Talk:Sustainability/Archive 9

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

→

New outline

Here is my latest on the outline. I am thinking that the Sustainability in action section is probably too abstract, and will flesh out as we write it, it will have logic of its own.

Definition
History
Sustainability and development
Sustainability vs modernity
Principles
Measuring sustainability
Global consensus
Obstacles to sustainability
Transition

Sustainability in action/application

Population

Food

Water

Waste

Energy

Materials

Technology

Production and consumption

Economics

V.B. (talk) 15:18, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Just a few questions and comments regarding this outline: Is there a need for the "Global Consensus" section? Why does the relationship between sustainability and modernity warrant an entire section in the sustainability article? Perhaps the principles section should be titled "Description" and placed just below or above 'history'. Isn't 'Transition' and 'application' the same thing? Why do we need two separate sections? I think "Application" or "Implementation" would be better headings for the 'sustainability in action/application' section. The 'obstacles to sustainability' section should actually be included under "Application"/"Implementation" heading in a subsection "Difficulties in Application" or something similar. And in a broader view: Perhaps there should be entirely separate articles for "Application/Implementation of Sustainability" and "Sustainable Urban Environments", "Sustainable Water Use/Management", "Sustainable Energy Use/Generation", etc, as this article may end up becoming too big based on the current outline, unless we summarise information and create separate articles in which to better explore the various sub aspects of sustainability. Nick carson (talk) 08:08, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm glad you've commented on this outline. It needs re-thinking. I agree that the "Global consensus" and "Sustainability and modernity" sections should be out. As to "Transition," I'm doubtful that we could do much with it. I'm sure it would be pretty speculative (whether or not there were sources). I agree with the rest of your comments. Would you be able to modify the outline along the lines you have suggested? You might separate out those topics that would possibly be "Separate articles" into their own section. Sunray (talk) 08:56, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Changes made, but the sections will obviously need to be altered further as the rewrite near completion; new sections might need to be added, others may need to be merged or removed and some may need to be moved into separate articles. That being said, the current outline appears to be fairly resolved. Nick carson (talk) 10:50, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

I've added some comments to each section to give us some focus on what content should go where. Nick carson (talk) 04:46, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

The article

I think the article is pretty good now. I suggest we keep the information as is... and try to effect small changes... when changes are called for. Trying to become social agents for change is not the role here... providing a format such as obstacles to sustainability.. and transition changes things from being an encyclopedia to being social activists. We are just here to report what is going on in society... which the article ... for better of worse does now. If.... you feel V.D. that you want to take on a complete rewrite... then why not get a sandbox... make a mock up... construct it.. and let us take a look, or contribute also? Right now the article is a compilation of good material worked on by many and distilled down fairly well. It seems to me in previous arguments you have been arguing more rhetorical points on the polemics aspects. We should just remain neutral reporters here (my opinion), as we are not here to argue rhetorical polemic as to such things as Global consensus... of which there is none. There is only one consensus on sustainability currently, in our present system. That is that no one cares about it, as it impedes dollar business.. so in my opinion the article is fine as is... and maybe a little chipping away to improve it is a good idea... but it seems pointless to add debatable rhetoric polemic to it. 22:13, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Keep in mind that what is discussed here does not go over to the article, necessarily. There is no effort to add debates to the article. Transition section is already in the article, and has been favored by GT, the person who put most of the article together as it is today. As for Global consensus, GT wanted that section. I personally also feel there is none, apart from a lot of verbiage that does not go anywhere. The new outline above adds a section on what is being done out there in the world. Whether or not the subcategories are right or not, I threw that out for comment. V.B. (talk) 01:24, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Exponential growth

How can one have an article on sustainability without mention of exponential growth pf the population? Paul Studier (talk) 23:29, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps you would be interested in discussing this issue through the lens of Malthusian economics? NJGW (talk) 23:33, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Malthus is more concerned about the misery caused when population grows to capacity than he is about sustainability. Paul Studier (talk) 01:13, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

It was added to the outline earlier by GT. I mean, a section on population. I added it above as well. Care to put together something? I agree, it's key.V.B. (talk) 01:27, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Tacking on unsourced ... speculative information about exponential equations and humans does not improve anything here in the article. Fruit flies do the same thing ... as do rabbits. Hooking the projection of human population in the section at the end of the section, does not fit in with providing good information as it makes a math article point, but this equation will not play out to any real world effect. The whole section already explains population projection possibilities, and consequences, with numbers... that are probably viable... using the absurd math example is just that... an exercise in showing that it will or can not happen that way. So... it is clutter in the article because it does not do any thing or go any where... and is an exercise in making a math impression... but not really connected to the article in a meaningful way. Exponential equations work better to explain things like money economics and math formula... it just does not translate well... to human population in the article. Every one knows that earths population has doubled since around world war two. We have already projected in the article that we are not sustainable now... so using the absurd example... seems like a waste of putting to much info up for the sake of putting it up. skip sievert (talk) 01:24, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

The projections are not certain, so one should look at the consequences of continued population growth. There are several mentions of lifestyle in the article, but nowhere is population control mentioned, nor does it say explicitly that any unbounded population growth will end in misery. Population growth is more important than lifestyle. This used to be in the article and needs to be put back in some form. As for fruit flies, they have tremendous mortality. I would prefer that the population not be limited by war, pestilence and famine. Paul Studier (talk) 03:00, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

No doubt... but the fact remains that you introduced material that is a thing in and of itself and not really related to the article or integrated into the context of the article and it is unsourced ... and human population is not going to do as the example you gave says... and the example itself says that... so it is clutter in the article which does a pretty good job, in that section... already, with projections and more likely scenarios. skip sievert (talk) 05:01, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Measuring Sustainability

I've had a go at creating a "measuring sustainability" section using as much existing content as possible (but summarising this down quite a bit where I thought it got wordy)

Please check it out at: User:Travelplanner/sandbox and post your views on if it will fit, and how to improve it. --Travelplanner (talk) 05:12, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

At some point maybe you could post the section from your sandbox here, when you think you like it... and also post the section from the article that you want to replace here on the talk page... back to back so they can be examined on this one page back and forth. Did you drop the reference to Natural capital in your mock up? Are you also going to drop the thought of having the sustainability table? Any way.... maybe you could incorporate some changes into the existing article in a creative way. Are you trying to refocus some way in particular... or present the material differently for clarity? skip sievert (talk) 17:09, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

It'll need to stay where it is for a week or so as the copyright status of the IPCC graph has been questioned, also it fizzes out at the end and needs work.

It was only my intention to take on one small part of this article, not to refocus the whole thing. But I do believe measurement is key to the disciplines of natural science and of economics and focussing on what is measurable can point to a positive way out of "edit wars" where these arise from conflict between the "ecological" and "economic" perspectives - which seems to be happening elsewhere in the article as well. It also seems to be more appropriate in an encyclopedia.--Travelplanner (talk) 22:11, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Three objections to the "Three Pillars" diagram

Here are my views on the "three pillars" in the hopes of generating useful debate.

The environment is bigger than the economy. This objection is already well explained in the article. To prove it to yourself, replace the "environment" circle in the diagram, which is intended to stand for the earth and all its natural processes, with the "blue marble" picture instead (an actual photograph of the same thing). How much of the "economic" and "social" processes represented by those circles actually occur outside the boundaries of the planet?

Putting the economy at a level with the planet the view of an elite It's very hard to find hard evidence for this one, but the belief that nature is a greater thing than "the works of Man" is found in most cultures, and the "three circles" world view seems to be expressed mainly in academic and political circles. The only hard evidence I can offer of this is on p15 of this report from Landcare Research in NZ which found “a relatively myopic world view is revealed in Wellington (among NZ Central Government agencies) that overstated the importance of economic drivers and failed to take into account social and environmental concerns that were found in the wider population”.

It makes the article look less authoritative My own reaction on seeing such a contested image so prominantly in the article was to decide to become involved in editing, because it looked as if the authors were not up to date with current thinking on sustainability. I didn't read the whole article at that time and would be a humbler (and less busy) person if I had, but my point is, first impressions count.

I actually think if all co-authors could get to the same understanding on this one, many of the editorial issues would sort themselves out.--Travelplanner (talk) 22:55, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Your point about the environment being bigger than the economy is apt. The whole diagram should be contained within the environment (the planet). Often the three dimensions are given as social, ecological and economic. This change would address the problem you raise. Would anyone be able to change the diagram, substituting "ecological" for "environment" and find a citation for the change? Sunray (talk) 16:03, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I completely agree with the points made here. I do have cites for the other way of diagramming. However, the other diagram that I have seen in a few places is not as well done, graphically speaking. Is there anyone on Wiki willing to do a diagram for us here (and the folks on Sustainable Development)? V.B. (talk) 15:48, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

I really do not see how what this discussion is saying really changes much of any thing in regard to the diagram. It seems to be more of an obscure language point that is trying to be made. What is meant by the environment being bigger than the economy Sunray? Why is substituting ecological for environment a good idea..?.. is this not just world play? Isn't someone saying the the environment being bigger than the economy... really just an opinion and a highly rhetorical construct?... that probably leads on to more filigreed and rhetorical polemic. This article was lacking in a strong economics aspect before. Our present world is run by a Price system. Currently it determines sustainability issues.... it probably is a fact of current life... and it perhaps should not be romantically put forth... but factually presented as to current mainstream choices in this system. System change could change that... but that is not happening right now. Even Environmental economics currently is mostly an excuse to rip the ecology of the earth apart in regard to money economics. Ecological economics currently is closer to actual sustainability issues... but still falls way short of projecting a way to get out of the current disaster environmental mess. In other words... I still think the current image... despite possibly not being ideal is pretty good... and gets the major current point across and is not really any particular point of view.. but sadly mainstream... and that is probably what should be presented. Our economics system is not based on natural law, physics natural capital concerns... for now... it is based on abstract concepts and social control with money first. This makes sustainability confounding in this system. skip sievert (talk) 15:18, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Word play = editing (i.e., what editors do). The objection raised by Travelplanner is a valid one, IMO, because our environment is the planet. The natural environment surrounds us. Without this environment there would be no economy (or society). Thus "ecology" (rather than "environment") is the dimension intended by the diagram. Ecological economics is an interdisciplinary science that is at the intersection between the two dimensions. One of the greatest barriers to achieving sustainability on any major scale right now is that corporations (and individuals) are able to treat the environment as an externality. Thus ecological costs are not calculated as part of true costs. Sunray (talk) 15:51, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

I am just wondering though whether it is rhetorical word play and trying to create finer points that may be leading in a circle and not to something specific. I understand the objection... it just seems like a rhetorical point that does not clarify any thing. Ecology and environment are the same thing in this diagram context. Ecological economics is still based on money economics... though it claims not. Yes ecological costs are not counted... but that is the current system.... so this sustainability chart shows that. It is probably the reality of the situation. skip sievert (talk) 18:53, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

The diagram is a good basic diagram for the layperson. The only change that need be made is to include some reference to the fact that minus the ecology/environment pillar, the other two will fail. So perhaps place the ecology sphere above the other two (still connected) with arrows pointing downwards into the other two spheres. This at least indicates that the other two spheres are derivatives of the environment/ecology of Earth, without which they would not exist, thus placing greater importance on the environment within the 'three pillar' model. Although this would no longer make it a 'pillar' model, but something else as three pillars imply that theu exist equally, therefore the name should also be changed. Nick carson (talk) 02:44, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Re-group for the history section

Well, I'm back after a great holiday and I’m ready to press on. Good to see the work progressing so well. After not having read the article for a while and coming back to it, I think it is not too bad. For anyone new to the discussion group we are trying to get this article up to the "Featured Article" standard by working steadily through the "to do" list of tasks at the top of this discussion page. We are up to the History section in the list. Before adding my say on this section I have a few suggestions to put to the discussion group. We have developed the tradition of answering questions (see numbers below) in our own different colours after the question (if you cant do this hop in anyway).

Sunray's comments in blue

travelplanner in purple

GT in green

1. The second sentence in the opening ("Similarly, the absence of certainty in terms of climate change, global warming has raised the profile of sustainability" [1]) seems to have appeared from nowhere. I am not sure that it fits, is coherent, or that the point it is making is clear. My suggestion is that it be removed or, if that offends, then that it be reworded to integrate better with the surrounding text? What do you think?

Agree it should be removed.

done

2. The second paragraph contains a lot of repetition. What do you think of the following to replace it? "The term has its roots in ecology as the ability of an ecosystem to maintain ecological processes, functions, biodiversity and productivity into the future.[3] To be sustainable, nature’s resources must be used at a rate at which they can be replenished naturally. There is now clear scientific evidence from environmental science that humanity is living unsustainably [4][5], and that an unprecedented collective effort is needed to keep human use of natural resources within sustainable limits."

Yup, better.

done

3. There seems to be consensus that the "Three pillars diagram" could be improved. I can give that a go when I have time but will need help. At present a “bulls-eye” with environment outside, society second and economy in the centre seems to be the go – but VB – I remember you suggesting something else. Any ideas?

The graphic is basically sound as is and only needs the word "ecology" swapped for "environment" to address the concern raised by Travelplanner. S/he agrees with this approach, as does V.B.

Yes, though semantically it should be "ecology" "society" "economy". I still prefer the "bulls-eye" myself but recognise that it's not (yet!) the best diagram to reflect current mainstream thinking. (PS I am a "she"...)

Now, to the History section.

Skip - thanks for adding this. I do have a few suggestions.

4. I do not think it would be intuitive to most people that the history of sustainability would begin with a discussion of books on ecological economics. Wouldn't this material fit better under the specific section set aside in the article for economic discussion that has been called "Economic Pillar" (although this title could be better, we can get rid of the "pillar” bit if people don't like it). IMO the sort of thing a history of sustainability might mention would be something along the lines of the way early societies used few resources, how ecology has honed our skills in understanding sustainable organic systems, and how recent human impacts can be alleviated by adopting a more ecological approach to living etc. etc. What do you think? Now I realise that, in a very general sense, all this is economics but surely the idea needs breaking in gently. What I am suggesting is that the discussion group develop a list of factors that should be considered in a history of sustainability, bearing in mind that it all has to be done in very few words and, in line with the rest of the article, it needs to be fairly lay-back (though well cited).

Agreed this needs to start with early societies which lived within natural limits (or died out) and the transition to a society where use of resources has outstripped regeneration. The trick in this section will be to keep coming back to the question ("what is the history of sustainability") rather than delving too far into either ecology or economics.)

Yes, keeping it on track is key, also bearing in mind that we will need to pare the whole article down when we get around to the editing phase.

5. Then there is the question as to what economic information we think should go into "Sustainability" and what economic information should go into the completely separate article page on "Environmental economics". I raise this point because I think that, in general, the economic discussion in this History section is good but more academic and detailed than the more simple approach of the other sections of the article (for example it cites authors by name repeatedly while other sections of the article reduce the use of peoples’ names to a minimum) which makes the reading more easy going. Perhaps it could be reduced and simplified so that the ideas come through and names reduced (they can still be cited). Then the more esoteric bits could be used in the "Environmental Economics" article page, but the basic points kept in "Sustainability". Also a whole chunk has been simply copied from “Environmental economics” to here. There seems little point in this repetition of the same material in two places.

In short, I am suggesting that the economic material in “History” be shortened, simplified in style, and moved under the “economic pillar” section. I would suggest that although some ideas may be repeated, using the same words as elsewhere is not advisable. What do people think? If you like I can start a set of headings for a very brief “history”.

Agree with points 4 & 5. Welcome back Granitethighs! Sunray (talk) 08:26, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

My perception (and I am neither) is that ecologists led the way in terms of understanding the problem, but that working out what to do about it takes one firmly into the area of economics. Actually improving sustainability at a macro scale is public policy (this I do know something about). Perhaps this suggests a way to structure the History section, and decide how much to leave in and how much to move? Welcome back from me too :-) --Travelplanner (talk) 08:47, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

That’s enough now – we can get down to brass tacks once this has been sorted (he said). Sunray do we need to archive again, I'm not sure where this discussion page could be cut though, anyway - leave that to you? Archiving right now presents some challenges, as we have been all over the map in our discussions. Perhaps I will leave it for now and then archive when we've finished the history section.

By the way Skip I have been looking and reading the Technate stuff and think there is some really interesting material on energy that could be included if you like? Granitethighs (talk) 07:34, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

The current incarnation of the article

There seems to be consensus that the "Three pillars diagram" could be improved. quote.

As far as I am just wondering though whether it is rhetorical word play and trying to create finer points that may be leading in a circle and not to something specific. I understand the objection... it just seems like a rhetorical point that does not clarify anything. Ecology and environment are the same thing in this diagram context. Ecological economics is still based on money economics... though it claims not. Yes ecological costs are not counted... but that is the current system.... so this sustainability chart shows that. It is probably the reality of the situation. As a diagram it does the job as is.

There already is a lot of energy related material, Frederick Soddy mentioned and Georgescu-Roegen in the history section (which also covers recent history as well as older history), that goes to related energy links and articles. And information in the see also section

   * Bioeconomics
   * Energy Accounting
   * Ecodynamics
   * Ecological economics
   * Natural capital
   * Thermoeconomics

The Thermoeconomics article from the see also section is very good in that regard especially.

For the most part the article as is, has been stable and reflected consensus, and for that reason I think it should stay as is... with perhaps small important incremental change. The process of consensus in the article has gone on since your absence Granitethighs... and perhaps a major reorient of the article is not needed.

In short, I am suggesting that the economic material in “History” be shortened, simplified in style, and moved under the “economic pillar” section. I would suggest that although some ideas may be repeated, using the same words as elsewhere is not advisable. What do people think? If you like I can start a set of headings for a very brief “history”. end Granitethighs.

Not really sure what you mean by this. I think for a general understanding of the topic all the information in the history section is needed that is currently there. The economic context of the history is context to understand past interpretations of sustainability in a time line of history. The actual economics section with the economics bar area presents mostly Ecological economics the only real link to sustainability, marginally connected, in orthodox economics and as such, I think it should be stressed in the article and mostly left as the economics reference point for sustainability. The history section now contains the various refs to economics mostly for historical reference and time line of development of the sustainability concept. The historical study of sustainability is covered in the history, and that involves a mishmash of economics references and notable writers and notable scientists that wrote on the subject or authors that reflected on sustainability. This could be added to as to more content perhaps... or maybe pared down if it is possible while retaining the information and citations.

My suggestion is to make changes if you think they are important and improve the article. Others will examine your changes... and if there is a consensus of the article having been improved... voila`.

Hoping not to give offence, but the "history" section doesn't work for me. Most of the section reads as a history of recent academic study of sustainability with a strong economic bias. The actual historical trends in sustainability/unsustainability aren't mentioned. Rachel Carson and the Club of Rome look like a leftover from a previous edit (they are at the centre of the story), prominent ecologists in the history of sustainability (Aldo Leopold) aren't there, and Agenda 21 doesn't get mentioned. The last sentence in the History section contracts the whole "development" argument to a couple of sentences so it becomes meangingless, also it has no references or links (Bina Agarwal?). There's nothing on urban sustainability (say Jaime Lerner, or Peter Newman). And it's too long, so jumping in and adding stuff is not the answer. I think a collective editing job is needed with an agenda as GT is proposing, I'm happy to participate but not confident to go making major changes to the page itself without discussion.--Travelplanner (talk) 09:32, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

No offence as far as I am concerned. Thanks for your comments, Travelplanner, and for focussing on telling the story of sustainability. I agree with the points you have made and would be happy if you boldly made the changes you have described. Looking over the featured article criteria, I note that the best articles are not only "well-written... comprehensive... factually accurate... [and] neutral," but also "engaging." Sunray (talk) 18:38, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

The article is a good information presenter as is... has been extremely stable for a long period of time and does the job of explaining the subject. Any refining is good of course and any article can probably be improved. Be bold. Your edits, as every ones, will be looked at with a critical eye and improvements are improvements. Facts do not fight facts... so have at it. skip sievert (talk) 01:25, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

History scratchpad

There is a lot to do and so must push on.

I’ve made sure I can add citations for all the various assertions, definitions and statements later – too messy at this stage.

Again, a couple of preliminaries.

The second sentence refers to “meeting the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs”. We are all sensitive about sustainable development but, as a matter of fact, this quote came from the Brundtland Commission and is used in almost all formal accounts on Sustainability and SD when definitions are given. I suggest that in deference to this fact it deserves to be cited unequivocally as coming from this source.

I’m not so sure about this one but I wonder if, under the “Definition” section the following could be added near the end. This could counteract a perceived SD bias in the article as a whole and the avoidance of any definitions as examples– what do you think?

…. forward. With environmental sustainability as a focus, biologists use definitions of sustainability like the following: “… management practices that attempt too meet economic objectives in ways that do not degrade the environment” or “using, conserving and enhancing resources so that ecological processes in ecosystems are maintained”.

Now, again, the History:

There is consensus that the history section does not at present hold together or, at least,that editing is in order. I am essentially in favour of simplicity and, as the article now stands, do not fully understand the connection or necessity for the subheadings. environmental issues, economic growth and the environment and sustainability science under the heading “History”. Material under these headings need not be left out but could be put elsewhere and “History” left to stand on its own. In the light of feedback and thoughts from the discussion group I have condensed the History section and offer the text below as a Scratchpad for editing. I am not too confident about this as it is not my area so-to-speak but I think it conveys more closely what needs to be said in this section and gets us started. It is still too long and possibly overstates Sustainable Development but it is considerably shorter than the current section.

"Sustainable living, as the desire for self-sufficiency with minimal impact on the environment, possibly dates back to the dawn of humanity. Nomadic hunter-gatherers had neither the numbers nor technological skills to impact heavily on the environment although even they, through the use of fire and hunting would have left their mark on the landscape and animal communities. With the advent of the agrarian Neolithic Revolution about 10 000 years ago it became possible to support large settled communities on local produce although it is evident that excessive use of these resources led to the demise of some. Early pioneers would have relied on themselves and their communities to provide most of the things that they needed including food and clothing produced and used locally. Resources were used on a small local scale and tended not to be wasted because they were expensive. This was a form of sustainable living that was adopted, out of necessity, during the great depression of the 1930s. The Industrial Revolution completely transformed the world forever as.machines, powered by fossil fuels, supported rapidly growing populations that now had access to modern modern medicine. In an era of plenty, marketing encouraged high consumption and a disposable lifestyle.

Towards the end of the 1950s and in the 1960s people began to recognise that technology and economic growth had a downside, in fact they could have tragic side-effects. Beginning with the environmental movement of the 1960s, heralded by Rachel Carson's Silent Spring (1962) and subsequently underlined by the Club of Rome’s Limits to Growth (1975), there was an increasing awareness that human use of the Earth was indeed approaching a range of environmental and resource limits and that this trend, rather than diminishing, was escalating at an alarming rate. [15][16][6]

The global attempt to deal with this found a focus in the United Nations program of sustainable development

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 Human 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 Conservation of Nature published its influential World Conservation Strategy,[note 1] followed in 1982 by its World Charter for Nature,[18]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.[19][20]

In the same year the Commission's influential 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, (a strategy for the implementation of the principles of sustainable development) overseen by the Commission on Sustainable Development.[note 2]. At Rio negotiations also began for an international agreement on climate change (which eventually led 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.[21] 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.[22]

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 3] 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 developing countries of the 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 global environmental legislation including the Convention on Biological Diversity, agreements on forestry, climate change, desertification, etc."

Please leave comments as usual. Granitethighs (talk) 19:34, 31 October 2008 (UTC) PS Travelplanner - on sustainability measurement, have you seen the article on "sustainability accounting"? I agree wholeheartedly about this being very important. Granitethighs (talk) 19:40, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Please do not add this disjointed and blog like information above which is opinion and not related here to the subject. This is an encyclopedia. This is not a blog. Musings about history are not needed. History has been written elsewhere. The history section is a reference for the term Sustainability not a recounting of the Neolithic age and possible connections with sustainability. Modern sustainability concepts have nothing to do with the neolithic age. Currently the history section is straight forward, and presents good information in regards to economics, and the general conception of sustainability. Sustainability is not a tale that goes back to the neolithic age. Also the U.N. material and connections are probably over played now. There is a whole section regarding that now. Many people are not fans of the U.N. and the article may be biased toward a U.N. political economic approach already.

OK perhaps it would be better to develop a list of "contents" for the History section (as I suggested) so that it can be gradually fleshed out. I wrote the above to take into account those points that had been raised by the group (see colored comments above). However, in reply to you... Firstly, there is agreement in the discussion group that the History section as it stands in the current main article is not satisfactory. Secondly, on this discussion page it has been pointed out several times that the founding ideas relating to sustainability did not begin with Sustainable Development. The opening sentences in this new proposal were an attempt to address this point(albeit perhaps not very well). I tend to agree about the UN stuff but if you browse the web on sustainability and its history you will find that in most cases the UN material is the only consideration, hence its equivalent coverage. IMO the economic link to sustainability needs to be made simple, clear and, in line with the rest of the article, presented in a semi-popular rather than academic style. By that I mean for example using citations but without listing, one after another, the names of authors. If this section is to stay I suggest, as before, a rewrite that is more "digestible" for people and makes the economic links to sustainability more obvious. Also it has been suggested that at least some of this material might be better placed in an "economic" part of the account.Granitethighs (talk) 02:23, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Also, quote... I’ve made sure I can add citations for all the various assertions, definitions and statements later – too messy at this stage. Again, a couple of preliminaries.

Please add nothing to the article without citations or references, and just cutting and pasting information from other articles may not be a good idea and tagging them together may not be a good idea. The article presently is plenty long and does not need filler material.

The above was not intended as "filler", but "reducer". I did not include references because, for the purposes of the scratchpad, they would clutter up the reading. I can add them if people want me to but until some consensus is reached it seems too time-consuming. Granitethighs (talk) 02:23, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Sustainability issues and the definition of this term deserves some consideration as to the disciplines of science and economics connected. I think the article should not be preachy or pov in that sense. There is no shortage of authoritative notable people writing on the subject. Lets stick with them. skip sievert (talk) 23:55, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Not sure what this means but I agree that it is not the place of an encyclopaedia to be "preachy" and would suggest that at present the economic connections with sustainability need to be more simply expressed. Granitethighs (talk) 02:23, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Sadly, sustainability and our present economic model are intertwined most always in a negative way. The only branch of sustainability economic, political, science discipline study, that purports to put the environment first is Ecological economics which is then used supposedly for decision making, in wider culture. That is mostly illusory though... and only a claim. Money is the arbiter actually, but maybe some damage has been prevented by luck using admonitions from ecological econ. There may be some tiny influence in ecological economics that is positive but most bad choices are piling up around us in peak every thing exponential style, and we are basically in a train wreck situation with sustainability in general. skip sievert (talk) 03:36, 1 November 2008 (UTC)