Vol. No. 55-2 Waste
Waste
Don’t Be Square, Be Circular: The Global Pursuit of a Circular Economy
1. Introduction
There is a growing global need to address the negative impacts of climate change. The Circular Economy (CE) concept is a framework that seeks to mitigate these adverse effects by reducing biodiversity loss, decreasing pollution, and revitalizing natural resources. This paper will define CE, describe why CE is necessary, and identify the benefits of an environmental law and policy regime that pursues a CE model. Next, this paper will explore successful CE frameworks in France and the Netherlands. Finally, this paper will describe several CE initiatives in the United States and identify how the United States could better pursue a CE framework to help aid in efforts to alleviate the detrimental effects of climate change globally.
2. Defining a Circular Economy
Global consumption—and thus, waste production—of materials such as plastics, metals, and biomass is dramatically on the rise.[1] The natural result of heightened waste production is pollution of the groundwater, soil, and air, as well as resource depletion; and biodiversity loss.[2] These growing issues necessitate a paradigmatic shift to a “more sustainable sociotechnical [system].”[3] One framework that would help address the climate crisis, growing loss of biodiversity, and inequitable social impacts of these ever-increasing global issues is a CE—a framework that conceptualizes economic growth which offsets waste reduction rather than increased consumption alone.[4]
A CE is a production/consumption model and economic system where materials are regenerated, and waste is never produced.[5] Unlike the linear system, which uses materials to make products and eventually discards those products as waste, the CE stops materials from ever becoming waste.[6] According to the Ellen MacArthur Foundation, a leading organization in the CE space, a CE framework rests on three fundamental principles: (1) eliminate pollution and waste, (2) circulate products and materials at their highest value, and (3) regenerate nature.[7] In pursuit of these principles, the CE framework relies on processes like recycling, reusing, and refurbishing to keep materials in the production–consumption cycle for as long as possible, ideally in perpetuity..[8] CE is rooted in creating efficient product life cycles by using renewable energy for design and production as well as designing and disassembling the product to be returned to nature.[9] Thus, this framework would rely both on consumers purchasing refurbished goods and manufacturers redesigning their products to be “less resource intensive.”[10]
Pursuing a CE could prove revolutionary in slowing the global climate crisis’ progression. Nearly half of global greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions are a result of industry, land use, and agriculture.[11] When recyclable goods are destroyed, their energy and resources are wasted, and destruction itself generates between 5 and 20 times the amount of GHG emissions than if the goods were otherwise recycled and reused.[12] By eliminating waste and keeping products in the line of production for as long as possible, the CE framework allows products to retain their inherent energy, reducing net GHG emissions.[13]
Furthermore, a CE framework would help address inequities in our current linear regime. The current methods of production and waste disposal disproportionately burdens already vulnerable and underserved communities.[14] Landfills and emissions are primarily located in low-income communities, making them more vulnerable to the adverse health and environmental impacts that result from the linear model.[15] A CE would help bridge this gap in the existing inequitable system.
3. Global Case Studies: France and The Netherlands
While the global transition has been slow, some countries have taken significant steps in adopting and implementing a CE framework. Generally, countries with the most ambitious CE transition plans have implemented “framework legislation,”—where their legislature outlined structures orprinciples to guide the development of specific CE laws[16] —and have supplemented that framework with laws and other regulatory and policy measures to target particular waste producing processes.[17] Two countries at the forefront of this transition are France and the Netherlands. Their progress provides insights that are likely globally applicable.
A. France
To combat the growing issue of waste disposal and environmental degradation,[18] France promulgated a broad sweeping piece of CE legislation: the Anti-Waste Law,[19] which contains roughly 50 measures intended to guide a national CE transition.[20] The Anti-Waste Law promotes sustainable resource management from the very beginning of product design; encourages recycling and reusing materials; and sets a goal of phasing out all single-use plastic by 2040, with intermediate benchmarks to track progress..[21]
The Anti-Waste Law is the first of its kind, beyond any country’s CE legislation in its ambition and scope. France became the first country to categorically ban the destruction of unsold non-food products, requiring companies to reuse or donate them instead.[22] Research indicates that consumers consider the sustainability of products when determining which products to purchase.[23] To incentivize environmentally conscious consumption, the Law requires various consumer disclosures. For example, it requires companies to disclose a “repairability index” for electronic products to help consumers evaluate a product’s environmental impact when purchasing.[24] Moreover, to eliminate single-use plastic, the Law restricts plastic use across multiple sectors. It prohibits the use of plastic packaging on many types of produce; bans takeout polystyrene containers, plastic straws, and plastic cutlery; mandates public water fountains at certain public institutions; and promotes bulk purchasing to reduce unnecessary packaging.[25] Finally, the Law promotes a “polluter pays” principle where those that produce the pollution must bear the costs of managing it.[26] In practice, manufacturers or importers of goods that produce waste, are required to financially contribute to certified organizations to collect and recycle such waste.[27] To ensure compliance, those that engage in illegal waste dumping could face fines of up to 15,000 Euros.[28]
B. The Netherlands
Like France, the Netherlands is considered one of the leading countries in the CE transition, with a goal of complete circularity by the year 2050.[29] The National CE program identifies four ways to achieve a CE: (1) ultimately eliminating non-renewable materials in production; (2) substituting non-renewable materials for renewable, sustainably produced materials; (3) expanding the life-cycle of a products in production; and (4) improving processing so that products can be reused to reduce waste.[30]
Using this framework, the Netherlands formulated a policy to target specific products and industries that are the most environmentally burdensome. These include consumer goods, plastics, construction, and manufacturing.[31] The Dutch Cabinet is responsible for implementing the program to achieve complete circularity, and the framework requires government-wide support and compliance.[32] Furthermore, to help hasten the CE transition, the Dutch approach recently transitioned from being largely non-binding and voluntary to mandating standardized compliance across multiple sectors.[33]
4. United States
The United States has not yet nationally pursued an explicit and broad CE framework like that of France or the Netherlands. This may be because of the constraints of the U.S. Constitution and the U.S. federalist structure. Otherwise, the United States may not have a physical imperative to embrace CE when compared to other countries, given its expansive geography and relative wealth. The United States has a vast surface area to place landfills and other facilities to dispose and store byproducts of production and unused materials.[34] Regardless of the explanation, at least so far, progress toward a CE has been relatively piecemeal, primarily undertaken federally by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) via guidance documents and resources, and by individual states.[35] The existing non-comprehensive approach leaves holes in the statutory and regulatory regime, that individual states cannot address.[36] For instance, the United States has not taken the initiative to address the significant environmental impact of shipping waste overseas.[37] A broad framework similar to that of France and the Netherlands could potentially address the gaps left by the current scheme for tackling climate change.
The EPA and individual states have taken steps that demonstrate how a CE framework would safeguard biodiversity and prevent the spread of climate change.[38] In 2020, the EPA Administrator announced a National Recycling Goal to increase recycling to 50% by the year 2030.[39] Furthermore, in 2022 the EPA released a report titled “Progress in Building a Circular Economy,”[40] which outlined federal sustainability advancements through 2022 in furtherance of a Circular Economy.[41] This included the publication of part one of the Circular Economy Strategy Series, the development of strategies to reduce plastic waste, and general next steps toward building a Circular Economy.[42] In June 2024, the EPA—along with the White House, U.S. Department of Agriculture, and U.S. Food and Drug Administration—released the National Strategy for Reducing Food Loss and Waste and Recycling Organics.[43] This strategy identified four main policy objectives to “build[] a more circular economy for all,” which includes preventing food loss, preventing food waste, increasing recycling for all organic waste, and supporting policies that incentivize and encourage food loss, waste prevention, and organics recycling.[44] Furthermore, the White House released reports that describe CE initiatives to combat climate change.[45]
While legislatively limited, support for a CE transition can be found in new laws and policies such as the CHIPS and Science Act, the Save our Seas Act 2.0, and the Inflation Reduction Act. While significant, these laws are narrow in scope, as they target only specific sectors and often fail to embrace CE as the underpinning policy issue. Thus, the effects are not as robust as necessary to effectuate circularity on a large scale.[46] For example, the 2020 Save Our Seas Act 2.0 specifically addresses marine debris by establishing requirements and incentives aimed at preventing plastic pollution.[47] The Act states that the EPA is responsible for developing a report on how to use plastic in consumer products innovatively.[48] Further, the CHIPS and Science Act identifies the CE transition as necessary to achieve the national science and technology research objectives.[49] In 2022, the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, inaugurated the Net-Zero Game Changers Initiative stating that a national framework to achieve a CE is necessary and calling on administrative agencies to act in achieving net-zero GHG emissions by 2050.[50] Moreover, the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) provides incentives for the transition to clean energy,[51] encouraging wind and solar investment.[52] Notably, however, the IRA does not explicitly identify a “circular economy” as the goal.[53] While these policies are essential, they fail to establish a comprehensive framework mandating multi-sector CE compliance. Instead, they only address individual waste-producing processes or list broad CE goal without any enforceable actions. To combat the climate crisis, mandatory CE legislation may prove more effective.
Meanwhile, some states have undertaken CE initiatives that require mandatory compliance. For example, multiple states have total bans on single-use plastics.[54] Illinois recently passed legislation that permits customers to bring reusable containers to restaurants.[55] California passed a bill to address textile waste as a result of fast fashion by creating a framework for textile producers to recycle garments.[56] While state-based policies are moves in the CE direction, to fully realize and effectuate such a paradigmatic shift, the nation will likely need to evolve from the piecemeal approach to one that is grounded in broad federal framework legislation that expansively targets a CE transition.
5. Conclusion
Ultimately, the U.S. pursuit of a CE is not in the global lead, with opportunities for acceleration. At the federal level, action has been primarily undertaken by the EPA via guidance documents and resources, embracing White House goals and policies, with some piecemeal support from the legislature embedded in laws such as the CHIPs and Science Act and the Inflation Reduction Act. A federal legislative CE framework has not yet emerged, compared to France and the Netherlands, which have undertaken broad programs that often mandate compliance across multiple sectors with continued more particularized requirements added to meet needs over time. To transition to a CE at the national level, the United States may need a broad federal law that mandates compliance across multiple sectors.
Amanda Halter is managing partner of the Houston office of the international law firm of Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman, a member of the firm’s Environmental & Natural Resources practice section and co-leader of the firm’s Crisis Management team. Amanda helps companies resolve environmental liabilities and negotiate compliance conditions, as well as manage financial and reputational losses associated with a crisis. Her experience includes a diverse array of environmental regulatory, litigation and crisis matters, including contamination investigations and remedial actions, natural resource damages assessments and claims, environment, health and safety compliance counseling, mass toxic tort actions, permitting and planning for large-scale industrial projects, and project impacts mitigation and restoration strategies. Amanda is a native of Houston, a graduate of Rice University and The University of Texas School of Law.
Grace Wright is a 3L from Arlington, Texas. She attended Tulane University for her B.S. in Political Science and Psychology and joined TELJ during her second year of law school.
[1] Eur. Comm’n, Commc’n from the Comm’n to the Eur. Parl., the Council, the European Econ. And Social Comm. And the Comm. Of the Regions, A New CE Action Plan For a Cleaner and More Competitive Earth, at 3, COM (2020) 98 final (Nov. 3, 2020).
[2] Martin Geissdoerfer et al., A CE—A New Sustainability Paradigm?, 143 J. of Cleaner Prod. 757, 757 (2017).
[3] Id. at 757.
[4] Bridget T. Schuster, As the World Turns: Global Efforts Toward a CE, 37 Nat. Res. & Env’t 28, 28 (2022).
[5] What is a Circular Economy?, Ellen MacArthur Found., https://www.ellenmacarthurfoundation.org/topics/circular-economy-introduction/overview (last visited Feb. 12, 2025) [hereinafter What is a Circular Economy?].
[6] Id.
[7] Id.
[8] Id.; What is a Circular Economy?, Env’t Prot. Agency, https://www.epa.gov/circulareconomy/what-circular-economy (last updated Aug. 26, 2024) [hereinafter CE EPA].
[9] Schuster, supra note 4.
[10] CE EPA, supra note 8.
[11] Fixing the Economy to Fix Climate Change, Ellen MacArthur Found. (Nov. 15, 2022), https://www.ellenmacarthurfoundation.org/news/fix-the-economy-to-fix-climate-change-the-role-of-food-and-mobility [hereinafter Fixing the Economy to Fix Climate Change].
[12] France’s Anti-Waste and CE Law, Ellen MacArthur Found. (Sept. 12, 2022), https://www.ellenmacarthurfoundation.org/circular-examples/frances-anti-waste-and-circular-economy-law [hereinafter France’s Anti-Waste and CE Law].
[13] Fixing the Economy to Fix Climate Change, supra note 11.
[14] CE EPA, supra note 8.
[15] Id.
[16] Framework Law, Sci. Direct, https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/social-sciences/framework-law (last visited Oct. 16, 2024).
[17] G. Gordon Davis & Jessica Anne Hall, CE Legislation—The International Experience, Reusable Indust. Packaging Ass’n, https://www.reusablepackaging.org/insights/circular-economy-legislation-the-international-experience/ (last visited Feb. 16, 2025).
[18] France produced 4.6 tons of waste per capita and 4.5 million tons of total plastic waste in 2016, causing significant environmental damage where 10,000 tons of waste were dumped into the Mediterranean Sea and 80,000 tons polluted the environment. Annually, the cost of unsold products subsequently destroyed was valued at 630 million Euros. France’s Anti-Waste and CE Law, supra note 12.
[19] See La 2050-105 du loi anti-gaspillage pour une economie circulaire [The Anti-Waste Law for a CE], Journal Officiel de la Republique Francaise [J.O.] [Official Gazette of France].
[20] A French Act of Law Against Waste and for a CE, Euro. CE Stakeholder Platform, https://circulareconomy.europa.eu/platform/en/strategies/french-act-law-against-waste-and-circular-economy (last visited Oct. 16, 2024).
[21] Janet Domenitz, How France’s Anti-Waste Law Targets Plastic Waste at its Source, Frontier Grp. (Sept. 28, 2023), https://frontiergroup.org/articles/how-frances-anti-waste-law-targets-plastic-waste-at-its-source/; see also France’s Anti-Waste and CE Law, supra note 12.
[22] France’s Anti-Waste and CE Law, supra note 12.
[23] See Sylvie Gallage-Alwis, Nancy Forster, & Eva Biezunski, France’s New Anti-Waste Law 1 (2020), https://www.signaturelitigation.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/Signature-Litigation-Paris-Briefing-Note-Frances-new-anti-waste-law-March-2020.pdf.
[24] France’s Anti-Waste and CE Law, supra note 12.
[25] Elisabeth Borne and Brune Poirson, The Anti-Waste Law in the Daily Lives of the French People, What Does That Mean in Practice? 8 (2020), https://circulareconomy.europa.eu/platform/sites/default/files/anti-waste_law_in_the_daily_lives_of_french_people.pdf; Domenitz, supra note 21.
[26] Gallage-Alwis, Forster, & Biezunski, supra note 24, at 2; Borne & Brune Poirson, supra note 29, at 27.
[27] Gallage-Alwis and Forster, & Biezunski, supra note 24, at 2.
[28] Id.
[29] Circular Dutch Economy by 2050, Gov’t of the Netherlands, https://www.government.nl/topics/circular-economy/circular-dutch-economy-by-2050 (last visited Oct. 16, 2024).
[30] Id.
[31] The Netherlands Central Government, English Summary National CE Programme 2023-2030, at 4 (2023), https://National+Circular+Economy+Programme+2023+-2030+Summary%20(1).pdf.
[32] Id.
[33] Vivianne Heijnen, National Circular Economy Programme 2023-2030, at 5 (2023), https://NPCE+Circulaire+Economie+rapport+Engels%20(1).pdf.
[34] Schuster, supra note 4, at 29.
[35] Id.
[36] Jennifer Gentile, Adoption of a CE in the United States, Am. Bar Ass’n (Feb. 8, 2024), https://www.americanbar.org/groups/environment_energy_resources/resources/newsletters/environmental-social-governance-sustainability/adoption-circular-economy-in-us/?abajoin=true.
[37] Id.
[38] See Mark Weick & Nicole Ray, Circular Economy: Navigating the Evolving Global Policy Landscape, EY (Dec. 16, 2022), https://www.ey.com/en_us/insights/chemicals/circular-economy-navigating-the-evolving-global-policy-landscape.
[39] U.S. Env’t Prot. Agency, U.S. National Recycling Goal, https://www.epa.gov/circulareconomy/us-national-recycling-goal (last updated Feb. 22, 2024).
[40] CE EPA, supra note 8.
[41] Id.
[42] U.S. Env’t Prot. Agency, Building a Circular Economy for All: Progress Toward Transformative Change 2–5 (2022), https://www.epa.gov/system/files/documents/2022-09/EPA_Circular_Economy_Progress_Report_Sept_2022.pdf
[43] See U.S. Env’t Prot. Agency, National Strategy for Reducing Food Loss and Waste and Recycling Organics, https://www.epa.gov/circulareconomy/national-strategy-reducing-food-loss-and-waste-and-recycling-organics (last updated Jan. 24, 2025).
[44] Id.
[45] Sally Benson et al., Advancing a Circular Economy to Meet Our Climate, Energy, and Economic Goals, The White House (July 5, 2023), https://www.whitehouse.gov/ostp/news-updates/2023/07/05/advancing-a-circular-economy-to-meet-our-climate-energy-and-economic-goals/.
[46] Gentile, supra note 38.
[47] Save Our Seas 2.0 Act, Pub. L. No. 116-224, 134 Stat. 1072 (2020); see also Save Our Seas Act 2.0, One Planet (Jan. 31, 2022), https://www.oneplanetnetwork.org/knowledge-centre/policies/save-our-seas-act-20 [hereinafter SOS, One Planet].
[48] SOS, One Planet, supra note 49.
[49] CHIPS and Science Act, Pub. L. No. 117-167, 136 Stat. 1634, § 206(b)(1)(A)(ii) (amending Section 206 of the National Science and Technology Police Organization, and Priorities Act of 1976, 42 U.S.C. 6615); see also Time to Act: Seizing the Potential of U.S. CE Innovation, Ellen MacArthur Found. (June 7, 2023), https://www.ellenmacarthurfoundation.org/articles/time-to-act-seizing-the-potential-of-us-circular-economy-innovation [hereinafter Time to Act].
[50]Time to Act, supra note 51; The White House, U.S. Innovation to Meet 2050 Climate Goals: Assessing Initial R&D Opportunities 5 (2022), https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2022/11/U.S.-Innovation-to-Meet-2050-Climate-Goals.pdf.
[51] U.S. Env’t Prot. Agency, Summary of Inflation Reduction Act Provisions Related to Renewable Energy, https://www.epa.gov/green-power-markets/summary-inflation-reduction-act-provisions-related-renewable-energy (last visited Feb. 13, 2025).
[52] Aly Bryan, How the Inflation Reduction Act Will Accelerate the Case for Investing in the Circular Economy in the United States, Closed Loop Partners (Aug. 18, 2022), https://www.closedlooppartners.com/how-the-inflation-reduction-act-will-accelerate-the-case-for-investing-in-the-circular-economy-in-the-united-states/.
[53] Gillian Tett, Why ‘Circularity’ is Missing from the U.S. Climate Incentives Bill, Fin. Times (Feb. 14, 2023), https://www.ft.com/content/8f4ffd3d-c6f6-44ca-a01b-96a6cd5f4ba2.
[54] Gentile, supra note 38.
[55] Id.
[56] Danielle Garno & Vicky Yuan, A Closer Look at California’s Recently Passed Responsible Textile Recovery Act of 2024, Holland & Knight (Oct. 17, 2024), https://www.hklaw.com/en/insights/publications/2024/10/a-closer-look-at-californias-recently-passed-responsible.