Talk:Sustainability

Archives

1 2 3 4

Formatting

I would definitely prefer if those Main article headings were removed. What is really essential will be linked from the text, and other stuff can be put in See also. I will look things over if there is anything that jumps out at me. V.B. (talk) 01:42, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

The onle other thing I see: I would prefer if the sustainability template at the bottom load in a collapsed state. It would unclutter the article. V.B. (talk) 01:54, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

We could perhaps put some of the links into the collapsed template. I dont know either the conventions or how collapsing is done. Have a look at today's Featured Article on the main page. It uses "Main article" headings all the way through. Sems to be a matter of taste - I'll go with Consensus. Sunray should be able to clue us up on all this. Do you know the authors of the "Sustainability Principles" book? Granitethighs (talk) 02:05, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Someone has done some random alterations and deletions in the article. What do we do in these circumstances? Granitethighs (talk) 04:55, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Links to main articles are a good idea. Usually there is one, sometimes two or more per major section. One is usually the norm; certainly not lists of links. V.B. is right about including links in the article. That is best practice. Usually only the first use of a term is linked.

I've reverted the changes made by the anon editor. They seemed pretty random, did not result in improvements and had no edit summaries. We should probably put up a note that a major re-write is in progress to minimize this type of drive-by revisions. Sunray (talk) 08:27, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

I kinda liked the changes made by anon. But we can consider them later. I collapsed the template.

Yeah, I liked the anon's changes too—at least, what I could understand of the intent (which was difficult without edit summaries). However, some of them changed the caption for images. The grammar was pretty bad. I do think we need to deal with some of the issues he seemed to be tackling, so, as you say, we can come back to them. Sunray (talk) 15:41, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

I did check out the article on Kaziranga National Park. I learned something new: the Main article link is indeed useful, but in a very specific circumstance: when there is an article already in existence that directly enlarges the subsection in question. For example, the subsection on Fauna is linked to a larger and more detailed article on the fauna of this national park. Another example is the article on Buckingham Palace. The subsection on The Garden and the Mews has a Main link to an article specifically dealing with the Buckingham Palace garden. In Sustainability, this is not the case, and there is often redundancy: for example, Main link points to acid rain and climate change when in fact that subsection already has those articles embedded in the text.

If I read you right, you are describing summary style. Have I got that right? Sunray (talk) 15:44, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

The book is Principles of Sustainability, by Simon Dresner, 2002. The paperback is coming next month, but the hardback should be easy to get thru the library. I took a peek via Amazon, and it looks like most of the book is a very detailed history of the concept. It appears that it was actually the World Council of Churches that originated the term. V.B. (talk) 15:04, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Moving on

V.B. in red:

I have on my desk a book by William R Blackburn (I actually have about 4 meters of books on the general philosophy of sustainability) awesome, you'll be acting as our reference librarian as well as co-editor! :-)published in 2008 called “The Sustainability Handbook”, it is one of the books I put in the References section of the article. Chapter 1 is titled “Addressing the confusion about sustainability: the typical executive view”. Chapter 2 is called “Determining scope: an operational definition of sustainability”. Chapter 2 is interesting because it gives a range of definitions of “sustainability” from the general literature including: The UK Government, the World Conservation Union, United Nations Environmental Program, World Wildlife Fund for Nature, the Forum for the Future, the UN Secretary General, International Institute for Sustainable Development (business based). The book, to my mind, is too business based – but it is one among many attempts to come to grips with this slippery topic. It points out that in the general literature there are two key frequently repeated themes. The first is the definition given by the Brundtland Report (which we have in the lead), the second is the necessity for integration of environmental, social and economic forces in setting a way forward, sometimes called Elkington’s TBL (Triple Bottom Line) which we are just about to deal with. this is a real problem for me; as the article on SD points out (and I'd like to point out that that article is woefully inadequate...) this is an SD construct, including the diagram, and creates the impression that somehow economics and the human social sphere are somehow not within/dependent on, the living world Before we get going I would like to make the point that has already been raised, and that is … as an encyclopaedia Wikipedia must express a NPOV (neutral point of view). Put simply, what we should be doing is to present sustainability as it currently stands, NOT sustainability as we would like it to be. We have flexibility because of the controversial aspect of definition but sustainability, as an encyclopaedia article, can no more be “hijacked” by the environment than it can be “hijacked” by sustainable development (and I would call myself an environmentalist). well, this is part of the whole controversy, and maybe the best we can do on some subsections is to sum up the controversy and present a pro/con response to it, in order to remain fair

I found this on the web and think it is not bad: Sustainability is many things to many people. It can simultaneously be an idea, an ideology, a manufacturing method, a way of life and a crusade. Unfortunately for many businesses and marketers, sustainability is little more than a hollow buzz word. this is surprisingly good So what is sustainability?

Sustainability Defined

In order to understand what sustainability is all about it first needs a definition. Sustainability has been defined hundreds of times but the most commonly accepted definition of sustainablilty was created in 1987 at the Brundtland Commission otherwise known as the World Commission on Environment and Development.

This definition states "Sustainable development is development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the needs of future generations to meet their own needs".let's always keep in mind that Brundtland presented a definition of SD, not sustainability itself; from this an oft-used definition was derived, but is not the only one

I have three points:

• The article must adhere to NPOV (which is Wikipedia procedure)

• The article cannot contain original research

• In the lead we talk about sustainability as a “call to action”. I think this is the nearest we can get to global consensus on what sustainability is all about, and the meat of the article should be what that action entails and why it is necessary (this is what I clumsily referred to as an “international program” in the “rewrite”) – perhaps we can philosophise on this suggestion for a few pages in this discussion talk section if you like. a good point, let me think this thru

… and three suggestions:

• I approach the article with the view that we want to be as objective and informative as possible for the reader, and give them access to Wikipedia as an information resource. Each of the topics in the article as they currently stand is huge and there are generally more extended articles about them. It makes good sense to direct the reader to the more extended discussions, perhaps one or occasionally two but we need to rationalize the “See also” section and discuss what should be in the sustainability “template” at the bottom.yes

• I am not sure that a trawl through the etymology of “sustainability” will be productive completely agree– it is derived from the Middle English and has clearly undergone all sorts of transformation. For all its inadequacies I think the statement “the meaning of a word is its use” has a lot going for it. Perhaps better to tackle the current sustainable development bias in the article directly if that is where you are coming from. However, if you think it will be productive – good luck.

• Could we agree to a procedure for moving on as quickly as possible? Sunray - you have been though this whole process many times before. What do you suggest?

Granitethighs (talk) 23:47, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

I like where you are going with this. The "many things to many people" quote you have given is a good way to introduce broader discussion and definition. I agree that etymology is not appropriate. I agree with your suggestions. As to method. A good outline can work well. We could start with the topic headings currently in the article and modify them. Also, take a look at the "To do" list I've begun at the top of the page. What needs adding/changing?

You mention NPOV. What do you think of a political section in which we discuss, not only sustainable development and the issues of mainstream society, but also, some of the views that do not place humans at the centre of the universe, such as deep ecology, social ecology, and perhaps even new tribalism? sounds great, but can we keep it smallish? :-)Sunray (talk) 05:50, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I've made a couple of additions to "To do" list - thanks for putting that at the top of the page. I think that a political section like the one you suggest would be great. I'm sure there is a huge head of steam sitting under "safe sustainability" and this would be a release valve. My only concern would be that it should not take up more than its fair share of space in the context of the article. I like the idea of ecocentrism as an alternative to anthropocentrism. But, once I get going on that you'll have to hold me down. It would need careful wording so as not to become a ranters corner - we can point people to the areas you mention.

To get us on the move again perhaps you and VB could suggest ways of adjusting the Definition section and list any changes/amendments/deletions etc to the current list of headings? will do

Granitethighs (talk) 06:37, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

"... Ranters' corner." Yes, indeed. We may want to do a sub-article on it. As you suggest, that might be fun. I should have some time over the weekend to dive into the definition section. BTW I toned down the heading of this section. No need to shout (anymore). Sunray (talk) 13:07, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

V.B. (talk) 14:53, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Alright, after a good two-weeks of watching Olympics, I'm back to do some more editing on this article. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 18:49, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Possible outlines

My first sketch:

• History
• Definition
• Sustainable development?
• Organizing principles
• Obstacles to sustainability
• Action-guiding principles
• Measuring sustainability
• Global consensus
• Transition to sustainability

Notes: 1) after further reflection, I suggest putting History first; as I began to jot down notes on the Definition section, I needed to speak about Brundtland, and I think a newby would be clueless at this point if the Definition section came first. Once they have an overview from History, they will be in a better position to understand further discussion; 2) the organizing principles described, the three pillars (turning into 5 pillars as we speak), give undue weight to the SD POV, and are further critiqued by Hassan. She suggests another way of organizing, and it seems to me that NPOV requires that we mention the main ways of organizing but privilege none; 4) Action-guiding principles ought to go over things like waste = food, biomimetics and other guides for people who want practical advice; 5) Transition ought to focus not only on general ideas and suggestions, but also on notable practices.

I would like to see us write with close attention to honesty; not that we aren’t, but there is way too much fluff, BS, political correctness and denial in the writings on sustainability and I hope we can do better.

The otherwise excellent extended section under Environmental pillar suffers from a focus that I would call “the dire situation of the natural world” (i.e. a focus on unsustainability) and would perhaps be more properly integrated into the separate articles on each topic, whether air or cultivated land et al.

Regarding NPOV, what we have at present gives undue weight to POVs that I would classify as SD, bureaucratic (or political), and managerial. Can we enlarge the fold to include others?

Re template, it’s missing systems thinking. Otherwise, feel free to do what you will with it, right now it’s too much for me to think about. V.B. (talk) 21:38, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Thought this was in the reading list: Sustainability Assessment: Criteria and Processes by Robert B. Gibson, Selma Hassan, Susan Holtz, and James Tansey (Paperback - Dec 2005) V.B. (talk) 21:56, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Not sure how this template will deal with sustainability as it applies in specific sectors (energy, waste, agriculture, and transport which is currently missing) and if not, where this content goes? Keeping the article brief and high level is a good aim, but if it's all as abstract as your headings look to be, then perhaps it may get boring? --Travelplanner (talk) 12:20, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I was thinking all that would go into the Transition. (?) V.B. (talk) 15:10, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Here's a variation on the outline V.B. put forward above, taking some of the comments into account, adding some of my own reactions.

• History
• Definition, organizing principles
• Obstacles to sustainability
• Sustainable development?
• Action, achievements (by sector)
  • Agriculture
  • Building
  • Energy
  • Transport
  • Waste
• Measuring sustainability
• Global consensus
• Transition to sustainability

Please add, subtract, or modify at will. Sunray (talk) 16:50, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Looks good! V.B. (talk) 14:23, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Philosophy and rants (subjective and personal section)

As far as I am concerned, there is only one pillar – the living world, and our dilemma is how to live within it while not continuing to wreak grievous damage on it, or even destroying our chances of survival. As Hassan points out, the three pillars framework is really conflictual, not cooperational. Every time someone speaks for sustaining some part of the natural world, the two other pillars rise in uproar and prevent anything truly effective being done, and so the status quo is perpetuated.

The other problem with the pillars approach, to my mind, is that it scatters itself over everything: sustainability is supposed to do everything from curing hunger, saving civilization and getting the crabgrass out of the lawn. Nuts. We need to refocus and deal with the real issue. Which is? Ongoing human thriving. Whatever it takes. V.B. (talk) 21:42, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Using the social or economic pillars as a reason to block progress on the ecological pillar certainly is a common rationalization for not taking action. This does seem to be one of the great impediments to progress towards sustainability. I say "seem" because if there is a will to genuinely use triple bottom line accounting, the results are usually very different. Take for example life cycle analysis, which is increasingly used in green building. By using various screens (GHG emissions embodied energy, etc.) one does get a very good picture of the ecological component. If one takes the short-term view economically, it often seems that the most sustainable is more expensive. However, change the time variable to "sustainable for seven generations," and the picture changes dramatically. We should not confuse rationalization with rationale. BTW, don't you think Granitethighs was being somewhat ironic when he talked about a "ranters corner?" We cannot actually permit this, since it would be unencyclopedic. Sunray (talk) 05:59, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

My guess is that triple bottom line is, as critics say, "a rhetorical device with little substance." I don't think one can create sustainability by fiddling with bits of subsets of the economic framework if it all remains within the larger embrace of an economic system that is completely unsustainable. -- Lifecycle assessment makes sense, and I think can be used to make improvements, esp. in the sense of creating closed industrial processes. Still... I have a horrible sense that small gains toward sustainability, say in building greener houses, is just not enough by far to get us there. That we are fooling ourselves. -- Nah! Perish the thought! The rants are for here only! :-) V.B. (talk) 07:54, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Since GT requested a philosophy section, I thought I'd add rants too... where people can clarify where they're coming from "from the heart" so to speak. V.B. (talk) 15:14, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I certainly agree with you that the triple bottom line can be a rhetorical device. Corporations and governments who employ the term have so far been incapable of actually becoming more sustainable. Green wash is more like it. This is not surprising. Has not change in human history always come from the margins rather than the centre? In the lead we listed three levels of human organization dedicated to sustainability. Of the three, the most change is happening at the smaller, more grass roots, end of the spectrum. While governments and corporations obfuscate, entities like ecovillages get on with it. Take a look at Earthaven. They are off the grid, using natural building, have a strong community and are part of a vibrant local economy. However, they started from scratch (14 years ago). They do not have the baggage of established organizations. Here's another take on social, economic, and ecological strategies. Clearly these folks believe that to be sustainable, you need to have the three in balance. Looking at their strategies, it is evident that from their perspective, you need the social to build a conservation ethic. You need the economic to build a local economy. Sunray (talk) 16:37, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I spent 3 weeks at Earthhaven a couple of years ago. It is (was) half an ecovillage and half a pioneer village where the eco part is given short shrift as people scramble to survive. The place was kinda trashed in places, and while in the beginning people used horses for careful logging, now they just go in with a chain saw and mow down a hillside or field without regard for runoff (or even state law). I really liked being there, felt wonderful kinship with the people, and would have stayed if it were not for their stringent anti-cat policy (and the place was overrun with mice!). I have since come to distrust politically-correct paper principles, and look far more at practices, which are hard to evaluate if one does not go there... Communities mag is not likely to write about the shadow side; they try to stay upbeat. Dancing Rabbit is said to walk the walk more than Earthhaven. -- We people (H. sapiens) have lived sustainable lives for 97% (or more, for some tribes) of our existence on Earth. It did not take pretty speeches or "building an economy", it simply meant an existence that reflected relatively small impact of human bands, and a mode of being where everything was part of planetary cycles. V.B. (talk) 14:54, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Definition

We need to bite the bullet. I have added the Definition scratchpad below and made some amendments. Three points: firstly, in the context of the whole article this section is, if anything, already too large; secondly, IMO because of NPOV we need to be careful of imposing what we would like here rather than what “is”; thirdly, the last points have a SD bias and may need some work – but they are an attempt to give people something to hold on to after all the former “woolliness”. I have “borrowed” the drift of the opening sentence – let me know if you think it is plagiarism or how I can make it less like the quote I gave before (which we all seemed to like). As usual I have cut back to the bones.

Sustainability is many things to many people. It can simultaneously be an idea, a property of living systems, a manufacturing method, or a way of life. For some people it is little more than a hollow buzz word. Although the definition of sustainable development given by the Brundtland Commission is the most frequently quoted, it is not universally accepted and has undergone various interpretations. Difficulty in defining sustainability stems in part from the fact that it may be seen to encompass all human activity. It is a very general concept like "liberty" or "justice", which is accepted as important, but a "dialogue of values"[12] that defies consensual definition.[13] It is also a call to action and therefore open to political interpretation concerning the nature of the current situation and the most appropriate way forward. The Brundtland Report plea to protect the environment for future generations is less controversial than the implied negotiation between environmental, social and economic interests recommended by the 2005 World Summit. A further practical difficulty with a universal definition is that the strategies needed to address "sustainability" will vary according to the particular circumstances the level of sustainability governance under consideration. For a more tangible summation The European Environment Agency Sustainable Development Program has listed eight broad objectives that distil the recurrent themes of the global sustainability agenda: [14]

• provide future generations with the same environmental potential as presently exists (address intergenerational equity)
• manage economic growth to be less resource intensive and less polluting (decouple economic growth from environmental deterioration)
• better integrate sectoral and environmental policies (integrate sectors)
• maintain and enhance the adaptive capacity of the environmental system (ensure environmental adaptability)
• avoid irreversible long-term environmental damage to ecosystems and human health (prevent irreversible damage)
• avoid imposing unfair or high environmental costs on vulnerable populations (ensure distributional equity)
• assume responsibility for environmental effects that occur outside the area of jurisdiction (accept global responsibility)
• introduce rules, processes and practices that ensure the uptake of sustainable development policies at all levels of sustainability governance (apply sustainability governance)

Go for it. Granitethighs (talk) 22:04, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I like this a lot. I would like to add it to the article. The only thing I found myself wondering, was whether it should precede the history section. It seems rather fundamental information that we need to get across to the reader up front. However, it does build on the Brundtland quote, so it can't be switched without major re-working of the two sections. Perhaps we could broaden the title to "Definition, organizing principles." What do you think?

I would be happy for you to proceed here as you see fit Granitethighs (talk) 02:11, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Also note that I have edited the links in the "History" section. It was easy to prune the links, since most have already been mentioned in the body of the article. In the various sections, we can either use the "Further information" template ({{see|article link}}) or the "Main article" one ({{Main|article link}}). Sunray (talk) 00:37, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

That's much better thanks Granitethighs (talk) 02:11, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Here are my notes on the subject, just throwing them out so that maybe some of it can be incorporated. As I understand the function of Definition section, it should include alternative definitions and critiques. --

Some have criticized definitions of sustainability for being watered down, trivialized, and catering to people who above all do not wish to be made uncomfortable. The Brundtland Report has been criticized for being vague certainly is in terms of methods as you point outand contradictory, urging “forceful growth” as well as sustainability but failing to show that these values are compatible. The definition itself “gives no hint regarding the courses of action that could be followed to meet the needs of the present, but which would not limit the ability of generations, throughout the distant future, to meet their own needs the dot points at least lay out major areas that need to be dealt with, even though it is obvious that non-renewable resources consumed now will not be available for consumption by future generations.”, notes Albert Bartlett. In addition, Michael Ben-Eli has written: “The currently prevailing definition of sustainability emphasizes cross generational equity, clearly an important concept but one which poses difficulties since it is not always easy to determine future generations' needs.” He has recently proposed a definition anchored in the relationship between a given population and the carrying capacity of its environment which implies measurable variables. The definition states: “Sustainability pertains to a balanced interaction between a population and the carrying capacity of an environment such that the population develops to express its full potential without adversely and irreversibly affecting the carrying capacity of the environment upon which it depends.”Yes, this can be applied from local to global levels. Perhaps it should go in - we do make this point strongly in the lead, but perhaps it is lacking in this definition section

The Swedish Natural Step organization has specified that “sustainability essentially means preserving life on Earth, including human civilization.” It also adds: “The practice of sustainability is about creating new ways to live and prosper while ensuring an equitable, healthy future for all people and the planet.” I like "creating new ways to live and prosper while ensuring an equitable, healthy future for all people and the planet" although again I think this has been largely covered already, but some good wordsCivilizations have in the past have been the cause of large scale biodestructive behaviors, and whether preserving them or leaving them behind will be one of the many questions connected with actual sustainability practices in the coming decades. It is certainly quite easy to imagine a world where the biosphere makes it, and so do humans, but civilization as we know it does not.

(This is another Bartlett quote, one with which I can identify, and which enlarges the concept without running it into SD.) “Others see at the heart of the concept of sustainability a fundamental, immutable value set that is best stated as 'parallel care and respect for the ecosystem and for the people within'. From this value set emerges the goal of sustainability: to achieve human and ecosystem longevity and well-being together. Seen in this way, the concept of sustainability is much more than environmental protection in another guise. It is a positive concept that has as much to do with achieving well-being for people and ecosystems as it has to do with reducing ecological stress or environmental impacts.” I love the sentiments but needs paring down creating new ways to live and prosper while ensuring an equitable, healthy future for all people and the planet -- V.B. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.228.183.145 (talk) 16:19, 31 August 2008 (UTC) I do like the ideas but it needs to be as brief and succinct as possible. Sunray has offered to edit this and that is fine by me so we can all have a look - he now has my comments too

How about this one?

Sustainability is many things to many people. It can simultaneously be “an idea, a property of living systems, a manufacturing method, or a way of life.” [citation] Difficulty in defining sustainability stems in part from the fact that it may be seen to encompass all human activity. It is a very general concept like "liberty" or "justice", which is accepted as important, but a "dialogue of values" that defies consensual definition [this sentence has a problem; is there a word missing?]. It is also a call to action and therefore open to political interpretation concerning the nature of the current situation and the most appropriate way forward. A further practical difficulty with a universal definition is that the strategies needed to address sustainability will vary according to the particular circumstances the level of sustainability governance under consideration.

Some have panned definitions of sustainability for being watered down, trivialized, and catering to people who above all do not wish to be made uncomfortable. The Brundtland Report has been criticized for being vague and contradictory, urging “forceful growth” as well as sustainability but failing to show that these goals are compatible. The definition itself “gives no hint regarding the courses of action that could be followed to meet the needs of the present, but which would not limit the ability of generations, throughout the distant future, to meet their own needs, even though it is obvious that non-renewable resources consumed now will not be available for consumption by future generations.” [citation Albert Bartlett].

The Swedish Natural Step has specified that “sustainability essentially means preserving life on Earth, including human civilization.” Civilizations have been accompanied by large scale biodestructive behaviors, and preserving ours or leaving it behind will be one of the many questions connected with actual sustainability practices in this century. It is certainly quite easy to imagine a world where the biosphere lives on and so do humans, but civilization as we know it does not.

Others have attempted to craft definitions focusing on the balance between population and carrying capacity. [citation] It has been remarked that a variety of definitions, each looking at sustainability from a somewhat different angle, may be the best perspective. [Hassan et al] Moving past sole concerns with negative environmental impacts can refocus human societies on the positive meaning of sustainability: the combined well-being and longevity of ecosystems and the people within. [citation] V.B. (talk) 03:13, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I like the content, but think it needs some work. It is written in essay format, rather than as an encyclopedia article. For the time being, I am going to add GT's re-write. Then perhaps I could take a bash at editing this. When we have something we all like, we can add it. Sunray (talk) 19:36, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

By all means, bash away. V.B. (talk) 15:20, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Footnotes and "Further reading" sections

I propose that we change the structure of these sections. Since we have a blend of footnotes and citations in the article, I would suggest that we use one "Notes" section for all. Then we can re-title the "Further reading" section as "References." This is the format used by most Featured articles. If folks agree, I will make the changes right away. Sunray (talk) 00:46, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

That all makes good sense. Granitethighs (talk) 02:11, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

References generally mean footnotes, referring from the text to sources. But I am ok with whatever makes sense to you, to make the article conform to common usage. V.B. (talk) 14:18, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes. The Guide to layout permits either "Footnotes" or "References," or both, depending on the circumstances. Since we already have a "Further reading" section, we should probably keep that. Then we could have a combined "Notes and references" section. Sunray (talk) 19:09, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Excellent. V.B. (talk) 23:30, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Merge proposal

Phenylalanine has proposed that Sustainable food system be merged into this article.

Oppose. The sustainability article is already plenty big. If we were to merge every small article that has "sustainable" in its name, the "Sustainability" article would become massive, unwieldy, and boring. I think that the small article is fine as it is. Sunray (talk) 03:19, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Same. Sustainable food system can definitely expanded from a stub to a full article on its own (sooner or later) OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 04:05, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Agree. V.B. (talk) 14:19, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Ok. I'll remove the tag. --Phenylalanine (talk) 02:38, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

History

We have arrived at a tricky bit where we need to work carefully together I think. The history section as it stands can be legitimately criticized for its emphasis on SD. I must confess to being not sure how to handle this. One way would be to tackle “Sustainability and sustainable development” head on (using this as the title of a section – or maybe “History of sustainability and sustainable development”). I think a lot of VBs and other people’s concerns are addressed in the current section “Environmental, social and economic cooperation” and it might be possible to juxtapose the history and philosophy of sustainable development against this “alternative”, more environmental, interpretation of the state of affairs. This would also give people a clear point of difference between this article and the one on sustainable development. I would be happy to try and craft this from what is already in the article and put it up on a scratchpad - but I first need to know if you think it is an appropriate way forward.

Some general house-keeping. Sunray thanks for archiving again - all these words in the discussion and so relatively few in the article! I haven’t forgotten your point about re-working the link between History, Definition and Lead in a logical way – and comfortable with you doing that. VB thanks for all those comments on the Definition. They are all good points and we now have them on record for future reference. It is a major difficulty in the Definition section (as elsewhere) trying to cram so many views and ideas into so few words. We have actually covered quite a broad cross-section of the field in the current version I feel although ideally they all really need expanding on like you have done here. A couple of final points about SD. Firstly, I must confess that although I am naturally suspicious of the economic/social aspect of SD the point that protecting the environment and natural resources can only be achieved through a cooperative effort between the three spheres is a strong one. Secondly, correct me if I’m wrong, but the UN sustainable development program was, at face value, an international attempt to recognize the dilemma of an impoverished and poverty-stricken developing world that wanted something better. It was designed to help undeveloped countries “develop”, but in an environmentally sustainable way (i.e. not necessarily follow the socio-economic model of the West). That might be a rather “rosy” interpretation, but what I am suggesting is that we cannot completely dismiss SD out of hand, it is not necessarily a “business as usual, carve up the land, rampant capitalism” philosophy– I think it has to be a part of our story and an aspect of NPOV. Granitethighs (talk) 23:41, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Given your comments, above, I would be happy if you took the lead on this and flashed it up on scratchpad. Extricating the section from an SD focus is, indeed, important. However, your point about not throwing out the SD baby is also valid. There is no doubt in my mind that we are better off with sustainable development trends (green building standards are a great example). The challenge is great, and every SD step forward is commendable. Sunray (talk) 08:57, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you both that SD must be shown to play a role in the history story; after all, that is how the history happened. However, to go as far as "history of sustainability and SD" is going too far. Our effort must be to keep this article about sustainability. If it cannot be done in the history section, that it can legitimately be asked if sustainability is a stand-on-its-own-feet kind of concept.

As for the developing world, last I looked there was very little enthusiasm among those countries for SD. It makes them feel gypped (yet again), after all those decades of developed countries assuring them they are on the way to... "us." V.B. (talk) 14:24, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I missed that point about the title of the section. My take is similar to V.B.'s that we need to focus on the history of sustainability. Sunray (talk) 15:15, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Moving on again

V.B. comments in red:

GT comments in green

S's comments in blue

OK, would it help if we abandon talk of environmental, social and economic cooperation other than as a brief mention, and that we similarly pare down mention of “pillars” and international programs? well, this is what I had in mind for the Organizing Principles bit. There are the Circles of sustainability (Venn diagram or concentric), the Pyramid of sustainability, the Egg of well-being... Briefly mentioning them and linking to the SD article seems appropriate. I have made an attempt at this but am not sure if it works (see scratchpad below). Before you get stuck into that effort … as usual I have a few points for your thought and comment:

• In spite of the many “meanings” of sustainability we have, at the end of the definition, given readers a set of points to focus on, a kind of “vision” for “global sustainability”. IMO this “vision” is very important because without it we cannot crawl out of the semantic and philosophical soup of arguing about exactly what it is we are talking about. However, the problem with this approach, as I see it, is that I don't find this "vision" one bit inspiring... if you have somewhere points that focus on sustainability, not SD, and are hopefully more compact, let's consider them At this point, I guess by "sustainability" we are inferring "biological sustainability" - or what you referred to as the "one and only pillar" or words to that effect. My question to you is ... what would be your sustainability "vision"?(dot points would be fine) Argh. My dot points begin: let's stop behaving like utter idiots. I am an idealist, I am afraid. But to be more down to earth and inoffensive, Robert's systems points make sense: "In a sustainable society, nature is not subject to systematically increasing:

  1. concentrations of substances extracted from the Earth's crust
  2. concentrations of substances produced by society
  3. degradation by physical means
  4. people are not subject to conditions that systematically undermine their capacity to meet their needs" 

This is doable, down to earth stuff, yet challenging enough. Perhaps it could be reframed as positives. Well, given that Robert's system conditions are scientifically based criteria for sustainability (one of the very few out there), I wouldn't tamper with them.

1. people might think that the points at the end of the definition are an irredeemable distortion of what sustainability is really all about, or that indeed... "manage economic growth to be less resource intensive and less polluting" -- now you know me well enough by now to know that this sentence is as good as trying to choke me with a spoon, right?OK, sorry, yes, I'll remove the spoon and insert a crow bar (alright only joking). How about if we remove the terrible economic growth bit and substitute "manage consumption to be less resource intensive", or somesuch. The point itself is good - much of our environmental impact is simply the resources needed for the goods, services and especially food that we consume. Well, look, the whole section basically shouts "God forbid we should do anything radical! and smells of vague bureaucratic jargon. Just like most stuff put out by the SD crowd. Let's not confuse "politically acceptable" and "sustainable". Hummm, seems like we are getting down to brass tacks. Ultimately, sustainability doesn't mean becoming "less resource intensive and less polluting." It means following Robert's criteria. The phrase we should probably be using is "becoming more sustainable.

2. Much of the thrust of these points has come out of the discussion of sustainable development. My own view is that the points are very good, and I do not think they need to be associated with SD – I am just pointing out that as a matter of fact I think this is where some of them originated. and the section says so in no uncertain terms! V.B. (talk) 15:42, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

On a separate issue. The nearest to a consensus “outline” for the part of the article after the “history” section is the following.

• History
• Definition, organizing principles
• Obstacles to sustainability
• Sustainable development?
• Action, achievements (by sector)

Agriculture

Building

Energy

Transport

Waste

• Measuring sustainability
• Global consensus
• Transition to sustainability

I would like to propose an outline that is like the one above but closer to the article as it stands. Let me explain. I agree with VB that a major thrust of sustainability is simply “protection of life on Earth” (often, for better or worse, referred to in the literature as ecosystem services), this is VBs “one pillar”. The question is – how do we actually achieve this protection of human and other living systems? Here is my proposal (for the article). We do this in two major ways: firstly, by managing direct human impact on the environment, in other words, we minimize human impacts on the biophysics of oceans (and water bodies), atmosphere, and land. For this reason I think these headings are both important and basic. For each heading (oceans, atmosphere and land) we can indicate the problems we have inherited and ways of addressing these problems. But then, these direct impacts on land, sea and air are the result of a long chain of human demands – essentially they are the result of the demands of human consumption in its various forms. My own view is that these demands of consumption (which threaten life on Earth) boil down to four basic human demands – for food, energy, water and materials (these are also suggested headings). These are not clear-cut categories and there are many other ways of classifying these demands (it can be done by looking at the environmental impacts of the full range of different “levels” of the consumption chain, starting with economic sectors, leading to specific products, then individual behavior such as lifestyle and purchasing patterns – my concern is that by confining ourselves to economic sectors – agriculture, manufacturing, construction, transport and so on, we are cutting out these other factors I’ve mentioned). The four categories I chose are interrelated, but they are simple categories that everyone can understand and they can include discussion of all levels of the consumption chain mentioned above. Part of the sustainability “vision” is therefore to manage human use of these four items much, much more sustainably at all levels of the chain of consumption. A major additional part of the consumption equation includes the impact of population numbers and technology – I don’t think these critical elements can be left out (and because of the potential for environmental consequences we cannot ignore global security, human migrations, urbanization and more – this, to me, all these other bits and pieces is what makes sustainability complex). I have mentioned all this at great length so that you know where I am coming from and why I did what I did. What do you reckon?

I am a bit uncertain about starting off with “barriers” and would rather be positive as long as possible so would put it nearer the end. Perhaps we can re-visit the outline after we have got over this latest bit but this would be more along my preferred lines, for the reasons given.

• History
• Definition, organizing principles
• ??Sustainable development?
• Managing Environmental sustainability

Direct impacts

Oceans

Atmosphere

Land

Biodiversity

Indirect impacts

Production, consumption, technology

Energy

Water

Materials

Food

Waste

The economic sectors below can be sunk into these headings along with discussion of the other levels of the consumption chain. (Agriculture,Building,Energy,Transport,Waste)

• Measuring sustainability
• Global consensus
• Obstacles to sustainability
• Transition to sustainability

To get on with the business at hand – here is the scratchpad, I’m not sure if it really works – perhaps it can be reorganized better, citations added better, or subheadinggs included. Anyway it is designed to get rid of all those rather controversial early sections. I have run out of time.

I have reformatted the outline for easier viewing. Hope that is ok with you. That's great. I am not sure about all the other bits and pieces that I think need a mention, and possibly a heading, like globalization, population, species extinction, feral plants and animals, urbanization and other things yes, and maybe we ought to just cross that bridge when we come to it, we can tweak the outline as we write that were in the current version. All have a major bearing on human (and biological) sustainabilityI agree with all the points you are making in the section on the outline. I would skip the word "managing" in "managing environmental sustainability": the ecosystem knows quite well how to "manage" itself for sustainability whereas we do not, what we need to do more than anything is to back off. I would add Biodiversity.of theseI am curious why you term some of these impacts direct and indirect? Looks good. Good points, I agree with both. We can add biodiversity - I suppose the reason I left it out is that the whole "thing" is addressing biodiversity, but if that has not come across clearly then it does need a separate mention. I've had another look at "managing" the environment. I agree exactly that the environment can manage itself - it is a poor us of words here - but the sections following are about "management" generally. I know. And that is a particular POV that should not be entirely privileged. What about "Managing human impact on the environment"? On the "direct/indirect" thing. If you feel the "direct" and "indirect" intrudes we can get rid of them. The idea is this: IMO people (in general) view environmental impacts in simple terms - loggers cutting down forests, industries polluting waterways and so on. These are direct impacts on nature that cause species extinctions and obvious physical and biological damage and we all believe that this is nothing to do with us. What is easily ignored is that when I eat a steak or buy a T-shirt, this too has an environmental cost. It is a "hidden" or "indirect" cost because we do not see the water, energy and other resources that must be taken from the environment to yield these products. The environmental impact of this simple human consumption is a major factor that we need to come to terms with. We all consume and we all consume nature. The impacts on nature are "indirect" because we do not see them and most people are unaware of them. I think this point is worth drawing out but it needn't be in terms of "direct" and "indirect" if you dont like that. It just seemed a convenient way of expressing this. No, leave it, it makes perfect sense.

I am actually changing my mind re one pillar; since we are really talking about human sustainability here, the humans are the other pillar. As long as the diagram shows humans inside the ecosystem. After all, the ecosystem can sustain itself quite well without humans, but humans cannot sustain themselves without the ecosystem. V.B. (talk) 16:24, 2 September 2008 (UTC) I agree about diagrams - could we, at a later stage, decide on which pics and diagrams are put in, added, and left out, and what their captions should be. The Venn diagram could probably be omitted - I agree with everything you say about it Sounds good. Have you taken a peek yet at my proposal for the Definition section (way up above)? Would appreciate feedback. I have now added comments to your definition notes above which might help Sunray when he bashes away at an edit Where? I am starting to get lost here.

History

Further information: Environmentalism and Millennium Ecosystem Assessment

Beginning with the environmental movement of the 1960s, heralded by Rachel Carson's Silent Spring (1962), there has been an increasing awareness that human use of the Earth is approaching a range of environmental and resource limits and that this trend, rather than diminishing, is escalating at an alarming rate.[5][6][4] International concern over global environmental sustainability, strongly linked to health and poverty issues in the developing world, has resulted in the United Nations sustainable development programs. This has not always been supported by the environmental movement.

During the 1970s, while the developed world was considering the effects of the global population explosion, pollution and consumerism, the developing countries, faced with continued poverty and deprivation, regarded development as essential - to meet their need for the necessities of food, clean water and shelter. The 1972 United Nations Conference on the Environment held in Stockholm was the UN's first major conference on international environmental issues and marked the beginning of global cooperation in developing environmental policies and strategies. In 1980 the International Union for the Conservation of Nature published its influential World Conservation Strategy,[note 1] followed in 1982 by its World Charter for Nature,[7] which drew attention to the decline of the world's ecosystems. Confronted with the differing priorities of the developed and developing world, the United Nation's World Commission on Environment and Development (the Brundtland Commission) worked for two years to try and resolve the apparent conflict between the environment and development. The Commission concluded that the approach to development must change: it must become sustainable development. Development, in the Commission's view needed to be directed to meeting the needs of the poor in a way that no longer caused environmental problems, but rather helped to solve them or, in the words of the Commission in 1987:

Sustainable development is development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs. [8][9]

In the same year the Commission's influential book report Our Common Future was published. The 1992 UN Environmental Summit in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil produced the Rio Declaration on Environment and Development Earth Summit (1992) with an action agenda, Agenda 21, overseen by the Commission on Sustainable Development[note 2]. At Rio negotiations also began for an international agreement on climate change (which eventually lead to the Kyoto Protocol); agreements on forestry were forged and the Convention on Biological Diversity was initiated. By the time of the World Summit on Sustainable Development (Earth Summit 2002), held in Johannesburg, delegates included representatives from the World Business Council for Sustainable Development and thousands of local governments reporting on how they had implemented Local Agenda 21 and the Cities for Climate Protection program.[10] A broad-based consensus had been reached on what was to be done. This Summit, building on the 2000 United Nations Millennium Declaration, produced eight Millennium Development Goals for 2015 (adopted by 189 countries) and established the "WEHAB" targets for water, energy, health, agriculture, and biodiversity.[11]

The 2005 World Summit on sustainable development in New York declared that, to be effective, action on sustainability must involve cooperation across three sustainability "pillars": environment, society and economy. [note 4] Although it is critical that there is cooperation between the three pillars, in practice this often entails negotiation between competing interests.

The path of international sustainable development has never been smooth; it has many detractors. It treads the difficult path between opulent western consumer societies and the abject poverty of the undeveloped world; between economic demands for local and global growth and environmental demands for biological and resource conservation; closely linked to these concerns are social factors that impact on environmental sustainability, such as global security, international migration, population control and a whole range of environmental legislation from the Convention of Biodiversity to the agreements on forestry, climate change, desertification, etc. and much more.

Environmentalist disenchantment with some aspects of the global sustainability agenda can be attributed to the view that the environmental, social, and economic pillars (where this distinction is accepted) cannot strictly be treated as equal. The notion of sustainable development is sometimes resisted because many regard it as an oxymoron - that development is inevitably carried out at the expense of the environment.[15] Environmentalists emphasize the global environment as the ecological and material basis of human existence that is being progressively degraded. If we were to live in acknowledgement of this fact then economies should address the goals of the societies they serve, and these societies, in turn, should recognise their dependence on natural resources.[16] However, this ranking is often observed in reverse order. By placing such strong emphasis on economic growth as a core human value, and investing such little effort in protecting the biosphere, we are setting ourselves on a trajectory of self destruction.[17] One consequence of this discussion is that for many people sustainability means simply environmental sustainability - the reduction of human impact on the Earth's resources and environmental services to a sustainable level - without full consideration of the social and economic dimensions needed to achieve this.

The discipline of sustainability science has relatively recently emerged as the academic study that examines and underpins the “broad, inclusive, and contradictory currents that humankind will need to navigate toward a just and sustainable future”[18]; sustainability governance[19] [20] as the process of implementation of sustainability strategies; and sustainability accounting,[21] [22] as the evidence-based quantitative information used to guide governance by providing benchmarks and measuring progress. Very nice!, just some tweaks added. Sunray.

• We can probably remove the "Main article: sustainable development" heading from the definition. Yes please, can't wait. Good by me.

• The references have gone all funny.

Granitethighs (talk) 01:16, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I am starting to sound like a barrel organ... :-( Can we have more sustainability in this history? The paragraph beginning with "Environmentalist disenchantment" should perhaps go to the section on "Sustainable development?", which is meant for critique. Leaving out Limits to Growth? How about mentioning sustainable European forestry which goes back 200-300 years? I could write the very early history, just a paragraph, if you want. That would work well, I think. Should it not include what people have been doing, organic ag for example really took off in the 80s... and other initiatives that had nothing to do with agencies and built on the efforts of regular folks trying to live differently. I would be a bit careful here. Organic ag, despite great leaps forward was still a very small percentage of the total food supply in North America. That is beginning to change now with corporations jumping on the organic food bandwagon. One wonders, though, just how sustainable it is.

You know what is starting to bother me as I plow thru the literature? There is much genuflecting about helping the poor folks thru SD, but haven't people noticed that in many cases it's development that got them destitute? Which leads to the whole difference between poverty and simple sustainable living which used to be the rule around the world ... prior to so called development. (We should also mention Schumacher and appropriate tech and why it failed. A useful lesson.) V.B.

Biting the bullet again

The bottom line guys is the "History" scratchpad and what we are all prepared to accept. As it stands there hasn't been a single "scratch" made. I'm not sure if that is good or bad? Perhaps I can ask some specific questions.

• The latest offering was intended to encompass all the current section up to the bit on the environment - i.e. it subsumed the former three pillars, the international movement, sustainable development and so on all under the heading "History".
• Do you want subheadings?
• Do you want to re-order it, alter etc. - i.e. should the environmental disenchantment be put somewhere else and if so where?
• I like the idea of sustainable European forestry but not the space it will take. It does raise the question of "sustainable societies, communities and activities" and whether they should be dealt with and in what detail - sustainable nomadic hunter-gatherers, Australian tribal Aboriginals, the permaculture movement, and as you have said, eco-villages and the like. IMO we direct people to articles elsewhere on all these things. I am still smarting from the article being called "bloated" and the fact that we havent even put "population" in our list of headings for the article ... it is so difficult sieving out what is a critical item and reducing it to a sentence or two.

So ... should I put it up now? If not, what precise changes do you want to make? Next week I will be on holiday and mostly away from computers. That will be for a full 5-6 weeks. I will only be able to have minimal input so you guys can do whatever you like! Obviously from my point of view the more we can get through between now and next monday lunchtime (Aussie time) the better.

Granitethighs (talk) 06:36, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Well harumph, just because I didn't scratch it up much...

As I said, above, I like it. Headings might be nice. I don't think it needs re-ordering or drastic altering. My blue scratchings are basically just tweaks. Otherwise, I wouldn't alter it. Sunray (talk) 06:55, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I have put up History but it took ages as I had to replace all the references etc. It needs wikifying and - also needs re-reading by everyone as the transfer did not go smoothly. You may still have comments to make and incorporate. I will work on the wiki bit soon. Once this is settled we can go a bit at a time.

Granitethighs (talk) 12:53, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I am ok with this for the time being; I have not really had the resources to do any History additions. I will present a paragraph re early history when I get the materials. Just something "in a nutshell." I agree with Sunray that some of the stuff may be just too iffy to include. But the movement for deep ecology should I think be mentioned. Anyways, we can keep working on it as we go. Good for now. Heh, sorry about the "bloat." I still think the article needs to be tighter. I don't know if it's possible. We'll see. V.B.