Can the solutions to the water leak dilemma be used to stress the solutions to the environmental pollution dilemma?

I'd like to know that the Signal peptide should be synthesized in which terminal (C- or N-terminal) of a protein in order to secrete out extracellularly and why ?

What are the distributions of microbes in the environment and important factor in the distribution of organisms in the environment?

To be able to deal head on with the social and environmental sustainability failures linked to NON-CIRCULAR TRADITIONAL ECONOMY thinking the Brundtland Commission in 1987(WCED) led us away from that type of thinking by recommending sustainable development tools....The WCED did not recommend then to go CIRCULAR TRADITIONAL ECONOMY THINKING to solve the social and environmental problems created by traditional economic thinking as in both economies you are not accounting for the social and environmental costs of doing business.

To be able to deal head on with the environmental sustainability failures linked to NON-CIRCULAR TRADITIONAL ECONOMY thinking the United Nations Commission on Sustainabiled development in 2012(UNCSD) was leading ust the way of circular green markets through green markets, green growth and green economies, away from business as usual.....The UNCSD did not recommend then to go CIRCULAR TRADITIONAL ECONOMY THINKING to solve the environmental problems created by traditional economic thinking as in both economies you are not accounting for the environmental costs of doing business.

In other words, the WCED was trying to fix a social and environmental sustainability problem by using sustainable development means to leave traditional thinking behind; and the UNCSD was trying to fix an environmental sustainability problem using green market thinking.

If the circular economy thinking has the same problems as the non-circular economic thinking of Adam Smith in social and/or environmental terms, how can circular economy thinking be presented today as the solution to the problem that the circular economy is also contributing to?

And this raises the question, Does CIRCULAR ECONOMY THINKING means a WORLD living under permanent social and environmental market failure?

What do you think? If you think No, why do you think so? If you think Yes, Why do you think so?

Think of the environmental sustainability problem the Brundtland Commission highlighted and documented in 1987(WCED) in “Our Common Future” as an environmental pollution production market problem, the consequence of a market failure that was always there and which has always been there embedded in the perfect traditional market thinking, but it was assumed away using environmental externality neutrality assumptions. A problem that can only be solved by internalizing the environmental cost of production in the pricing mechanism of the traditional market to shift it to green market pricing. Hence, only when we fix the root cause of the environmental pollution production problem, the environmentally distorted traditional market prices, we address the environmental pollution problem head on as when doing this we are making environmental pollution reduction a good business opportunity for green producers.

Since we have not fixed the root cause of the problem yet as there are no green markets in place today to transition green economies towards the environmentally clean economies; then this raises the question: Is the current traditional circular economy thinking push worse for the environment than the perfect traditional market economy thinking of Adam Smith that created the environmental problem in the first place?

If Yes, why? If, No, why not?

What do you think?

I have the human microglia cell line (HMC3), they are cultured in EMEM medium supplemented with 10% FBS and antibiotics (100 IU/ml of penicillin and 100 μg/ml of streptomycin). I'm planning to use an ELISA kit to measure IL-6 and IL-8 release. The question is, should I use a serum-free medium for these experiments? Can FBS interfere with these experiments?

There is an environmental pollution problem linked to the environmental pollution production market of Adam Smith the world has been trying to solve ongoing since 1987/Our Common Future and later in 2012/RIO +20 The Future We Want. Both the WCED 1987 and the UNCSD 2012 recommended solutions other than CIRCULAR ECONOMY THINKING. They did this as they knew that this thinking is not environmental pollution reduction friendly and it is not pollution-less market/environmentally clean market friendly.

In other words, both the WCED and the UNCSD knew that the working of the traditional economy, circular by assumption or by definition leads to environmental problems, reason why the WCED asked us to go beyond traditional economic thinking, circular or not, to solve the sustainability issues of the day.

Yet today October 2023, the circular economy is presented, contrary to the facts above, as the solution to environmental problems caused by the traditional economy that feeds them or will feed them as now polluting is profit making and cleaning pollution is also profit making. This makes the circular economy a predetermine or science-less approach that can only be supported by alternative academic facts as it is not aimed at fixing the root cause of the environmental problems.

And this raises the question: Is the current circular economy thinking push a current example of academic tunneling?

What do you think? Yes, and why you think so? or No, and why you think so?

Under dwarf green markets if the system is leading to market failure, should we expected the governments to act as environmental externality policy correctors and enforcers in the face of social pressure?

I think No, what do you think?

Under perfect green markets if there is a market failure, should governments be expected to act as market failure correctors and enforcers in the face of social pressure?

I think yes, what do you think?

The flipping from traditional perfect market thinking to imperfect dwarf green market thinking instead of shifting to perfect green market thinking in 2012 RIO + 20 transformed the role governments play when dealing with market failures and the way they would react when facing democratic and huma rights protest in response to the market failure,....

Which raises the currently important question:Did 2012 Rio +20 transform all governments in the Paris agreement from environmental externality policy correctors and enforcers INTO environmental externality cleaners and enforcers?. If Yes, why? If not, Why?

What do you think?