Talk:History of environmental pollution

POV tag
Sustainability/ Nachhaltigkeit as a concept started in medevial Saxony Ore mountains, its completely ridiculous to use some newspaper stories to claim the Egyptian pharaos for the term. The useable authority is Joachim Radkau and other environmental historians. Serten (talk) 19:56, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Outline of the article
The history of sustainability is NOT the history of the environmental movement nor a shortcut of environmental history. Sustainability is an important aspect, but during most of the human-nature interaction, human behavior was not at all sustainable in the meaning of long term continuity of a certain technique and the environmental movement deals e.g. with the conservation of [[Cultural landscape while not keeping the "cultures" (monarchies, absolutist reign, primitive agricultural techniques) behind it. Nature itself is not behaving "sustainable" but allows for major changes, in Ecological succession and post volcanic or earth quake recovberies. A large variety of biotops and ecological niches is based on not sustainable behavior, compare heath, fire ecology. The article should be confined to the term (sustainability resepctively Nachhaltigkeit) and the use of it. Serten (talk) 18:01, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Radical rewrite
Serten has radically rewritten the article according to his German-centric ideas of what sustainability is about. He has also deleted large amounts of well cited text, presumably on the grounds that it is about things that didn't originate with Germany. This behaviour is similar to Serten's current disruption on Tragedy of the commons. Accordingly, I have reverted the changes (in alignment with wp:brd) and ask that Sertengain seek consensus here before making such radical changes. I do this knowing that if Serten follows his usual pattern he will speedily reinstate his version anyway without gaining consensus. --Epipelagic (talk) 21:41, 18 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Sustainabilty started as a german term, Nachhaltigkeit, insofar its not my ideas but sound scintific sourcing. The previous version is more about "environmental history but doesnt use appropriate sources, its not dealing with sustainability at all. Sorry to say, but Joachim Radkau and other scholars are not only germans but have been translated in inglanderish, a certain Cambridge University Press and others have accepted the krautish writings. It might hurt your patriotic feelings but WWII is over and German scholars are scholars as well and no underlings to be ignored. Even scots have been accepted now and then. Serten (talk) 22:24, 18 September 2014 (UTC)


 * With regard to the revert: I was asked to seek consensus on the talk page. I have done so already via explaining my changes here, see above but no one discusses. My changes are based on basic WP guidelines - an article should be about a topic but not coattrack something else. I dont ask for a consensus to abide to WP guidelines, I am editing the article with the goal to do so. The previous version does not deal at all with the history of the term sustainability and its use but tries to write a history of the environmental movement. Insofar I will revert to the improved version and invite to start discussing it here. Sustainability is only an aspect of ecology and most interesting ecological niches are not sustainable at all - take a meadow, a heath or a alpine transhumance, only rather distruptive, mostly human planned interferences makes them widespread valuable biotops and habitats, the natural equilibrium would result in a rather boring European forest, needing wildfires now and then to add at least some diversity. And I share the opinions expressed in Don't revert due solely to "no consensus", e.g. I dont like it is no base for a discussion, but scholarly sources should be, independent wether they have a german, jewish or, even worse, saxonian mining expert background ;) Serten (talk) 10:56, 20 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Revert to original. The stuff about sustainability starting in Germany is silly. Forests have been planted to provide a sustainable source of fuel and wood since at least the 5th century AD and coppicing has been done since much earlier. Dmcq (talk) 20:12, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
 * In fact looking at the forestry article it says the Han dynasty did forest management in China, so quite a bit earlier again. Probably there should be something in the article about the German systemization of forestry but that was not the topic of the articl and it shouldn't be either. Dmcq (talk) 20:20, 20 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Well we have consensus now, but an administrator has destructively locked the article for a week on Serten's idiosyncratic version. So I'm out of here and the article can go to hell. Admins should be required to have do serious content building themselves before they are allowed to interfere like this. It's no wonder the serious editors have had enough and are hard to find today. --Epipelagic (talk) 21:35, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
 * That's strange. The disruption was not yet at a level where an admin should have got involved. I wonder have they got some reason I can't see? Dmcq (talk) 23:38, 20 September 2014 (UTC)


 * What is wrong about my version? Ask some questions or put some question marks behind some statements but do not come up with WP:The Wrong Version. Point is that the start of using the term is important of you write an article, and its different from the use of the principle behind it. There fell many an apple on a human nose, but Newton (and some of his contemporaries, see the conflict with Hook) introduced gravity. The stuff about Nachhaltigkeit / sustainability as a scientific term starting in Germany is based on plaine evidence. I would not deny, that not only the han but as well stone age people, chinese or red indians have been trying to adapt their way of living to the nature they used, constructed and modified ectively, however any ecologically noble savage dream is completly debunked, those people tried and errored similarly as the rest of us. Serten (talk) 21:47, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
 * The article is not about German words nor is it even about conservation of trees nor is conservation a new concept like gravity. See the article Sustainability referred to at the start. Your version was nowhere as good as what was there. I explained above what was wrong. We don't have to accept what you have written or try to help you fix it and personally I see no point in spending time on it as I have found previous interaction with you entirely fruitless Dmcq (talk) 23:53, 21 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Goodness, if you believe gravity is a "new concept", ask mother earth since when she works with it. About four billion years. Youre talking about "environmental history topics out of gut feelings but dont accept sources from experts in the field. With regard to the article, you havent pointed out any weaknessess, you seem not to have read my changes. I started to explain the term's history, which was not included yet and erased some weird stories e.g. about king Devanampiyatissa - he converted to Bhuddism and might have preached peace with all souls but that does not make him a Sustainability pioneer. Btw the article in your preffered version is much more about the history of Conservation and not about Sustainability. Sustainability -as a political term - was introduced in the late 20th century by Brundlandt and a certain Willy Brandt. Both were able to discuss that in several common languages, Norwegian, German and Englanderish and both understood the longer history of Nachhaltigkeit. Try to follow the example and not to come up with personal attacks. Conservation is quite different and much older and btw as well much more complex, as conservation in some cases (e.g. heath) is not sustainable at all. Serten (talk) 00:48, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I am perfectly aware of the difference between sustainability and conservation or environmentalism. At least now you've read a small bit of the other article but you're still persisting here without having argued that the topic of the sustainability article is wrong at that article. Dmcq (talk) 07:51, 22 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Hmmm. As I have pointed out before I see a need to cover this article based on actual environmental history studies, less on erratic POV. An article about a term - be it gravity or sustainability needs to take into account the use history of the term. That is quite different from the application of the term to different historical epochs. That difference is crucial. Serten (talk) 10:19, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Do you go on like that just to be annoying? Sustainability is linked with environmentalism nowadays but historically it meant something very different and it is still a different concept and is used in different contexts. When forests were planted to provide firewood it was not for conservation or environmental reasons but when lords kept forests it was often for such reasons rather than sustainability ones. Dmcq (talk) 11:51, 22 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Environmental historians like Radkau have written whole books and were involved in larger scientific debates, e.g. in Holznot about the forestry issue. Why you want to ignore them? Serten (talk) 13:15, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

List of problems with the previous version per section

 * The article doesnt mention the developement, background and use of the term (and its German origin) in historical perspective. Thats an essential.
 * The article sections cover topics like "Emergence of industrial societies", based on "fossil fuels" without even mentioning the role of reneweables (whale / seal oil, wood) before. Thats a no go.
 * Both sections "Early 20th century" and "Mid 20th century" are about environmentalism and the Environmental movement. As Dmcq was so friendly to tell us, "Sustainability is linked with environmentalism nowadays but means something very different". In so far this sections are better erased, shortened or rewritten completely. Thats what I started.
 * The section title "Mid 20th century: environmentalism" is again not about sustainability, but about Environmentalism and Environmental science and in so far not covereing the topic of the article, as confirmed by Dmcq. To be corrected
 * Late 20th century and 21st century: global awareness is about activists dreams and fairy tales. Not any connection with sustainability at all.

That said, keep the improvements and try to read the article before you revert valuable content. Serten (talk) 13:15, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Sustainability didn't originate in Germany, it has had a long history as I pointed out to you before. To quote Radkau about Japan "This corresponds to the usual periodization in Germany: first the long bad times of plunder, then the glorious age of reforestation and sustainability, with scientific forest reformers as the the heroes coming to the rescue. As we have seen, this view of history - which reflects the self-image of modern forestry - should be subjected to critical region-by-region analysis". Misusing sources to push some POV of yours is disruption. Dmcq (talk) 15:07, 22 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Gosh. You still stonewall gravity versus newton - and need to differentiate between historical use of a term and application of it. Apples and Oranges. Better answer the points raised before you start again personal attacks. Radkau is rather critical about the prophets of sustainability which took a mining expert for the first green and tried to tell the narrative about Sustainability as savior of the world from that. As pointed out, todays use of sustainability started with Brandt/ Brundlandt, based on german Nachhaltigkeit, the implied glorification of a minor aspect of forestry is being critized by Radkau but still alive in the article.  Serten (talk) 15:52, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
 * You are writing gibberish again. Try to use English. Dmcq (talk) 16:04, 22 September 2014 (UTC)


 * It is uphill work trying to get coherence from Serten, and there seems little point trying to instruct him. He is currently causing disruption similar to what he is doing here on Tragedy of the commons and Mediterranean Sea. Until recently, Serten was a highly visible editor on the German Wikipedia, and you can gather something of his style if you examine the blocks he accumulated over a period of 16 months. Now that he is no longer welcome to edit there, he has moved to the greener pastures of the English Wikipedia. His knowledge of sustainability seems confined to two books, Nature and power: A global history of the environment and The Nature of Mediterranean Europe, and what appears in some articles on the German Wikipedia. Serten has persistently expressed views that English writers on sustainability are very inferior compared to German writers (strange, since the authors of The Nature of Mediterranean Europe are both English writers). Some of the changes he has made in his messy rewrite of this article (History of sustainability) are bad translations from the German article on sustainability. --Epipelagic (talk) 20:32, 22 September 2014 (UTC)


 * I dont like any "Speak white" personal attack strategy and I never had or expressed problems with Grove or Ostrom or English writers in general. Dont repeat that, its plain lying and quite offensive. The notions about the section titles are stated quite clear. I ask you to answer them. I however already registered, that something like "need to differentiate between historical use of a term and its application" is not easy, as you keep stonewalling that error. Serten (talk) 20:39, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
 * ... Your first point was about a German origin and I showed how your source Radkau rejects that notion. Dmcq (talk) 21:10, 22 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Could you please refrain from personal attacks? I erased what I consider worth a block for you. Second Radkau does not reject the origin of the original use of the term at all at all. He is quite critical how the term, which origined in forestry, was used in a wider sense.
 * I would expect that you as well try to explain what you want at all.
 * * You still havent given any coherent comment to the problems with the different sections of the article.
 * * Sometimes you argue the article is e.g. not about environmentalism, if I show you that even the section titles refer to that than you get personal and so forth.
 * * You have argued that the article is based on my POV only, now you claim its a bad translation. Thats a major difference. What do you currently want? If article contains consensus based translated content (instead of a personal essay, I never have edited in the german article) from a strong community as de WP, is it dangerous, forbidden or helpful? Why not keep and improve it? Serten 01:03, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I was just contacted about whether I would want to join an RfC about your behavior so I had a look at your talk page. And there I see you being blocked for edit warring, and you saying you don't suffer fools gladly. Well I think what you have stuck in here is WP:Tendentious editing. Your edits here are going to be reverted by a consensus of those fools. Afterwards we can check through and see if there is anything worthwhile in what you have said but I think it is very unlikely the summary will end up anything like your "The history of sustainability (english for originally German "Nachhaltigkeit") as a term is closely connected to the developement of the mining industry in the Ore mountains and its use of forestry ressources for construction, fuel and tooling. History of sustainability in generic terms is part of environmental history". Dmcq (talk) 10:54, 23 September 2014 (UTC)


 * As said and easily proven, Nachhaltigkeit (18. century Saxonian forestry principle) and Sustainability (20 century term coined by social democrats Brandt and Brundlandt) are connected and related. Any counterclaim? The difference between use of a term and application of it, like in the gravity case, is to be distinguished. I do so, you stay in denial mode. I am not at all interested in an RFC "about my behavior", yours is much more disruptive. I have provided quality sources, stronger even based on consensus on the DeWP, to which article I have contributed not at all and I assume that this is very much in line with the WP guidelines. The use of adequate sourcing or the adequate structruing for the enWP purposes can be discussed in an RFC. Serten (talk) 11:04, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

The term sustainability
The topic of sustainability is different from the actual term but we probably should have something in about the actual term, which as Serten says probably was originally from forestry practice in Germany. In English the term 'sustainable yield' has been applied in books to agriculture and fisheries since before the second world war and the forestry one may be a bit older still. It doesn't look like the Brandt Report had anything to do with introducing it - I don't know where that came from, perhaps it has something to do with the even longer 'sustainability'? Dmcq (talk) 22:09, 27 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Goodness, the Brandt report introduced the term into global politics, thats quite a difference from the use in a fishery book in the midlands. There have been as well green houses and acid rain before 1969, but the use of the term in global ppolitics started with Nixons NATO initiative then. Try to use less POV and more science. Serten (talk) 03:20, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Note on the term
I was involved in long debates over the term 'sustainability' in the creation of the article on sustainability. You might want to look them up. The problem is that the word 'sustain' has been around since antiquity and perhaps well before - meaning to 'endure'. IMHO the search for a single source of the word in its current application is a waste of time as it will always be contentious. I'm sure somewhere the ancient Greeks, Egyptians and before them would have referred to the sustainability of their crops etc. There is little value in arguing about whether the word was first used in relation to German forestry, ancient Egyptian agriculture or anything else.  Granitethighs  00:16, 28 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Granitethighs, does WP use personal opinion in explaining the developement of terms? Not at all. Compare gravity, a term derived from latin "Gravitas", the law of gravity was introduced in science in the time of Newton. Surely apples fell down before and have hit many a nose, including roman croked ones ;) Similar, ecological history has examined wether the ancient Egyptians or the Classics have used the term in nowadays sense (they havent) and when sustainability as a term was used first in the modern sense. It was introduced in the Brandt Brundlandt report in the 1970ies, NOT any earlier. Of cause - as with gravity - there have been sustainable techniques being applied earlier, but as with the falling apple, they have not been dubbed with the term in question. The German Term Nachhaltigkeit is not "Classic", but was used first in the eco sense in early modern Saxony ~ and its being the base of "sustainability" in todays sense. That said, its not contentiuos to look for adequate scholarly sourcing, e.g. by Joachim Radkau, whose global histories of ecology and European/German forestry have been a) translated into English and received high esteem, prizes and positive reviews b) deal with the topic en detail. Serten (talk) 02:35, 28 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Serten, this is an unproductive semantic debate. It is true that 'Sustainable development' arose out of the Brundtland Commission. Even so, there are elements of the concept of 'sustainable development' that relate to the general concept of sustainability so the idea that even 'sustainable development' is some kind of brand new idea is a contentious matter. The German word Nachhaltigkeit is derived from Nachhalt which originally meant 'something to be stored for hard times'. Yes, German scholars point out that this is first used in 1713 within the discipline of forestry and that it came into general usage in about 1800. This may be of interest to Germans but, I am sorry, the location of the word meaning 'storing up something for hard times' within Germany is of little interest. We do not know where it the idea originated or if there are earlier words (in all probability there are). The imprecision and generality of the concepts involved make any assertions like this highly contentious and therefore of limited interest. In fact the Latin sustinere has a lot to commend it (pre-dating Nachhaltigkeit by over 1000 years). You make several errors and contentious assertions : firstly, the assertion that Nachhaltigkeit is used in an "eco sense" is strange because storing things up for hard times obviously pre-dates German forestry so making the connection sustainable development = Nachhaltigkeit is really pushing credibility; secondly, the idea that nowhere else in the world were there prior words used in an "eco sense" is also debatable. Yes, I agree that German scholars have claimed this but that does not make it either true or useful; thirdly, the 'modern sense' of 'sustainable development' is a highly complex mix of economic, social and environmental factors, hardly equivalent to the notion of Nachhaltigkeit. So, the idea of sustainability in an "eco sense' is highly subjective and debatable. It is perfectly reasonable to claim that Nachhaltigkeit is not equivalent to the modern 'sustainable development', and that it is also not appropriate to look to early modern Saxony for ideas of 'storing things up for hard time's' (extremely improbable and Germano-centric); we are much more likely to find terms dating back several thousand years earlier - not least the general word 'sustain' itself.


 * Given time I'm sure I could find ancient terms used in a loose "eco sense" (whatever that is) to mean 'storing things up for hard times' but the exercise is not worth the effort. Homing in on Nachhaltigkeit as the first term equivalent to sustainability in the modern sense therefore has little evidential basis or, indeed, value. The fact that the word Nachhaltigkeit arose in early Saxony is therefore of dubious relevance and little interest; it is therefore best ignored.  Granitethighs  06:40, 28 September 2014 (UTC)


 * The article is about the term, in so far semantics is part of the story. Nachhaltigkeit has mnothing to do with 'storing up something for hard times', that is as old as 1. Mose 37-50, (Joseph and the Pharao). Nachhaltigkeit in forestry is about the concept to harvest not more than actually regrows, the use in the Brundlandt commission was to use that generally, as a basic for policy. Radkaus has written several highly esteemed scholarly books about the topic, one about an "era of ecology" and he got published and cited in the anglo world as well. Radkau is not about linguistics but describing how sutainability, first a mere technical issue (wood supply concepts in saxon mines) became a political global narrative. Your point is more along the line "its German science, so ignore it" and thats as offensive as not appropriate. This article is the right place to use that sources and the current version is POV based and not using the scholarly outlook. Thats to be changed. 07:10, 28 September 2014 (UTC)


 * The article is not about the term, it is about the concept. See WP:NOTADICTIONARY about this, it is Wikipedia policy that Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Extracting definitions from a dictionary and sticking in the various definitions is expressly against Wikipedia policy and this has been confirmed in various discussions on different articles. What we're talking about here is about having a bit about the history of the term sustainability. As I was saying above the term 'sustainable yield' was in common use in English long before the Brundlandt Commission and there's even references to sustainable development before then. Even so, if there are citations saying that the modern meaning of 'sustainable development' started with Brundlandt then that's fine, we can include them. And as I said before I'm happy with the term 'sustainable yield' coming from German forestry if we have some citations. They are terms though and as I said before the topic is the important thing for the article. The topic of sustainability has a very long history as I pointed out originally with for instance monks planting forests so later monks would have wood. They might not have used the English words 'sustainable yield' or a German equivalent but they certainly knew what they were doing. However in any such thing we do need to have citations that mention something very close to the idea of sustainability rather than just saying they were doing anything like that. Dmcq (talk) 09:16, 28 September 2014 (UTC)


 * That said, a possible solution would be a) an enWP article about Nachhaltigkeit as a German Term (The land of Guttenberg is sort of more exact with the meaning of a term still and it should be part of articles) and b) a clear definition of the sustainability article and a reduction of the article along that line. If - as Dmcq claims, the article is not about the eco moevement and not about ecology per se, the current content is completely out of line. Suggest a definition and say which section titles fall under it. The rest is to be deleted. Serten (talk) 13:51, 28 September 2014 (UTC)


 * The German word has no special meaning as the name of a topic in English. I think though the article forestry could probably have a bit put in it about that as the section on forestry as a science is a bit thin. The ecological movement and the World Wildlife Fund for example do talk about sustainability and as such it is used in the environmental movement but that doesn't mean that it is the same thing. They use it to mean something quite different from what others mean when they say sustainable development which corresponds more with what the business of forestry science in Germany was about. They are still both part of sustainability as a topic and not just because it is a word but because it is a concept that underlies both. Dmcq (talk) 18:45, 28 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Neither the The ecological movement nor the World Wildlife Fund provide a third party view. Thats the task of environmental history. forestry was one of the topics that layd base of economics as a science, to say that "the section on forestry as a science is a bit thin" is sort of understatement. the article lacks any basic scholarly perspective on the history of the topic, which was btw closely interconnected with the use of the tragedy of the commons metaphor. You have not been very helpful there so far. Serten (talk) 19:26, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on History of 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101128151523/http://www.csiro.au/files/files/plje.pdf to http://www.csiro.au/files/files/plje.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120219134627/http://jwsr.ucr.edu/archive/vol10/number3/pdf/jwsr-v10n3-thompson.pdf to http://jwsr.ucr.edu/archive/vol10/number3/pdf/jwsr-v10n3-thompson.pdf

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 12:50, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on History of 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090316181631/http://climatecongress.ku.dk/newsroom/congress_key_messages/ to http://climatecongress.ku.dk/newsroom/congress_key_messages/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060106201301/http://www.nesh.ca/jameskay/www.fes.uwaterloo.ca/u/jjkay/pubs/IE/ie.pdf to http://www.nesh.ca/jameskay/www.fes.uwaterloo.ca/u/jjkay/pubs/IE/ie.pdf

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 16:29, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on History of 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090805150722/http://www.environment.org.ck/protected_areas.htm to http://www.environment.org.ck/protected_areas.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090326111311/http://www-histecon.kings.cam.ac.uk/history-sust/files/Big_Here_and_Long_Now-presentation.pdf to http://www-histecon.kings.cam.ac.uk/history-sust/files/Big_Here_and_Long_Now-presentation.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091125231339/http://archis.org/history-of-sustainability/ to http://www.archis.org/history-of-sustainability/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100121101206/http://www-histecon.kings.cam.ac.uk/envdoc/sustainability/index.html to http://www-histecon.kings.cam.ac.uk/envdoc/sustainability/index.html

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 05:56, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Proposal to rename article to "history of pollution"
This article is actually more about the history of pollution, not the history of sustainability. I was talking about this with User:Seemountain. He told me (offline): "This is interesting, since it evidences that sustainability is sometimes used as a proxy for just anything related to the environment." Therefore, I would like to propose to rename this article to "history of pollution". EMsmile (talk) 15:11, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Or maybe better: "history of environmental pollution". What are your thoughts on this User:Sunray as you wrote most of the article? EMsmile (talk) 10:12, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
 * You are saying that we need an article on "the history of environmental pollution." I can't disagree with that. However we do need an article on "The history of sustainability," right? Sunray (talk) 21:30, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Reviewing the article, I do agree with you that the title is problematic. If it did cover the history, it would logically be titled "The history of the concept of sustainability." But it doesn't do that, imo. If it did, that should be part of the article on sustainability, which I believe it is. Therefore, I AGREE with the proposal to change the name of this article. Sunray (talk) 21:47, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your feedback! I think there might be some small parts that could be moved to Sustainability and the rest could remain here but under the new title of "history of environmental pollution". There's some good content there but it's only focused on the environmental dimensions of sustainability. I'm wondering if there are related articles and I found this one: Timeline of history of environmentalism and History. Need to make sure there isn't too much overlap, or think about merging into the one on "environmental movement", perhaps. EMsmile (talk) 22:52, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I've changed the name of the article to History of environmental pollution. EMsmile (talk) 12:45, 21 January 2022 (UTC)