Talk:Sustainability/Archive 3

REWRITE SUGGESTION
There are several appeals on Wikipedia for a re-write or total reorganisation of this article. I am willing (with trepidation) to carry out this task but it will certainly entail a substantial reorganisation of the material to fit in more with the conventions of Encyclopaedia articles and formal citation of sources. I realise that this might cause concern. It may be possible to post a preview of the article somewhere to allow comment and feedback - but I dont know how to do this.

Anyway, at present my proposal is to replace the current article with the new one on 1 July 2008. If this causes offence or upsets protocols please let me know. Granitethighs (talk) 02:35, 17 June 2008 (UTC)


 * What appeals for a re-write? Could you please indicate what/where they are? I would like to know what you are proposing by way of a re-write. Would you be able to present your proposal here before starting? I would like to ensure that we have consensus for major changes. Sunray (talk) 07:29, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi Sunray - sorry about the abruptness, I'm new to Wikipedia and not sure of the protocols - yes I understand your concern and have also been contacted by admin OhanaUnited for the same reasons. What am I proposing? Well, firstly sustainability,it seems to me, has now become really big in education and society and has taken on so many different faces that it is hard to make sense of it all - everything from climate change to ethical eating. On the political front there is obviously a lot of divergence in views on what can and cannot be done, how it ought to be done, what the causes are, how to define sustainability and so on. So I think the first job is to provide a structure for all this information and discussion. I would like to set up a page that allows people to feed into the various streams of sustainability that now exist. So, secondly, I would like to make the huge number of resources available on Wikipedia more transparent - so there would be sub-lists of topics linked to main topics and so on. These are the main ideas. I think the current page is fine but a bit preoccupied with problems of general definition and philosophy. I must admit that, although I think this is an absolutely necessary debate, there are also now a whole swag of sustainability action groups and efforts going on that could get more coverage. There is a little bit more could be said about emerging sustainability science too. I hope this gives you a feel for the flavour of a potential rewrite. I do not want to wade in and take over - a lot of work has gone on before which I fully acknowledge. After communication with OhanaUnited I suggest that in about mid July I put up at User:Granitethighs/Sustainability a sample page to see what everyone thinks. That could stay there for, say, a month so that everyone could put it through the wringer and see whether it is going to be useful. After a month we could decide whether to add it with major modification, put it up on the main page for editing, abandon it altogether - or whatever. In any case nothing will be altered on Wikipedia Sustainability at present without the opportunity for everyone to have input so-to-speak. How does that sound Sunray - what do you reckon? Granitethighs (talk) 01:20, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Sustainable Politics
I think there should be a link to an article on sustainable politics (as well as a whole other article about it). Of course, it's sort of all opinion since no one knows what is sustainable and what is not, but I think we can all understand that the system we have now is not sustainable. A parliamentary system coupled with directly democratic aspects might be the best candidate; something akin to Switzerland's system, maybe. Their lack of involvement in any war since 1815 could be seen as a property of sustainability. Anybody wanting to start up a new article should take this into consideration. 63.95.64.254 (talk) 18:42, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi, two other editors keep scrubbing this from External links. -65.246.126.130 (talk) 17:37, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The Story of Stuff This 20-minute video gives quick explanations of sustainability, externalizing, perceived obsolescence, and other related concepts that many people find hard to grasp. (It's become so popular that viewing it takes longer than 20 minutes to allow for "buffering". Free Range Studios put it on YouTube in 6 individual segments starting with the Introduction, identified as item: OqZMTY4V7Ts.)

Sustainability versus Sustainable Development
There is a major problem with this article: The heading says "Sustainability" but the content is almost exclusively about "Sustainable Development" ala the Brundtland Report. Although it flags that there is some discrepancy between the two concepts, it nonetheless goes ahead and treats them as though they were the same thing. From very soon after the publication of the Brundtland report the distinction between the two was noted. Visvanathan, for instance, noted that where sustainability was an ethical concept about caring for the earth and leaving it in a condition suitable for coming generations, development is a managerial concept, a specific approach to controlling the earth. '''By conflating the two concepts, inserting a 'criticisms' section becomes highly problematic, and I think this is reflected in some of the other discussion topics. 'Sustainable Development' has been heavily criticised by many authors and social actors who are interested in making sure society and the environment can endure into the future (i.e. many people with an interest in sustainability).''' I am recommending that this article be renamed 'Sustainable Development', and a another article on the concept of sustainability be written, which pays due attention to its ambiguities, and the numerous approaches that have been taken to defining it. There is no reason why the Brundtland paradigm should be privileged in this way: An article on 'Sustainability' should be about the concept, not only the current, dominant global approach to that concept Prometheus912 (talk) 14:58, 17 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree. This seems to be a unilateral re-write by Granitethighs, who apparently threw out the former article and substituted the current version. I do not see any consensus for these changes and want to understand more about how/why they came about. Sunray (talk) 15:46, 17 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Sunray, you had close to 2 months to voice your concerns. You only dropped by and discuss once, and not coming back to review what Granitethighs said. There is no "under the table" deals or anything. How are we supposed to know you're unsatisfied if you don't say anything? We don't have psychic power to read your minds. If you didn't vote in a poll to elect a government then you can't complain that the government is badly chosen. Sunray, answer me honestly, which version is written better? The old version or the new version? And addressing Prometheus912's comments, the beginning sounds like sustainable development, but have you scrolled down a little bit further to see what other contents are there? Surely overfishing and species extinction are not sustainable development, eh? I am also letting Granitethighs to know about this and to respond. OhanaUnitedTalk page 00:11, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
 * To describe the new article as "a unilateral re-write by Granitethighs, who apparently threw out the former article" seems unfair to say the least after the article had been flagged on the Wikiproject page and on display for so long. It was put there specifically for discussion and to find out if there were any improvements, changes or concerns (including removing it altogether). However, on the points made by Prometheus - I went to great lengths to point out the ambiguities and divergences of opinion. I think to describe the article as being about sustainable development only is simply a misrepresentation of what is written - try re-reading the notes to the opening sentence, the discussion of the definition of sustainability, the reporting of the views of environmentalists and other points elsewhere. I think there is sufficient in this article to make it usefully different from the "sustainable development" article. As I said before, I think that there are few people who would currently consider sustainability to be a debate about definition and ambiguity, it is also about "doing". I feel I have done justice to the philosophical debate and added enough to make this article a worthwhile contribution for those looking for a broad overview of the issues and ideas related to sustainability and who are looking for a way forward: it does not accept the Sustainable Development agenda lock stock and barrel. I think a separate article on sustainability emphasising ambiguities and interpretations would be unproductive and not strictly part of Wikipedias role. Such a proposal should go through the same process as this current rewrite. Granitethighs (talk) 00:52, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Ok, well to take a middle ground I think the difference needs to be made a little more explicit from the outset, not merely dealt with in a footnote, and it should be better reflected in the structure of the article. Having re-read the article I still think that although incentives outside the SD paradigm are mentioned, that paradigm still receives more focus than it ought, especially in the introducing paragraphs, which as we know "frame" the issue. When I have time I will try to make my criticisms more explicit and be a bit more specific in what I would like to see here.Prometheus912 (talk) 03:03, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Will look forward to your feedback when you are ready Granitethighs (talk) 04:49, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

While I admit that I missed Granitethighs invitation to visit his sandbox page re-write of this article, I wonder who did visit that page to discuss the rewrite. Other than OhanaUnited, did anyone comment? Would you be able to direct me to the discussion?

I will make two brief comments on the current version.

With respect to content, I think that Prometheus912 has put forward an argument that should not just be brushed aside. The opening sentence of the current version states: "Sustainability[note 1] – as an international program committed to the provision of a secure environmental, social and economic future..." What international program? There is no citation, but there is a link to sustainable development. That conflates the two terms. There already is an article on sustainable development. Where is the reference that explains this approach? It seems that the re-write begins with a serious problem of original research.

With respect to process: Where is the former version? Unless an article goes through the AfD process, how can it simply disappear? For this kind of action, surely there should have been an AfD or an RfC. We had an article that was contributed to by dozens of editors over the years. While there were some concerns about it, there was, in my view, nothing that could not have been fixed. The former article did illuminate the subject. What we have now does not conform to WP policy and guidelines in a variety of ways. I will stop at that for now, in the hope that someone can answer the questions I've asked above. Sunray (talk) 08:54, 18 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I used a function called "move over existed page". If you want to, I can email you the raw wiki markup of the version before the move which then you can insert back sections where you think it's appropriate to keep (with inline citations, of course). OhanaUnitedTalk page 20:50, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
 * My request is to restore the previous versions and page history. The current article would become the current version and the old article would be there for comparison. My reason for the request is based on the premise that previous versions and page history should not be eliminated. It will be impossible to compare versions without this. This is fundamental to Wikipedia. Here's how the help page on page history puts it:
 * "All editable pages on Wikipedia have an associated page history, which consists of the old versions of the wikitext, as well as a record of the date and time (in UTC) of every edit, the username or IP address of the user who wrote it, and their edit summary..."
 * As I said above, I know of no sanctioned method of deleting previous versions and page history short of the deletion policy and AfD process. Have I missed something here? If not, would you be willing to restore the former versions and page history? Sunray (talk) 02:43, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
 * All are not lost. Nothing is permanently deleted in Wikipedia. (EVER!) They're just invisible to non-admins now. I'll email you the last version prior to the overwrite so that you can decide on which things to put back in. I think Granitethighs did a good job writing it to include broader scope, proper referencing, and follow style guidelines so it doesn't deserve to revert all the way back to the old stage and wasted all his efforts. Let's combine them together to get the best of both worlds, ok? OhanaUnitedTalk page 03:11, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Perhaps I was not clear. I am requesting that the old version (plus all previous versions) and the page history be restored. I think that we need to do this by the numbers. If Granitethighs wants to place his version as the most recent version, that's fine. Then we can discuss it here and work on consensus. I am talking about making any agreed on changes to the article in accordance with Wikipedia policy and practice. Sunray (talk) 07:02, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
 * In response to Sunray and Prometheus a number of points need to be made – I would like Sunray’s views on the following:

1.      The word sustainability, in common usage, means, essentially "to maintain a certain state or condition indefinitely". Clearly this is not what is intended by either the current or previous article. So what does it mean in these articles? Here is the problem of definition and it seems to me that the reality is that, regardless of claims to the contrary, the use of the word sustainability in relation to environmental issues stems essentially from the program for sustainable development. That is not to say that there are no other views as to what sustainability is (the current article is at pains to point this out) but it does mean that the usage of the word cannot be simply excised from this history. Maybe the opening sentence can be re-worded more clearly (although this is not as simple as might first appear). A fair reading of the current text (especially the section on Definition) should totally convince the reader that there is certainly no conflation of terms in intent – even if the opening sentence does convey that impression (which is debatable).

2.      I am amazed that there is suddenly such concern with precision (now) when the original article lacked precision so much. Included here would be the lack of citations and therefore the tendency for statements to become unsubstantiated assertions; repetition; a lack of clarity in exactly where the discussion was going and more – not least of which (because of the lack of citation) it was far more open to the criticism of being “original research” than the current article.

3.      Apart from the above fine points of distinction there is the simple reality that a lot of students, general public, and users of Wikipedia will be looking for information on all sorts of issues that are often connected by the media, and other players, with the notion of sustainability – everything from overfishing to climate change, ethical consumerism to vegetarianism, population, biodiversity loss and much, much, more. The previous article payed limited attention to this vast range of issues and became bogged down in a sterile academic debate of little value to those searching for useful information on the concept of sustainability. I think the Wikipedian users deserve better than this. The present article contains a huge number of links on a wide range of topics so that readers will be able to follow up and research their own interests. It will also lead people to areas that they might find useful in living more sustainable lives.

4.      There was no attempt to open up all this information in the previous article. Why should the addition of this information cause this concern?

This rewrite was an honest attempt to build on what was written before: the information in the previous article was not ignored but reorganised and included. It was also an attempt to open up the complexity of the idea of sustainability for people to explore themselves rather than close it down in unproductive semantic and ideological debate. As OhanaUnited pointed out it seems self-evident that the rewrite has much to commend it over its predecessor. Yes, I wrote it, so it is a simple matter to simply put that assessment down to bias. But I fail to see how simply reverting to the previous version is a productive way forward – Wikipedia would be the loser. Also, although I strongly believe in vigorous debate I do not have the time for an extended defence of the current kind in future. The process of changing the articles is another matter. I have been a Wikipedian for only a few months so am not used to the procedures – perhaps that too could be considered. However, the change was clearly flagged nearly two months ago. It is on the Wikiproject page in capitals (which I now know is “shouting” so I would not do that again). To imply that this was in any way an underhand deal is to clearly misrepresent the facts. Every opportunity was given for comment over this period – if people chose not to comment then so be it. As it says in Wikipedia:Consensus "silence implies consent". Granitethighs (talk) 07:12, 19 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I am sure that that your changes were, as you say, "an honest attempt to build on what was written before." I would be happy to discuss this with you, but I am patiently waiting for a response to my request to OhanaUnited. The former article needs to be undeleted before we can begin to discuss the changes. Sunray (talk) 07:40, 19 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Why do we have to revert back to the old version before you can discuss changes? Why do you persist doing so? I even compromised my position by emailing you the complete old version via your email so you can choose whatever part you want back and insert it. Surely that's disruptive. Sorry, I won't undelete it if you want to push your POV that the old article is better than new version. I have provided all the information you need to state your point in the article. Sunray, you don't seem to understand how to compromise, instead wants everyone to follow your own way. You need to drop the "my way or the highway attitude". OhanaUnitedTalk page 13:21, 19 August 2008 (UTC)


 * "If you want to push your POV..." My POV does not enter into the request I have made. You chose a way of switching to Granitethigh's version that made previous versions and page history no longer accessible to editors. I am requesting that this be corrected. That is all right now. Whether or not the article is written from a neutral point of view (and individual editor's POV's related to the subject) can be discussed once the article is restored. By the way, civility is an important standard that we need to keep in mind. Would you be able to avoid making critical comments or judgments about my attitude? Sunray (talk) 14:21, 19 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I have made a request to restore the former article and page history here. Sunray (talk) 15:21, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks, OhanaUnited, for restoring the historical record. Sunray (talk) 06:03, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Great job
Wow! Thanks guys. This is a tremendous improvement. WAS 4.250 (talk) 18:57, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
 * What do you find makes it an improvement? Sunray (talk) 06:03, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

I am aghast
I have not been here for a while but I used the previous version while working on a sustainability article for the Czech Wiki. I am completely flabbergasted regarding what happened here.

Sustainability is most empathically NOT "an international program (whatever that means)." It is a concept that informs human behavior. In addition, some of the sections talk a great deal about what is unsustainable, forgetting to tell us about what is sustainable. Thirdly, the article is huge and unwieldy. I am beginning to suspect that Wikipedia will soon need another tag as the opposite of "stub" -- I propose "bloat."

I am joining the voices here for a rethinking of this whole rewrite. If Granitethighs wants to have an article on some "international program" why not create it without ruining what was here? Granitethighs, if you want to redo things, why not do it by section so that people have a chance to respond in increments? Finally, to throw out all the work that was here that people created over a number of years seems pretty darn rude. V.B. (talk) 01:33, 20 August 2008 (UTC)


 * We incorporated a lot of concepts from the old version and included in the new version. The portion that was not covered in the new version is the "Weak versus strong sustainability", which is only 3 short paragraphs. Rewrite does not necessarily mean remove all contents. It could be copyedit, rephrase, adding/modifying info, etc. We further explain the items in the "See also" section by combining a few of them and give one short section dedicated to them (e.g. Agenda 21, biodiversity, species extinction). Articles should be broad in its coverage (requirements for GA), if not comprehensive (requirements for FA). I don't think any articles should be labeled as bloat or similar terms. <b style="color:#0000FF;">OhanaUnited</b><b style="color:green;">Talk page</b> 01:51, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong and weak sustainability is included in the Production, Consumption and Technology section - I made a point of including this discussion as it occupied so much of the previous article, but it is certainly much more brief. This rewrite was flagged a long time ago (as can be seen here) and plenty of time left for a response was allowed. The new version was on display for well over a month. Where was all the indignation then? To say that the old article was "thrown out" is simply untrue, there was ample opportunity for comment. The previous article was deficient in all sorts of ways - as someone else pointed out(see above) there was no mention of sustainability science to this could be added sustainability accounting, sustainability governance and a whole host of other issues totally unaddressed, a list too long to detail here but would become apparent with a read of the new and old articles. The new article has forged links to a whole range of issues and aspects of sustainability that were totally ignored in the previous article. I cannot understand how anyone could not regard the new article as more user-friendly, useful, and informative than the previous one: there are people out there in the world who need help to come to grips with sustainability so that they can make a contribution themselves. An extended debate about strong vs weak sustainability is hardly likely to inspire a new generation to lead more sustainable lives. To describe this attempt to open up the subject of sustainability to the world as "bloated" takes my breath away. People who think they can suddenly define sustainability in a clear way that everyone will instantly understand have obviously spent little time with the subject. Sustainable development is an international program - is that confusing? And yes, sustainability is not the same as sustainable development. I have already said this could be better stated - but that is easier said than done. I suggest a careful read of both articles, one after the other. If, in all conscience, you think the former article was "better" or that the new article did not take account of the issues raised in the first article then I'm happy to pick up my bat and find a different game with some other folks (generally known as spitting the dummy). Granitethighs (talk) 04:00, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I apologize re "bloat." It's just my pet peeve re Wiki recently, what with the endless proliferation of templates, and some articles getting downright unwieldy. Scratch that.

As for the rest: Well then. Let's start from the beginning."The word sustainability, meaning 'to maintain a certain state or condition indefinitely' is being used in this article in a restricted sense." What does this sentence mean? And why does the main article on sustainability use the term in restricted sense? (I think it would be mighty strange if the main article on say, horse, began by telling people "horse" is herein used in a restricted sense.) Please explain. V.B. (talk) 05:19, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
 * This is a valid concern, IMO. I see other problems with the lead. Perhaps we should list them here. Sunray (talk) 06:03, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
 * That's OK. A dictionary definition of sustainability would be along the lines of "to maintain a certain state or condition indefinitely". Problem is both the old article and its rewrite are about a particular kind (sense) of sustainability. So, for example, it would not make sense to talk of strong sustainability and weak sustainability in the context of the dictionary definition. That is because the sustainability being talked about is not to do with sustainability in a general sense but sustainability in relation to environmental and other factors (depending on your point of view). It might be an idea to use a disambiguation page but I avoided that because that might involve a definition, which would put the cat among the pigeons, as we see from the heated discussion going on now - we can all argue about that until we are blue in the face. We all think we know what we are talking about until someone else has a suggestion. I chose to simply refer to this basic difficulty of definition and to suggest reasons why this was the case. Right at the beginning of the article it needed to be somehow indicated that the article following was not about "sustainability" of common usage (but about sustainability in a special sense). Hope that explains why it was done - perhaps there is a better way. That's all I could think of at the time so the reader is prepared. Granitethighs (talk) 06:09, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The definition used by the old version was: "Sustainability is a characteristic of a process or state that can be maintained at a certain level indefinitely." Personally, I prefer to say something like this: "Sustainability is the ability to sustain a way of life indefinitely (within the given limits of life on Earth)." Because the ability to sustain life the crux of the whole concept, is it not? V.B. (talk) 06:42, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I moved the links from the intro section down to the bottom of the section so that we can discuss them last. I would like to see the whole intro to skip the sustainable development stuff, and just focus on the concept of sustainability (in the sense of ecological sustainability). I don't think any pre-explanations are needed (I mean by this the very first sentence). Maybe the term came from sust. dev. documents, but maybe not, maybe it came from the permaculturists or some such. In any case, it is not the provenance of the governments or NGOs. V.B. (talk) 07:58, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Dealing with major changes to this article
Some editors have expressed dismay at the major changes to the article since July 12. The changes were made primarily by one editor, Granitethighs. They were made in good faith and he obviously has a passion for the subject. However, several concerns have been raised and there will likely need to be considerable discussion about the changes.

Before we start, I would like to call attention to the talkheader at the top of the page. WP is a collaborative editing project and we need to be respectful to work together. Editorial decisions are made by consensus. We should all bear in mind that most editors have the best interests of WP in mind. We come to any given subject from different perspectives. Somehow that always seems to work, and WP has been astonishingly successful in achieving its goals. Granitethighs will need to steel himself to some of the criticism that will be directed towards his changes. It is not personal. He will need to bear in mind that others know as much about the subject as he does and some will know much more than he does about editing Wikipedia.

We might be wise to revert to the former article and discuss his proposed changes in detail. However, he did attempt to get discussion going some time ago and waited over a month for comments. It seems that many who frequent the article were not aware he was doing that. The reason for this is that probably that major changes are usually discussed on the talk page of the article, rather than in a sandbox. There were thus a limited number of posts to the article talk page that would have alerted editors to the impending changes. Nevertheless, he did try to alert people and he did do a lot of work on the article itself. For some reason, few editors seemed to pick up on what was happening. However, because of the work he has put into this, an alternative might be to leave the current version in place and discuss his changes section by section. Are there any comments on this? I apologize for this long post. I will try hard to keep my future comments to the bare minimum necessary. Sunray (talk) 06:03, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree. It's easy enough to find the old version in the archives.

P.S. Not everyone notices changes to one of their articles of interest right away. Fortunately, Wiki allows us to deal with the changes as we come to them. That's part of its genius.V.B. (talk) 06:24, 20 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks Sunray - for what it is worth, this seems a considered and fair approach. With respect though, a statement of intent was clearly laid out on the Talk page of the article itself; it was also flagged on the talk page of the appropriate Wikiproject group; surely enough time was allowed for feedback. It should be clear from the discussion at the time that the re-write was not a take-over bid but just that, a re-write, to bring out the issues discussed in the old article and to bring in some more. Adding a sentence here and there would not have achieved this. I am new to Wikipedia and realise that what I have done has upset a few people. My question is ... what else should I have done? I am fully aware that Wikipedia is about collective effort and consensus. I put the ideas into the ring and there was not a single response. Wikipedia:Consensus says "In essence, silence implies consent". And now, suddenly people imply a great injustice has been done. As you will understand, my vote on your suggestion would be to go through the article as it stands a section at a time. Clearly the opening needs some work and, as always, I welcome suggestions for improvement Granitethighs (talk) 06:30, 20 August 2008 (UTC) PS VB I have answered your question (see above) Granitethighs (talk) 06:33, 20 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Granitethighs: nobody is implying a great injustice has been done. I feel the article has been "highjacked" into the fold of "sustainable development" which is simply unacceptable to me. But I am more than willing to work here together until we find a better way. The old article was kinda all over the place, and I am glad that there is effort underway to make it better. V.B. (talk) 06:51, 20 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Second that. Granitethighs, please do not take offense. As I pointed out, you evidently did what you did in good faith. The fact is, though, your approach did not involve much collaboration. As to silence implying consensus: This only applies in the moment of time that the silence occurs. Here's a segment from the essay (WP:SILENCE) referred to in a link from the WP:CON policy:


 * "Consensus can be assumed to exist until voiced disagreement becomes evident (typically through reverting or editing). You find out whether your edit has consensus when you try to build on it.
 * In wiki-editing, it is difficult to get positive affirmation for your edits. (Disaffirmation comes with a revert.) No matter how many people on a talk page say they support an edit; it is only when your changes are reverted or substantially changed that you learn that you did not, in fact, have full consensus.
 * Of course, it is impractical to wait forever for affirmation: in the meantime then, you can assume that silence implies consensus. You can continue to hold that assumption (hopefully safely) until someone comes along and changes the page by editing or reverting. The more visible the statement, and the longer it stands unchallenged, the stronger the implication of consensus is."


 * As V.B. says, "Wiki allows us to deal with the changes as we come to them." Sunray (talk) 07:07, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks VB, that sounds good (comments at top). Amazing though it might seem I am keen that sustainable development doesn't get center stage either. Problem is that word sustainability which, for better or worse, I strongly suspect came out of the sustainable development agenda ... but that does not mean that it has to be used to mean the same thing. I'll try to get that opening sentence or two clearer because it is obviously a problem - or you could edit it or suggest to me ways of re-expressing it that would be acceptable Granitethighs (talk) 07:17, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I already did... :-) See above, previous thread.V.B. (talk) 07:41, 20 August 2008 (UTC)