JANUARY 13 — The way we conduct the economy is much to blame for climate change. Our choice of energy is a key factor. Renewable fuels are preferred because of their lower emission of GHGs. The production systems we choose significantly influence the carbon emission.
The efficient use of materials matters a lot. In fact, the efficient use of all resources is pivotal in reducing emissions. The inefficient utilization of resources tends to increase wastages, which exacerbate emissions. Improperly managed wastes contribute much to carbon emissions. This is where the linear throwaway economy, which often culminates in much wastage, is less preferred as the world pursues net zero. More countries are looking favourably at the circular economy (CE) as a more sustainable ecosystem.
The circular economy (CE) has emerged as a global framework aimed at addressing environmental challenges while promoting sustainable economic growth. It is being adopted worldwide with varying levels of success and strategies. The progress has been mixed, and the challenges plenty.
Europe has emerged as a leader in CE adoption, driven by the European Union’s Circular Economy Action Plan. The plan sets targets for waste reduction, recycling, and product design improvements. Scandinavian countries like Denmark and Finland have robust CE strategies focusing on renewable energy, eco-design, and waste management. The Netherlands has pledged to become 100 per cent circular by 2050. But balancing high labour costs with affordable circular products and scaling innovation to reach smaller economies present major challenges.
Asia has witnessed rapid growth but uneven progress in CE. China pioneered CE practices through its Circular Economy Promotion Law (2008). The focus has been on industrial symbiosis, e.g., eco-industrial parks. Japan is an early adopter, emphasizing resource efficiency and recycling under its “3R” policy (Reduce, Reuse, Recycle). In India, progress is driven by resource scarcity and informal sector contributions, focusing on e-waste recycling and sustainable packaging. Challenges lie in implementation gaps due to lack of infrastructure, informal economies, and uneven regulatory frameworks.
In North America, the adoption of CE is business-driven. In the United States, CE initiatives are largely private-sector-led. Companies like Apple and IKEA have adopted closed-loop systems, but federal policies are limited compared to Europe. In Canada, policies focus on extended producer responsibility (EPR) and sustainable plastics. The government collaborates with businesses and NGOs to promote CE practices. A high-consumption culture and fragmented state-level policies hinder widespread adoption.
There is emerging interest in Latin America. Countries like Brazil, Chile, and Colombia are integrating CE in waste management, agriculture, and plastics. Collaboration with international organizations like the Ellen MacArthur Foundation has helped establish pilot projects and CE roadmaps. Again, the challenges include limited financial resources and weak enforcement of regulations.
The potential for CE exists in Africa. Currently, the CE in Africa is often driven by necessity, such as recycling and repurposing materials. Informal sectors play a significant role. There are opportunities. Initiatives such as sustainable agriculture, plastic waste reduction, and renewable energy show promise. The usual challenges related to infrastructure deficits, policy voids, and lack of awareness pose obstacles.
In the countries of Oceania, CE involves a sustainability-driven push. Australia focuses on waste reduction, resource recovery, and sustainable consumption. Meanwhile, New Zealand promotes CE through government-led strategies for organic waste and sustainable tourism. However, geographic isolation limits regional collaboration and trade opportunities.
Evidently, there are global challenges in CE adoption. Economic barriers include transition costs and market competitiveness of CE products. Policy alignment is difficult because of a lack of global standards and fragmented regulatory approaches. Many see behavioural change as an enabler. This concerns shifting consumer and business mindsets toward circular practices.
There are technology gaps. The need for innovations in recycling, materials science, and renewable energy is recognized. There are, however, opportunities for global collaboration. International knowledge-sharing platforms like the Ellen MacArthur Foundation facilitate cross-border learning. Also, under the ambit of trade and investment, global trade agreements can incorporate CE principles. Advanced economies can support developing countries with CE technologies.
The spread of the circular economy demonstrates a promising shift from linear consumption models. However, its success depends on cohesive global action, localized implementation strategies, and a commitment to addressing systemic challenges. This is where the newly minted CE framework by UAC can be a game changer.
* Professor Datuk Dr Ahmad Ibrahim is Associate Fellow, Ungku Aziz Centre for Development Studies (UAC), Universiti Malaya.
** This is the personal opinion of the writer or publication and does not necessarily represent the views of Malay Mail.
