The Implementation of Circular Economy Concept in the Polish Coal Combustion Products Sector - Selected Problems

• Autorzy: Janusz Rosiek

Warianty tytułu

Wybrane problemy implementacji koncepcji gospodarki obiegu zamkniętego (GOZ) w sektorze ubocznych produktów spalania (UPS) w Polsce

• Języki publikacji: EN

Abstrakty

EN

The EU economy is currently losing a significant amount of potential secondary raw materials which are present in waste streams (particular numerical data are presented in the paper). In the total amount of generated waste, the share of Coal Combustion Products (CCPs) and Coal Mining Products (CMPs) is particularly high, which is generated mainly by Central and Eastern European Countries (CEECs), where we come to deal with high consumption of energy produced by coal combustion and coal mining processes. The problem concerns, in particular, the Polish economy. Consequently, the European Commission (EC) has developed a closed-loop (circular) economy concept (CEC), whose implementation should contribute to reducing CCPs negative impact on the economy, not only in the ecological, but also in social and economic aspects. Closed-loop (circular) economy keeps products, parts and materials in economic circulation, as long as possible, using as little resources as possible. This concept was presented in the document published by the European Commission: Circular Economy Package, which also includes the Communication of the Commission: Closing the Loop - An EU Action Plan for the Circular Economy (2015). Recent trends suggest that further progress in resource efficiency is possible and it can bring major economic, environmental and social benefits. Turning waste, especially CCPs, into a resource is an essential part of increasing resource efficiency and closing the loop in a circular economy. There are four key areas of CCPs use: construction, road construction, energy and road maintenance. Increasing the use of CCPs can be achieved by granting a legal status to waste products and convincing consumers and business of the following benefits of using them: decreasing production costs by substituting natural aggregate with waste aggregates (based on CCPs), reducing greenhouse gas emissions, and increasing energy efficiency. As a result, CCPs must comply with certain technical standards set by the EU and implemented in the Polish economy. The study attempts to estimate, using comparative analysis, the economic, social and environmental benefits of implementation of CEC in the CCPs sector of the Polish economy. (original abstract)

Gospodarka UE traci obecnie znaczną ilość potencjalnych wtórnych surowców, które są obecne w strumieniach odpadów. W 2013 r. Całkowite wytwarzanie odpadów w UE wyniosło około 2,5 mld ton, z czego 1,6 miliarda ton nie zostało ponownie wykorzystane lub poddane recyklingowi, a zatem uważa się je za stratę dla gospodarki europejskiej. Szacuje się, że dodatkowe 600 milionów ton można poddać recyklingowi lub ponownie wykorzystać. Każdego roku w Europie wytwarzane jest około 700 milionów minerałów antropogenicznych, w tym około 150 milionów ton produktów spalania węgla (UPS) w energetyce. W 28 państwach członkowskich Unii Europejskiej produkuje się ponad 100 milionów ton, z czego ponad 20 milionów ton w Polsce. Gospodarka w zamkniętych pętlach utrzymuje produkty, części i materiały w obiegu gospodarczym tak długo, jak to możliwe, wykorzystując jak najmniej zasobów. Koncepcja ta została zaprezentowana w dokumencie opublikowanym przez Komisję Europejską: Circular Economy Package (CEP), który obejmuje również komunikat Komisji: Zamknięcie pętli - plan działania UE na rzecz gospodarki okrągłej. Ostatnie trendy sugerują, że dalsze postępy w zakresie efektywnego gospodarowania zasobami są możliwe i mogą przynieść znaczne korzyści gospodarcze, środowiskowe i społeczne. Przenoszenie odpadów do zasobów stanowi zasadniczą część zwiększenia efektywności wykorzystania zasobów i zamykania pętli w okrągłej gospodarce. Istnieją cztery główne obszary zastosowań UPS: budownictwo, budowa dróg, energia i utrzymanie dróg. Zwiększenie wykorzystania UPS można osiągnąć poprzez nadanie statusu prawnego odpadom produktów i przekonywanie konsumentów i przedsiębiorstw do następujących korzyści związanych z ich używaniem: obniżenie kosztów produkcji poprzez zastąpienie naturalnego agregatu odpadami (na podstawie UPS), redukcja emisji gazów cieplarnianych, I zwiększenie efektywności energetycznej. W rezultacie UPS musi spełniać określone normy techniczne ustalone przez UE i wprowadzać do polskiej gospodarki. W opracowaniu podjęto próbę oszacowania, stosując analizę porównawczą, korzyści ekonomicznych, społecznych i środowiskowych wynikających z wdrożenia koncepcji gospodarki obiegu zamkniętego (GOZ) dla sektora UPS polskiej gospodarki. (abstrakt oryginalny)

Słowa kluczowe

EN

Circular economy; Economy

PL

Gospodarka zamkniętego obiegu; Gospodarka

• Czasopismo: Economic and Environmental Studies
• Rocznik: 2018
• Numer: nr 1
• Strony: 353--373

Twórcy

autor

Janusz Rosiek

• Cracow University of Economics, Poland

Bibliografia

• CEPS(2017). The Circular Economy. A review of definitions, processes and impacts. CEPS Research Report (Thinking Ahead for Europe) (authors: Rizos, V.; Tuokko, K.; Behrens A.) 2017/08, April 2017. Available at: http://aei.pitt.edu/85892/1/RR2017-08_CircularEconomy_0.pdf. Accessed 10 October 2017.
• Chrzanowski, Z.; Masłowski, D. (2014). Zagospodarowanie ubocznych produktów spalania w Polsce (Re-use Coal Combustion Products in Poland). Materiały Budowlane 508/12: 4-5. Temat wydania: "Ochrona środowiska w budownictwie", DOI: dx.doi.org/10.15199/33.2014.12.01. Accessed 11 October 2017.
• Čiegis, R.; Čiegis, R. (2008). Laws of thermodynamics and sustainability of the economy. Engineering Economics 57 2/2008, Kaunas University of Technology.
• COM(2008)699 Final. Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament and The Council, The Raw Materials Initiative - Meeting Our Critical Needs For Growth And Jobs In Europe {Sec(2008) 2741}. Brussels, 04.11.2008.
• COM(2011)571 Final. Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions, Roadmap to a Resource Efficient Europe {Sec(2011) 1067 Final} {Sec(2011) 1068 Final}. Brussels, 20.09.2011.
• COM(2014)297 Final. Communication From the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions on the Review of the List of Critical Raw Materials for the EU and the Implementation of the Raw Materials Initiative {SWD(2014) 171 Final}. Brussels, 26.05.2014.
• COM(2014)397 Final. 2014/0201 (Cod). Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Directives 2008/98/EC on Waste, 94/62/EC on Packaging and Packaging Waste, 1999/31/EC on the Landfill of Waste, 2000/53/EC on End-Of-Life Vehicles, 2006/66/EC on Batteries and Accumulators and Waste Batteries and Accumulators, and 2012/19/EU on Waste Electrical And Electronic Equipment (Text with EEA Relevance). {SWD(2014) 207 Final} {SWD(2014) 208 Final} {SWD(2014) 209 Final} {SWD(2014) 210 Final}. Brussels, 02.07.2014.
• COM(2015a) 614 final. Closing the loop - An EU action plan for the Circular Economy, Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions, European Commission, Brussels, 2.12.2015. Available at: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/resource.html?uri=cellar:8a8ef5e8-99a0-11e5-b3b7-01aa75ed71a1.0012.02/DOC_1&format=PDF. Accessed 2 October 2017.
• COM(2015b). Closing the loop - An EU action plan for the Circular Economy, Annex to the Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions, European Commission, Brussels, 2.12.2015. Available at: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/resource.html?uri=cellar:8a8ef5e8-99a0-11e5-b3b7 01aa75ed71a1.0012.02/DOC_2&format=PDF. Accessed 2 October 2017.
• Decision 1386/2013/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 November 2013 on a 7th General Union Environment Action Programme to 2020, Living Well within the Limits of Our Planet (OJ L 354, 28.12.2013).
• Directive 1999/31/EC of 26 April 1999 on the landfill of waste (OJ L 182, 16.07.1999: 1).
• Directive 2000/53/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 September 2000 on end of life vehicles (OJ L 269, 21.10.2000: 34-43).
• Directive 2006/66/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 September 2006 on batteries and accumulators and waste batteries and accumulators and repealing Directive 91/157/EEC (OJ L 266, 26.09.2006: 1-14).
• Directive 2008/98/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 November 2008 on waste and repealing certain Directives (OJ L 312, 22.11.2008: 3).
• Directive 2012/19/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 July 2012 on waste electrical and electronic equipment (OJ L 197, 24.7.2012: 38-71).
• EEA(2014). Resource-efficient Green Economy and EU policies, European Environment Agency, Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg.
• Ehrenfeld, J. R. (2007). Would Industrial Ecology Exist without Sustainability in the Background?, Journal of Industrial Ecology 11(1): 73-84, Yale University, New Haven, January 2007.
• EP(2016). Closing the loop. New circular economy package, Briefing, European Parliament, January 2016. Available at: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/BRIE/2016/573899/EPRS_BRI(2016)573899_EN.pdf. Accessed 8 October 2017.
• Erkman, S. (1997). Industrial ecology: An historical view, Journal of Cleaner Production 5(1): 21-10, Elseviere. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0959-6526(97)00003-6. Accessed 10 November 2017.
• EU; Euratom (2012). Regulation (966/2012) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2012 on the financial rules applicable to the general budget of the European Union and repealing Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) 1605/2002 of 25 June 2002.
• Garner, A.; Keoleyan G. A. (1995). Industrial Ecology: An Introduction, University of Michigan, National Pollution Prevention Center for Higher Education, Ann Arbor.
• Lewandowski M. (2016). Designing the Business Models for Circular Economy - Towards the Conceptual Framework, Sustainability 8(43), doi:10.3390/su8010043. Available at:www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability. Accessed 11 August 2017.
• Lieder, M.; Rashid, A. (2016). Towards circular economy implementation: a comprehensive review in context of manufacturing industry, Journal of Cleaner Production 115: 36-51, Elseviere, 1 March 2016. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.12.042. Accessed 3 October 2017.
• Pearce, D.W.; Turner, R.K. (1990). Economics of Natural Resources and the Environment, Hemel Hempstead: Harvester Wheatsheaf.
• Polish Circular Economy non-paper. (2015). Available at: https://www.mr.gov.pl/media/26446/CE_nonpaper_Poland.pdf. Accessed 7 August 2017.
• Preston, F. (2012). A Global Redesign? Shaping the Circular Economy. Energy, Environment and Resource Governance 2012/02, Chatham House, March 2012. Available at: https://www.bitcni.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/bp0312_preston.pdf. Accessed 3 November 2017.
• Rizos, V.; Behrens, van der Gaast, A.W.; Hofman, E.; Ioannou, A.; Kafyeke, T.; Flamos A.; Rinaldi, R.; Papadelis, S.; Hirschnitz-Garbers M.; Topi, C. (2016). Implementation of Circular Economy Business Models by Small and Medium-Sized Enterprises (SMEs): Barriers and Enablers, Sustainability 8(11).
• Roadmap (2016). Mapa drogowa Transformacji w kierunku Gospodarki o obiegu zamkniętym (konspekt do prac Zespołu do Spraw Gospodarki o Obiegu Zamkniętym), Projekt z dnia 21 grudnia 2016 r. (Roadmap of Transformation towards a circular economy (outline for the work of the Closed Circuit Economics Team)). Project of 21.12.2016). (2016). Draft of 21 December 2016). Available at: https://www.mr.gov.pl/media/31893/MapaGOZ.pdf. Accessed 7 August 2017.
• Sauvé, S.; Bernard, S.; Sloan, P. (2016). Environmental sciences, sustainable development and circular economy: Alternative concepts for transdisciplinary research. Environmental Development 17: 48-56. Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.envdev.2015.09.002. Accessed 3 November 2017.
• Stopińska, W. J. (2015). Utilization of anthropogenic minerals from power industry and heat engineering - circular economy project "Circular Economy", Scientific Society of Energetics, Institute of Thermal Technology, Warsaw University of Technology. Article for scientific conference "Modern Power of Central and Eastern Europe 2015". Available at: http://kne.itc.pw.edu.pl/attachments/article/154/Wioletta-Stopi%C5%84ska.pdf. Accessed 10 July 2017.
• Strategia (2017). Strategia na rzecz Odpowiedzialnego Rozwoju do roku 2020 (z perspektywą do 2030 r.) (Strategy for Responsible Development until 2020 (with perspective until 2030)). Ministerstwo Rozwoju, Departament Strategii Rozwoju. Available at: https://www.mr.gov.pl/media/24032/ProjektSOR_2016_D.pdf. Accessed 8 August 2017.
• TFEU(2012). The Treaty on European Union and the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. 2012/C 326/01 (consolidated version). Available at: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=celex%3A12012E%2FTXT. Accessed 5 August 2017.
• The European Resource Efficiency Platform (EREP). Available at: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/resource_efficiency/re_platform/index_en.htm. Accessed 10 August 2017.
• WRAP(2015), Employment and the circular economy. Job Creation through resource efficiency in London. Report produced by WRAP for the London Sustainable Development Commission (author: Mitchell, P.), the London Waste and Recycling Board and the Greater London Authority.

Identyfikatory

DOI

10.25167/ees.2018.45.20