Talk:Sustainability/Transformation

Archives
Archive 1: Earlier drafts/discussion

Archive 2: Re-draft April 2009

Transition
OK here's my best effort...--Travelplanner (talk) 12:20, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

The earth has a finite capacity to provide resources and to absorb waste, and human demands already exceed that capacity. Current lifestyles in the developed world, to which many people in the developing world also aspire, rely on depleting natural capital and are unsustainable. The United Nations have stated, in the Millennium Declaration, that "current unsustainable patterns of production and consumption must be changed".

Yet weight of information and scientific evidence is often insufficient to produce necessary social change, especially if that change entails moving people out of their comfort zones.

There is a wealth of advice available to individuals wishing to reduce their personal impact on the environment through small, cheap and easily achievable steps. But the transition required to reduce global human consumption to within sustainable limits involves much larger changes, at all levels and contexts of society. The United Nations have recognised the central role of education, and have declared a decade of education for sustainable development, 2005-2014, which aims to to "challenge us all to adopt new behaviours and practices to secure our future".

The Worldwide Fund for Nature proposes a strategy for sustainability that goes beyond education to tackle underlying individualistic and materialistic societal values head-on and strengthen people's connections with the natural world.

The level of change required to safeguard the life-supporting capacity of the Earth sets new challenges for community and political structures. Al Gore states that "We have everything we need, save perhaps, political will. But, you know what, political will is a renewable resource.” .  Political views are changing; in 2008 United States President George Bush joked about being "the world's biggest polluter" but Barack Obama promised "Generations from now, we will be able to look back and tell our children that [...] this was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal".

Comments/suggestions
Nice work in pulling that all together, TP. It provides a good overview and a mix of references. I think it is just what we need for a final summary and closing statement. Sunray (talk) 20:50, 26 April 2009 (UTC)


 * It does not work. It is a political diatribe. Al Gore is considered a Rush Limbaugh type figure or Alex Jones type polarizing figure as in extreme by many... the guy that said he invented the internet, and formed the basis of the book 'Love Story'. The Nobel prize is given by a banking consortium. Declaring that Sustainability solving will be done by the political system is a pov. This is an endorsement of politics and a political pov.
 * This is taking political sides. That is not good. Wikipedia is not an essay or personal journal. This segment falls flat.


 * It uses the U.N. as a focal point. the U.N. is over sourced and over used through out the entire article. This has become almost comical now to the extent that the article is politicized and essay like as in its admonitions and suggestions. This final thing here is a capsule of the very pov viewpoint of the article. My suggestion is start over. This would never hold up as a neutral or balanced presentation. Number one this section would almost have to be called 'Whatever and the U.N.- skip sievert (talk) 21:03, 26 April 2009 (UTC)


 * LOL. It would be out of character for Skip to say anything positive about anything any of the other editors contribute on these pages. I will make the prediction that AdenR won't like this either. Sunray (talk) 22:18, 26 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Sunray: You are increasingly being a problem and attacking any criticism about this article. WHY are you not defending the article in question or presenting valid arguments against our critiques? Why are you attacking the character of editors here? This is supposed to be about the article. You are right Sunray I am not liking what I am seeing on this team here, specifically you.


 * About the article and section...


 * I agree with skip. This is not a essay or personal journal we are writing. We need to start over. This is not a neutral presentation. And if this is the summary of the whole article, that is not good news. It still involves politics, political povs and introduces yet more unneeded refs. As I said before, solutions or Political solutions for human societies are debatable and anything connected to it should be deleted. U.N. sourcing should Not be allowed on this article as it is political and partisan. Their can be scientific literature and data on sustainability such as journals, books, etc. that can be sourced. This section should only be a scientific and neutral summary of what is needed to attain human sustainability or sustainability future, such as balance of consumption and renewability of abiotic and biotic resources, as an example. AdenR (talk) 22:44, 26 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Nice work TP. It flows beautifully and makes all the necessary points in a simple and appealing way - that's a real skill. Let's put it up. Granitethighs (talk) 22:45, 26 April 2009 (UTC)


 * OK I make it two people who like it unchanged and two who want it deleted alltogether. I wrote it and can't give an unbiased opinion of it. Those who want it deleted have given their reasons clearly, many thanks.  I would summarise the reasons as:
 * U.N. statements are not a reliable source and do not verify the conclusion that there is a need for change
 * The quotes from politicians represent an endorsement of politics and taking political sides
 * Next step : Skip, Aden, is this a fair summary of your objections, and do you agree that the next step is to get wider comment from others in Wikiproject Environment as we are in a stalemate situation here.--Travelplanner (talk) 04:26, 27 April 2009 (UTC)


 * The U.N. is a source that can be used but it is used overtly in an over the top manner throughout the article and it is over used in this section, as in other sections. By over using this source over and over and over, it destroys the credibility of the article as to sourcing. While the U.N. is loved and respected by some... it is probably equally hated and reviled by many. So... it becomes a controversial way, if seen as being a focal point, and as being a basic point of reference, for an entire article and its sourcing to be displayed in context of itself, the U.N.


 * The quotes from politicians represent an endorsement of politics and taking political sides . Yes very much so. .. and the bias of political orientation shows. skip sievert (talk) 06:46, 27 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Good work TP, definitely ready to go up, could do with some minor tweaks, but nothing major. Nick carson (talk) 15:12, 27 April 2009 (UTC)


 * TP: First of all, Sunray hasn't stated his position on this talk page.


 * Not correct, he was the first to comment (top of page)--Travelplanner (talk) 22:58, 27 April 2009 (UTC)


 * GT and Nick, on the other hand, thinks it is good but hasn't addressed our arguments. So, I see no need to present this to outside editors until this situation is thoroughly discussed.


 * U.N. statements are not a reliable source to verify a "need for change". It is already warranted through scientific literature. I want to make this point clear, the only way we should use a U.N./political quotes is to prove that governments are taking notice to sustainability, such as this. Given the rise and notice of unsustainable problems in today's society, governments around the world are taking notice and enacting policies and laws that may lead to a more sustainable future. (Then input quote from wherever to prove the point) That should be the only reason to use U.N. or political refs/quotes. Over using U.N. and Political quotes constantly is ruining the neutrality and flow of this article and section. What's the point of constantly quoting and referencing U.N. and political material? To Prove the point that there is a "need for change"? That is not a valid or acceptable reason to overtly Ref and quote U.N. and Political stuff. Scientific evidence proves that, opinions do not. This section is not acceptable. Thanks TP  AdenR (talk) 17:44, 27 April 2009 (UTC)


 * AdenR: You seem to be assuming a UN POV here. In fact, the MA is a compendium of research of many scientists worldwide. It is coordinated by the UN, and compiled by individual universities and research institutes. It is thus about as free from bias as you can get. This was referred to the Reliable Source Noticeboard here. Please note the conclusion: "In the specific case of the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment this is a reliable source. The relative weight to give to this source is an editorial judgement." You said: "Scientific evidence proves [a need for change]" That is exactly why I think we need these references. They are scientifically very strong and draw clear conclusions about the kind of change needed. If you have other, equally strong references, please provide them. I for one would be most happy to consider them. Sunray (talk) 19:15, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * My comment above only referred to the Millennium Assessment. There are, of course, other references to the UN in TP's draft. Two are simply factual notes regarding Agenda 21, which came out of the Rio Conference and the passing of the General Assembly's resolution on the Decade of Sustainable Development. It seems to me that these references show the consensus of UN member nations of the need for action towards sustainability. The one reference that indicates a POV is the Millennium Declaration that "current unsustainable patterns of production and consumption must be changed". It is important to bear in mind that this too was passed by the General Assembly, and thus represents a broad consensus of member states. Whether or not one disagrees with this statement (does anyone disagree?), it is highly significant. It seems important to make reference to this in our article. Sunray (talk) 20:47, 28 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I have read and re-read what I wrote. I use scientific evidence to back up scientific statements ("current lifestyles are unsustainable") and quoted political bodies and politicians to give an indication of the views of those political bodies and those holding those political offices. In response, I get a lot of negative commentary about POV and the UN and how politicians are political.  I am stating the UN's POV and referencing UN documents which verify that this is the UN's POV.  I accept that this is not Skipsievert's or AdenR's POV, nor do I say it is.


 * I can do nothing with most of these comments except call in another editor to take a fresh look at what I've done and to see if there is anything in the comments that can improve what I've done.


 * There's one specific and actionable suggestion in here - the suggestion to add a statement along the lines of "governments around the world are taking notice". If you can give a reference for this sentence I am very happy to include it.--Travelplanner (talk) 23:10, 27 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I think we have passed the stalemate position on this section. As I understand it we have four people for this section (Sr, GT, Nick, TP) and two against (Skip, Aden). Isn't this sufficient to put this up? Granitethighs (talk) 04:25, 29 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, indeed. Sunray (talk) 06:09, 29 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Have uploaded as agreed by consensus. We could now archive this talk pages contents leaving the current version for discussion? Granitethighs (talk) 23:42, 29 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Glad to see some positive, consensual, progress on this section. Nick carson (talk) 07:16, 4 May 2009 (UTC)