Mike DiGirolamo (narration): A circular economy is defined as an economic system based on the reuse and regeneration of materials and products. If human society is to make progress on mitigating the unsustainable impacts market driven forces have on the environment, experts say transitioning to circular economies is a must.

Tim Forslund: It’s not about like relying on people making sacrifices it’s really about making sure that we target policy makers and businesses. But I think that we need to make sure that the products we design makes sense for people.

Mike (narration): So, what does that look like exactly? The answer is it depends on who, or specifically, which country you ask. I’m Mike DiGirolamo.

This is Mongabay Explores, a podcast series diving deep into some of the biggest environmental issues of our time, and the people working to solve them. You’re listening to the second episode of our fifth season, Mongabay Explores The Circular Economy.

On this episode, I speak directly with an architect of the very first nation to implement a circular economy roadmap, Finland.

Tim: This was led by, the Finnish innovation fund, SITRA. This was a process that brought together more than a thousand different stakeholders from across Finland to work on how we can transform the economy in a more circular direction.

Mike (narration): Tim Forslund is a nature and circular economy specialist for the organization SITRA. Initially funded by grants from the Finnish parliament, they’ve worked with the government to help design what was indeed the first circular economy roadmap for any nation in the world. In this conversation, Forslund tells me what went into the design of this roadmap, how things are going, what work still needs to be done, and why circular economy roadmaps are not a static, one-size-fits-all solution, but a complex, continuously updated document tailored specifically to the nation they are for.

Mike: Hi Tim, welcome to the show. So today, we’re going to discuss what a circular economy model looks like when it’s actually implemented at a national scale. And thankfully, we have a nation that is actually trying to do this right now. And it’s the country you’re in. It’s Finland. So, I want to talk about this specifically. But first, can you give our listeners a quick history and some context on when and why Finland decided to adopt a circular economy model?

Tim: Sure, Mike, but let me just start by saying, that today we have more than 50 countries in the world that have a circular economy roadmap or strategy. So, a lot has happened since 2016, when this started in Finland. So, Finland was the first country in the world to have a national circular economy roadmap. And this was led by, the Finnish innovation fund, SITRA. This was a process that brought together more than a thousand different stakeholders from across Finland to work on how we can transform the economy in a more circular direction. So, it was quite a big undertaking. It took quite a while to carry out this whole process, but it’s also something that we have worked on ever since.

Mike: Yeah, it sounds like that was really, really massive. Just quick question, I mean, what were some of the biggest challenges to getting that implemented?

Tim: Well, I think one of the challenges, if you present an idea that is as radical in a way as the full transition to a circular economy is that you’ve got to start somewhere. And I think that is, is both a challenge and an opportunity that we, with the first phase of the roadmap, it was really about getting as many people on board as possible to convince them that this is something that makes business sense. It’s something that’s doable. The results will be tangible. But at first, this was quite a new concept when it came to Finland in 2016. So, I think there was also a bit of “crossing the river as, you touch the bottom of the river floor.” So, seeing, finding your way across the river and what Finland did was under the leadership of SITRA to really drive change through a set of different pilots in the food sector, in the forest sector. So, looking at, yeah, logistics and the technology industries as well, to really see what’s possible and what we can get started with already now.

Mike: So, can you detail for me what’s in the framework, the roadmap?

Tim: So, the roadmap, it consists of, well, it’s, I would say it’s as much a process as a kind of document that outlines exactly what to do. So, it sets the direction for Finland to be a leader in the circular economy by 2025. And that’s already next year. And it also sets out a set of different actions for different sectors. It looks at who can drive change across these different sectors. So, it’s as much a document that looks at the direction, the pieces, and who needs to do what to deliver change as the roadmap spells out. So, it’s, I would say it’s a kind of transformation document as much as it just sounds like it’s a policy document.

Mike: And there’s I believe there’s four key sectors that you mention that really need to be revamped. And we can talk about other things that are in this roadmap, but can you go ahead and detail what about those sectors needs to change?

Tim: I think this is always really important when you look at the circular economy that you need to be geography or place specific. So, for instance, if you look at Spain’s circular economy strategy, one of their key areas is water, because it’s the most water scarce area in Europe, so it’s a really arid region. That’s not the case for Finland, so we have a look at what sectors do we have that are highly relevant for Finland. And, as you might know, about 75 percent of Finland’s area consists of forests. So this is really a key sector for the country.

Mike (narration): So, in the roadmap, this is called the forest loop. Finland, as Tim mentions, is abundant in forests. So, the policy recommendations here focus on using them sustainably. Notably, the roadmap says the goal is to make the main target of the National Forest Strategy maximizing the overall value of Finnish forest-based products and services rather than the amount of wood. In a nutshell, that section, like others, prioritizes and tries to find ways to incentivize reusing materials at every step of the process rather than continually using and throwing them away.

Tim: And then also the food sector, we are highly, self-sufficient in food production, it’s quite an important sector as well for Finland.

Mike (narration): The sustainable food systems recommendations say the aim is to create a market for organic recycled nutrients, minimize food waste by eliminating barriers and creating incentives, support biogas systems and renewable energy solutions to replace fossil fuels in agriculture. Important to note here that biogas in this context means things like methane that is released from the decomposition of organic matter. This is something that might normally be spewed into the atmosphere from a landfill.

Tim: We have a lot of companies in the technology industry. So, we have also a sector here is referred to as technical loops. So, industry and you might know Nokia to, KONE that makes elevators and lifts. So, it’s really a key part of the Finnish, yeah, foundation of our economy.

Mike (narration): For the technology loop, again, the focus is on minimizing waste by using secondary raw materials or byproducts from refining. These are also known as ‘sidestreams.’ Instead of having these materials become waste, they are used. The roadmap describes creating a market for these sidestreams to be used in things like construction. Even lost heat is mentioned here, which accounts for 37 percent of Finland’s industrial energy use, and mentions that 4 terawatt hours of this heat could be reused. Another interesting part of this equation is reusing existing building stock. In Helsinki, there are 1. 2 million square meters of unused office space that isn’t zoned for residential use. If just one third of it were converted, it would save 700 million euros compared to the cost of building new housing. This is a lesson I could not help but think that tons of cities could really learn from when addressing their housing shortages. Zoning laws, unfortunately, can be a massive barrier to solving housing supply. I don’t want to name any names, but the place I’m thinking of rhymes with “Alifornia.”

Tim: And then you also, the fourth sector is transport and logistics. It’s just a very sparsely populated country compared to many others in Europe. So, I think this is also something that you need to make sure that the connections between different parts of the country work because we are highly also dependent on trade or both on imports and exports. So, this needs to work as well. So that’s why we have these four sectors to reflect the specific conditions of the Finnish economy.

Mike (narration): Finland is obviously not the only sparsely populated country in the world. Transportation and logistics is going to be a huge consideration pretty much everywhere. But this roadmap has some insights that could probably apply to many other nations. In short, the roadmap here includes the following suggestions. “Develop incentives and policy instruments to accelerate a radical change towards a more service-based transport system. Promote alternative forms of transport to replace private cars, reduce subsidies that favor private cars” and “promote personal incentives to enhance the choice of alternative transport methods.” Again, these are all complicated sections and my elaborations here, while providing more insight, only scratch the surface of what is a very complex roadmap.

Tim: What was started back in 2016 was to run a set of, a series of pilots to see how circular change can look like. So, if I take the food sector as an example, there were new restaurant business models that were piloted. And there were also other pilots that look at how we can make use of food waste so that this can also benefit socially vulnerable groups in Finland. So, there were a set of different pilots to see how can we make the materials of these different sectors stay in the economy to let us gain as much value from these resources as possible and to find tangible ways of actually benefiting Finns as well, Finnish people. So, this was something that we looked at to really see what’s possible in these sectors and then this has been followed up also in 2021 in the circular economy strategic program where you have a more specific process looking at scenarios and scenario models and also commitments from companies to deliver on the 2035 targets that have been established since.

Mike (narration): More on that in just a moment.

Mike: And it seems like since the implementation of this model, material consumption has actually increased, whereas the desire was for it to go down.

Mike (narration): This is only partially true, and I don’t want to mislead anyone here. Domestic material consumption did increase in Finland between 2015 and 2018, but it also has stagnated since then. As of at least 2022, according to the Statistics Finland database, it is largely at the same level as it was in 2018, which is still higher than it was in 2015.

Mike: So, what happened there? Can you tell us what can be done to turn that around and actually have this create the effect of reducing material consumption?

Tim: Yeah, so I think we really have a lot of work ahead of us still. I wouldn’t say that we have moved backwards. I’d say that we have just not moved ahead fast enough. And I think this is really down to, three reasons. So, the first one is that it takes time for policies to generate the change that is intended. So, there’s always a delay. So, we’re seeing a lot of these policies being implemented, but it will take more and more time to see the change. The second part is that it’s really down to how we measure, change. So, if you look at resource productivity, circular material use, or if we just look about the absolute use of resources, we will get three very different answers. But I think it’s similar in Finland, it’s similar if you look at the European level, it’s quite stagnant. We’re not moving, we’re moving sideways, not upwards. And there’s a big issue still that we’re not moving fast enough.

Mike (narration): Tim’s concerns are echoed by other experts Mongabay has contacted. Annukka Berg with the Finnish Environment Institute says that Finland has room to be much more ambitious and that sustainable resource use might actually be one third of what 2015 levels were. You can check the link in the show notes for more on the story from Sean Mowbray.

Tim: So, I think this is a challenge, and it’s also the third part here is that this Finnish economy is very resource intensive that we have a lot of mining industries and a lot of this is also exported, of course, but it’s one thing that’s really a foundation for our economy. We’re dependent on extractives from mining, but also from the wood industry, the forest industry. So, I think this is also something that is, we’re probably never going to be as circular as some other countries that have a very different economic structure. And so, for instance, just in terms of transporting waste from the built environment, it’s very difficult to reuse while building materials from one part of the country to another that’s being urbanized at a higher degree today, because the distances are quite, quite long. So, this is something that’s also comes into play here that we need to look at what’s the specific economic structure of the country. So, we have some challenges here, but there’s also a lot that we could do. We could do more of, I think.

Mike: Yeah. So, can you get into what’s behind the delay? Because you mentioned that it does take time, but this was, I think the policy was first implemented eight years ago.

Tim: Right.

Mike: And I think that the baseline or the deadline, so to speak, is 2035 to achieve that circularity. So, is that enough time for us to meet that deadline?

Tim: I think we are moving ahead at a good pace. I would challenge the notion that this started in 2016, in a way, this was the roadmap that was a visionary document to set out what’s needed to change a direction and different pilots that helped us steer course, and then the real change in a way really started with a circular economy strategic program where you have these 2035 targets. So they were only actually a product that came out of the 2021 strategic circular economy program. And there you have these absolute resource targets, well, resource reduction targets for 2035. We should double our circular material use rate by 2035 and also double our resource productivity.

Mike (narration): We could do an entire podcast just on the concept of resource productivity, but in a nutshell, it’s the monetary yield of a product per unit of resource used. The idea here is to increase that yield while keeping the actual resource use low or reduce the amount of resources used to create that product. Another nation with targets for resource reduction and resource productivity in their circular economy strategy is Austria, which is also, by EU standards, a high consumption EU country. Though, not as much as Finland.

Tim: So, I think these really set the course for a more ambitious, direction, clear goals for what needs to be done, because I think what gets measured gets done. So, I think this is really something that has a lot of promise and is a unique process for. There are other countries that have resource targets, but out of these, 50 countries that I mentioned that have circular economy or roadmaps or strategies, I only know that in Austria and the Netherlands, they also have these absolute resource reduction targets to make sure the resource growth doesn’t continue to grow. And we’re not necessarily growing our material footprint that much, but it’s also not moving in the right direction where we’re seeing reductions needed. So, I think this is something that is moving in the right direction. And we have a lot of companies that have submitted voluntary commitments, but we need to do a lot more if we’re to be not just like we were in 2015, which is the goal. But if you are to become truly circular, we have a lot of work ahead of us.

Mike: So, let’s go ahead and get into what some of that work would be. And you mentioned that there’s been voluntary commitments. Is there space for compelled commitments in this conversation?

Tim: I think this is an interesting topic. As of yet, we have not seen much on that front. One thing that we could look at is market-based instruments. And as of yet, if you look at a European level, there are very few market-based instruments because this is not mandatory. It’s only down to voluntary schemes, and we see that of environmental taxes in general, they only account for about 6 percent of tax revenues in EU member states. And if you look at materials and pollution, this only accounts for 0. 2 percent of tax revenues in member states.

Mike (narration): Information I found from the European Commission as of 2021 stated that total environment tax revenue was only 2. 2 percent of its GDP. And only 5. 5 percent of its total government revenue. Well over three quarters of it was taxes on energy, and only 18 percent was a tax on transportation, and only 3. 6 percent was a tax on pollution and resources.

Tim: So, if we don’t have price mechanisms, at the end of the day, that’s the strongest signal we can send to consumers, businesses, to make sure that, yeah, we consume according to…yeah, the polluter pays principle. So we’re looking at the impact from that waste and that’s just not something that has been done at a European level. So that has, I think, a tremendous potential. And procurement is another area. It’s largely based on voluntary commitments. But if you look at a country like Finland, about one sixth of our GDP, if I’m not mistaken, is directed to public procurement. So, it’s a massive, massive area. And I think this could drive innovation towards the circular economy in a much stronger way, because, yeah, it’s just a lot of everything that governments purchase, universities, schools. If they were to favour circular products and service offerings instead of continuing to rely on a linear economy that could really drive a lot of innovation towards the circular economy.

Mike: And just to clarify, when you’re saying “market-based mechanisms,” you are including in that compelled commitments such as taxation, correct?

Tim: Yeah. I think there’s, well, you could have market-based instruments based on voluntary schemes as well, but I’m thinking in terms of taxes, for instance, you could look at subsidies as well. It could even be a combination of both if you have a bonus malice system, so you could, as one example, rely on taxing certain materials or pollutants. And then you use the tax revenues to make cheaper secondary raw materials.

Mike: So, the circular economy green deal, you’re saying right now it appears mostly to be voluntary.

Tim: Yeah, that’s correct.

Mike: So, let’s talk about that for a second. So, many people may point out that if something is voluntary, companies can simply opt out of it. So, how do we continue forward with this current deal under that basis? Is there room to make it involuntary?

Tim: I think this is a very good question. Could we get further if we relied more on mandates and well, mandatory policies at the European level? And I think this is just reflective of the current operating environment. There’s been talk of a “greenlash” in Europe. There’s been a bit of a pushback against the wave of green policies that has come towards member states.

Mike (narration): There’s a laundry list of events and sentiments that have occurred in the European nations that give credence to the notion of a green backlash or fatigue. In 2023, French President Emmanuel Macron called for a regulatory break on green legislation. At the same time, columnists have pointed out that right wing populist movements could be latching on to this fatigue and running their campaigns, appealing to the grievances of some people with climate and environmental policies. However, it doesn’t appear to have given them a majority, at least in the French elections which just occurred, where Marine Le Pen’s National Rally finished in third.

Tim: So, I think this is something that is maybe a reaction that there’s a bit of a fear to have even more policies. But I think this is at the same time, I wouldn’t underestimate the power of voluntary schemes because I think this is something that a lot of companies understand that it makes business sense to transition towards a circular economy. You get more value from what you have. And you cut up waste from your supply chain. I think this is something that a lot of companies see the benefits. And this process steers companies to, by working together with them on a science based approach where you rely on different scenarios for these different sectors that are part of this, green deal, circular economy green deal in Finland, it really shows that what’s possible in the transition, what can you do as a company and then working towards what are the easiest ways of implementing change. So, I think this, it can really go a long way, but of course you could have a faster progress if you had stronger mandatory schemes at a European level, but we’re just not seeing that at the moment. So, I think this is a promising model as we can’t really seem to get that going at the moment.

Mike: And, I hear you. In terms of like the current linear economic model, which we’ve been talking about, there’s like sort of this ‘take, make, waste’ mindset, right? And for instance, the plastics industry has relied heavily on single use plastics, making something that isn’t really truly designed to be recycled and profiting off that. So, if the incentive is to make waste, how can a voluntary approach work with that?

Tim: Well, I think that waste, you could also reframe it as an inefficiency that everything that is wasted is a lost value creation opportunity. And we’re seeing a lot of companies in Finland that see that they can actually make more money, they can have more consistent customer relations by having business models that let them rely, for instance, on a product-as-a-service.

Mike: I think it’s important to point out here that Tim is actually referring to products you do not own. It’s a service. Not a consumable in the sense that we know of in the current global linear economy.

Tim: So, I mean, there are companies in Finland that have relied on this for basically a century: a company like Lindström that offers both workwear and textiles as a service. And it’s just, it just makes sense because for instance, at SITRA, if we don’t have to take care of carpets, it lets us focus on our work as an innovation fund. And then they make sure the thing can optimize when the carpet needs to be, cleaned, refurbished. And they are the real experts of that. And they have an incentive to produce carpets that last for as long as possible and to make sure that it’s taken, taken good care of. And to just retain the material value for as long as possible, because if that turns into waste, they’re losing their assets, essentially.

Mike (narration): How this would work with plastics is something I didn’t get into with Tim here, and he admittedly informed me that it’s not totally his area of expertise. But one potential tool I’ve come across in my past reporting on this subject is something called ‘extended producer responsibilities.’ It’s not the same thing as a product-as-a-service, obviously, but it’s a tool that makes the producer responsible for what happens to the product after it enters the market. And it could incentivize more recycling of that product and potentially hold the producer legally liable for its environmental impacts.

Tim: So, I think we’re seeing a lot of companies that are making business, well, profitable business in this operating environment. Of course, if the rules of the games were different, we would come much farther, much faster. If price mechanisms show that secondary raw materials were more competitive, for instance, to compared to virgin raw materials, it just makes a lot of sense. We’re not seeing that at the moment.

Mike: So, I’ve read that 60 billion garments get thrown away each year, and I understand that. some clothing brands are taking action on that, but that seems like quite a lot, and as you mentioned, it’s lost money, it’s lost value, it’s also incredibly damaging to the environment and using water to make those garments. So, if that’s already happening though, that seems like a rather large issue to tackle in a voluntary manner. So, I’m just kind of curious, what’s your thoughts on the garment industry, fast fashion from a circular economy standpoint.

Tim: I’m actually a bit of an optimist if we talk about textiles and fiber specifically. On one hand, we’re seeing quite a powerful drive from the European policymakers. Not only do we have the circular economy action plan and the sustainable product eco design for sustainable products regulation, ESPR, but we also have the textile strategy, which looks at that specifically. So, I think that really pushes or drives change in EU countries. But I think a lot of companies, even before this came into effect, we were seeing a lot of promising initiatives. So, in Finland, it’s mandatory to collect household textile waste since last year already. So, this is two years earlier than what we’re seeing at the European level. It will be mandatory next year to collect, well, to provide collection for household textile waste.

Mike (narration): And Tim’s right on this front. The EU is taking a less voluntary approach, and in 2025 will require all member states to remove textiles from their waste. And some fashion brands are looking more to secondary or used textiles to make their products. The European Union currently produces 5. 2 million tons of textile waste each year.

Tim: So, this is going forward. And this just links to capturing value, because if we don’t have to rely on importing fibers, we can reuse those in Finland. So, we can enhance our security of supply. We don’t have to rely as much on imports. And we’re seeing, so for instance, one company here, Lindström, provides textiles as a service and they have this, workwear carpets that are quite, I mean, they’re different sizes, yes, but it’s the same product, basically. So, what they have done is to team up with a textiles recycling company, Rester, and they get a homogenous process. So, through their mechanical recycling process, they can make sure that they get a bit higher quality out of this process because they have teamed up. And this means that Lindström can also get a renewable feedstock back into their products that is not from virgin resources. It’s a secondary resource that they have. So, they have effectively, by working together, they have ensured a higher quality feedstock and basically closing the loop at a local level in Finland. So, I think companies are already seeing the potential. And next year, we’re also seeing in the city of Turku, Lounais-Suomen Jäteholto has looked at, well, building a recycling plant that will have the capacity to recycle all the textiles in Finland next year. So, I think a lot of companies are capturing this opportunity. There are some bottlenecks in the textiles industry, but we’re seeing tremendous progress as well. So, I think this is a real opportunity that we’re seeing in Finland and the Nordic countries.

Mike: So, I want to go back to recycling because it’s a big topic of conversation obviously and it heavily depends on the sector the material and our listeners are aware of that of course, but there’s some pretty important implications depending on the sector, right? So I wanted to ask you about plastics recycling because many listeners will probably be remember that globally about only 9 percent of the plastic that is produced and thrown away actually gets back on the shelf. So, what is your view on the plastics recycling situation in Finland? What has Finland done to address that situation?

Tim: I think we’re not moving ahead as fast as we could with plastics. And I think this is largely a design problem at the moment. I mean, 80 percent of environmental impacts is, well, locked in at the design phase, so we’re seeing that recycling capacity can deal with some of this, but it’s also a technology question. There are some plastics that are just very difficult to deal with today. So, I think in the next few years will be pivotal. And if we can really make sure that we get a, yeah, that we can close the loop on the largest share of plastics. We need to have higher collection rates and just some of the recycling technology is not just, it’s, it’s being, taken forward, but we still are not quite there yet.

Mike (narration): Real quick, because this subject can get complicated, Norway has a scheme where you, the consumer, must pay a sizable but not crazy deposit when you buy a product in a plastic bottle. You get the deposit back when you return the bottle. Nationally, this means that over 90 percent of all bottles get returned. It’s hailed as a leader in bottle collection schemes. But it’s not a panacea, and it doesn’t solve the inherent problems with plastic recycling technology, which render the process not technically viable at scale, since there’s thousands of different types of plastic that can’t be efficiently sorted and recycled together, and experts also note that the material can only be reused a handful of times or less. Another problem is single use plastics. The EU has banned some single use plastics beginning in 2021, and introduced a levy for each state based on the amount of plastic packaging waste that state produces. These aren’t perfect, but they are at least something.

Mike: Last question here, you have mentioned that a big piece of the puzzle to implementing circular economies is education. Which I believe you were implying here that it would like higher education, training a workforce to teach them the tools and implement the things necessary to develop the infrastructure for a circular economy. So, can you elaborate on this for us?

Tim: Yeah, gladly. I think this is really one of the areas where Finland has excelled and lived up to its reputation with education, because this really starts at a kindergarten level, children in Finland are exposed to learning about the circular economy. So, to try to understand what are products and materials and what are these resource loops that we’re talking about. So to already develop an understanding there, but this is also at the back of the roadmap back in 2016, maybe this is one of the really, really big outcomes from that process that we have while in 2018-19, there was research that looks at circular economy learning offerings and Finland had the highest number of circular economy learning offerings in higher education in the world and not just per capita. So I think If you want to call it systems change or not, I mean, it’s just one part of one transition, but it’s such an instrumental piece and I think it goes to show at least that if you have the right people at universities of applied sciences, the ministries public fund, working together and trying to mainstream circular economy learning, you can make a lot happen. So, this is, most students in Finland are exposed to learning about the circular economy and we’re also one of the things we followed up on at SITRA specifically is to target lifelong learning because it’s just not enough if we just target people under 25 to drive the whole transition. We also need to make sure that some of the people that might not benefit from the transition are part of it. So that we can provide lifelong learning and to retrain people in specific industries. So, this is something that we have, looked at specifically and we need to do a lot more of this in the years to come.

Mike (narration): Before I got off the call with Tim, we shared a few more reflections on efficient design and the ways in which different nations adopt a shift in mindsets towards this.

Tim: So, we often talk about public private partnerships, right? But I think we should also talk about public private person partnerships. So, to add another P, cause I think it’s really important that we design solutions for people, that people are, the service offerings are targeted at, well, people, that they can really unlock a lot of change. And we’re seeing in Finland, for instance, that, I mean, about some polls that SITRA has conducted shows that about, yeah, 80, 85%, if I remember correctly, want Finland to transition toward a circular economy, even if other countries are not doing the same. And this is also something that we worked on with lifestyle specifically. So, we have a lifestyle test, a 1. 5 degree lifestyle test that’s been taken 1. 7 million times in Finland. And it’s been scaled to other countries. And there are many circular measures here. So, it points at what can you do as a citizen to drive change. So, I think this is something that gets overlooked quite a lot. What can you do as a person and how do you weave in this kind of cultural, elements into that?

Mike: Right. I do wonder sometimes though, if focusing on what the individual can do sort of lets the producer off the hook a bit from actually designing it. Cause as you mentioned, like for plastics. 80 percent of the waste is designed into it, right? So, It seems like to me the majority of the onus is on the people designing and producing the product to make it efficient, to make it reusable, to make it repairable. There’s so many products you can’t even repair so many products, you have to throw them away and buy a new one. And so, it seems like that’s like a huge part of the puzzle.

Tim: I really, I strongly agree with that. I think that’s been one of the things in the circular economy that’s been quite effective. It’s not about like relying on people making sacrifices it’s really about making sure that we target policy makers and businesses, but I think we need to make sure that the product we design makes sense for people. And at some level, I think this is not about appealing to consumers to be more sustainable, but it’s like Greta Thunberg said at some point, do we need to change the system, or do we need to change, as humans? And she said, well, of course we have to do both. So, I think, I mean, it’s an all hands on deck situation and we need to work with everything that we can basically.

Mike (narration): I wasn’t able to find this precise quote, but in a response to a question from actor Maisie Williams, where she asked, what can people reading this do today to make an impact? Greta Thunberg responded by saying, “of course we need a system change, but I believe you cannot have system change without individual change.”

Mike: Well, Tim, thank you so much for joining us today and talking about the circular economy. We really appreciate you speaking with us.

Tim: Thanks, Mike. I really enjoyed our conversation.

Mike (narration): Thank you for listening to Mongabay Explores the Circular Economy, episode two. I’m your host, Mike DiGirolamo. Editorial support for this episode was provided by Erik Hoffner. The script was written by myself. If you enjoyed this episode of Mongabay Explores and you want to support us, please tell a friend about this podcast series and also our award-winning flagship podcast series, The Mongabay Newscast. Word of Mouth really does help us expand our reach, but you can also support us by becoming a monthly sponsor by heading to patreon.com/slash Mongabay. Again, that’s patreon.com forward slash Mongabay. You can donate there to help us cover production costs and hosting fees for all of our podcast content. And if you want to stay up to date on all things, Mongabay, follow us on Facebook, Instagram, Mastodon, LinkedIn, and Blue Sky where our handle is at Mongabay. This concludes episode two in our circular economy series for Mongabay Explores. Stay tuned for the next conversation.