Talk:Sustainability/Description

Archives
Archive 1: Initial discussion/drafts

Another Upgrade
I realised that several key concepts had been left out of this section and so I have revised the previous version. I have left it there but have added the newest version to the top of the page - more or less the same but with a bit added on at the end. I hope it means that the rest should be much more straightforward. Granitethighs (talk) 04:51, 12 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I reckon this section so far (at the time I posted this comment) is progressing well :] I'll echo Sunray's earlier comments that this section does flow well from the description section. I devoted alot of time to getting the proposed outline right, and we haven't needed to deviate from it much yet (a few tweaks in the history sub-sections) and I'm still happy with it. But GT is right, we need to be weary of repetition. If we stick to the proposed outline this shouldn't be a problem, it's when we start to muck around with the outline and rearrange sections that information is needlessly repeated. (as was the case with 'measuring sustainability' containing info that belonged in 'description', as one example) Nick carson (talk) 13:15, 12 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks Nick. I have re-jigged this section a bit yet again with subheadings because I think they will help the reader. I need feedback on three questions: 1. Do you think I have included  all the things that can be reasonably considered as "key" principles and concepts? 2. Does what has been put in here mess up what we intended to still do in the outline?  3. I am lost now as to the intended content of the Measuring sustainability section - which bits of the "live" article should be included (see article page)? Granitethighs (talk) 02:36, 13 January 2009 (UTC)


 * In answer to your three questions, GT: 1) I think that it is a good overview. Some of the concepts will be developed in other sections of the article. 2) Not in my view. I think it is faithful to the outline. 3) I don't see much in the article about measurement right now. There is a paragraph on exergy, and passing mention of LCA and EF (but not as measurement tools). There is no mention of emergy or the Natural Step Framework. One might well ask: "but who's measuring, anyway?" Sunray (talk) 08:11, 13 January 2009 (UTC)


 * My 3 answers are the same as Sunray's. We should place emphasis on the inclusion of scientific measurement, no government policies, corporate studies or independent. I think the measurements we include must be scientific. Nick carson (talk) 00:24, 14 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I have removed the 5 cycles diagrams which seem to fit better in the "measuring" section (where I've put them now - the Measurement section is ready for everyone's comments now). Is it OK to put up? Granitethighs (talk) 01:48, 14 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I really miss the 5 cycles in this section. They are basic ecological concepts, simply and effectively portrayed. While they are also basic to measurement, I think that they contribute to an understanding of what is involved in sustainability (and are thus descriptive). I thought that the flow was excellent with them here. We could refer back to them in the measurement section. Sunray (talk) 02:10, 14 January 2009 (UTC)


 * OK lets put them back. Granitethighs (talk) 02:18, 14 January 2009 (UTC)


 * While we are at it, the length of the recycling infobox has been bothering me. Perhaps we could move it into the "History" section to replace the three pillars diagram, if we agree to move the latter? Sunray (talk) 02:35, 14 January 2009 (UTC)


 * That's fine by me. I would rather the heading was "Dematerialisation" because recycling is a subset of this more powerful and inclusive concept. However, if we change it then this template needs to be separated from its origins - it is someone else's! and they probably wouldn't like us doing that. Granitethighs (talk) 02:43, 14 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Hummm, true dat. Dematerialisation is a better description of the processes. However, it is not exactly a word that comes tripping off the tongue. Perhaps we should leave it the way it is unless we can find a simpler word - in which case, I would be up for convincing the template stewards to change it. Sunray (talk) 04:57, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I have to move the current draft to the bottom of the page. Could we please standardize, as a convention, that all new material goes to the bottom? Otherwise once people start commenting it gets sticky. Also, as I've said elsewhere, the chronology of what happened, when gets confused. My other immediate comment is that the "Environmental law" template doesn't belong here. Sunray (talk) 05:46, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Scale
All human activities have an influence on sustainability. The subject is thus studied and managed at many scales (levels) and contexts of environmental, social and economic organization. The focus ranges from the total carrying capacity (sustainability) of planet Earth to the sustainability of cities, agriculture, home gardens, individual lives, etc.

At the global level a number of key goals have been isolated:
 * Intergenerational equity - providing future generations with the same environmental potential as presently exists
 * Decoupling economic growth from environmental degradation - managing economic growth to be less resource intensive and less polluting
 * Integration of all pillars - integrating environmental, social and economic sectors when developing sustainability policies
 * Ensuring environmental adaptability and resilience - maintaining and enhancing the adaptive capacity of the environmental system
 * Preventing irreversible long-term damage to ecosystems and human health
 * Ensuring distributional equity - avoiding unfair or high environmental costs on vulnerable populations
 * Accepting global responsibility assuming responsibility for environmental effects that occur outside areas of jurisdiction
 * Grassroots democracy - involving people and communities in understanding problems and developing new solutions

Consumption, population, technology, resources
The driver of human impact on Earth systems is the consumption of biophysical resources. Human consumption can be divided into three fundamental factors: population numbers, levels of consumption (affluence), and impact per unit of resource use (which depends on the technology used). This has been expressed through an equation:


 * I = P&times;A&times;T


 * Where: I = Environmental impact,  P = Population,  A = Affluence, T = Technology

Sustainability resists the usual tendency to meet resource demand by increasing supply. Instead it applies demand management of all goods and services—promoting reduced consumption, using renewable resources where possible, and encouraging methods that minimise resource intensity while maximising resource productivity. Resource management is applied to all phases and scales of production, manufacture, use, and disposal: It is used at the level of economic sectors like agriculture, manufacturing and industry, through to the analysis of the resources or energy embodied in individual goods and services, and the management of the human wants and needs that drive the whole process.

Direct and indirect impacts
At a fundamental level, human impact on the Earth is now seen in harmful changes in the global biogeochemical cycles of chemicals that are critical to life, most notably those of water, oxygen, carbon, nitrogen and phosphorus.

Sustainability management is necessary at all phases of impact from the direct human impacts on land, waterbodies and atmosphere  to the  indirect consumption drivers of  these direct impacts. In coming to terms with human consumption sustainability science focuses on four interconnected and basic human resource needs - for: water, energy , materials and food

Comments
The headings need tweaking. I question the "Environmental law" template. I would like to take that out and then see how it looks. If others agree, we can then port it over to the main article. Sunray (talk) 05:52, 14 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Fair enough lets get rid of the law thing and port it. Whatever headings you feel do the trick. We'll keep the latest at the bottom. When we archive could we keep the side bars for later use? Granitethighs (talk) 06:40, 14 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I've tried to do some editing for readability—complicated by the complexity of the material and my own level of fatigue. I will take another look at it tomorrow, but I think it is pretty well ready. Sunray (talk) 08:05, 14 January 2009 (UTC)


 * The footnotes on this version are awry. I'm going to archive previous versions to try to isolate the problem. Sunray (talk) 17:07, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah, that's better. I just have to track down the full citation for the last reference. Sunray (talk) 18:00, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I found it (it is a book written by some guys from the Royal Botanic Gardens in Melbourne - probably disreputable types, but they seem to know their stuff!). Sunray (talk) 18:26, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I think that this looks pretty darn good. I vote for uploading to the article now. Sunray (talk) 19:39, 14 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, lets move on. The material is information-dense but we can perhaps lighten it up when we see everything together. I understand the correction from resources to energy but the idea is that all resources (including human ones) are "embodied" in goods and services. So just as their is embodied energy there is embodied water and embodied whatever - say, slave labour maybe. It helps whole-of-life thinking for products especially.Granitethighs (talk) 20:41, 14 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, if you want to change it back to "resources," it's fine by me. I certainly agree that "resources" is more complete. I was thinking that the term "embodied energy" is an important one for measurement (which we will be picking up on in the next section). The latter concept is also becoming better understood. Perhaps we should tweak the wording to include both? Sunray (talk)


 * Yes, that sounds more "user-friendly". Granitethighs (talk) 23:50, 14 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Where'd it all go? What we've got is good, but where's the rest? I thought we were going to summarise descriptions of various sustainable concepts across the board and include GT's proposed infoboxes to direct readers to more specific information. There's alot of information in the old version of the main article that was going in here, this should be of a size comparible to the history section, if not, bigger, and ties in with the application/implementation section as the two are intended to compliment each other. C'mon this is the fun part where we get to describe all the concepts delt with under sustainability like sustainable building, cradle to cradle, transit oriented development and grassroots sustainable progressive politics, albeit in summarised form. This is where the reader can pick up, grasp and get a good look at sustainability and where, if they want to, they can be directed to a magnifying glass with which they can begin to explore sustainability in further detail. The proposed structure for this section is below... Nick carson (talk) 01:00, 15 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Description - describe the current/present-day state and concepts of sustainability


 * Overview - may or may not be required as per quantity of content in this section


 * Key Principles and Concepts - outline the key principles and concepts of sustianability, environmentalism, progression, evolution, holism, etc


 * Sustainable Social Systems - social context description, social justice, community ownership, progressive sustained social systems, include links to relevant main articles


 * Sustainable Economic Systems - economic context description, progression of current economic systems, grassroots economics, underground economics, etc, include links to relevant main articles
 * Sustainable Resource Use - describe sustainable resource use and ecological contexts, may or may not require subsections, include links to relevant main articles
 * Water - sustainable water management
 * Energy - include subjects such as the sun, wind, geothermal, include links to main articles on renewable energy
 * Matierals - include concepts such as C2C, toxic material separation, sustainable materials, dealing with existing toxins & links to main articles


 * At the moment I think everything you suggest would fit best in the "Implementation" section. I am veering on the "keeping it as simple as possible" side of things I must admit, but two sets of discussions under materials etc. is probably a lot for the reader. We could also fit "social" and "economic" bits in either the "Implementation" section or as separate items. No? Granitethighs (talk) 01:18, 15 January 2009 (UTC)


 * It seems to me that I've seen this movie before. I do recall making an impassioned plea not to talk atomistically about "sustainable social systems," etc. Sustainable social system = village. Period. (Which makes for a rather brief section). Ecovillages, communes, cohousing, blah, blah, blah. I've written large parts of the articles on these subjects. And I've lived in them all. If people have a common vision and the skills to make it happen, it works. But arguing that the communal structure, in and of itself, is "sustainable" is problematic, IMO. As for sustainable economic systems: My goodness, what a concept! Wait, how about sustainable economic system = money? Again, parecon, LETS, Ithaca Hours, blah, blah. No, I do believe that the social, economic and ecological must be intertwined for there to be actual "sustainability." The jury is still out on this.


 * So, in sum, I think that the approach being suggested by GT is the wisest. Sunray (talk) 02:02, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm happy with the version we have now. Can we upload it? There may be the need for further additions or changes once we have reviewed all the other material. But I think it flows well now and puts major concepts before the reader in a succinct way. Sunray (talk) 19:17, 15 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for all those tweaks - they have made a big difference to the reading. I'm sure it is OK to upload. Granitethighs (talk) 21:23, 15 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Done. Sunray (talk) 19:21, 16 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Sunray makes some brilliant points regarding sustainable social systems, cohousing, communes, etc, but what I had in mind was more like mixed use developments, community-owned housing, communal public space (ie: unowned public space), etc. I also think we should probably edit the 'implementation/application' and 'description' sections in tandem so that we can arrange the info properly and avoid repetitions. Sunray, the intertwined nature of the so called 'three pillars' and considering everything as a whole is what I would call 'holistic', that's where the holistic reference came in earlier. So all that being considered and absorbed, I'm happy to concede for now, but I do think we really should edit the two sections in tandem to make things easier. Other than all that, things are looking good :] Nick carson (talk) 11:06, 17 January 2009 (UTC)