In 1972, MIT published a study called “The Limits to Growth,” and presented evolutionary scenarios for five indicators: world population, industrialization, pollution, food production, and resource use. The prospects were not encouraging: between 2020 and 2030 we would see a peak in development followed by a collapse of environmental and resource services.

This model was re-evaluated in 1992, 2005 and 2014, and the scenarios remain valid. This decade will therefore be decisive in ensuring sustainable prosperity, and this depends on decisions (political, technological, production, behavior) many of them disruptive to the current economic model. This linear model of “extracts, produces, consumes or accumulates (!), recycles (a little) and throws away”, which pushes for larger and faster consumption cycles, could succeed in a world of 4 billion people in 1972, but will not be with 9.7 billion in 2050. “Whoever believes in infinite exponential growth in a world of finite resources is either mad or an economist” (K. Boulding, 1910-1993).

Thinking about a circular economy distances us from the traditional discourse of the Environment, because it makes obvious the relationship between economic value added and risk reduction, and efficiency, productivity and conservation of resources. The premise is simple: if we are more efficient and effective with what we already have, thinking about conservation and regeneration of the materials mobilized, and making them more profitable several times, it will not be necessary to extract so much raw material and we will have less waste, less emissions and (the cherry on top of the cake) will reduce costs, freeing up financial capital.

Whoever believes in infinite exponential growth in a world of finite resources is either mad or an economist
Let’s think about a car. The manufacturer remains its holder and rents it, or provides shared mobility solutions, receiving for the use of the car. It will not make as many cars, because it monetizes the same product more often. But this does not mean less employment: cars will have to be collected, repaired, parts will have to be remanufactured, replaced or upgraded, and this requires specialized employment. And in the “end of life” the components will be extracted for reuse and the remaining materials will be recycled into a new model of that or other brand. Renault is betting on this strategy, and would be a solution for a car park stopped 90% of the time. With these solutions, how much space could be freed for leisure areas? Or for agricultural use? Or for ecological corridors to adapt to climate change?

But there are other types of “waste”: do I need a drill or a hole in the wall? And the canteen that is only used 3 hours a day? And what foods do we not consume? Opportunities for sharing, servicing, and dematerialization are great; materials and products should be considered not for massification, but for reparability, remanufacturing and recycling, so that they can be renewable, biodegradable, simple: eg natural fibers, mushroom mycelium, vegetable leathers, cork, bioplastics (eg, keratin, casein).

But talking about circular economy is also about efficiency. A study done with SMEs in Flanders indicated that reducing material losses by 10% could represent a 2% increase in profits. Another initiative in the UK also with SMEs (co-financed by the European Investment Bank) achieved savings of around £ 370 million in 2012 and 2013. We talk a lot about energy efficiency and how fast the investment is paid. Can we not also talk about materials?

Portugal has a slow economic metabolism, we accumulate resources in our economy (we import and extract more materials than we export finished products), but we are inefficient and productive in its use. In 2015, we generated € 1.1 value for each kg of materials consumed, when the European average is €2. There are several factors associated with this performance, but when we see, for example, that 53% of the cost structure in manufacturing is attributed to raw materials, or when we find our dependence on foreign energy, there is no doubt that there is room for improvement and be more competitive, integrating principles of circularity, carbon neutrality and valuing the territory.

the transition to a low-carbon, circular economy will inevitably have to undergo a transformation of these systems, which in some cases will be radical
We have become too good in our linearity, and our socio-economic systems have been built without weighing the boundary conditions of our natural system. Therefore, the transition to a low-carbon, circular economy will inevitably have to undergo a transformation of these systems, which in some cases will be radical, so that distortions, whether market, regulatory, political or behavioral, can be corrected.

The Action Plan for the Circular Economy approved by the Council of Ministers last December (RCM 190/2017), contemplating national actions and sectoral and regional operations is a starting point. Because we are not talking about a sector of activity, but a transformation of paradigm and this is not something that is determined by decree; has to be worked out in time by all agents. Let there be determination, courage (fiber!) to do it.