- The best way to build resilience against future pandemics and the impact of climate change is to move to a circular economy.
- Doing so could address 45% of global greenhouse gas emissions and provide a $4.5 trillion economic opportunity.
COVID-19 has created a human tragedy on a huge scale, with deep consequences for the global economy that will lead to an extended recession and long-term hardship.
This foreshadows the greater challenge we face in the years to come as the climate crisis escalates. Already, droughts, tornadoes and floods are threatening the lives and livelihoods of far too many people around the world, yet we are not doing nearly enough to deal with it.
As our thoughts move towards recovering from COVID-19, we must create a more resilient system that ensures the health and safety of all people. We must make sure that we are stronger in the face of the challenges to come. And we must do so without delay
The only way to do this is by re-imagining our relationship with the natural world. We need to entwine social, environmental and economic progress, and decouple economic growth from unsustainable consumption, while driving concrete and collective actions that speed up the adoption of the circular economy and realize systematic change.
Understanding the problem: the take, make, waste system
If we are to build a more resilient system, we must first understand what makes us so vulnerable. Our current linear economic model – in which economic growth is dependent on the endless extraction and use, or misuse, of natural resources – is pushing our planet to the brink.
Over 100 billion tons of resources flow into the economy each year, with the majority eventually lost as waste or emissions, causing lasting damage to the environment and leaving us vulnerable to the ever-worsening effects of the climate crisis.
Any disruption to this flow of resources into the economy also leaves us exposed to huge economic shocks, as has been made all too clear by COVID-19. Global shifts in the labour market, transport and consumer demand have led to wildly fluctuating commodity prices and widespread economic hardship.
With demand for resources expected to double by 2050, our exposure to both environmental and economic challenges will continue to grow.
A visualization of the circular economy in action
A vision for a more resilient world: a circular economy
We need a clear vision for an alternative future. A world in which we can breathe clean air; a world without the climate threats of droughts and floods. A world where resources are plentiful, with enough for all of us to earn a good livelihood. Our vision for the future is ambitious, but it is possible: a circular economy.
A circular economy is focused on designing out waste and pollution, keeping products and materials in use, and regenerating natural systems, so that we do not exhaust the resources of our planet.
Changing the way we make and use products can contribute to addressing 45% of global greenhouse gas emissions, making a critical contribution to mitigating the impending climate crisis. Reducing our reliance on scarce resources increases our economic resilience, and building a circular economy offers a $4.5 trillion economic opportunity by avoiding waste, making businesses more efficient, and creating new employment opportunities. By creating a circular economy we can create a stronger system and flatten or even reverse some of the trends that now threaten the existence of future generations.
1. Focus recovery stimulus on green and circular investment
As economic stimulus packages are introduced to support recovery from COVID-19, there is a huge opportunity to deepen our commitment and promote a circular economy as part of a green recovery. The priorities will be investing in renewable energy, protecting biodiversity and transforming agriculture, and funds should also be used to directly encourage circularity – for instance by investing or providing loan guarantees to circular economy start-ups that are driving solutions.
2. Create a policy framework for a circular economy
Governments play an important role in creating this vision. We need to see an ambitious and broad range of policies introduced to shift our relationship with natural resources and incentivize a move towards a circular economy. There should be subsidies for the re-use of materials, and taxes on waste.
Recycling should be enforced, with an associated investment in the recycling infrastructure needed to make this possible. Carbon pricing is crucial. Procurement should take into account the ‘total cost of ownership’. Single-use plastic should be banned outright.
An ever growing number of global businesses have made a clear call for the introduction of policies for a green recovery to support their own pledges to embed the SDGs in their ways of working, via initiatives such as the UN Global Compact.
What is a circular economy?
The global population is expected to reach close to 9 billion people by 2030 – inclusive of 3 billion new middle-class consumers.This places unprecedented pressure on natural resources to meet future consumer demand.
A circular economy is an industrial system that is restorative or regenerative by intention and design. It replaces the end-of-life concept with restoration, shifts towards the use of renewable energy, eliminates the use of toxic chemicals and aims for the elimination of waste through the superior design of materials, products, systems and business models.
Nothing that is made in a circular economy becomes waste, moving away from our current linear ‘take-make-dispose’ economy. The circular economy’s potential for innovation, job creation and economic development is huge: estimates indicate a trillion-dollar opportunity.
3. Pioneer the adoption of circular business models
Many companies are already shifting away from one-off transactions towards ongoing relationships with their customers. Sharing platforms are on the rise. Some companies are starting to take products back at the end of their economic life – this has the dual benefits of keeping scarce materials in use for as long as possible, while also reducing reliance on availability of raw materials and thus creating a business model that is more resilient against shocks.
The immediate crisis caused by COVID-19 is certainly putting pressure on many companies, but it is crucial that business leaders maintain their commitments to sustainability and circularity during any short-term impact. Long-term thinking is key, but actions make all the difference. When governments introduce measures like carbon pricing and border adjustment tariffs, the companies that are innovating and adjusting their business models will find themselves at a clear business advantage – as well as contributing to the better world we so desperately need.
4. Innovate to stimulate circularity
There are many opportunities for encouraging innovation to change our relationship with our ecosystem, by using new technologies that enable more circular business models. COVID-19 has seen a sudden and dramatic shift towards home working, remote healthcare, and digital virus-tracking, and we can take these lessons forward into the recovery.
We need to encourage the use of new, competitive technologies to reduce energy consumption, to harvest and re-use materials, scale the availability of green energy sources, expand lifecycles of products, and reduce waste. The technology breakthroughs are within reach; we just need to invest in and adopt them.
As we move towards recovery from COVID-19, we must embrace the future, and not postpone the inevitable by hanging on to the past. We must reject waste and adopt circularity. By leveraging all the knowledge, power and influence we have to push forward on these priorities we can build a circular economy. It will take deep collaboration between business, government and civil society, but the rewards will be well worth it; a stronger ecosystem that will be resilient for the decades to come, and a world where people and nature can live together in harmony.
Receive Daily Updates
Recent Posts
The United Nations has shaped so much of global co-operation and regulation that we wouldn’t recognise our world today without the UN’s pervasive role in it. So many small details of our lives – such as postage and copyright laws – are subject to international co-operation nurtured by the UN.
In its 75th year, however, the UN is in a difficult moment as the world faces climate crisis, a global pandemic, great power competition, trade wars, economic depression and a wider breakdown in international co-operation.
Still, the UN has faced tough times before – over many decades during the Cold War, the Security Council was crippled by deep tensions between the US and the Soviet Union. The UN is not as sidelined or divided today as it was then. However, as the relationship between China and the US sours, the achievements of global co-operation are being eroded.
The way in which people speak about the UN often implies a level of coherence and bureaucratic independence that the UN rarely possesses. A failure of the UN is normally better understood as a failure of international co-operation.
We see this recently in the UN’s inability to deal with crises from the ethnic cleansing of the Rohingya Muslims in Myanmar, to civil conflict in Syria, and the failure of the Security Council to adopt a COVID-19 resolution calling for ceasefires in conflict zones and a co-operative international response to the pandemic.
The UN administration is not primarily to blame for these failures; rather, the problem is the great powers – in the case of COVID-19, China and the US – refusing to co-operate.
Where states fail to agree, the UN is powerless to act.
Marking the 75th anniversary of the official formation of the UN, when 50 founding nations signed the UN Charter on June 26, 1945, we look at some of its key triumphs and resounding failures.
Five successes
1. Peacekeeping
The United Nations was created with the goal of being a collective security organisation. The UN Charter establishes that the use of force is only lawful either in self-defence or if authorised by the UN Security Council. The Security Council’s five permanent members, being China, US, UK, Russia and France, can veto any such resolution.
The UN’s consistent role in seeking to manage conflict is one of its greatest successes.
A key component of this role is peacekeeping. The UN under its second secretary-general, the Swedish statesman Dag Hammarskjöld – who was posthumously awarded the Nobel Peace prize after he died in a suspicious plane crash – created the concept of peacekeeping. Hammarskjöld was responding to the 1956 Suez Crisis, in which the US opposed the invasion of Egypt by its allies Israel, France and the UK.
UN peacekeeping missions involve the use of impartial and armed UN forces, drawn from member states, to stabilise fragile situations. “The essence of peacekeeping is the use of soldiers as a catalyst for peace rather than as the instruments of war,” said then UN Secretary-General Javier Pérez de Cuéllar, when the forces won the 1988 Nobel Peace Prize following missions in conflict zones in the Middle East, Africa, Asia, Central America and Europe.
However, peacekeeping also counts among the UN’s major failures.
2. Law of the Sea
Negotiated between 1973 and 1982, the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) set up the current international law of the seas. It defines states’ rights and creates concepts such as exclusive economic zones, as well as procedures for the settling of disputes, new arrangements for governing deep sea bed mining, and importantly, new provisions for the protection of marine resources and ocean conservation.
Mostly, countries have abided by the convention. There are various disputes that China has over the East and South China Seas which present a conflict between power and law, in that although UNCLOS creates mechanisms for resolving disputes, a powerful state isn’t necessarily going to submit to those mechanisms.
Secondly, on the conservation front, although UNCLOS is a huge step forward, it has failed to adequately protect oceans that are outside any state’s control. Ocean ecosystems have been dramatically transformed through overfishing. This is an ecological catastrophe that UNCLOS has slowed, but failed to address comprehensively.
3. Decolonisation
The idea of racial equality and of a people’s right to self-determination was discussed in the wake of World War I and rejected. After World War II, however, those principles were endorsed within the UN system, and the Trusteeship Council, which monitored the process of decolonisation, was one of the initial bodies of the UN.
Although many national independence movements only won liberation through bloody conflicts, the UN has overseen a process of decolonisation that has transformed international politics. In 1945, around one third of the world’s population lived under colonial rule. Today, there are less than 2 million people living in colonies.
When it comes to the world’s First Nations, however, the UN generally has done little to address their concerns, aside from the non-binding UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples of 2007.
4. Human rights
The Human Rights Declaration of 1948 for the first time set out fundamental human rights to be universally protected, recognising that the “inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world”.
Since 1948, 10 human rights treaties have been adopted – including conventions on the rights of children and migrant workers, and against torture and discrimination based on gender and race – each monitored by its own committee of independent experts.
The language of human rights has created a new framework for thinking about the relationship between the individual, the state and the international system. Although some people would prefer that political movements focus on ‘liberation’ rather than ‘rights’, the idea of human rights has made the individual person a focus of national and international attention.
5. Free trade
Depending on your politics, you might view the World Trade Organisation as a huge success, or a huge failure.
The WTO creates a near-binding system of international trade law with a clear and efficient dispute resolution process.
The majority Australian consensus is that the WTO is a success because it has been good for Australian famers especially, through its winding back of subsidies and tariffs.
However, the WTO enabled an era of globalisation which is now politically controversial.
Recently, the US has sought to disrupt the system. In addition to the trade war with China, the Trump Administration has also refused to appoint tribunal members to the WTO’s Appellate Body, so it has crippled the dispute resolution process. Of course, the Trump Administration is not the first to take issue with China’s trade strategies, which include subsidises for ‘State Owned Enterprises’ and demands that foreign firms transfer intellectual property in exchange for market access.
The existence of the UN has created a forum where nations can discuss new problems, and climate change is one of them. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was set up in 1988 to assess climate science and provide policymakers with assessments and options. In 1992, the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change created a permanent forum for negotiations.
However, despite an international scientific body in the IPCC, and 165 signatory nations to the climate treaty, global greenhouse gas emissions have continued to increase.
Under the Paris Agreement, even if every country meets its greenhouse gas emission targets we are still on track for ‘dangerous warming’. Yet, no major country is even on track to meet its targets; while emissions will probably decline this year as a result of COVID-19, atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases will still increase.
This illustrates a core conundrum of the UN in that it opens the possibility of global cooperation, but is unable to constrain states from pursuing their narrowly conceived self-interests. Deep co-operation remains challenging.
Five failures of the UN
1. Peacekeeping
During the Bosnian War, Dutch peacekeeping forces stationed in the town of Srebrenica, declared a ‘safe area’ by the UN in 1993, failed in 1995 to stop the massacre of more than 8000 Muslim men and boys by Bosnian Serb forces. This is one of the most widely discussed examples of the failures of international peacekeeping operations.
On the massacre’s 10th anniversary, then UN Secretary General Kofi Annan wrote that the UN had “made serious errors of judgement, rooted in a philosophy of impartiality”, contributing to a mass murder that would “haunt our history forever”.
If you look at some of the other infamous failures of peacekeeping missions – in places such as Rwanda, Somalia and Angola – it is the limited powers given to peacekeeping operations that have resulted in those failures.
2. The invasion of Iraq
The invasion of Iraq by the US in 2003, which was unlawful and without Security Council authorisation, reflects the fact that the UN is has very limited capacity to constrain the actions of great powers.
The Security Council designers created the veto power so that any of the five permanent members could reject a Council resolution, so in that way it is programmed to fail when a great power really wants to do something that the international community generally condemns.
In the case of the Iraq invasion, the US didn’t veto a resolution, but rather sought authorisation that it did not get. The UN, if you go by the idea of collective security, should have responded by defending Iraq against this unlawful use of force.
The invasion proved a humanitarian disaster with the loss of more than 400,000 lives, and many believe that it led to the emergence of the terrorist Islamic State.
3. Refugee crises
The UN brokered the 1951 Refugee Convention to address the plight of people displaced in Europe due to World War II; years later, the 1967 Protocol removed time and geographical restrictions so that the Convention can now apply universally (although many countries in Asia have refused to sign it, owing in part to its Eurocentric origins).
Despite these treaties, and the work of the UN High Commission for Refugees, there is somewhere between 30 and 40 million refugees, many of them, such as many Palestinians, living for decades outside their homelands. This is in addition to more than 40 million people displaced within their own countries.
While for a long time refugee numbers were reducing, in recent years, particularly driven by the Syrian conflict, there have been increases in the number of people being displaced.
During the COVID-19 crisis, boatloads of Rohingya refugees were turned away by port after port. This tragedy has echoes of pre-World War II when ships of Jewish refugees fleeing Nazi Germany were refused entry by multiple countries.
And as a catastrophe of a different kind looms, there is no international framework in place for responding to people who will be displaced by rising seas and other effects of climate change.
4. Conflicts without end
Across the world, there is a shopping list of unresolved civil conflicts and disputed territories.
Palestine and Kashmir are two of the longest-running failures of the UN to resolve disputed lands. More recent, ongoing conflicts include the civil wars in Syria and Yemen.
The common denominator of unresolved conflicts is either division among the great powers, or a lack of international interest due to the geopolitical stakes not being sufficiently high. For instance, the inaction during the Rwandan civil war in the 1990s was not due to a division among great powers, but rather a lack of political will to engage.
In Syria, by contrast, Russia and the US have opposing interests and back opposing sides: Russia backs the government of the Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad, whereas the US does not.
5. Acting like it’s 1945
The UN is increasingly out of step with the reality of geopolitics today.
The permanent members of the Security Council reflect the division of power internationally at the end of World War II. The continuing exclusion of Germany, Japan, and rising powers such as India and Indonesia, reflects the failure to reflect the changing balance of power.
Also, bodies such as the IMF and the World Bank, which are part of the UN system, continue to be dominated by the West. In response, China has created potential rival institutions such as the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank.
Western domination of UN institutions undermines their credibility. However, a more fundamental problem is that institutions designed in 1945 are a poor fit with the systemic global challenges – of which climate change is foremost – that we face today.