religious pilgrims from across the globe who will have paid for their journeys well in advance.
Zak’s Jerusalem Gifts was one of only a handful of stores on Christian Quarter Street in the Old City, which is situated in occupied East Jerusalem, to have bothered opening up on the day I passed by.
“We’re only really doing online sales,” says Zak, whose business specialises in antiques and biblical coins.
“There are no actual people. The last week, after the Iran-Israel escalation, business dropped down again. So we are just hoping that after the holidays some big major miracle will happen.”
It’s not just in Jerusalem’s Old City that they need a miracle.
Some 250km (150 miles) further north, on Israel’s volatile border with Lebanon, almost daily exchanges of fire with Hezbollah since the war in Gaza began have forced the Israeli army to close much of the area and 80,000 residents have been evacuated further south. A similar number of Lebanese have been forced to leave their homes on the other side of the border.
Agriculture in this part of Israel is another economic sector that has been hit hard.
Ofer “Poshko” Moskovitz isn’t really permitted to enter his avocado orchard in the kibbutz of Misgav Am because of its proximity to the border. But he occasionally ventures in anyway, walking wistfully among the trees, to gaze at all of his “money falling on the ground”.
“I must go to pick in the orchard because it’s very important for the next season,” Poshko says. “If I don’t pick this fruit, the next season will be a very poor one.”
He says he is losing a lot of money because he can’t pick the avocados – around 2m shekels ($530,000; £430,000) this season, he says.
Although they provide a living for thousands of people, agriculture and tourism account for relatively small parts of both the Israeli or Palestinian economies.
So what does the wider picture show?
Last week ratings agency S&P Global cut Israel’s long-term ratings (to A-plus from AA-minus) reflecting a loss of market confidence after increased tensions between Israel and Iran and concerns the war in Gaza could spread across the wider Middle East.
That loss of confidence was also reflected in falling Israeli GDP – the total value of goods and services produced in the economy – which decreased by 5.7% in the last quarter of 2023. Many Israelis though say the country’s renowned high-tech and start-up sector is proving to be more “war-proof” than expected.
The coastal city of Tel Aviv is only 54km from Jerusalem. More pertinently, perhaps, it’s less than 70km from Gaza.
At times, you’d be forgiven for forgetting – however momentarily – that Israel is embroiled in its longest war since independence in 1948.
Families make the most of the early summer sun to play in the surf, couples eat lunch in the many open-air beach restaurants and young people strum away on guitars on the green spaces between the coastal road and the Mediterranean.
The backdrop is a city that is economically active and physically growing fast.
“They joke that Israel’s national bird should be the crane – the mechanical kind!” says Jon Medved, founder and CEO of the online global venture investment platform Our Crowd.
An engaging character with an overwhelmingly upbeat view of his world, Medved tells me that, “in the first quarter of this year, almost $2bn was invested in Israeli start-ups… We’re having one of the best years we’ve ever had. People who are engaged with Israel are not disengaging.”
Medved insists that, despite everything, Israel is still the “start-up nation” and a good option for would-be investors.
“There are 400 multinational corporations that have operations here. Not a single multinational, has closed its operation in Israel since the war.”
To an extent, Elise Brezis agrees with Mr Medved’s assessment.
The economics professor at Bar-Ilan University near Tel Aviv acknowledges that despite the last quarter’s GDP figures, Israel’s economy remains “remarkably resilient”.
“When it comes to tourism, yes, we have a reduction in exports. But we had also reduction in imports,” says Brezis. “So in fact, the balance of payments is still okay. That’s what is so problematic is that from the data, you don’t really feel that there is such a terrible situation in Israel.”
But Prof Brezis detects a wider malaise in Israeli society that isn’t reflected in economic data.
“Israel’s economy might be robust, but Israeli society is not robust right now. It’s like looking at a person and saying, ‘Wow, his salary is high,’ […] but in fact he’s depressed. And he’s thinking, ‘What will I do with my life?’ – That’s exactly Israel today.”
If the outlook in Israel is mixed, then across the separation barrier that divides Jerusalem and Bethlehem the view from the Palestinian side is overwhelmingly bleak.
Tourism is especially important to the economies of towns like Bethlehem in the occupied West Bank.
While some people are still heading to Jerusalem’s sites, in the place where Christians believe Jesus was born tourism “stopped immediately” after 7 October last year, says Dr Samir Hazboun, chairman of Bethlehem’s Chamber of Commerce and Industry.
That’s when Hamas attacked Israeli communities near Gaza, killing about 1,200 people, mainly civilians, taking about 250 hostages and sparking the current war.
There’s huge dependence and reliance on Israel’s economy here – but Israel virtually closed off the landlocked West Bank after 7 October and this has had a disastrous impact on the life and work of many Palestinians, Dr Hazboun says.
“The Bethlehem governorate right now is closed,” he says. “There are around 43 gates [in the Israeli security barrier] but only three are open. So with between 16,000 and 20,000 Palestinian workers from our area working in Israel, immediately, they lost their income.”
The chamber of commerce says that the revenues from local Palestinians working in Israel amounted to 22bn shekels ($5.8bn) annually.
“You can imagine the impact on the economy,” says Dr Hazboun, who is particularly concerned for the prospects for younger Palestinians the longer the war continues and more the Israeli and West Bank economies decouple.
“The younger generation now are jobless, they are not working. Many of them are talented people,” he laments.
“In June I’m expecting around 30,000 new graduates from the Palestinian universities. What they will do?
In Gaza itself the economy has been completely destroyed by six months of war. Israel’s relentless aerial bombardment and ground operations have killed 34,183 people, mostly women and children, according to the Hamas-run health ministry.
Unlike in some parts of Israel, where there is optimism around being able to ride out the storm and continue attracting investors, in the West Bank and Gaza there is little hope things will return to any kind of normal.
|
|
China’s world-beating electric vehicle industry, at the heart of growing trade tensions with the US and Europe, is set to receive a big boost from the government’s latest effort to accelerate growth.
That’s one takeaway from what Beijing has revealed about its plan for incentives that will encourage Chinese businesses and households to adopt cleaner technologies. It’s widely expected to be one of this year’s main stimulus programs, though question-marks remain — including how much the government will spend.
Meet Shannon Waters, The Narwhal’s B.C. politics and environment reporter – The Narwhal
Deutsche Bank's Investment Bankers Step Up as Rate Boost Fades – Yahoo Canada Finance
Tesla Promises Cheap EVs by 2025 | OilPrice.com – OilPrice.com
Silver investment demand jumped 12% in 2019
12 Bizarre Things People Did Just To Make Social Media Content
Global Media Markets, 2015-2020, 2020-2025F, 2030F – TV and Radio Broadcasting, Film and Music, Information Services, Web Content, Search Portals And Social Media, Print Media, & Cable – GlobeNewswire
-
Art22 hours ago
The unmissable events taking place during London’s Digital Art Week
-
News23 hours ago
What is a halal mortgage? How interest-free home financing works in Canada
-
Politics17 hours agoOpinion: Fear the politicization of pensions, no matter the politician
-
Economy22 hours ago
German Business Outlook Hits One-Year High as Economy Heals
-
Media15 hours ago
B.C. puts online harms bill on hold after agreement with social media companies
-
Business15 hours ago
Oil Firms Doubtful Trans Mountain Pipeline Will Start Full Service by May 1st
-
Politics16 hours ago
Pecker’s Trump Trial Testimony Is a Lesson in Power Politics
-
Media14 hours ago
Trump poised to clinch US$1.3-billion social media company stock award
