En estos tiempos ya no se puede pensar en el crecimiento a secas. Necesitamos un crecimiento con apellidos. Crecimiento que no solo sume producción, sino que mejore el bienestar, fortalezca la competitividad y reduzca la presión sobre los recursos naturales. Uno de esos apellidos—probablemente el más decisivo para las próximas décadas—es el crecimiento verde. Y la nueva Ley General de Economía Circular es una de las primeras expresiones concretas de ese cambio de paradigma.En estos tiempos ya no se puede pensar en el crecimiento a secas. Necesitamos un crecimiento con apellidos. Crecimiento que no solo sume producción, sino que mejore el bienestar, fortalezca la competitividad y reduzca la presión sobre los recursos naturales. Uno de esos apellidos—probablemente el más decisivo para las próximas décadas—es el crecimiento verde. Y la nueva Ley General de Economía Circular es una de las primeras expresiones concretas de ese cambio de paradigma.

Ley de Economía Circular: crecimiento con apellidos

2025/11/28 14:36
Okuma süresi: 3 dk

En estos tiempos ya no se puede pensar en el crecimiento a secas. Necesitamos un crecimiento con apellidos. Crecimiento que no solo sume producción, sino que mejore el bienestar, fortalezca la competitividad y reduzca la presión sobre los recursos naturales. Uno de esos apellidos—probablemente el más decisivo para las próximas décadas—es el crecimiento verde. Y la nueva Ley General de Economía Circular es una de las primeras expresiones concretas de ese cambio de paradigma.

Lo que distingue a esta iniciativa es que no se plantea como una imposición rígida desde el gobierno ni como una lista de prohibiciones generales. Al contrario: propone un marco flexible, gradual y construido sector por sector, donde empresas, cámaras y organismos coordinadores participan directamente en el diseño de sus propias reglas, sus tiempos y sus niveles de ambición. No es un catálogo de mandatos, sino una arquitectura de acuerdos.

El diseño reconoce algo que suele olvidarse: no todas las empresas están en la misma posición para adaptarse. Una multinacional con departamentos de innovación y cadenas globales de suministro no enfrenta los mismos retos que una pequeña empresa familiar con recursos limitados. La ley toma en serio esta diferencia: al definir gradualidades y compromisos, exige evaluar explícitamente los efectos en las micro, pequeñas y medianas empresas. Es decir, circularidad sí, pero sin convertirla en un obstáculo para quienes tienen menos margen de maniobra.

Este enfoque dialoga con un problema estructural más amplio. El modelo productivo de México ha sido, durante décadas, marcadamente lineal: extraer, producir, consumir y desechar. Es un modelo costoso, que desperdicia materiales valiosos y genera presiones crecientes sobre el medio ambiente. La economía circular propone otra lógica: mantener los materiales en uso, favorecer la reparación, la reutilización, la remanufactura, el reciclaje y la valorización. En términos simples, hacer más con menos.

La ley da pasos importantes en esa dirección. Introduce la Responsabilidad Extendida del Productor, que obliga a considerar el ciclo de vida completo de los productos, pero deja que cada sector defina cómo lo hará y en qué tiempos. Crea un Sistema Nacional de Economía Circular para coordinar políticas públicas, una Plataforma Nacional de Información para medir avances y un Registro de Gestión Circular para dar trazabilidad a los compromisos. La circularidad requiere datos, no discursos.

También incorpora un elemento clave para que la transición sea viable: incentivos económicos. Innovar en reparación, reciclaje tecnológico o valorización de residuos no solo tiene beneficios ambientales; puede reducir costos y fortalecer la resiliencia de las cadenas de suministro. Y en un mundo crecientemente presionado por la volatilidad, la resiliencia productiva importa tanto como la eficiencia.

Hay además un componente social que no debe pasarse por alto. Una parte importante del reciclaje en México ocurre en la informalidad, en condiciones precarias y sin reconocimiento económico. Un marco de circularidad bien diseñado puede dar visibilidad a esas cadenas, integrarlas gradualmente y abrir espacios para mejorar ingresos y condiciones de trabajo. No es solo una política ambiental: es una oportunidad de inclusión económica.

La transición no será sencilla. Ningún cambio estructural lo es. Pero mantener la inercia también tiene un costo: más residuos, más dependencia de insumos importados, más presión sobre recursos ya agotados. La Ley de Economía Circular no resuelve todo, pero sí inaugura una forma distinta de abordar el desarrollo productivo: mediante acuerdos, gradualidad, corresponsabilidad y adaptación sectorial.

Te puede interesar

  • El Economista

    Opinión

    La inteligencia laboral y el mercado laboral

  • El Economista

    Opinión

    Cómo la igualdad de género impulsa el crecimiento económico

  • El Economista

    Opinión

    Danny Rodrik y la prosperidad compartida

Piyasa Fırsatı
ELYSIA Logosu
ELYSIA Fiyatı(EL)
$0.0021
$0.0021$0.0021
-2.41%
USD
ELYSIA (EL) Canlı Fiyat Grafiği
Sorumluluk Reddi: Bu sitede yeniden yayınlanan makaleler, halka açık platformlardan alınmıştır ve yalnızca bilgilendirme amaçlıdır. MEXC'nin görüşlerini yansıtmayabilir. Tüm hakları telif sahiplerine aittir. Herhangi bir içeriğin üçüncü taraf haklarını ihlal ettiğini düşünüyorsanız, kaldırılması için lütfen service@support.mexc.com ile iletişime geçin. MEXC, içeriğin doğruluğu, eksiksizliği veya güncelliği konusunda hiçbir garanti vermez ve sağlanan bilgilere dayalı olarak alınan herhangi bir eylemden sorumlu değildir. İçerik, finansal, yasal veya diğer profesyonel tavsiye niteliğinde değildir ve MEXC tarafından bir tavsiye veya onay olarak değerlendirilmemelidir.

Ayrıca Şunları da Beğenebilirsiniz

Crucial ETH Unstaking Period: Vitalik Buterin’s Unwavering Defense for Network Security

Crucial ETH Unstaking Period: Vitalik Buterin’s Unwavering Defense for Network Security

BitcoinWorld Crucial ETH Unstaking Period: Vitalik Buterin’s Unwavering Defense for Network Security Ever wondered why withdrawing your staked Ethereum (ETH) isn’t an instant process? It’s a question that often sparks debate within the crypto community. Ethereum founder Vitalik Buterin recently stepped forward to defend the network’s approximately 45-day ETH unstaking period, asserting its crucial role in safeguarding the network’s integrity. This lengthy waiting time, while sometimes seen as an inconvenience, is a deliberate design choice with profound implications for security. Why is the ETH Unstaking Period a Vital Security Measure? Vitalik Buterin’s defense comes amidst comparisons to other networks, like Solana, which boast significantly shorter unstaking times. He drew a compelling parallel to military operations, explaining that an army cannot function effectively if its soldiers can simply abandon their posts at a moment’s notice. Similarly, a blockchain network requires a stable and committed validator set to maintain its security. The current ETH unstaking period isn’t merely an arbitrary delay. It acts as a critical buffer, providing the network with sufficient time to detect and respond to potential malicious activities. If validators could instantly exit, it would open doors for sophisticated attacks, jeopardizing the entire system. Currently, Ethereum boasts over one million active validators, collectively staking approximately 35.6 million ETH, representing about 30% of the total supply. This massive commitment underpins the network’s robust security model, and the unstaking period helps preserve this stability. Network Security: Ethereum’s Paramount Concern A shorter ETH unstaking period might seem appealing for liquidity, but it introduces significant risks. Imagine a scenario where a large number of validators, potentially colluding, could quickly withdraw their stake after committing a malicious act. Without a substantial delay, the network would have limited time to penalize them or mitigate the damage. This “exit queue” mechanism is designed to prevent sudden validator exodus, which could lead to: Reduced decentralization: A rapid drop in active validators could concentrate power among fewer participants. Increased vulnerability to attacks: A smaller, less stable validator set is easier to compromise. Network instability: Frequent and unpredictable changes in validator numbers can lead to performance issues and consensus failures. Therefore, the extended period is not a bug; it’s a feature. It’s a calculated trade-off between immediate liquidity for stakers and the foundational security of the entire Ethereum ecosystem. Ethereum vs. Solana: Different Approaches to Unstaking When discussing the ETH unstaking period, many point to networks like Solana, which offers a much quicker two-day unstaking process. While this might seem like an advantage for stakers seeking rapid access to their funds, it reflects fundamental differences in network architecture and security philosophies. Solana’s design prioritizes speed and immediate liquidity, often relying on different consensus mechanisms and validator economics to manage security risks. Ethereum, on the other hand, with its proof-of-stake evolution from proof-of-work, has adopted a more cautious approach to ensure its transition and long-term stability are uncompromised. Each network makes design choices based on its unique goals and threat models. Ethereum’s substantial value and its role as a foundational layer for countless dApps necessitate an extremely robust security posture, making the current unstaking duration a deliberate and necessary component. What Does the ETH Unstaking Period Mean for Stakers? For individuals and institutions staking ETH, understanding the ETH unstaking period is crucial for managing expectations and investment strategies. It means that while staking offers attractive rewards, it also comes with a commitment to the network’s long-term health. Here are key considerations for stakers: Liquidity Planning: Stakers should view their staked ETH as a longer-term commitment, not immediately liquid capital. Risk Management: The delay inherently reduces the ability to react quickly to market volatility with staked assets. Network Contribution: By participating, stakers contribute directly to the security and decentralization of Ethereum, reinforcing its value proposition. While the current waiting period may not be “optimal” in every sense, as Buterin acknowledged, simply shortening it without addressing the underlying security implications would be a dangerous gamble for the network’s reliability. In conclusion, Vitalik Buterin’s defense of the lengthy ETH unstaking period underscores a fundamental principle: network security cannot be compromised for the sake of convenience. It is a vital mechanism that protects Ethereum’s integrity, ensuring its stability and trustworthiness as a leading blockchain platform. This deliberate design choice, while requiring patience from stakers, ultimately fortifies the entire ecosystem against potential threats, paving the way for a more secure and reliable decentralized future. Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) Q1: What is the main reason for Ethereum’s long unstaking period? A1: The primary reason is network security. A lengthy ETH unstaking period prevents malicious actors from quickly withdrawing their stake after an attack, giving the network time to detect and penalize them, thus maintaining stability and integrity. Q2: How long is the current ETH unstaking period? A2: The current ETH unstaking period is approximately 45 days. This duration can fluctuate based on network conditions and the number of validators in the exit queue. Q3: How does Ethereum’s unstaking period compare to other blockchains? A3: Ethereum’s unstaking period is notably longer than some other networks, such as Solana, which has a two-day period. This difference reflects varying network architectures and security priorities. Q4: Does the unstaking period affect ETH stakers? A4: Yes, it means stakers need to plan their liquidity carefully, as their staked ETH is not immediately accessible. It encourages a longer-term commitment to the network, aligning staker interests with Ethereum’s stability. Q5: Could the ETH unstaking period be shortened in the future? A5: While Vitalik Buterin acknowledged the current period might not be “optimal,” any significant shortening would likely require extensive research and network upgrades to ensure security isn’t compromised. For now, the focus remains on maintaining robust network defenses. Found this article insightful? Share it with your friends and fellow crypto enthusiasts on social media to spread awareness about the critical role of the ETH unstaking period in Ethereum’s security! To learn more about the latest Ethereum trends, explore our article on key developments shaping Ethereum’s institutional adoption. This post Crucial ETH Unstaking Period: Vitalik Buterin’s Unwavering Defense for Network Security first appeared on BitcoinWorld.
Paylaş
Coinstats2025/09/18 15:30
XRP holders hit new high, but THIS keeps pressure on price

XRP holders hit new high, but THIS keeps pressure on price

The post XRP holders hit new high, but THIS keeps pressure on price appeared on BitcoinEthereumNews.com. Ripple [XRP] remains one of the top five cryptocurrencies
Paylaş
BitcoinEthereumNews2026/02/17 08:49
Will Bitcoin Price Drop to $50,000 by March 2026?

Will Bitcoin Price Drop to $50,000 by March 2026?

The post Will Bitcoin Price Drop to $50,000 by March 2026? appeared on BitcoinEthereumNews.com. Bitcoin is trading around $68,700, down nearly 22% year to date
Paylaş
BitcoinEthereumNews2026/02/17 08:59