Rachel A. Meidl, “Opening Schrödinger’s Box: Rethinking Carbon Beyond the Binary in Plastic Recycling,” Rice University’s Baker Institute for Public Policy, May 7, 2026, https://doi.org/10.25613/NBWK-R230.
The circular carbon economy (CCE) reframes carbon not as an inherent liability, but as a managed resource that should be stewarded across its full lifecycle to ensure it resides in the appropriate reservoirs for suitable durations under effective governance.[1] Rather than viewing carbon primarily as waste to be eliminated, CCE treats it as an economic asset that can be captured, reused, valorized, and cycled into productive applications.[2] The framework focuses on managing carbon flows to minimize uncontrolled atmospheric accumulation and unmanaged physical waste streams while maximizing productive use in durable, value-creating forms. This process optimizes where carbon comes from, where it flows, and how it circulates across interconnected geologic, biogenic, atmospheric, aquatic, and anthropogenic systems.
This CCE systems-based approach moves beyond current, scientifically inconsistent framings of decarbonization and zero carbon, which can emphasize narrow tests of definitional purity — for example, whether a given pathway counts as recycling — and toward a focus on system-level optimization. The central question becomes how carbon flows can be improved across the system to reduce net emissions and net impacts across the entire carbon cycle.
In the plastics recycling debate, circularity is often defined narrowly by polymer reconstitution alone, or by isolating individual outputs without regard to the broader carbon system. Yet if the objective of a sustainable circular economy is to retain economic value, improve resource efficiency, reduce waste, and balance environmental, economic, and social outcomes, the relevant metric cannot be whether every output returns to polymer. More meaningful measures include whether carbon remains within managed, value-creating systems, reduces reliance on higher-impact virgin extraction and associated impacts, prevents landfilling, and achieves a balance of net lifecycle benefits and burdens.
From a CCE perspective, fuel pathways produced through advanced recycling may not meet traditional definitions of material recycling, but they can function within a managed carbon system that, under certain conditions, reduces net atmospheric accumulation and landfilling while maximizing carbon’s productive use within a defined carbon budget.
The discussion surrounding advanced recycling, therefore, illustrates a broader challenge in sustainability governance: Policy discussions often focus on categorical definitions rather than system performance. A narrow insistence that circularity requires polymer-to-polymer reconstitution risks overlooking how carbon actually flows through industrial and geologic systems and may unintentionally constrain viable pathways that reduce waste and improve carbon efficiency.
A systems-level approach shifts attention from product-level purity to carbon stewardship across the full lifecycle. The central policy question is not whether carbon exists in the economy, but where it resides, how long it remains there, and whether its circulation reduces impacts while preserving economic value.
Viewed through this lens, the CCE is not a defense of carbon-intensive systems but a governance framework for managing carbon across reservoirs and time horizons. Success is measured not by categorical labels, but by whether carbon remains productive within the system — reducing waste, limiting reliance on virgin extraction, and improving overall lifecycle performance.
While this working paper draws heavily on examples from plastics and advanced recycling, these systems are used as illustrative cases within a broader carbon management framework. The underlying principles apply across carbon-intensive sectors, including fuels, chemicals, and biogenic systems, where similar trade-offs between material form, emissions, and value retention are present.
View the full paper (PDF).
[1] Eric Williams, Adam Sieminski, and Abdulaziz al Tuwaijri, CCE Guide Overview: A Guide to the Circular Carbon Economy (King Abdullah Petroleum Studies and Research Center [KAPSARC], 2020), https://www.cceguide.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/00-CCE-Guide-Overview.pdf.
[2] The circular carbon economy concept gained prominence through energy-sector policy frameworks and was endorsed by the G20 in 2020. However, its intellectual roots extend deeper into industrial ecology, circular economy theory, and carbon cycle science. This paper advances that lineage by reframing CCE as a reservoir-governance framework centered on managed carbon flows rather than material-loop purity.
This publication was produced by Rice University’s Baker Institute for Public Policy. It has not been through editorial review. Wherever feasible, the material was reviewed by outside experts prior to release. Any errors or omissions are solely the responsibility of the author(s).
This material may be quoted or reproduced without prior permission, provided appropriate credit is given to the author(s) and Rice University’s Baker Institute for Public Policy. The views expressed herein are those of the individual author(s) and do not necessarily represent the views of Rice University’s Baker Institute for Public Policy.
