Tag: environment

  • Integrating the Circular Economy and Degrowth to End Capitalism’s Harm

    The Majority of Americans Agree: Capitalism Is Failing Us—Here’s a Solution to Restore Equity and Heal Our Ecosystems

    Photo by Caroline S.

    As capitalistic growth models continue to fuel climate change and the sixth mass extinction, with 30,000 species going extinct each year, animal and plant life is declining across the globe at rates never seen before in human history.

    Under this system, workers are paid less than the full value of their labor, while capitalists use their assets as collateral to generate more wealth, further exacerbating income disparities. The benefits of capitalism appear to serve only a small minority of Americans, and this group is becoming increasingly concentrated, with only top 0.1% seeing the largest increase in wealth share since 1990. 

    As of 2023, 62% of Americans believe that “our current form of capitalism is not working for the average American,” which is the highest percentage recorded in years of polling on this topic.

    Recognizing that the system is broken is only the first step. To address the impacts of capitalism, it is essential to identify alternatives that end systems of oppression, exploitation, and ecological destruction.

    A hybrid model combining the circular economy (CE) and degrowth offer a systemic alternative to capitalism which prioritizes environmental regeneration and social equity.

    The linear “take-make-waste” systems of the global north deplete finite resources and drive climate change. This model describes an unsustainable economic framework dominant in industrialized nations, where raw materials are extracted (take), transformed into goods (make), and discarded after use (waste). 

    The impacts of this linear model are systemic and far reaching, contributing to resource depletion and the acceleration of climate change. This is demonstrated by the fact that the global economy currently consumes resources 1.7x faster than the Earth regenerates them, depleting both finite and renewable resources.

    Additionally, this system exacerbates social inequalities as corporations are able to offload environmental harms onto marginalized communities and ecosystems.

    The structural incompatibility of capitalism and Earth systems is highlighted by the planetary boundaries framework, which defines nine critical thresholds for maintaining Earth’s stability—six of which have already been crossed—underscoring the contrast between capitalism’s reliance on perpetual economic expansion and the planet’s ecological limits.”

    Crossed planetary boundaries include land use change, biosphere integrity, and freshwater use which are all linked to unsustainable systems of production and consumption.

    Industrial animal agriculture is the primary driver of global deforestation with 50% of the Earth’s land surface dedicated to agriculture, of which 77% is used for livestock and land used for growing animal feed. Livestock production directly undermines biodiversity with over 60% of biodiversity loss linked to meat-centric diets.

    Industrialized agriculture not only plays a major role in crossing the land use change planetary boundary but also inflicts significant harm on farmed animals, disrupts the habitats of wildlife displaced by land use change, and displaces Indigenous communities, often through violent land grabs. This modern exploitation has roots in colonial-era actions, such as replacing diverse Indigenous farming with monocultures, which set the stage for today’s exploitation.

    Resource extraction has tripled in the past five decades, rising from 30 billion tonnes in 1970 to 106 billion tonnes, largely driven by high consumption in the Global North with the United States and European Union being responsible for 74% of global resource extraction from 1970-2017. The Global North extracts commodities valued at $2.2 trillion annually from the Global South, measured at Northern prices. This degrades the land and exploits labor in countries from which resources are extracted.

    This stress on Earth’s  systems  can be  connected to capitalism’s core mechanisms which create an existential need for growth as firms must continually expand profits to survive market competition. As Marx noted, capital accumulation is not optional—companies face “external coercive laws” to reinvest profits into growth or risk collapse.

    Additionally, markets incentivize overproduction (e.g., fast fashion, disposable tech) to sustain demand, accelerating resource extraction and waste. Therefore, growth and GDP as a  metric is favored over the wellbeing of nature and communities, leading to significant risks  such as the destabilization of Earth’s systems and irreversible tipping points.

    Alternative approaches to the current economic structure of the global north include the circular economy and degrowth models.

    The circular economy focuses on positive society-wide benefits based on three key principles:

    1. Eliminating waste and pollution
    2. Circulating materials
    3. Regenerating nature

    The circular economy model seeks to decouple economic activity from the consumption of finite resources, designing waste out of the system.

    The Circularity Gap Report found that “the 22.8 billion tonnes (Gt) of annual emissions associated with creating new products from virgin materials can be eliminated by applying circular strategies that drastically reduce the amount of minerals, fossil fuels, metals and biomass consumed by the world’s economy.”

    This reduction is achieved through various strategies including designing out waste and pollution from the outset of product creation, keeping products and materials in use for as long as possible, regenerating natural systems, promoting renewable energy adoption, and implementing closed-loop systems.

    In closed loop systems, materials and products are continuously recycled and reused which minimizes waste and the need for new raw materials. Additionally, products are designed for circularity which means that they can be easily disassembled, repaired, and recycled at the end of their life cycle.

    The degrowth economy prioritizes local economies, democracy and well-being over GDP by focusing on equitable downscaling of production and  consumption. This system is synergistic with the circular economy as the circular economy reduces resource demand, enabling degrowth’s vision of lower economic throughput.

    Key aspects of the degrowth model include:

    1. Rejecting GDP as a progress metric in favor of ecological and social indicators
    2. Addressing social inequalities arising from capitalism by promoting wealth distribution
    3. Advocating for universal basic services
    4. Emphasizing local production and decision-making
    5. Redefining work, including reduced working hours and valuing unpaid care work

    These aspects support an economic system that works in harmony with nature, reduces gender inequality by recognizing the value of care work, and promotes well-being.

    Integrating the circular economy and degrowth models offers a solution that could systemically transform our current, failing system of capitalistic growth. Under an integrated system of the circular economy and degrowth, governments could gradually decouple resource extraction from economic gain, and eliminate subsidies for fossil fuel industries, redirecting funds towards renewable energy and circular economy initiatives.

    The industrial shift towards design for longevity would encourage companies to create durable, repairable, and upgradable products, reducing waste and resource consumption. Mandating extended producer responsibility (EPR) policies would make manufacturers accountable for the entire lifecycle of their products, including disposal and recycling. These measures could drive innovation in product design and business models, fostering a shift towards more sustainable production practices.

    Unsustainable consumption patterns of our current system can also be addressed with this approach by promoting a cultural shift from consumerism to sufficiency. This involves redefining societal notions of success and well-being which could be supported by education and media campaigns that highlight the benefits of reduced consumption.

    Community initiatives such as local food production, renewable energy projects, and skill-sharing networks, embody both circular economy and degrowth principles. Scaling up and replicating successful community-led models with support from an integrated circular economy and degrowth system could accelerate broader societal shifts towards sustainability.

    Integrating the circular economy with the degrowth economy in western countries would also help address disparities between the Global South and the Global North which are further exacerbated by climate change. Technology transfer agreements, fair trade practices and more ethical methods of consumption and production under this model could help rebalance resource flows and economic opportunities.

    This integrated model could provide a framework for addressing historical injustices and current inequalities by guiding the redistribution of wealth and resources, and ensuring that the benefits of a sustainable economy are shared globally.  Under this model, international cooperation frameworks would place priority on equitable access to resources and sustainable development opportunities for all nations.

    Integrating circular economy and degrowth principles could provide a framework for addressing historical injustices and current inequalities. These models could guide the redistribution of wealth and resources, ensuring that the benefits of a sustainable economy are shared globally. Implementing the  circular economy paired with degrowth in international development projects could help create more resilient and equitable economic systems in the Global South.

    The integrated circular economy and degrowth model faces challenges including political resistance, implementation barriers, and counterarguments in favor of “green growth.”

    Powerful multinational corporations exert considerable influence on policy-making through lobbying efforts. These companies often prioritize profit maximization and market expansion, which can conflict with degrowth principles. Their lobbying activities may oppose regulations that limit resource extraction or consumption, advocate for policies that maintain the status quo of economic growth, or resist measures that could reduce their market share or profitability.

    Additionally, many established institutions in the Global North are fundamentally tied to the paradigm of continuous economic growth. For example, banks, pension funds, and other financial institutions are structured around the expectation of ongoing economic expansion which creates systemic barriers to implementing degrowth policies.

    Mainstream circular economy models are often framed as growth opportunities due to potential cost savings resulting from reducing virgin material use, job creation resulting from increased demand in remanufacturing and recycling sectors, and driving growth in the product-as-a-service business model.

    The worldwide revenue of circular economy transactions was estimated to total roughly $339 billion in 2022,and this is forecasted to more than double by 2026, reaching a $712 billion market opportunity. This ideation of a growth centric circular economy falls under the umbrella of green growth.

    Green growth aligns with neoliberal capitalism, emphasizing market-driven solutions (e.g., carbon pricing, green tech investments) and maintaining institutional trust in GDP as a progress metric.

    Green growth frameworks typically avoid addressing global inequalities, whereas degrowth explicitly calls for redistributing wealth and scaling down overconsumption in the Global North.

    A climate solution that does not address the interconnected social impacts causing and resulting from climate change is not, in fact, a solution, but a band-aid on a much larger problem.

    Degrowth proponents argue that circular strategies alone cannot resolve ecological crises if growth remains the goal. True sustainability demands reducing total consumption, not just optimizing efficiency. This includes policies like material caps, repair mandates, and bans on planned obsolescence.

    The combination of circular economy and degrowth principles offers a comprehensive approach to address the fundamental ecological and social shortcomings of capitalism including ecological and social failures.

    The integrated circular economy and degrowth model tackles resource depletion and waste through closed-loop systems and directly challenges the paradigm of endless economic expansion on a finite planet which has been proven to be unsustainable as demonstrated with the planetary boundaries framework.

    Additionally, this model advocates for wealth redistribution and redefining societal success metrics beyond GDP while promoting local production and repair economies which can reduce inequality.

    Together, these models propose a systemic redesign that:

    1. Replaces linear “take-make-dispose” economics with regenerative cycles.
    2. Shifts focus from quantitative growth to qualitative development and well-being.
    3. Prioritizes sufficiency and equitable resource distribution over profit maximization.

    The imperative to rapidly transition to these models is driven by internationally recognized climate targets, ecological tipping  points, inequality reduction, and resource scarcity.

    The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) emphasizes that limiting global warming to 1.5°C requires “rapid, far-reaching and unprecedented changes in all aspects of society” with the integrated circular economy and degrowth model offering pathways to drastically reduce emissions while maintaining quality of life.

    This model is able to address interconnected issues exacerbating the climate  crises that extend beyond emissions reduction  as circular economy principles can help restore degraded environments and manage limited resources with degrowth further supporting social equity, wellbeing, and ecological regeneration.

  • Despite U.S. Rejection of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), Collective Action Remains a Powerful Force for Change

    Photo by Caroline S.

    The Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), also known as the 2030 Agenda, were unanimously adopted by all United Nations member states in 2015. There are 17 goals with the overarching ambition of achieving “peace and prosperity for people and the planet” by 2030 with specific focus on ending poverty, attaining gender equality, and taking urgent climate action, thus the SDGs emphasize the links between environmental, social and economic issues.

    The SDGs were built upon the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) to create a more comprehensive and universal framework for addressing global challenges. The MDGs were established in 2000 with eight goals aimed at addressing poverty and development issues in developing countries by 2015. These goals were measured through 21 targets and indicators, focusing on basic human development issues such as health, education, and poverty reduction.

    Key differences between the SDGs and the MDGs include the fact that the MDGs largely focused on human development while the SDGs expand this scope to include sustainable development. Sustainable development aims to meet present needs without compromising the needs of future generations.

    Specific targets within the MDGs as they were developed in 2000 include eliminating poverty, promoting gender equality, achieving primary education, improving maternal health, and ensuring environmental sustainability. The SDGs include all of these human development focused goals and expand upon them with a sharper focus on sustainable development, for example the SDGs include specific targets for affordable clean energy, responsible production and consumption, and climate action. The SDGs are a global agenda that aim to address inequality within and between nations and is aligned with the work of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

    In opposition to the 2030 Agenda’s vision for a peaceful and prosperous planet, the United States of America stated that it “rejects and denounces” the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals on March 7th.

    This announcement was made by Edward Heartney, Counselor for Economic and Social Affrairs (ECOSOC) at the U.S. Mission to the UN, while at the General Assembly. The statement preceded a vote on “creating an International Day of Peaceful Coexistence,” which included a reaffirmation of the Sustainable Development Goals.

    In his remarks to the UN General Assembly, Heartney stated:

    “We have a concern that this resolution is a reaffirmation of Agenda 2030 and the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). Although framed in neutral language, Agenda 2030 and the SDGs advance a program of soft global governance that is inconsistent with U.S. sovereignty and adverse to the rights and interests of Americans.

    In the last U.S. election, the mandate from the American people was clear: the government of the United States must refocus on the interests of Americans. We must care first and foremost for our own – that is our moral and civic duty. President Trump also set a clear and overdue course correction on “gender” and climate ideology, which pervade the SDGs.

    Put simply, globalist endeavors like Agenda 2030 and the SDGs lost at the ballot box. Therefore, the United States rejects and denounces the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development and the Sustainable Development Goals, and it will no longer reaffirm them as a matter of course.”

    The SDGs aim to address issues that have been agreed upon as high priority by the UN and its member states for at least 25 years as highlighted by the MDGs. Matters such as gender inequality, maternal mortality, disease, lack of education, and environmental sustainability have been prevalent for decades and unanimously supported by UN member states as so. In the first quarter of Trump’s second term, these issues have all been negatively impacted and set back.

    Heartney’s statement underpins a broader withdrawal by the Trump administration from international climate and sustainability initiatives, such as removing the US from Just Energy Transition Partnership (JETP), pulling out of the Loss and Damage Fund, rescinding pledges of $4 billion to the Green Climate Fund, and exiting the Paris Agreement.

    There are currently 41 countries with registered commitments to SDG transformation, demonstrating public recognition and focus on building climate resilient nations. With 55% of the world’s GDP being moderately or highly dependent on nature and its services, the US is likely to fall behind economically, technologically and reputationally. As outlined by the IPCC scenarios for exploring potential warming pathways, relying on fossil fuels will lead to high physical risks which will impact the health and safety of people and the planet as well as the economy.

    As of March 11th, the U.S. has been added to the Global Human Rights Watchlist which further affirms global perception of the U.S. Government’s disregard for human and environmental rights as it not only refuses to provide support for initiatives that advance society towards human and sustainable development, but actively works against both, resulting in a declining nation.

    Although the US federal government will not be supporting the 17 goals outlined in the SDGs, individuals and community lead initiatives can support this agenda through informed economic decisions, collective action, and individual actions.

    Buying reused items, making items yourself, supporting sustainable businesses and buying local are all great economic decisions that individuals can make to support SDG 13 on responsible consumption and production. Practicing responsible consumption and production benefits the environment by reducing waste, conserving resources, minimizing pollution, and helps to divert profits away from heavy emitting corporations.

    Additionally, as of 2024, 74% of the world’s largest companies voluntarily report on commitments to the SDGs, according to KPMG’s Survey of Sustainability Reporting. However, it is important to note that a survey of 206 companies found that while 83% expressed support for the SDGs, only 40% had put in place measurable commitments and only 20% included evidence to assess their impacts. As of January 2025, 10,000 corporations have committed to the Science Based Targets Initiative (SBTi), and of those 16% have set net-zero targets. In 2024, the Carbon Disclosure Project (CDP) assessed more than 22,000 corporations on their transparency and ability to integrate Earth-positive decisions into their business models. CDP and sustainability reports can often be found as publicly available information through company websites and the CDP website. Therefore, individuals can access information to make educated decisions about products they purchase by researching companies’ commitments to sustainability.

    Community led initiatives play a crucial role in supporting the 2030 Agenda. One example is the creation of community gardens, which provide fresh produce, reduce reliance on commercial food systems, and foster local food security—directly supporting SDG 2’s goal of achieving zero hunger.

    Additionally, community-based energy cooperatives (CECs) help provide affordable, clean, and reliable energy to communities. CECs are self organizing groups that empower communities to take control of their energy production and consumption.

    Energy efficiency initiatives in workplaces, homes, and community spaces help to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, air and water pollution, and resource consumption.

    Community-led climate mitigation projects, such as planting native plant gardens, help absorb carbon dioxide and enhance biodiversity. Furthermore, encouraging cycling, walking, carpooling and public transportation can significantly reduce GHG emissions and contribute to a sustainable future.

    Locally led climate adaptation projects play an essential role in building a sustainable future as well. The difference between climate mitigation projects and climate adaptation projects is that mitigation projects focus on reducing or preventing greenhouse gas emissions to slow climate change, while adaptation projects aim to help communities and ecosystems adjust to its effects by enhancing resilience and minimizing risks.

    Locally led adaptation efforts include setting up early warning systems for extreme weather events to ensure timely evacuations, educating communities on disaster preparedness and health risks, and supporting displaced or injured individuals through community care funds. By implementing these measures, we can reduce harm and better respond to climate-related disasters. Characteristics of successful locally led climate adaptation projects include flexibility, investments in community leadership and local institutional capacities, and reinforcing adaptation across programs.   

    There are synergies between the SDGs that can be leveraged for greater impact, for example goal 13 on climate action interconnects with several other SDGs including goal 7 on clean energy, goal 3 on health, and goal 12 on responsible consumption and production. This can empower SDG focused funding and projects to address multiple goals at once as these issues are inherently interconnected.

    Despite a challenging political landscape, strong support for a sustainable future remains evident among U.N. member states, nations with national commitments to the SDGs, corporations aligned with these goals, and grassroots community efforts. Now more than ever, it is crucial to leverage local resources and coordinate community initiatives to shape the future we want to live in.

  • Oppression to Action: Ecofeminism’s Critical Role in Solving the Climate Crisis

    As we witness both the decline of women’s rights and the weakening of environmental protections, the ecofeminist movement has become more crucial than ever.

    Shane Rounce, Unsplash.com

    Ecofeminism is a philosophical and political movement that emerged in the 1970s, connecting feminist and environmental concerns by recognizing the interconnected oppression of women and nature under patriarchal systems. The term was coined by French feminist Françoise d’Eaubonne in 1974, sparking a wave of academic and activist interest. Throughout the 1970s and 1980s, ecofeminism gained traction as scholars and activists explored the links between gender inequality and environmental degradation. 

    Key figures in the movement include Vandana Shiva and Maria Mies, whose work has been instrumental in shaping ecofeminist theory and practice. Together, Shiva and Mies developed a comprehensive ecofeminist framework that emphasizes the interconnectedness of social and ecological issues, challenges the dominant paradigm of exploitation, and promotes a more sustainable and equitable world. 

    Patriarchal capitalism simultaneously exploits women and nature through interconnected systems of domination that view both women and nature as resources to be controlled and exploited for profit. As evidenced by Shiva and Mies, our capitalist-patriarchal framework has led to environmental degradation, the marginalization of women, and the erosion of sustainable economies.

    Shiva argues that women, especially in the Global South, often bear the brunt of this exploitation as they are the primary caretakers of natural resources and communities while being most vulnerable to climate impacts. Patriarchal capitalism not only perpetuates gender inequality but also threatens the very foundations of life by undermining ecological balance and sustainable practices. This system is built on a hierarchical worldview that prioritizes masculine traits like dominance and aggression while devaluing feminine qualities such as compassion and empathy.

    Traditionally feminine traits such as compassion and empathy are critical to include in the formation of systems that prioritize sustainability, longevity and equality over endless economic growth powered by exploitation. Research demonstrates a strong correlation between women’s political leadership and proactive climate change policies. Countries with higher percentages of women in parliament consistently show greater commitment to environmental protection, evidenced by their increased likelihood to ratify international climate treaties and implement more stringent environmental regulations. There is a statistically significant and positive correlation between the presence of women in climate negotiations and an increased mention of gender in climate policy discussions. This suggests that women’s participation leads to increased climate action in general as well as more comprehensive and effective climate responses by amplifying the focus on gendered impacts within environmental policy.

    A crucial aspect of ecofeminist thought is the recognition and valuation of women’s work and knowledge. This acknowledgment extends to women’s roles in grassroots organizing and community-based activism, which often drive sustainable practices and environmental justice initiatives. Ecofeminists also emphasize the importance of biodiversity and sustainable practices, viewing them as integral to creating a more equitable and environmentally sound future

    Furthermore, there is a profound connection between women and biodiversity as women play a critical role in preserving the earth’s health. Women in rural and indigenous communities often possess deep knowledge of local ecosystems and sustainable resource management practices. This traditional ecological knowledge is invaluable for developing effective conservation strategies and sustainable land use practices.

    Shiva states that “the marginalization of women and the destruction of biodiversity go hand in hand,” highlighting women’s position as both vulnerable to and crucial for conserving biodiversity.

    Ecofeminist alternatives seek to promote systems that support a sustainable world which radically reimagines our economic and social structures, recognizes the importance of all living things, and prioritizes regeneration and equality over exploitation and domination. This movement is more urgent than ever in the current state of climate emergency paired with increasing violence against women and diminishing women’s rights.

    The Trump Administration has amplified interrelated social and environmental challenges as the they have withdrawn the US from the Paris agreement, removed climate change mentions from USDA websites, reversed support and incentives for low-carbon technology, overturned women’s rights resulting in increased maternal mortality and significant threats to women’s health, while setting the precedent that violence  against women is acceptable.

    President Trump and many of his elected officials have been accused and convicted of sexual assault and abuse, perpetuating and further normalizing exploitation of women’s bodies. Upholding this kind of behavior supports a culture that takes women’s ownership of their bodies away from them and puts it in the hands of those who want to harm and control them. This sends the message that your body does not belong to you and you don’t get to control what happens to it which is exactly what anti-reproductive rights movements support.

    Similarly, patriarchal capitalists have normalized and rewarded practices that abuse the earth by polluting ecosystems, degrading soil quality, and exploiting natural resources in pursuit of personal and economic gain with no regard for the impact this has on ecosystems and the beings that live within them.

    The diminishing support for climate action under the Trump administration exacerbates danger to women on a global scale as women are disproportionately affected by climate change. With 6 of 9 planetary boundaries already crossed, climate inaction will lead to increased natural disasters and decreased access to critical natural resources such as food and water.

    Climate-related disasters often lead to increased gender-based violence with women being 14 times more likely to be harmed during a disaster, as women are more vulnerable during displacement and when competing for scarce resources. On a global scale, women are more likely to be impacted by floods, storms, and heatwaves due to their roles in the household, limited mobility, and limited economic freedom.

    In this context, ecofeminist principles have become more critical than ever, offering a framework for understanding and addressing the intertwined issues of environmental protection and women’s rights. By recognizing the intersection of social inequalities and climate change, we can develop more effective and equitable solutions that address the unjust systems which have supported the current level of environmental degradation and inequality.

    Elevating women’s voices in environmental policymaking and ensuring their active participation in climate action is crucial for creating comprehensive and impactful strategies to combat the climate crisis.

    Ecofeminist solutions often promote alternative economic models such as subsistence economies, recognizing their potential to reduce environmental impact and foster community resilience. A subsistence economy is one where economic activity is primarily directed towards needs rather than profit. This shifts economic focus onto necessities without overexploiting resources, thus these economies naturally tend to stay within planetary boundaries and sustainable ecological limits. By emphasizing local production and consumption, ecofeminism advocates for decentralized models that can lead to shorter lead times, lower transportation costs, and increased flexibility in meeting local demands. 

    Prioritizing ecofeminist values and strategies can inspire collective climate action by reframing narratives, addressing root causes, empowering diverse voices, fostering community-based solutions, promoting holistic approaches, and cultivating hope and resilience.