Jump to content

Talk:Sustainability/Archive 32

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 25←Archive 30Archive 31Archive 32Archive 33Archive 34Archive 35

Engineering emerging technologies

There is a clear consensus, that the proposed sections are not appropriate for this article. Armbrust The Homunculus 12:50, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I've removed a stub section on this subject. It was essentially a one-liner that said: "Engineering of emerging technologies such as carbon-neutral fuel, compressed air energy storage, and airborne wind turbines is crucial to sustainable development." That seems like a truism, but it doesn't tell the reader much. The citations given were not general reviews of the field and they were speculative and arguable. I'm not saying that a section couldn't be written on this, with better sources, but lets see it—not a one-liner. Sunray (talk) 15:14, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Not general reviews?
  1. Graves, Christopher; Ebbesen, Sune D.; Mogensen, Mogens; Lackner, Klaus S. (2011). "Sustainable hydrocarbon fuels by recycling CO2 and H2O with renewable or nuclear energy". Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews. 15 (1): 1–23. doi:10.1016/j.rser.2010.07.014. Retrieved September 7, 2012. (Review.)
  2. Pearson, R.J.; Eisaman, M.D.; et al. (2012). "Energy Storage via Carbon-Neutral Fuels Made From CO2, Water, and Renewable Energy" (PDF). Proceedings of the IEEE. 100 (2): 440–60. doi:10.1109/JPROC.2011.2168369. Retrieved September 7, 2012. {{cite journal}}: Explicit use of et al. in: |last3= (help) (Review.)
  3. Holte, Laura L. (2010). Sustainable Transportation Fuels From Off-peak Wind Energy, CO2 and Water (PDF). 4th International Conference on Energy Sustainability, May 17–22, 2010. Phoenix, Arizona: American Society of Mechanical Engineers. Retrieved September 7, 2012. {{cite conference}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
1 and 2 are reviews, and they say "(Review.)" I am not opposed to expanding the text when I have free time as long as you are not opposed to leaving in the stub sections here and in Sustainable development. I am also happy to cite [1] and [2] if you are willing to allow a WP:WORKINPROGRESS section in both articles. Tim AFS (talk) 23:19, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
Neither of the first two sources are about actual systems. They are theoretical. The third source is a by a manufacturer of a particular technology talking about a system they hope to develop. What we need are actual technologies proven and being installed. This is an overview article about sustainability. It doesn't seem to be the right place for information about potential engineering systems. Sunray (talk) 16:54, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
The Sabatier reaction is a century old, and the reviews describe its application in systems during World War II. I agree that it would be preferable to also include descriptions of the projects in Carbon-neutral fuel#Demonstration projects and commercial development and I hope you will please answer the question about whether you think these articles should have work in progress sections or not, and if not, the reasons why not? Tim AFS (talk) 05:28, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
Tim, this article is a very general overview of the topic. It is a major difficulty finding overall balance within the article. For example - there are vast numbers of new technologies addressing sustainability but it is simply not possible to include them all, the article can do little more than indicate that such technologies exist. My suggestion would be to use your information in Wikipedia at a point where it is more 'directly' appropriate: say in an article on the 'Sabatier Reaction' or 'carbon-neutral fuels' - you would know where its focus lies: the article as it stands will expand uncontrollably unless kept very brief and above all 'general'.Granitethighs

I have requested wider breadth of opinion here. Tim AFS (talk) 23:37, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Granitethighs 06:04, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

RFC on engineering sustainable development

Is it appropriate to include short sections marked as incomplete with {{expand section}} templates describing, wikilinking to, and citing appropriate sources for carbon-neutral fuel, airborne wind power, and compressed air energy storage here in the Sustainability and in the Sustainable development articles? 03:52, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

  • Yes as requester: These technologies are recognized as having the greatest potential impact on sustainability, and Wikipedia is a work in progress which should encourage readers to edit it with more advanced information. Tim AFS (talk) 03:52, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
  • No This article is a very general overview of the topic Sustainabilty and it is a major difficulty finding overall balance within the article. For example - there are vast numbers of new technologies addressing sustainability in various ways- they cannot all be included: the article can do little more than indicate that such technologies exist. It is not appropriate to tag sections as incomplete - as, in this sense, the entire article and its sections is incomplete. The information desired can be inserted in Wikipedia at a point where it is more 'directly' appropriate. Granitethighs 06:04, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
  • No - I have to agree with User:Granitethighs on this. Instead of "expand" tags, I would suggest using "Main|" and "See also|" tags under headings to point users toward more in-depth articles on specific topics where appropriate. See the article Globalization for examples how these tags can be used. Meclee (talk) 23:25, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
  • No - I am a bit confused because I don't see such tags in the article and am not inclined to comb through the history. As far as I can tell from the article as it stands and the foregoing comments, no such tags are necessary or desirable. It is better to mention topics that are dealt with elsewhere in no more detail than necessary to establish context in this article, then to refer appropriately to the main article etc. Otherwise we just wind up with duplication and clashes that are hard to make sense of and unpractical to maintain. JonRichfield (talk) 09:22, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
  • No - This article appears to be a high-level overview, so adding sections dedicated to specific technologies will start to knock it out of shape. Any significant technologies can be invoked by more proportionate means: a wikilinked term or a "see also" maybe. Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 08:11, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
  • No - Using wikilinks within the article when the topic is mentioned should be sufficient, or a "Main" tag if the topic warrants a short section within the article. But, for the most part, I think a wikilink is about all that's required from such a broad overview article as this one. And we should be wary of adding overly specific or speculative technologies in this article - there are better places that such should be included. Anaxial (talk) 19:03, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
  • No - This article is mature and rated "good article." As Granitethighs and several other editors have pointed out, this article is an overview. It doesn't need expansion; plenty big enough. Sunray (talk) 05:25, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
  • No - This article is already working, and if it works, don't fix it. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 20:54, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
  • No - This article is well written. Fox1942 (talk) 03:44, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Weak versus strong sustainability

I just added the link to ==See also==. I find it shocking that such a big concept wasn't even a link here. Another shock was [3], where Weak sustainability redirected to a nonexistant section about on Ecological economics titled "Strong versus weak sustainability".

In Talk:Sustainability/Archive 3, ([4]) "I am aghast", the topic has been mentioned. Apparently there was even a section on the article. I just thought that I'd point out the discommunication between these articles, and probably others. I haven't gone through the whole archive, or archives of other articles.174.3.125.23 (talk) 08:12, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia can not be relied on as a suitable reference for our bookwork

I would just like to make a side note here, to all the Cert 3 Engineering students at RTTF, or more so, the tutors. Wikipedia can not be relied on as a suitable reference for our bookwork, particularly when the book was published 2 years ago, as anyone is able to edit articles on Wikipedia, at any time, as I am demonstrating now. To everyone else using this page, keep ya pants on, I haven't edited anything at all, just added this note to make my point. Cheers

Comment originally added to the top of the article by @NZVictorian:, moved to talk page. Jonpatterns (talk) 11:19, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Sustainability Network initiatives mapping and categorisation

Dear all,

I would like to create an open-access article listing and summarising all sustainability initiatives & networks based on different categories, mainly country, sustainability domain (e.g. food or transportation).

To my knowledge, such a database still does not exist. As a result, many initiatives and networks keep reinventing the wheel and do not join forces due to a lack of knowledge of existing work aimed at sustainable development.

What is your opinion on such a database on Wikipedia with the advantage of its wide visibility and accessibility by the public?

Warm regards,

Robert Orschiro (talk) 08:43, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

The section on sustainable development needs more work

There is a section that links to sustainable development goals which is good, but it needs a little bit more content (as the SDG discussion has advanced in the meantime) to introduce it better on this page. I hope that someone who is more up to speed with the SDGs could take a look, e.g. JMWt. I also think the topic of sustainable sanitation could be mentioned once or twice, although I am not yet totally sure where in the article. EvM-Susana (talk) 10:33, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Why so many See Also links?

I don't understand this list of topics under "See also". I think the subheading of "topics" should be removed there and the list be culled to a bare minimum. Important topics should be linked to in the main text and then they don't need to appear under "See also". EvM-Susana (talk) 10:33, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Scenario Planning

Regarding the addition: "The continuation of current consumption and production patterns will increase the use of natural resources (fossil fuels, water, forests, etc.) as well as accelerating environmental degradation and climate change. To meet these global challenges requires an economic paradigm shift and changes in individual lifestyles, towards more sustainable lifestyles in the future. [1]" {{OTRS pending}} Phinespedia (talk) 10:11, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

@Phinespedia: I can find no ticket with your username, with "sustainable-lifestyles.eu" or with "Talk:Sustainability" in a full text search of OTRS tickets, so I've linked the template above. If you have a ticket number, please re-add the template. Storkk (talk) 12:02, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia article Sustainability - Sub-heading 'Ecosocialist approach' page 10 of 19 pages

In this Wikipedia article 'Sustainability; there is a sub-heading - 'Ecosocialist approach' on page 10 of 19 pages where the article states: “A steady-state capitalist economy is impossible” (with reference number 188).

At one time abolition of slavery was ‘impossible’, as was invention of the light bulb, human flight and space travel. Stating something is impossible is a blanket statement steering maybe 99% of readers away from the notion, one of whom may otherwise be an Einstein of economics and find a solution.

No one really knows if a steady state economy is possible or not, until it is tried.

At any rate I went straight to the reference source ‘Magdoff & Foster 2011, p. 56’. On page 56 and what we actually find is Magdoff and Foster posing the question (paraphrasing) why capitalists would go down the path of a steady state economy ? rather than a blank it is impossible statement. And in fact just before this question – on page 56 - Magdoff and Foster cite a reference (reference number 38 chapter 3) in their book "What Every Environmentalist Needs to Know about Capitalism" ISBN978-1-58367-241-9; citing an article by Philip Lawn, a senior lecturer in environmental and ecological economics at Flinders University in Adelaide, South Australia, titled “Is Steady-State Capitalism Viable ? A Review of the Issues and an Answer in the Affirmative”, The Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 1219 (2001): 1-25. I looked this up and found a 2015 reference to the same article.

I attempted to edit this statement from “A steady-state capitalist economy is impossible” to "To inveterate capitalists a steady-state capitalist economy is impossible” which is less final while still holding its original intent, but it has reverted to its original statement.

I am not egotistic about my edit. Just wanted to share the reasoning behind it so that you can make your own judgement on it. Michael de Mol 4th January 2016

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Sustainability. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 13:14, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Paragraph from an old version

I added the following paragraph some time ago, but it was deleted. I will put this note here as a note that it could be included with citations from reliable sources to backup the information.

However, many examples can be thought of where gains in one sector can cause gains in another sector, which is supported by the three overlapping ellipses Venn Diagram. As stated previously, each sector are not mutually exclusive and can be mutually reinforcing or mutually destructive. For example, installing a solar system will lead to reduced environmental impacts compared to using energy derived from fossil fuels, reduce negative societal impacts resulting from the combustion of fossil fuels (e.g. the increased frequency and intensity of natural disasters causing deaths and injuries of humans, and destruction of the natural and built environment), and have positive economic impacts where the solar system is at or below grid parity. Thus, it is apparent that gains in one sector are not necessarily a loss in another, although may be the case in some situations. For example, chopping down a tree is an environmental loss but the timber from that tree may be used for social and economic benefits, e.g. the production of paper and furniture, which profit the producers when sold and have indirect economic benefits in terms of improved productivity. Note however, that if all environmental, cultural, political and economic aspects are 'appropriately' monetized (which can be highly subjective, e.g. how do you determine the monetary value of a thing such as a tree and it's relative value to other things?) then economic outcomes should accurately mirror cultural, political and environmental outcomes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jray310 (talk • contribs) 03:16, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 11 external links on Sustainability. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:21, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Equity

I've included a link to an article that clearly defines equity in sustainability, if you believe it to be useful feel free to add it to the article

http://www.herinst.org/sbeder/esd/equity.html#.WeRhRGiPJaT

WingRiddenAngel (talk) 07:36, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Sustainability. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:36, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

moved from ecological footprint

this text/ref has more to do with this subject than that one: Leo Breman (talk) 16:15, 11 May 2020 (UTC) 

Cities, due to their population concentration, use a lot of resources, but may be made more efficient in the future through architecture.[2]

Citations Needed and Personal References

I noticed several statements that needed citations and/or had personal references not necessarily from a reliable source. Those that added these statements, would you be willing to explain where your sources are from and why you used them? GreatDane15 (talk) 15:42, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

@GreatDane15: Thanks for pointing this out. It might help if we know which statements so we know who added them. Sundayclose (talk) 19:05, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
@Sundayclose: I believe these are all the ones I found.

“Sustainability can also be defined as a socio-ecological process characterized by the pursuit of a common ideal.[11][12][self-published source?] “


“One such pillar is future generations, which emphasizes the long-term thinking associated with sustainability.[citation needed]”


“The focus ranges from the total carrying capacity (sustainability) of planet Earth to the sustainability of economic sectors, ecosystems, countries, municipalities, neighborhood, home gardens, individual lives, individual goods, and servicesthis includes the use of natural resources prudently to meet current needs without affecting the ability of the future generation from meeting their needs.[clarification needed], occupations, lifestyles, and behavior patterns. In short, it can entail the full compass of biological and human activity or any part of it.[81]”


“For example, he likens human existence on Earth — isolated as the planet is in space, whereby people cannot be evacuated to relieve population pressure and resources cannot be imported to prevent accelerated depletion of resources — to life at sea on a small boat isolated by water.[citation needed] “ GreatDane15 (talk) 20:49, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

About Religion and Coronavirus

I have added a section about sustainability and religion. I think that the issue worth a section in this page after all there are billions of people that believe in it. There are many religios leaders and organizations working for preserving the environment. The coronavirus pandemic have a direct link to the climate change and Deforestation and therefore is an example of how harming the environment could harm the sustainability of humanity, so, I mentioned it in the subsections "atmosphere" and "land use" in the section "environmental dimension". What do you think?

@Sadads:


--Alexander Sauda/אלכסנדר סעודה (talk) 09:30, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Also in the head of the page is writed that it is part of the pages that are "Philosophy and religion good articles", so there is no reason for not writing such a section.

--Alexander Sauda/אלכסנדר סעודה (talk) 09:35, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

  • I think it makes sense -- there probably is a good argument for a whole article on the religious implications of these -- i.e. the concept of Spiritual ecology is deeply intertwined with the religious participation in the climate movement -- so there is probably a fair bit of work to be done to integrate the concepts, Sadads (talk) 11:52, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

I disagree, I do not think religion should play a role in how sustainability is viewed from humanity's standpoint. Sustainability is all about science, and religion has no place meddling in scientific affairs. -Aaronberdan (talk) 04:37, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

This isn't about what any of our individual beliefs are regarding religion and sustainability. Wikipedia follows the reliable sources. Religion is discussed by reliable sources as an important factor in the issue of sustainability and therefore, should be included in the article. It doesn't mean Wikipedia endorses any point of view. Sundayclose (talk) 00:51, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Enable the Earth to continue supporting life???

"Achieving sustainability will enable the Earth to continue supporting life." This text is very strange and i really don't like it. This is so technical, but earth is not technical. Earth by itself is NOT supporting life and it won't in the future. Earth is just there and does nothing! But we do! I don't know if you guys understand my point, but this sentence reads as if earth was just another piece of technology, desperately seeking to support humans, which it is not. We as humans create the environmental conditions, thus we do support life or not. It's not earth doing this. I would really appreciate a change in this sentence, making it less technical and more natural. Thanks. --2003:F1:170B:1769:490E:2314:8421:91EC (talk) 14:11, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Please consolidate population

The word "population" occurs over 40 times in this article. It should occur once in the lead and then in a section with that title and not much more than that.--Pages777 (talk) 02:59, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Why, what's wrong with using the word "population"? Do you want it replaced with a different word? If you have ideas for improvements, you could edit the article accordingly (it needs a lot of work). EMsmile (talk) 03:54, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
My idea is to consolidate the use of the word "population" primarily into a single section. It will be a lot of work. I will get to it eventually.--Pages777 (talk) 12:41, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Needs thorough review and updates to keep GA status

This article achieved WP:GA status in Oct 2010, so eleven years ago. Since then, I think there has been slippage in quality. On first sight I notice that the article is very long (82 k of readable prose) and that it goes into too much detail about aspects for which sub-articles exist. I am going to focus on that first, so expect to see some "shrinkage" in the next few weeks. Does anyone else want to list suggestions for improvement of this article? EMsmile (talk) 01:06, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

I have drastically shortened the section on eco-socialism and moved the text block to the talk page of eco-socialism. Note that the entire text block was based on just two publications.EMsmile (talk) 01:29, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
I have been lucky enough to make contact with an accomplished scientist from Wageningen Univ who wrote an article "What is Sustainability" https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/2/11/3436 in 2010 and who has continued to follow developments. The author has offered several important edits and improvements in the article and these I have entered. The work to further improve the article is ongoing. Congratulations also to User:135.23.197.114 for the several excellent edits the past few days. ASRASR (talk) 19:40, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Expert edits

As part of the Wikipedia project to improve articles relevant to the SDGs, substantive factual edits have been sourced from Tom Kuhlman who has published extensively on the subject of sustainability. Readability improvements are also being made. Any feedback is welcome. ASRASR (talk) 09:54, 26 October 2021 (UTC)


A proposed new structure

I have been discussing this article with User:EMsmile (offline) and do now want to propose a new structure as follows.

1 Definitions and common /contemporary use 

1.1 Historic origins

Building on the current paragraph referring to Hans von Carlowitz as well as reference to ancient cultures etc. 

1.2 Sustainability in the political arena /as a policy concept

Building on the paragraph starting with (“Modern use…”), but partly new input. Referencing other entries: UN Conference 1972, WCED, Rio (Rio Declaration, Agenda 21), MDGs, SDGs, European Green Deal I have started working on this but would like to wait with adding this to see whether there are suggestions wrt general structure. 

1.3 Contemporary use

Mainly content of existing section The Three Dimensions 

1.4 Critique and Variations
1.4.1 Portfolio of critique of concept

Partly new input: critique of Brundtland definition or sustainability in general as “too late” (Meadows 2000), “exhausted” (Blühdorn 2017), to be substituted by “resilience” or Futeranity (Berg 2020) 

1.4.2 Strong vs. weak sustainability

Partly existing (see paragraph in section Resilience), to be complemented 

1.4.3 Call for further dimensions

Partly existing (see section Further Dimensions), to be complemented 

1.4.4 …

2 Related concepts Substituting “Principles and concepts”. I suggest to restructure this section and expand it. There are several related concepts 

2.1 Planetary Boundaries
2.2 Environmental /ecological footprint /carbon Footprint  
2.3 Carrying capacity

potentially to be merged with 2.2 Footprint 

2.4 Resilience  
2.5 Industrial metabolism

3 Dimensions of Sustainability Integrating existing content but consolidation /clearance needed 

 3.1 Environmental

subsections to be consolidated /cleared 

 3.2 Social

subsections to be consolidated /cleared 

 3.3 Economic

subsections to be consolidated /cleared

4 Responses/reactions from different stakeholders 

4.1 Governments and authorities 
  4.1.1 UN Resolution on the on 2030 Agenda

New content to be provided – briefly explain and then refer to articles of 2030 Agenda and SDGs. Explain legal status of 2030 Agenda as resolution (not as binding as international law etc.). 

  4.1.2 Regulation (i.e. binding)

List /refer to major regulatory initiatives wrt sustainability European Green Deal , China’s Five Year’s Plan etc. 

  4.1.3 Initiatives from public authorities (non binding)

Here I would put initiatives by public authorities (of different level) like local Agenda 21 initiatives (link to respective article), the C40 initiatives (of cities) etc. 

 4.2 Corporate World /Businesses Responses to sustainability

New content to be provided – referring to several existing articles (GRI, WBCSD etc.) 

  4.2.1 The concepts of Corporate Social Responsibility, Corporate Sustainability and Corporate Citizenship 
  4.2.2 Industry initiatives (UN Global Compact, Global Reporting Initiative, World Business Council for Sustainable Development, Extractives Industry Transparency Initiative, Sustainability Accounting Standards Board etc.)  

 4.3 Civil society /NGOs and Movements 
  4.2.1 NGOs  
  4.2.2 Movements (FFF, Extinction Rebellion, …)  
  4.2.3 … 

 4.4 Religious communities 
  4.3.1 Pope Francis (Laudato Si and Fratelli tutti) 
  4.3.2 World Council of Churches  
  4.2.3 …

5 Implementing Sustainability 

5.1 Barriers to sustainability

Here I would put, among others, paragraphs from current sections 7 (threats), as well as reference to Hulme 2013 (Why we disagree about climate change) and Berg (2020) Sustainable Action. 

 5.2 Solution proposals /Paths to sustainability

Partly integrating aspects of current section on Paths to sustainability but mainly adding new content, e.g. referring to transitions research (e.g. Raskin et al 2002, Geels & Schot 2007, Geels 2011 etc.) 

  5.2.1 Transition research

New content to be provided – referring to transitions research (e.g. Raskin et al 2002, Geels & Schot 2007, Geels 2011 etc.) 

  5.2.2 Actor focussed approaches

New content to be provided – referring to new life-styles (e.g. LOHAS), or principles of sustainable action (Berg 2020) etc. 

  5.2.3 Initiatives addressing multiple dimension

New content to be provided – referring to Poverty-Environment Initiative (PEI) of UNEP and UNDP, and initiatives addressing multiple SDGs

Of course, I can explain these suggestions and will be happy to discuss and /or provide content /suggest edits in the coming weeks. Seemountain (talk) 09:43, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Excellent work by Seemountain talk !. This well-organised approach will provide major improvements to this article. Regards ASRASR (talk) 14:11, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for this proposal, Seemountain. I like it but would propose the following changes:
  1. The section on "critique" could become a Level-1 heading instead of Level-2.
  2. The section on related concepts should be very brief. Perhaps we should just use an annotated bullet point list? Or sub-headings with excerpts from the other articles.
  3. I find the section heading "Responses/reactions from different stakeholders" a bit strange. Maybe rather "Sustainability initiatives from different stakeholders"?
  4. Also I find this heading a bit strange "Implementing sustainability": sustainability cannot be implemented as it's a concept or more of an adjective that describes a direction. Perhaps rather "Initiatives to increase sustainability of projects"? But then it also overlaps with the previous section? EMsmile (talk) 21:27, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
I've worked on the re-organization process today. Not yet finished. EMsmile (talk) 23:19, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Response to EMsmile's comments from Dec 3:

  1. ad 1: "critique" as Level-1 heading. What I have in mind here is the critique of the concept as it is/will be explained in the previous sub-sections 1.1-1.3. Those sub-section will refer to the Brundtland commission, the three "pillars", the SDGs etc. These concepts /this concept have been criticized because some say that it would focus too much on development (i.e. while sacrificing ecology), others challenge the idea of substitutability of different capital forms (social, environmental etc.), sill others say that it's too late for sustainability (Meadows), that the concept is "exhausted" (Blühdorn) etc. Maybe the sub-section "critique and variations" needs some fine-tuning later but for the fime being would leave it as suggested. Of course, it would highlight the controversies around sustainability if this section became level-1. However, I would distinguish between the discussion on the academic level (which I see being reflected in section 1.4) and political statements (mostly from populists) that we don't need any sustainability because we wouldn't have any problems (or we couldn't change the climate, for instance, anyhow). Do you see my point @EMsmile?
  2. ad 2: "related concepts should be very brief" - I agree. What I have in mind here is a very brief description why those concepts are related. For instance: "Planetary boundaries are critical for any discussion of sustainability because by exceeding those boundaries humanity would trigger irreversible and most likely dangerous developments for the future of humanity, which is by definition a major threat to any concept of sustainability" - and then refer to the respective article on planetary boundaries (which I haven't checked - but I hope will be sufficiently clear). That might work in a list of bullet points.
  3. ad 3: I'm fine with the suggestion you made ("Sustainability initiatives from different stakeholders").
  4. ad 4: I think you raise an important point here and I'm glad you observed that. I think de facto some people indeed use such phrases. However, I fully agree that this has to be challenged. I personally would even resist of calling any real project /circumstance truly sustainable simply because we cannot predict the long-term consequnces of anything... What I have in mind here is the academic discussion around transformation towards sustainability. Maybe a different wording could be "pathways to s.", "realizing more s." or putting 'implementing' in "." or similar. What I have in mind here is the discussion around transformation research. Differing from the section before, it is here not the stakeholder's focus (which is mostly ad-hoc or at least not integrative and systematic, simply because it is stakeholders' initiatives) but the systematic account which explains why sustainability is not just a given, what particular challenges/barriers are there, how they can /need to be addressed etc. In today's public discussion is sometimes negelcting the complexity of the challenge. Some voices suggest that we'd reach sustainability IF ONLY we use the right technology, or IF ONLY we consume differently, or IF ONLY we leave behind our growth adiction. All these are valid points but none of them suffices to provide sustainability. I have elabortated this in my 2020 book Sustainable Action). What we might consider, however, is having this as sub-section 1.5. This is a question to Wiki-experts: logically this discussion could well become sub-section 1.5. But it will require a lot of background information which is explained in the sections on stakeholder initiatives etc. So for a reader who reads the entire article on s. it would be easier to understand that more towards the end.

Seemountain (talk) 09:11, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments, very useful information. Regarding number 1, the critique section: I think this will be very interesting to have, i.e. both types of critiques. We can decide later if this should be a Level-1 or Level-2 heading. Regarding number 2: that makes sense. We could probably do away with those excerpts then. But if we have only bullet points then the names of the related concepts would no longer appear in the table of contents. Is that good or bad? Regarding number 4: I have re-arranged those sections a bit again. I have moved "barriers" to become a Level-1 heading. We can rename and move sections again later, once more and new content is added. EMsmile (talk) 16:07, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 10:30, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 27 August 2021 and 15 December 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Ahm248. Peer reviewers: Bucketkitty.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 10:30, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Discussion on sequencing

"Sustainability Measurement" belongs in the opening section as a "term" to be explained early on. Offering that short and clear section early on would make it easier to follow the measurement details under each of the three pillars. Another sequencing issue: As is, the three pillars are referenced BEFORE they are explained. (I added the phrase, "as discussed below" but moving up the definition of the three pillars is a better solution. I could even see putting a very short presentation of the three pillars in the Definitions section. The history of how we get the three pillars could come much later (if at all)PlanetCare (talk) 19:25, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

The "barrier" section needs more content

This feedback was provided by Ben Purvis: "This section stands out as not adding much that has already been said elsewhere in the article, unless it is developed more in full". On the to-do list (for someone). EMsmile (talk) 10:28, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

A suggestion for major culling and condensing (referring to the November 21 version)

I plan to do some work on this article over the coming days and weeks. When I look at this article, it strikes me that it’s actually far too long (in my opinion). And I think that’s because it goes into too much detail on topics for which sub-articles exist. Also, I think it has grown to this size because there were a number of student assignments over the years. These students add new content and new references but nobody cleans up later after them and condenses what they added, or checks if the newly added content shouldn’t rather go into a sub-article. So I think we might need deletions of whole paragraphs or even sections. I think it will eventually make the article much better if it’s more focused and has less waffle and tangential stuff. For example, I just deleted the section on research and innovation which seemed to just advertise the European research programs. See this change here. I’ve also culled content under the religion section and moved it to the relevant sub-article. It was giving too much weight to things that the pope had said, see here. I am pinging two people who are listed as top editors for this article (from a few years ago) and who are still active on Wikipedia now: User:Granitethighs, User:Sunray. What is your opinion about the current quality of the article? Also pinging User:sadads, user:ASRASR whom I have collaborated with on other sustainability-related articles. EMsmile (talk) 12:35, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

Chiming in here to support major culling. The very interesting information is buried in too much detail.PlanetCare (talk) 19:18, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
Hi there, after I wrote my comment on 7 November I already did A LOT of culling (compare with the November version). Are you saying more culling is needed? In which sections? The first 6 sections should be reasonably good by now, but the ones after that might require more culling and condensing? EMsmile (talk) 11:57, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
I will help cull elimination of clutter. This article is so full of clutter and incoherence it could use a complete do-over. Mkevlar (talk) 20:01, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
What do you mean by "de-over"? After writing the comment about decluttering in November 2021, I have already carried out a lot of decluttering. (have you compared with the November 2021 version?). Some of the "decluttering" that you have carried out now I find too radical. My criticism towards some of your recent edits:
  • You have converted some of the prose into bullet point lists. The general advise is to use prose more, not bullet point lists. Also we are not supposed to use bolding in the main text, only in the very first sentence.
  • You have deleted some content where you said "it's in a sub-article". Yes, it may be in a sub-article but we are supposed to use summary style and help people discover the relevant sub-articles. So if we don't even mention the sub-articles with a couple of sentences then how can they find them? Just giving the link to the other article is not sufficient.
Would you like to connect more directly so that we can discuss some of the ins and outs of the article? I've been working on it quite intensely this year (you can see it from the edit history). I am very glad that you're taking an interest in it now. It has surprisingly few people who are improving it, given that it has quite high pageviews. I'll send you a message through the Wikipedia e-mail system (if you don't want to, no worries). EMsmile (talk) 09:27, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

The section "responses by different stakeholders"

Comment by Ben Purvis about this section: "The United Nations response is an important omission here as they have shaped much of the sustainability discourse since Brundtland in 1987". My response: "I am not sure how to do this. The UN is mentioned already quite a bit in the history section and when it comes to the overlap with “sustainable development”. In which sense could we call them a stakeholder? Or perhaps the heading “responses by different stakeholders” is not overly clear?" EMsmile (talk) 10:30, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ http://www.sustainable-lifestyles.eu/fileadmin/images/content/D5.2_PolicyBrief_Roadmap_01.pdf
  2. ^ Tyszczuk, Renata. "Architecture of the Anthropocene". The Cambridge Journal of Architecture.

Responses by different stakeholders (business)

I see you have cleaned up the business section, User:Mkevlar. That's good but I am just wondering if these two bullet points were not worth salvaging in any form? I have no particular knowledge about them but am just wondering if some of the terms are not important to mention, such as sustainability standards and certification. This is the deleted text:

This article and subsections should be topic lead ins with links to further reading.
  • First paragraph above is handled in greater detail in Ecolabel
  • Second paragraph: Businesses are a for profit ventures and the subject of SRI has nothing to do with being financially sustainable. So yes the topic does not belong in this article TheKevlar 19:45, 24 March 2022 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mkevlar (talk • contribs)
You seem to have a narrow view of sustainability, just focused on financial sustainability (you said "SRI has nothing to do with being financially sustainable")? Socially responsible investing would fit with the social dimension of sustainability so I do think it's relevant. Secondly, just because something is handled in another Wikipedia article (e.g. ecolabel in this case), doesn't mean we shouldn't have some summary-style statements here which will help readers understand the context and click through to the relevant sub-article if they are interested. Therefore, I think both bullet points should go back in (in a slightly condensed format if needed). EMsmile (talk) 14:51, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
Businesses are socially and environmentally irresponsible, what world do you live in? I work with the public in a unionized work environment and even here we have to fight for every scrap of decency. Wikipedia articles contain facts, not policy theory unless topic is theory! I vote to leave out of this section.
Yahkgirl (talk) 15:08, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
Business has a narrow focused view of sustainability once it evolves to include SRI and becomes noteworthy then we can chronologize it. NGO's and governmental bodies do deal with SRI and have created policies, but still business only gives it lip-service. TheKevlar 16:02, 25 March 2022 (UTC) TheKevlar 16:02, 25 March 2022 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mkevlar (talk • contribs)
I don't understand your statement: "Businesses are socially and environmentally irresponsible"? Nothing is ever 100% one thing or the other. Are you saying there are no businesses out there who are trying to become more sustainable? I beg to differ. But this is not a discussion forum, it's about verifiable content and references about sustainability. Anyway, do you think that the article socially responsible investing is also not justified to even have? I think it wouldn't hurt to link to it, in one form or another. - Dear Mkevlar, please sign your comments on the talk page with the four tildes for a proper "signature", thanks. Four tildes is: ~~~~. EMsmile (talk) 23:01, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
User:EMsmile Using dualistic thinking as a method of analysis fails to see that generalizations do not preclude outliers or early adopters! In this case, I agree with Yahkgirl, its premature to include SRI. I vote to leave it out. Mkevlar (talk 16:26, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
Aren't the social sustainable business practices also included in the scientific community and social dimension paragraph? I vote to remove the SRI bulletpoints in favor of avoiding repetition and slimming down the article on the whole. LadyPersephone (talk) 15:52, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
What did you mean by "Aren't the social sustainable business practices also included in the scientific community and social dimension paragraph?" User:LadyPersephone. At present, SRI is not mentioned at all anymore. I thought mentioning it once with a reference would be useful if we feel that "socially responsible" relates to the "social sustainability dimension". There is no repetition. But if we don't think it's all that relevant, then I guess we don't mention it. (the references that were used previously or this content were not very strong) EMsmile (talk) 19:59, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ KLD Research. Environmental, Social and Governance Rating Criteria. 2007
  2. ^ The Combined Code on Corporate Governance, June 2008



Integrating content from the German Wikipedia into this article?

I think there is some interesting content in the German Wikipedia article for sustainability (here). You can just use Google translate of the page to get that content in English, in order to get an overview. For example, I like some of the historical and linguistic content there. I feel that the article takes a broader view, with more variations of the interpretation, whereas our English version article is now quite narrowly focused on the Brundlandt definition which marries sustainability and sustainable development together. But I also find it confusing to distinguish what's really important and what's superfluous or even waffle in the German article. EMsmile (talk) 14:31, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Hi Artem.G, I don't understand why you removed the "German language expansion tag" with the reasoning of: "it's GA, no need for expansion/translation from German". Firstly, even if it was GA, it could still benefit from translating content from a better other language Wikipedia article, couldn't it? Have you looked at the German article yet (with Google translate if need be)? Secondly, I don't think this article meets GA criteria anymore. I've listed it for reassessment a while ago but nobody has reacted to it yet: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Good_article_reassessment/Sustainability/1. EMsmile (talk) 23:06, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
Expansion template can work for some stub/start/C articles, if there is a problem of broadness, for example. For a GA it's almost worthless - almost nobody work on translations, and German article is not that better than this one.
And of course you can translate it and integrate into current version! If you believe that template is useful, just revert me. Artem.G (talk) 06:54, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
Hi Artem.G, I think the German version of the sustainability article is a lot better (i.e. more detailed, more nuanced) than the English version but there seems to be little interest/time by the English Wikipedians to take a look. It's on my to-do list to (potentially) bring content from the German version across but I haven't had the time yet. So I thought the tag could serve as a good reminder to everyone. But yea, we can leave it off now. - With respect to its GA status, what's your opinion about its quality? Please contribute here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Good_article_reassessment/Sustainability/1 I think it's still not good enough for GA but will have to look more deeply into the criteria to be sure. EMsmile (talk) 21:03, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
I've harvested a few tid bits from the German version article now, e.g. two images. I wasn't able to get much because even though some of the textual information seemed pretty good to me, but it is poorly sourced and hard to verify (older refs without URLs). Naturally, some of the content was also too Germany specific to be of use to us, e.g. the use of "sustainability" in political parties' manifestos. EMsmile (talk) 20:59, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

How often should sustainable development be mentioned here

A comment has been made that sustainable development is being mentioned too often in this article. I've just had a look, it appears about 30 times in the text (not counting how often it appears in the reference titles - another 24 times) and I think it's mostly justified. The two concepts are closely intertwined so one cannot completely separate one from the other. We had a long discussion about that here already: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Sustainable_development#How_to_remove_overlap_with_sustainability? . The summary of the discussion was that sustainability should become the main article (which explains both concepts to some degree) and the one on sustainable development should be a sub-article which contains some of the more practical details perhaps. Now would be a good time to revisit sustainable development and work on reducing overlap further. EMsmile (talk) 10:42, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

I am not sure the article needs further culling at this stage (March 2022)

A comment was made by User:MKevlar above about culling and moving further content to sub-articles. I am not sure I agree with that. Which content do you have in mind to be culled and moved? I think the first half of the article is fairly clutter-free by now. Perhaps some of the second half could still be condensed. Overall, I think we need more content (e.g. on barriers, pathways and stakeholder responses), not less. The article is currently a medium length article. And just because a sub-article exists on a topic doesn't mean none of that content can be mentioned here. We should be using summary style and then refer the readers to the relevant sub-articles. Naturally, a topic like sustainability will touch on many sub-articles. I think it's find, as long as it's brief and in summary style. And please in prose, not bullet points. EMsmile (talk) 10:34, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Your idea of small incremental changes should apply here. I am taking a few days to distance my self from the content before proceeding TheKevlar 06:21, 1 April 2022 (UTC) TheKevlar 06:21, 1 April 2022 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mkevlar (talk • contribs)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sustainability/Archive_32&oldid=1137213203"