Talk:Sustainability/copyedit

Scraps and leftovers

I suggest we keep this page for things that come up in the copyediting process that might be useful, but don't have a use in the article at present.--Travelplanner (talk) 09:16, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Good, thanks TP gives us space to think critically. Granitethighs (talk) 22:12, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Parts of the article that may not be NPOV

from "Sustainability#Late 20th Century"

A direction toward sustainable living by increasing public awareness and adoption of recycling, and renewable energies begins to occur. The development of renewable sources of energy in the 1970's and 80's, primarily in wind turbines and photovoltaics, and increased use of hydro-electricity, presented some of the first sustainable alternatives to fossil fuel and nuclear energy generation. These developments led to construction of many of the first large-scale solar and wind power plants during the 1980's and 90's. The 1990's saw the small-scale reintroduction of the electric car. These factors, further raised public awareness of issues of sustainability, and many local and state governments in developed countries began to implement small-scale sustainability policies.

Why this might not be NPOV

I'm not sure this paragraph tallies with the evidence that human environmental impacts increased throughout this period (and continue to increase). I would personally characterise the sustainable living movement as an influential minority rather than a wide social movement. I am not at all sure that electricity generation moved to renewables over this period - the World Energy Assessment says only 2% of world energy is "new renewables" and these don't have a zero impact; at late 20th century rates of growth in energy use we were surely going backwards?

I have a particular problem with the reference to electric cars, which may be very far from sustainable based on a lifecycle assessment due to a range of issues neatly summed up in this (doubtless not very reliable) source which says: "The fantasy behind electric cars says that it’s going to be possible to continue the Western lifestyle of the twentieth century by changing the form of energy used to power it. That’s a bit like a fat person trying to lose weight by switching from hamburgers to french fries. The basic problem is never addressed."

The statement about local and state governments has an Australian flavour but is correct. It should refer to local governments around the world formally committing to Agenda 21.

Yes, but I think a massage of the wording could do the trick. After all it is talking mostly about "awareness" not substantial physical change. Yes, we should find a better example than the electric car - and adding the "local Agenda 21" here is a really good idea. I'd go ahead and make the changes you feel necessary here. Granitethighs (talk) 22:12, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't care much for all the straw man arguments in the "Reality killed the electric car" article. Nevertheless, it makes a crucial point: The choice is not between electric cars and petroleum fueled ones, but rather between personal vehicles and mass transit. Many of our species are happily trying to figure out ways of carrying on business as usual by switching power sources rather than changing behaviour. Do we mention David Holmgren's "descent culture" anywhere in the article? I would like to workshop this some more. I think that TP might be able to steer this one, given her expertise. Sunray (talk) 23:40, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

From "Sustainability#Economic Opportunity"

The concept of sustainability as a business opportunity has led to the formation of organizations such as Entrepreneurs for Sustainability in the Greater Cleveland area which are oriented towards small and medium sized enterprises.

Why this might not be NPOV

Seems too specific an example, although I do agree with the logic of not referencing some huge multinational initiative there is surely some sustainable business umbrella group or list that could be referenced rather than this one organisation in Cleveland?

Yes, I agree. Perhaps just a broad-based general ststement would work without the specific example - do we mention the advent of "green jobs" anywhere because this could be the place? Granitethighs (talk) 22:12, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, the discussion on the subpage specifically mentioned that the example was problematic. I promised to fix that and I have done the research (there are several major national and international organizations that are more deserving of mention). I didn't get that finished before we began having major disruption to our editing. I will get back to it. Sunray (talk) 23:23, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

From Sustainability#Resources

Interesting juxtaposition between the Water section which suggests "moving production from areas of low productivity to those with high productivity" and the emphasis on local food production under Food - aren't these opposities?

As a New Zealander I am fairly cynical about the environmental benefits of local food production in, say, Europe, relative to food grown by unsubsidised NZ farmers in our sunny, well-rained-on climate. But importing food also means importing water, my main point is that the same article can't have it both ways.

I think you are right and that the "small fits all" cannot be taken as an absolute. IMO it all depends on the particular context. Again, a slight moderation of the wording in these spots should iron out the apparent conflict. Go ahead I reckon. Granitethighs (talk) 22:12, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

From Sustainability#Human Settlements

The eco-municipality movement is participatory, involving community members in a bottom-up approach. In Sweden, more than 70 cities and towns — 25 per cent of all municipalities in the country — have adopted a common set of "Sustainability Principles" and implemented these systematically throughout their municipal operations. There are now twelve eco-municipalities in the United States and the American Planning Association has adopted sustainability objectives based on the same principles. The resort community of Whistler in Canada recently won first place in a United Nations international competition for its long-term comprehensive sustainability plan, “Whistler 2020.” Eco-municipalities are emerging in Japan, Estonia, and New Zealand.

Why this might not be NPOV

The aspiring eco-municipality I am familiar with is Waitakere City which was (before the link was taken away) the city referred to as an emerging eco-municipality in New Zealand. Follow the link and cry... there is no mention of sustainability in the article and the illustration is of a statue "symbolising the Westie love of cars". Which sort of goes to show that politicians can declare things eco-this and eco-that and life goes on as usual for everyone else.

Yes again. I dont remember reading this bit - it crept in! IMO the eco-municipality and bioregionalism ideas are useful but there are dangers in being too specific. My inclination is to "generalise" this section and speak about geenral principles, and reduce the number of specific examples. Granitethighs (talk) 22:12, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Hey, it didn't just "creep in" I wrote it and team members signed off on it - GT included! It may need further editing, but I think that we need something like it to show an actual movement that is taking action to become more sustainable. I agree that specific examples may be problematic. Certainly green wash is something that we need to be on the lookout for. One of the interesting features of the eco-municipality movement (in Sweden, and the U.S., at least) is that it is based on specific principles and tends to be systemic in focus. I realize that it might be problematic to include the Estonia, New Zealand and Japanese examples. I've never heard of any of them. Whistler has received a great deal of recognition, but it is problematic too (being a resort town with atypical demographics). Perhaps best to remove these examples. I'm fine if others want to remove this section or re-write it. But I would like to see some examples of humans actually doing something in the sphere of sustainable human settlements. As much as I wish it were otherwise, neither New Urbanism nor ecovillage movement will advance us much towards societal sustainability. Many examples of "sustainable cities" outside the eco-municipality movement seem to be floating on green wash. Sunray (talk) 23:19, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

More on this. Searching using the terms "Waitakere City" and "eco-municipaltiy" reveals that the city styles itself as an "eco city" [1], and seems not to be a part of the eco-municipality movement. Lots of cities are trying to get on the green bandwagon and call themselves "eco cities" or "sustainable cities." The problem with that is that there are no benchmarks for an eco city. On the other hand, cities that adopt the eco-municipality principles have to do so in their charter. It is a systems approach following the Natural Step's system conditions for sustainability. This is taken very seriously in Sweden, where more than 70 municipalities have adopted the sustainability principles. Twelve cities in Wisconsin and one in Canada have made a similar commitment. This is not green wash, IMHO. Sunray (talk) 21:40, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree with the deletion, which I think gets rid of the issue of "bandwagon-jumpers" like Waitakere and tightens the section. Thanks for implementing this--Travelplanner (talk) 04:30, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

From Sustainability#Social ecology and deep ecology

According to Murray Bookchin, the idea that humans must dominate nature follows from the domination of one over many. Capitalism and market relationships, in Bookchin’s view, have the capacity to reduce the planet to a mere resource to be exploited. Nature is thus treated as a commodity: “The plundering of the human spirit by the market place is paralleled by the plundering of the earth by capital.”

Social ecology, founded by Bookchin, is based on the conviction that nearly all of humanity's present ecological problems originate in deep-seated social problems. Thus ecological problems cannot be understood without understanding society and its irrationalities. Bookchin believed that apart from natural catastrophes, it is economic, ethnic, cultural, and gender conflicts that have produced the most serious ecological dislocations faced by human civilization face today.

Why this might not be NPOV

Too much Bookchin - he's not that notable relative to other thinkers. And too much prominence to a Western academic view of sustainability relative to other cultural perspectives. Many cultures around the world place less value than ours on sexual, ethnic and religious equality yet manage to tread much more lightly on the planet.

My take on this would be that we , not surprisingly, frequently get editors on the article who are both angry and frustrated with the (apparent) lack of environmental concern and action. Others who feel that it is already too late and that the horse has bolted - we are currently just tinkering impotently and ignorantly around the edges of a virtually insurmountable problem. The environmental movement especially contains many people deeply disenchanted with our current society and the way it operates. Somewhere in the article, in the interests of NPOV we have to give a voice to this particular view. Bookchin does this very well. However, I would be happy if other similar voices were mentioned and the Bookchin entry reduced a bit. To me the important point is that somewhere the article this view needs to be clearly represented. Go ahead ... Granitethighs (talk) 22:12, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

As I recall, we decided to include this after an editor complained that he had added something to the article about Bookchin and it had been removed. We resolved to include sections on social ecology and deep ecology. I added the above text. NPOV usually means adding the diversity of viewpoints in proportion to their prominence. With all the UN and mainstream sustainable development weighting to the article, I think that this provides a decent counterweight. In a way, I would like to have more of Bookchin's views on action at the municipal level - which is likely where the change will come from. But I think we covered this in the section on eco-municipalities. Sunray (talk) 22:56, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

--Travelplanner (talk) 10:00, 31 March 2009 (UTC)