1/11
She works in a research field of the future: ETH circular economy expert Nicola Blum.
Silvia ChuiSociety Editor
Blick: Ms. Blum, what is the circular economy?
Nicola Blum: There are different definitions. One that has prevailed is based on three points: to recycle products at the highest level for as long as possible, to avoid waste and to regenerate nature. The basic premise is that our materials are finite and we will eventually run out. It is therefore a matter of thinking about the life cycle of products, but also the systems behind them, in such a way that materials and products live as “endlessly” as possible.
And how do you achieve that?
One approach is to think about whether it is better to share products than to own them. It’s called the sharing economy. There’s already quite a bit in this country, but other countries are way ahead of us.
What’s up with us?
One example is mobility. It makes a lot more sense economically and ecologically, especially in cities, to rent and share a car than to buy one. Because of the gray energy it takes to make cars. And because then fewer cars have to be parked and this space can be used to plant trees, for example.
And how are other countries ahead of us in the sharing economy?
One concept that a Dutch company is already working with quite successfully is to make modular kitchens and rent them out to consumers instead of selling them. In this sense, modular means that individual parts can be exchanged or added to the whole. This is coupled with a service that exchanges or repairs the desired elements.
Wait: what if something breaks?
This is included in the rental price. The nice thing about it is that it gives manufacturers an incentive to produce better. Manufacturers are interested in their products breaking so that the consumer buys them again if possible. But if the producer is a landlord, his interest lies in producing products that last as long as possible so that they can generate profit in the form of rent for as long as possible. It is therefore more economical to produce as sustainably and qualitatively as possible. Win-win-win: The consumer is more flexible, the producer saves on production, and the environment is less burdened because fewer resources are used.
If less is produced, will there not be a lack of jobs? Doesn’t that do more damage to our economy than good?
Circular economy does not mean that less is consumed, but different and different. To stay with the kitchen rental model: maybe fewer carpenters are actually needed to make the elements. But there are new jobs in the area of services: in administration, in customer service, with fitters.
Wouldn’t people rather own things than share them?
Certainly some, there is no objection to that. Of course there are people who want to own their car because it is important to them. But a car also means a lot of work: tire changes, checks, parking space rental, insurance and repairs every year. With a car-sharing service like Mobility, that doesn’t apply: get in, drive off and park again, done. Sharing Economy can be a more pleasant way of consuming than being responsible for ownership.
You mentioned many other approaches, what are they?
In Switzerland we are very advanced in recycling. Glass, paper, aluminum and PET. It is best when starting materials become the same material again, the closer the new product is to the starting product, the fewer processing steps it takes, the better. So paper to paper, glass to glass, PET bottles to PET bottles again. All other types of recycling are worse: for example, the recycling of PET to make textiles out of it. We prepare analyzes for such processes in order to be able to estimate exactly what the ecological and economic benefits are.
Why is that worse?
This is so-called downcycling: the garment cannot be made into a bottle again, the garment will probably end up in the trash later, and the material is lost – an example of insufficiently thought-out circular economy. However, it is still better for the environment than simply incinerating this PET. Incidentally, textiles are a prime example of good and bad recycling.
In what way?
Wearing them for a very long time is best. If you patch them up or share them, that’s still very good – there are already so-called “shared wardrobe” models in Swiss cities. The second-hand market is already a bit worse because of the longer transport routes. But all this is still much better than giving old clothes to Texaid, where many things are discarded and burned because of poor quality. And the worst thing of all is just throwing them away. So I plead: if you buy something new, then it should be of high quality and timeless. So that you can wear your clothes for years. But all this is not the ultimate goal of the circular economy.
What’s the ultimate goal?
That economy, research and development are going so that every new material is manufactured in such a way that further recycling and dismantling are already taken into account. So, among other things, you have to start designing the products differently.
How come?
I’m using the word modular again: that products are designed in such a way that they can be easily taken apart and the individual parts can be reused without a great deal of separation effort. Today there are many products that are the opposite: for example, firmly connected wood/plastic or metal/plastic elements such as windows in the construction industry, which cannot be easily separated and then recycled. With such permanently connected products, one produces a one-time use that ultimately ends up in bulky waste or is incinerated. This is ecological and economic nonsense.
To person
Nicola Blum studied mechanical engineering and technology management at the ETH Zurich and also did his doctorate there. Semesters abroad took her to the Technical University of Stockholm (KTH) and the Technical University of Delft (Netherlands). She has worked for various companies and NGOs in the field of renewable technologies in Paris, Costa Rica, Amsterdam and Southeast Asia. She is currently teaching and researching at the ETH, within the group for sustainability and technology, as well as at the Bern University of Applied Sciences. She lives with her family in Zurich.
Nicola Blum studied mechanical engineering and technology management at the ETH Zurich and also did his doctorate there. Semesters abroad took her to the Technical University of Stockholm (KTH) and the Technical University of Delft (Netherlands). She has worked for various companies and NGOs in the field of renewable technologies in Paris, Costa Rica, Amsterdam and Southeast Asia. She is currently teaching and researching at the ETH, within the group for sustainability and technology, as well as at the Bern University of Applied Sciences. She lives with her family in Zurich.
What exactly do you do as a circular economy researcher?
I teach at the ETH and at the Bern University of Applied Sciences. In my research, we examine whether a circular economy approach is economically and ecologically worthwhile for companies, start-ups or even municipalities and cities. We are at the interface of biology, chemistry and ecology, but also of sociology, materials research and economics. Actually, we collect information and create an analysis from it.
That sounds pretty abstract. Can you give a specific example?
One example is the packaging industry. We were able to bring manufacturers, recyclers and recyclers together and give advice. But there are countless applications: in the textile industry, plastic production and recycling, the construction industry. The latter faces a variety of problems: Your CO2-The output is huge, both in terms of the production of concrete and the transport routes. We are intensively examining different things: new materials, transport routes or specifically whether recycling is worthwhile for a demolished building. Unfortunately, most of the time it’s not worth it. Or not yet.
Why not?
Because work in Switzerland is expensive. A targeted demolition and a separation of the raw materials is nowadays even more expensive than simply transporting everything away and disposing of it. The scarcer our resources become, the more this could be worthwhile. A country that is already very advanced in the construction industry and has some examples of sustainable construction is the Netherlands.
Do Swiss politicians need incentives to “force” the economy more in the direction of circulation, so to speak?
In fact, the EU is more advanced with its “Circular Economy Action Plan” and is putting more pressure on the economy with guidelines. But something is also happening in Switzerland. In my practice, I see that the economy is sometimes almost further than politics and companies are coming towards us. There are sustainability-oriented foundations and funds that help start-ups in the area of sustainability. And the new environmental protection law is being discussed. Circular economy is to be introduced at federal level. The canton of Zurich has already issued some guidelines. It’s going in the right direction. Where I still see great potential is in the schools.
In what way?
Subjects should be taught more interdisciplinary. Using PET as an example, one could show almost the entire environmental issue from production to recycling, further use, but also harmful environmental influences such as microplastics, etc. This applies to subjects such as chemistry and physics in production, logistics in recycling, and mathematics in calculating CO2-Emissions, biology on the topic of microplastics and effects on flora and fauna, sociology on consumer behavior and economy. I see it as a deficiency that this is not done enough, that we are not trained enough in contexts, in systematic thinking.
External Content
Would you like to see this supplementary content (Tweet, Instagram, etc.)? If you agree that cookies are set and data is thereby transmitted to external providers, you can allow all cookies and display external content directly.