Talk:Sustainability/Archive 16

Upload to main page
Great to see the Lead and History sections on the main page. A bit of the font was still purple (fixed). Otherwise, looking great, well done all.--Travelplanner (talk) 01:05, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Phase 2
I think we have completed what might be called phase 1 (phew!) :-). I suggest we archive all of this talk page except the introductory matter/subpages/outline as we are now moving on. I am assuming we are doing the "Description" section next, what does everyone think? I would also like to re-group on all the remaining section headings and will prepare something for discussion if that is OK. Granitethighs (talk) 02:51, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Archiving done. "To do" list updated. I agree about working on the "Description" section next, and look forward to your further thoughts on the remaining section headings. Sunray (talk) 07:44, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Agreed, description section it is, phase 2 begins! Nick carson (talk) 11:51, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Deletion/reversion of material on subpages
It is confronting to me to find material suddenly gone from subpage discussions without agreement of the team. Sometimes it might be necessary to archive or whatever when there has been a brief delay or when there appears to be agreement but to actually re-set the course of discussion or remove something you might disagree with without any consultation or explanation is counter to collaborative editing. I fully support reverting back to the original any non-collaborative deletes. Granitethighs (talk) 10:00, 8 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I totally agree with GT. Nick carson (talk) 01:16, 10 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, indeed. I restored some material on the Description page recently (which may have been the removal GT was referring to). The method of using colours and strikeouts avoids this. Sunray (talk) 07:20, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Confluence Diagram
I've uploaded a basic updated version of the confluence diagram that we've all been discussing, incorporating suggestions from everyone. Perhaps this could be updated with a vector image as I don't have access to such software. But it gives us a basic idea of what the updated version should look like. Nick carson (talk) 04:00, 13 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Wow - that looks fine to me - we can use TPs reference as the authority for it and we can use it as the symbol for the "Sustainability Portal" as well as in the article. I am not sure about the inner labels "bearable" and "viable" "equitable"- they are not intuitive to me  but perhaps they have been generally accepted - have they? I prefer Economy, Society, Ecology as headings and the words could be made a bit larger - but that is all nit-pick stuff - it is a great addition to the article.  Granitethighs (talk) 04:09, 13 January 2009 (UTC)


 * They were in the initial version of the diagram, though I'm not 100% keen on them either, I am 80-90%, but it gives people a basic idea (ie: 'bearable' for one basic example, would relate to what level of comfort and protection against the elements and other life forms (spiders, etc) that we as human beings are willing to tollerate). I agree it needs to be tweaked graphically, layout, etc and made into a vector image. I used the terms "economical", "social", etc in line with thinking of them as spheres, as in the social sphere, the ecological sphere, etc. Nick carson (talk) 04:18, 13 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I like it. I agree that Economy, Society, Ecology would be better headings. I also like the bearable, viable, equitable descriptions. I think those descriptors speak to why all three pillars are necessary for there to be sustainability. For example, while a waterway through a small park might be bearable, it might not be viable in comparison to the ecosystem services (e.g., wetlands, forest) that were there before. It also might not be equitable if most of the people in a city have no access to parkland. Folks would likely relate to these descriptors in different ways (as we have), but their value is surely their ability to stimulate thinking about the components of sustainability. Sunray (talk) 08:30, 13 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Well put. Nick carson (talk) 10:10, 13 January 2009 (UTC)


 * OK Granitethighs (talk) 10:04, 13 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I like it fine too, tho would encourage shifting to nouns - Economy etc. The words "bearable, viable, equitable" serve a purpose of making people thing about how these things intersect, the fact that they can then think of examples where these particular words don't apply is probably not a very big problem.  I like "life/earth/environment".  Unfortunately, though, I can't help with improving the graphic from here.  As GT noted I am pretty bad at staying away from computers while on holiday (they do have computers in the Malborough Sounds) but we'll be heading right away from civilisation from tomorrow and not back till early February.  I plan to have a great time! Keep up the good work, all, --Travelplanner (talk) 09:04, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Next sections
I think we are close to finishing these latest sections and so, following our outline, I have set up pages on "Implementation" and "Difficulties in implementation". Granitethighs (talk) 23:01, 14 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I've added my comments to the new sections, I'm confident with the "definition" and "measuring" sections and feel they're really close to being totally finished, the "description" section needs some TLC before we really jump into these new sections though. Nick carson (talk) 01:06, 15 January 2009 (UTC)


 * The "Description" section has been uploaded to the main article. The "Definition" section is ready, pending a last look by Nick. The "Measurement" section needs some editing (GT?) and further references. Fabulous progress gang! Sunray (talk) 20:53, 16 January 2009 (UTC)


 * The "Definition" section has been added to the article. The "Application/implementation" is now being worked on. Sunray (talk) 07:40, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

a roadmap for a sustainable earth
I am completely new to wikipedia contribution, but I would like to suggest a possible contribution to this page on Sustainability. Hiroshi Komiyama, current president of the University of Tokyo and one of the most prominent Japanese academic leaders, recently published a book called "Vision 2050: A Roadmap for a Sustainable Earth" together with Steven Kraines, also at the University of Tokyo. This book, published by Springer last year, is based on the very popular Japanese book Chikyuu Jizoku no Gijutsu by Iwanami Press, and it is even available for free download from Springer Link. I thought that it was a perfect fit with the brief section "The Sustainability Transition", so I added the following to the end of the third paragraph:

"For example, a combination of technologies for energy efficiency, renewable energy, and recycling could be effective in attaining global sustainability without requiring undue sacrifices of life style either in the developed or developing world" "*Komiyama, H. and Kraines, S. 2008. Vision 2050: Roadmap for a Sustainable Earth. ISBN 4-431-09430-2, 162 pages. Springer. (Available for free download at SpringerLink)"

However, it was just about immediately removed. I really think that it would be a good addition to the topic page, particularly because interested readers can download the book immediately and for free if they are interested in finding out more. If you could let me know whether there is a proper way to add this kind of contribution, I would be most grateful.

Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.233.113.161 (talk) 06:03, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I think the main problem is that it came across as an advertisement for Komiyama. The part you added to the body doesn't add any new information, but just restates the fundamentals of sustainability.  I'll add the online book as an external link, which seems an appropriate place for it.  If there is information in the book that you'd like to add to the article, make sure you say it in a very neutral tone.  Remember that on Wikipedia there are no absolutes, and the articles are not about the truth but about academic consensus.  NJGW (talk) 06:19, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick response. It would be great if the book could be added to the list of external links. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.233.113.161 (talk) 07:17, 18 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Great resource, thanks! Nick carson (talk) 07:40, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Environmentalism, Go green, and Sustainability
Hello everyone, really nice work here! I just ran wikEd and Citation bot through the article to help with clarification of the article. Please feel free to adjust the spacing as necessary.

There seems to be a very close relationship now between environmentalism, going green, and sustainability. How could we better connect these articles for flow? Go green redirects to Environmentalism; should it have its own article? I wanted to raise these issues here since things are going so well. ~ All Is One ~ (talk) 08:59, 19 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your encouragement and support. Yes, we need to think carefully about the links to other articles. We will have to do that when we get to final editing, for sure. However, in the meantime, it might be useful to be thinking about that, particularly with respect to the sections that have been re-written (see above, "To do" list). If you would like to compile a list of important links, that would be great. We need all the help we can get. Sunray (talk) 18:49, 19 January 2009 (UTC)


 * "Going green" is really a phrase. Reference to it could be made in wikitionary, but I don't think it requires it's own article any more than "Turning blue" does. Nick carson (talk) 03:53, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Removed section
The section below contains repeated and unsourced material: it is not part of th agreed list of items to do. I have therefore removed it from the main article but put it here to discuss in case anyone feels there is anything that should not have been removed. Granitethighs (talk) 10:03, 20 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Agreed. Nick carson (talk) 03:59, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Sustainability and development
Proponents of sustainable development have been trying to reconcile the urgent needs of effective environmental protection and conservation of resources with economic development. While the concept has been politically successful at bringing sustainability into the mainstream, both in developed and developing countries, it remains controversial.

The skeptics have pointed out that infinite economic growth is impossible on a finite planet, and that Earth’s limits also define the limits of all material-based activities. Some contend that the term itself is an oxymoron, creating the impression that humans can "have their cake and eat it too." In reality, sustainable development has tended to mean nothing more than ecologically more sensitive growth — a slightly reformed status quo. Rebuttals involve, on one hand, the claims of expanding carrying capacity through human ingenuity, and on the other hand, a different conception of development.



Some of the advocates of sustainable development have argued it is best understood as qualitative improvement. In that case, development means “better” rather than “more” and an emphasis on quality of life, rather than material living standards. They call for better, not faster, lives and for a focus on values, not things. These advocates of a new paradigm urge a movement away from the dogma that the only wealth is material wealth, with the resulting development being recognized formally by an improvement in the quality of life indicators.

Environmental sustainability is the process of making sure current processes of interaction with the environment are pursued with the idea of keeping the environment as pristine as naturally possible.

An "unsustainable situation" occurs when natural capital (the sum total of nature's resources) is used up faster than it can be replenished. Sustainability requires that human activity only uses nature's resources at a rate at which they can be replenished naturally. Inherently the concept of sustainable development is intertwined with the concept of carrying capacity. Theoretically, the long-term result of environmental degradation is the inability to sustain human life. Such degradation on a global scale could imply extinction for humanity.

Equivocation
I notice in the section: Cultivated land, the line:

"reliance on inorganic fertilizers and synthetic organic pesticides"

I see a problem with this since 'inorganic' and 'organic' do not use organic with the same meaning. Actually, inorganic fertilizers is a misnomer since, with the exception of Urea compounds, there are no organic fertilizers in the sense that organic is used for pesticides. I would suggest substituting 'chemical' for 'inorganic'. Tyrerj (talk) 20:00, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks T - perhaps the phrase "synthetic fertilizers and pesticides" would do th trick? Granitethighs (talk) 20:13, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Probably be OK. Note: forgot about Urea, it could be natural, but is usually synthetic. Tyrerj (talk) 22:37, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Tainter and energy eroei
Added some info on Tainter in the Energy section of the article - 'Joseph Tainter Tainter, Joseph A. (1990). The Collapse of Complex Societies (1st paperback ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ISBN 0-521-38673-X. suggests that diminishing returns of the EROEI is a chief cause of the collapse of complex societies. Falling EROEI due to depletion of non-renewable resources also poses a difficult challenge for industrial economies. skip sievert (talk) 01:18, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Last pages for revision
I have posted all the remaining material for revision into talk pages under two headings "Economic dimension" and "Social dimension" - available by clicking on headings above as before. This is simply so that we have all the material covered and can see an end in sight. Very grateful for any input and suggestions on headings, organisation, and content. Granitethighs (talk) 22:32, 22 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I've been away and out of range of the web, so unable to comment. I had been puzzling over this problem - not losing all that excellent material, but not having a slot for it at the moment - but hadn't come up with a solution. Your proposal seems to me to resolve the concern about not losing good material. We can add it where appropriate. Sunray (talk) 17:40, 25 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi Sunray - welcome back after your real break. I was beginning to think I might have overstepped a mark somewhere and was being given the cold shoulder. Anyway, hope you had a good time away from all the electronics for a while. At this stage it would really help if you could cast a critical eye over the headings that remain. I have perhaps imposed my view here but am happy to change of course. I do think some sort of an economics section is called for, and there are ?"social" things like population etc. that need to be included. I have simply categorised as best I can. There is still a few sentences to be done for the "barriers to sustainability" along the lines of Quester and Bookchin. And we still have a lot of work on references, images and tidying up. I have been wondering whether a little section is needed on "related disciplines" as we do get close to "Environmentalism", "Sustainable development" and others. I shall try to plod systematically through all that remains from beginning to end as perspectives have changed and information needs massaging differently in relation to what we have already included. Whew! Anyway - there is light at the end of the tunnel. TP will be back in a week or so too. Granitethighs (talk) 21:40, 25 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Yeah, apologies GT & Sunray, I've still been able to edit WP but for less time, so I can comment and read over things but the nitty gritty working through things, writing & rewriting is lacking on my part. Nick carson (talk) 07:33, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
 * No problem, Nick. GT has continued to move things forward and others join when they can. Sunray (talk) 07:42, 27 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I've added a brief section on social ecology and will also do something on deep ecology. Sunray (talk) 07:41, 27 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks S, I've read it and think it does a good job - I wonder whether the section on social and behavioural change (now in the social section) might be appropriate to follow, either as a new section or as a subsection of this one. It might be good to close the article with this as it emphasises change and draws attention to how crucial this social change is. The sustainability enterprise clearly owes a lot to the thinking in Deep Ecology and the environmental movement in general. Sounds good. Granitethighs (talk) 08:16, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Side bars etc.
I have approached a template/side bar-type person re presenting all the info we currently have in side bars and the best way to get it across to the reader. So far he has said in relation to the "Dematerialisation" side bar. "When I created the template it was to gather the very basic topics together (like reduce/reuse/recycle and the recycling pages for specific products like paper and glass). If anything I think the topic of recycling is pretty intuitive and this template could do with being reduced back down, perhaps someone could consider enhancing the related footer templates such as template:RecyclingByMaterial and template:waste management or create a new footer template around the more conceptual (and probably more academic) recycling terms such as dematerialization? Footer templates (of this click to show style) can be used for high numbers of cross-links to other topics while the side-bar templates tend to be very simple see also lists and this style does look better on the page. —Ashleyvh (talk) 05:27, 16 January 2009 (UTC)" I will keep you informed of developments so we can decide what is best together. Granitethighs (talk) 06:47, 1 February 2009 (UTC)


 * The self-hiding footer bars at the bottom of the page already have a wealth of information and I would not generally recommend changing side bars to include hidden text, they may cause the reader screen formatting problems when they pop in and out of sight and the editors of other pages that use these templates are likely to object or change them back.
 * Saying this, I have added a show/hide section to template:Recycling for the materials sub-list, please test it out. If there are other side bars that desperately need this added functionality please suggest them here. If editors are struggling to keep the page to a useful size it is normally a good indicator that some information could be moved to a sub-topic page in its own right (for example a topic like Sustainability economics).—Ashleyvh (talk) 10:03, 1 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Sustainability is just one of those subjects that seems to have a myriad of topics that will be plaguing peoples minds when they use the article for research. I think the Footer templates are great but being at the bottom of the page (in the case of the Sustainability one) they are likely to be missed or only checked as an afterthought. The use of side bars for sunsidiary information in each subsection of an article is infinitely more user friendly IMO as you read the subsection then click on the side bar that is next to the text to see if the topic you are interested in is mentioned. I have made some of our side bars collapsible because if there are many in the text they can become overwhelming - in the collapsed state they are fine. These side bars are not templates as such but are unique to the article. There is the page layout problem that Ashley mentions though. What do people think? Granitethighs (talk) 01:13, 2 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree with GT, the sidebars are good, we should also write up a fantastic see also section, and the italic see also/main article/etc sentences in sections & subsections are also a good idea. The sustainability navbox is more like a basic hub at the bottom of the page. Nick carson (talk) 04:04, 2 February 2009 (UTC)


 * The sidebars are great; just need some paring down. I think we should rationalize all links (and have begun doing so). Generally, links are only used once, although, in some cases, they need to be included in separate sections for emphasis. With respect to "See also" lists. They can become excessive. Usually links are not included in "See also" sections if they are already contained in the body of the article. The same goes for "Main article" and "Further information" templates. Ashleyvh suggests moving information to sub-topic pages. I think we should keep this in mind as we begin the final editing process. Sunray (talk) 18:50, 2 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I have pared down side bars to be much less dominating on the page. I think Ashleyvh is right about us getting away frowm the original idea of the universal "recycle template". What we are trying to say in this side bar is more broad-based so I have made the info collapsible in a side bar that is specific to the article  so Ashleyn can return to the original intention of the template. He has been very helpful. I may be transgressing all sorts of graphic protocols but am just trying to present information in the most accessible way, both visually (on the page) and in terms of content. If what I've done is problematic then we can obviously re-think later. Also the number of "footer" nav bars is increasing - we need to discuss this but perhaps later. Granitethighs (talk) 00:02, 4 February 2009 (UTC)


 * This is the Sustainability article so I think we should be more willing to accept some exemptions from guidelines on quantity of content and focus on directing people apropriately. In the case of this article especially, I think that see also and main article templates should be used even if their links are in the body of that section, as they provide an excellent, easy to read, concise avenue to explore further information on the topic of the section. In such cases we could look at further summarising the content to compromise perhaps? We should be able to come up with an effective way of dealing with the quantity of content in the see also section. I just don't want to see us cut back the reader's ability to navigate via the main sustainability article just so we can conform to the guidelines, this article is an exceptional case due to the expanse of the topic it covers, and regardless, should be treated individually, as all articles should, needless to say. I'm sure we can come up with the best solution for the reader's and the article as a whole without compromising it's navigability, readability or quality :] Nick carson (talk) 05:35, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Consumption ready
I think we are close to putting the consumption section up if you could just look it over please? Granitethighs (talk) 01:03, 2 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Looks good to me. Nick carson (talk) 04:00, 2 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Ditto. Sunray (talk) 18:38, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Rewrite nearing completion
With completion of the "Consumption" section and near completion of the "Difficulties in application" (Challenges and opportunities) section, I have removed the "Under construction" tag on the article. The upload of these two sections will complete Phase I of our project. Now begins the final editing process to get the article in shape for assessment. I've started to prune some of the links and move sections in line with the MoS. As we edit we should note the guidelines on links (e.g., "avoid overlinking" and "link first use"). We should edit with the Featured article criteria in mind. Sunray (talk) 18:38, 2 February 2009 (UTC)


 * There are still the last two extra bits "economic" and "social" that are to be slotted in somehow. I will try and massage them down into a form that will fit the rest of the article. This might take a couple of days and I may need some help. I will also get to work on refs for the "challennges/opportunities" bit. Granitethighs (talk) 23:26, 2 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I've done about as much as I can on the economics "bit". Like all sections it is a matter of being "summary" and giving people the resources to look further. Anyway - see what you think. Granitethighs (talk) 22:28, 3 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I think much of the info in these sections has already been covered. The stuff that hasn't is just a matter of fitting it in or summarising it. I'll have another look over it now. Nick carson (talk) 03:36, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Diverted attention
I must apologise for the lack on contributions here as I've been working on the 2009 Victorian bushfires article which I created and has since become a fairly involved task. I've also had friends affected by the fires as I live about 15km from St. Andrews. Hope I haven't missed much! Nick carson (talk) 13:01, 8 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Dont apologise Nick. Best wishes for the article and time spent with friends. Granitethighs (talk) 01:43, 10 February 2009 (UTC)