The linear way of managing resources is built on the notion that waste is inevitable and acceptable. In this style of resource management, raw materials are taken from the earth and made into products and eventually wind up as waste. These three major milestones of a lifecycle don’t stand isolated from the others, either, but fuel one another.
If waste is an assumed part of a lifecycle, there’s motivation to ensure that the materials that are sourced to make the product are as cheap as possible and the product itself is designed to last only a short amount of time. Keeping costs low also incentivizes the user of those products to dispose of them at the end of their useful life rather than repair them. You wouldn’t try to repair a plastic fork when it breaks. You’d throw it away and go find another one. Using cheap materials and making cheap products fuels the purchase of new products and maintains a consistent supply/demand relationship between manufacturers and customers.
Rethinking material lifecycles can transform the conventional take-make-waste approach toward a new management focused on eliminating waste as a necessity; making long-lasting, resilient products; and regenerating the natural systems on which the human race is dependent.
Making technical materials circular
Technical materials are those that cannot be grown. Metals, plastics, and other finite materials are in limited supply and must be managed accordingly. To keep technical materials in use for longer periods, we humans need to harness new strategies. Although recycling technical materials is better than disposing of them, recycling should be seen as a last resort when considering circular materials management. Sharing, reusing, repairing, and remanufacturing products are all resource management strategies that should be employed before recycling.
One major issue in making technical materials circular is that the current products we use aren’t often designed to allow for sharing, reuse, repair, or remanufacturing. The innate capability of products to do all those things will need to be designed into the product itself. Unless this happens, it’s quite challenging to support a circular lifecycle, and recycling becomes the only option. For circular lifecycles to become a reality when it comes to technical materials, a proper support infrastructure needs to be in place to allow for sharing, reuse, repair, and remanufacturing to take place. Look around the room and find something made of technical materials. If the item stopped working right now, would you easily be able to have it repaired? Or would it be easier to simply throw it away and buy a new one? This reality also supports the notion that consumers must have an incentive to support a circular economy, because they have the incentive now to support a linear economy by way of low prices and convenience.
Making biological materials circular
The main difference between technical materials and biological materials is that biological materials can be regenerated or grown from the earth. Metals, plastics, and other technical materials are finite and cannot be regenerated. Cotton, timber, and other biological materials can be regenerated, which greatly affects how their lifecycles must be managed within a circular economy. Biological materials can be kept in use for longer periods by allowing the materials themselves to cascade — repurposing from a high-value product to a low-value product. Once the material can no longer serve a function, the biochemical feedstock of that material can be extracted as heat or energy, and the remaining organic material can be utilized as nutrients to fuel the growth of more biological materials.
Cascading keeps biological materials in use for longer periods. Doing so increases the value of that material. For example, rather than cut down a tree and process the fiber to become a piece of paper (low-value product), the tree should be made into something of high-value first, such as a building structure. From there, after it no longer can serve as a building structure, it can cascade into a lower-value product, such as a table or plywood. From there, it can cascade even further to the lowest-value product possible, like a piece of paper. Because a product becomes more valuable the longer it maintains its use, cascading materials acts as a strategy to maximize the value of the biological materials extracted from the earth.
Once that piece of paper has been used, it may seem like waste at this point. It can’t be used as paper again, and it certainly can’t act as a building structure. However, the material itself has an innate value that can be biochemically extracted. Paper can be incinerated to create heat, or the fibers of the paper can be recycled into new paper. Whatever the future of that piece of paper may be, it’s critical to never see it as waste. There is always the embodied value of a material.
Once the material has been fully utilized, the remaining biological content can be directed toward the regeneration of natural systems and the creation of new biological materials. The magical property of biological materials is that they can help grow other materials as a component of compost. Paper pulp can be processed into a nutrient-dense compost to grow more trees, and food waste can be processed to grow more food. When waste is eliminated as a construct, you can start processing materials in a circular manner and waste can be fully eliminated.
Upcycling versus downcycling
Technical materials as well as biological ones can be made into new products that are either more or less valuable than their original use. Glass bottles can be upcycled into more valuable pieces of artwork and shattered to form mosaic art, or they can be downcycled instead to act as an aggregate in a kitchen counter. In either instance, value is created by maintaining the use of the product rather than disposing of it.
Upcycling is a strategy that reuses a product in a way that holds more value than the original product, whereas downcycling reuses a product in a way that holds less value than the original product. Though at first the idea of downcycling a product may seem valueless, downcycling is still advantageous because it’s a better alternative to recycling or disposal. The idea of upcycling or downcycling materials into new products, as a concept, is a critical component of supporting a circular economy. However, if you don't provide the right infrastructure, individuals and institutions won’t have the means to support this strategy of extended use.
Large subcultures of makers — that range of designers, builders, and crafters — are booming around the world, and the spaces they use provide the very infrastructure and tools necessary to promote upcycling and downcycling. By providing access to computer numerical control (CNC) machines, 3D printers, and other technologies, makers now have more power than ever to maximize the value of their products by repurposing them.
Redesigning the Future to Be Circular
Before we can create a circular future, waste must first be rejected as an acceptable component of material lifecycles, and those who manage those material lifecycles need to rethink how materials are managed. Only when we achieve these two critical milestones can the world begin to redesign how our food is grown; how our infrastructure, products, and clothing are managed;