A Waste Management Growth Measurement Model and Sustainability in a Circular Economy Using the Privatization Market Policies Issues

Author(s)

Stamatis kontsas , Ioannis Antoniadis ,

Download Full PDF Pages: 19-25 | Views: 820 | Downloads: 255 | DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.3496525

Volume 8 - June 2019 (06)

Abstract

The European economy is largely linear by design, resulting in avoidable environmental and human health impacts, inefficient use of natural resources and over-dependency on resources from outside Europe.
Moving to a circular economy would alleviate these pressures and concerns, and deliver economic, social and environmental benefits (EEA, 2017). In the past, the creation of waste in connection with production and consumption was accepted as a necessary evil. Today, that apparent common sense is increasingly being challenged: circular economy, zero waste, closed-cycle, resource efficiency, waste avoidance, re-uses, recycling – all these terms can be attributed to the ideal of achieving a world largely without waste, and instead one with a responsible attitude to resources, materials, products and the environment
However, it will require a comprehensive holistic concept to actually ensure that approaches like avoidance, re-use, and recycling are taken into account in every stage of the product life cycle and at the level of materials and energy – with environmental product design applied from the very outset to permit recycling at the end of the product life cycle (Wilts 2016). During the past decade, economists have become increasingly aware of the important implications of environmental issues for the success of development efforts. We now understand that the interaction between poverty and environmental degradation can lead to a self-perpetuating process in which, as a result of ignorance or economic necessity, communities may inadvertently destroy or exhaust the resources on which they depend for survival. Rising pressures on increasingly taxed environmental resources in developing countries can have severe consequences for Third World self-sufficiency, income distribution, and future growth potential

Keywords

Environment, Waste Management Capital, Sustainability

References

                        i.            Jansson, A. et al (editors) (2018), Investing in Natural Capital: The Ecological Economics Approach to Sustainability, Island Press, USA.

      ii.            Clayton, A.M.Η& Radcliffe, N.J., (2016), Sustainability, A Systems Approach, Earthscan Publications Ltd, London.

    iii.            Peet, J, (2002),Energy and the Ecological Economics of Sustainability, island Press, USA.

     iv.            Mason, Ρ. and Acutt, M, (2016), Environmental Valuation, Economic Policy and Sustainability,Edward Elgar Publishing, USA.

       v.            Hanley, Ν et al,  (2017), Environmental Economics in Theory and Practice, MacMillan Press Ltd, London.

     vi.            Pearce, D.W and Turner, R.K, (2018), Economics of Natural Resources and the Environment, Harvester Wheatsheaf, London.

   vii.            Solow, R.M, (FEB 1956),A Contribution to Economic Growth, Quarterly Journal of Economics.

 viii.            Mankiw, G.N, (2004), Macroeconomics, Worth Publishers, New York.

     ix.            Wertzman, M.L, (2007), Sustainability and Technical Progress, Scandinavian Journal of Economics 99(1).

       x.            Lenssen, Ν and Flavin, C, (2016), Sustainable Energy for Tomorrow's World, Energy Policy Vol 24, No 9.

     xi.            Blowers, A (editor), (2013), planning for a Sustainable Environment, Earthscan Publications Ltd, London.

   xii.            Cope, O, Is Sustainable Development Compatible with the Friafe Market, discussion paper found at www.environment97.org

 xiii.            Sustainability Counts and Sustainable Development Opportunities for Change, discussion papers found at www.environment.detr.gov.uk/sustainable

 xiv.            European Commission (2015). Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions: Closing the loop – An EU action plan for the Circular Economy, COM2015 614 final.

   xv.            European Commission (2015a). COM(2015) 596 final, Proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Directive 94/62/EC on packaging and packaging waste, Brussels.

 xvi.            European Parliament (2014). Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Directives 2008/98/EC on waste, 94/62/EC on packaging and packaging waste,1999/31/EC on the landfill of waste, 2000/53/EC on end-of-life vehicles, 2006/66/EC on batteries and accumulators and waste batteries and accumulators, and 2012/19/EU on waste electrical and electronic equipment COM(2014) 397 final.

xvii.            European Environment Agency (2015). The European Environment: State and Outlook 2015,Synthesis report. Copenhagen.

xviii.            EP(2018): Waste Management in Europe: Main Problems Identified in EU Petitions and Best Practices.

 xix.            EIMPACK, (2011). Economic impact of the packaging and packaging waste directive – literature review.

   xx.            EIO (2014). Eco-Innovation: Enabling the transition to a resource-efficient circular economy. Eco-Innovation Observatory. Edited by O’Brien, M., Miedzinski, M., Giljum, S., and Doranova, A.

 xxi.            IEEP(2009),A report on the implementation of the Packaging and Packaging Waste Directive 94/62/EC.

xxii.            SRU (2016). Environmental report 2016. An integrated approach to environmental policy: the way forward. Berlin.

xxiii.            UNEP (2011b). Decoupling natural resource use and environmental impacts from economic growth.

xxiv.            WRAP (2015). Economic Growth Potential of More Circular Economies. Available at:http://www.wrap.org.uk/sites/files/wrap/Economic growth potential of more circulareconomies.

Cite this Article: