Talk:Sustainability/economic

Archives
Archive 1: Initial discussion/drafts

Economic Opportunity Section
Since this section was deleted, I feel I need to justify it before re-adding it. My reasons for adding it:


 * The current economics section, including the main section, and the two headings "Nature as an economic externality" and "Decoupling environmental degradation and economic growth" all represent POV's ranging from sustainability being opposed or conflicted with economic growth to being at best neutral, with the exception of the single (unsourced) paragraph mentioning local currency.
 * I gave three sources outlining how there is a different POV here too--which is that sustainability does not need to be opposed to economic growth but rather, can be a driver of economic growth.
 * As the comment and source about Obama and "green jobs" demonstrates (and there are many other sources to back this up), the idea of sustainability as a driver of economic growth has not only entered the mainstream but is now a major topic of discussion in politics and in the public sphere in general.
 * The whole idea of focusing on sustainability instead environmentalism is that environmentalism and related terms have acquired a negative connotation because activists have often focused on problems without proposing solutions. Sustainability is a radical and important concept precisely because it is positive: sustainability is the goal.  In keeping with this, I think having an overly negative "economics" section that doesn't focus on opportunities is in itself a gross misrepresentation of what sustainability is.  You can't get rid of economics and the current article is written so as to imply that economics would need to magically go away in order to achieve sustainability.

I would certainly like to see this section edited and improved. But I think that keeping this (positive) material out of the page very clearly violates WP:NPOV. Cazort (talk) 15:48, 8 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I would say that those who prescribe to the environmentalist movement are focussed on problems without proposing solutions, on the contrary, especially amongst those concerned with sustainability in general. Do you think it's required that we have an entire section just for the positive economic potentials of sustainability implied in such systems? I think it is implied throughout the article as a whole, and sustainability implies/calls for a progression of current economic models/systems anyway. Perhaps we could go through and reword a couple of sentences to enhance the "that sustainability does not need to be opposed to economic growth but rather, can be a driver of economic growth" points? Nick carson (talk) 12:19, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Economic Opportunity
Here are some problems with this... comment. We already have a section that explains Industrial ecology and it is referenced and sourced in the article without resorting to calls for profit, or non profit... in and of itself relating into the term.. it is just an explanation of what it is. It does not make a case. Your version is a call for profit and rationale that profit is good. That is a pov and not neutral. Maybe someone thinks that sustainability is a 'business opportunity' but so what? Really anything can be viewed that way. It is pov.

waste itself can be seen as an "economic resource in the wrong place" This sounds like double talk. Really once a resource is used it is converted and sometimes that means it is destroyed to other purposes. That is a fact. Some resources can not be restored.

Systems ecology and Industrial ecology already cover this in the article to better effect.

''Energy efficiency can also increase profit margins through reducing costs. The concept of sustainability as a business opportunity has led to the formation of organizations such as the Society for Organizational Learning's Sustainability Consortium, oriented towards large corporations, as well as regional groups such as Entrepreneurs for Sustainability in the Greater Cleveland area which are oriented towards small and medium sized enterprises. The idea of sustainability as a driver of job creation was pushed in the 2008 presidential election by Barack Obama through the rhetoric of Green-collar jobs. ''

The article is already sourced in sections, with information about Energy economics Ecological economics and Environmental economics which focus's on money aspects of the subject.

''Energy efficiency can also increase profit margins through reducing costs. The concept of sustainability as a business opportunity has led to the formation of organizations such as the Society for Organizational Learning's Sustainability Consortium, oriented towards large corporations, as well as regional groups such as Entrepreneurs for Sustainability in the Greater Cleveland area which are oriented towards small and medium sized enterprises. The idea of sustainability as a driver of job creation was pushed in the 2008 presidential election by Barack Obama through the rhetoric of Green-collar jobs. ''

You can not use a blog to source Wikipedia so that is a non starter. As far as I know Barack Obama being linked in the article as an authority is not really appropriate and sourcing it as rhetoric does not help. The article needs to be a political directive or pov of a politician claiming things? Obama a credible character??? Look at who sponsored him... corporate donors.. He represents special interest groups... though he claims not, to the max. I think your whole section needs removing. It reads like a promo of different things like Entrepreneurs for Sustainability in Greater Cleveland, really this is not a promo area for Cleveland's Entrepreneurs. It also appears to be an attempt at advertising a bunch of websites that are for profit business sites which no doubt are looking for more business like GreenBiz.com - This seems pretty blatant not in the interests of neutral presentation. http://www.greenbiz.com/blog/2006/08/01/becoming-sustainable-tools-and-resources-successful-organizational-transformation Nadya Zhexembayeva, "Becoming Sustainable: Tools and Resources for Successful Organizational Transformation", GreenBiz.com, Aug. 1, 2006.'' Blog sourcing.

While some of your information may be interesting and could be in the article in a contextual way particularly as sourcing in footnotes/refs, for other information it does not really work as presented because it is just to directed in a certain direction.

''I think having an overly negative "economics" section that doesn't focus on opportunities is in itself a gross misrepresentation of what sustainability is. You can't get rid of economics and the current article is written so as to imply that economics would need to magically go away in order to achieve sustainability.'' end quote C.

Any one talking about getting rid of economics.?.. whether energy or money based? You may think so.. but I am not sure how or why it is that you think so. I think your section as is, is synthesis and mostly original research and promotional and biased toward corporate promotional advertising and specific websites that carry a certain baggage of profit making.... under any circumstance. This seems like promoting growth in an extreme way. Conjuring up political nonsense from special interest groups. My opinion.

This is the way that is neutral to say and explain what you have done in the article with your section, which I think can be removed again...

''Rapidly advancing technologies mean it is now technically possible to achieve a transition of economies, energy generation, water and waste management, and food production towards sustainable practices using methods of systems ecology and industrial ecology. sustainability means to keep stuff in balance''

This is the way the article is above, currently in the beginning sections, in 'History and it already deals with your issues... non pov. It is a much better explanation and does not contain pov baggage. It is not promotional and does not explain things in a promo pro or con way toward business or against business... and the pursuit of profit, or no pursuit of profit. skip sievert (talk) 16:54, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Apologies about the blog source. It looks like someone else and I both tried to remove it and replace it with our own sources at the same time, so that is fixed.  Sometimes blogs show up on google news and if they're published on a news site like that one, it can be hard to immediately recognize that they are a blog.  Cazort (talk) 20:27, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I would like to please ask you to WP: Assume good faith. I understand that you do not agree with me here but I really do not believe that my edits or the material I have added is as bad or as incongruous with the existing page as you make it out to be.  I am still having a little bit of trouble understanding why you are objecting so strongly to my edits.
 * I do not think that the material that I added is redundant to anything already on the page. The old page mentioned industrial ecology in two places, but it did not appear in the context of economics.  I explained above why I thought there was an important omission of perspective here.
 * About concerns of promoting any particular group, I chose the Entrepreneurs for Sustainability group in Cleveland simply because I know it, and it has gathered enough media attention to be reliably sourced. If you or anyone else knows of any other regional groups of smaller enterprises that are larger or more influential, I would certainly support including them alongside or instead of that group.  Cazort (talk) 20:37, 8 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Actually, when I investigated the "blog source" I found, that just as you suggest, news stories may sometimes show up on blogs. I suspect that this is because this is a simple way of archiving them once they are no longer news. I found the article on Case Western Reserve's site, so substituted that. I think that your addition works fine in the article. A well-written, neutral article usually presents a variety of perspectives and I think that the green business movement is certainly one that should be mentioned. Thanks. Sunray (talk) 21:20, 8 March 2009 (UTC)


 * S.R. please do not redirect the article section inaccurately to green business when the page goes to sustainable business. That is not an accurate redirect and is confusing. Different idea... different subject. That is probably why it was made a redirect. Also I see you redirected to an article with more blank references that are non specific, in the article, about the United Nations  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brundtland_report. You never did answer about an affiliation with that group. Yes? No.? I have pointed out already that at least one user in your team has a conflict of interest. Brundtland is over reffed in this article also. skip sievert (talk) 02:59, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Since you have, essentially, ignored my comments and questions above, and continue to make statements that you provide no evidence for (such as "at least one user in your team has a conflict of interest"), I have nothing more to add on this topic right now. Sunray (talk) 06:39, 9 March 2009 (UTC)


 * What is it with this article (and especially with this section of this article) that generates so much heat for relatively little light? The economic sustainability section as it stands is a short and readable overview of a huge topic, better covered in the appropriate places elsewhere.  I think a single NPOV on this topic is impossible, and the three headings "Nature as an economic externality", "economic opportunity" and "decoupling environmental degradation and economic growth" are the right three.  I think they're in the wrong order; it follows more logically to put them in order of increasing hope hence economic opportunity last.


 * One possible idea to add to the "economic opportunity" section to tie things back to the other sections is that business will respond to the signals it gets in the form of taxation, regulation etc hence the idea of changing the signals by "taxing bads (pollution, resource use) not goods" which has been around awhile and is best covered I think in The Ecology of Commerce. Otherwise the section starts out by outlining problems that are global and systemic, and ends up proposing relatively small-scale solutions at the margins.


 * One reason that this section was so hard to write is that there is so much ^&*% written on the topic by people and organisations that should know better. Without covering ideas that really will fall apart if scrutinised too hard, or straying into topics that are articles in themselves, I suggest with these changes we've done the best we can to achieve NPOV.--Travelplanner (talk) 07:41, 9 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Does this mean that you will be around for awhile to help us reduce the heat and increase the light, TP? ;-)
 * BTW, I take your point about the order of those three paragraphs. I've moved "Economic opportunity" back to the end of the section. Sunray (talk) 08:35, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm on the same page with you Travelplanner about your comments about business responding to signals like taxation and regulation. Another thought I had, which might address some of Skipsievert's concerns above (although I'm still a bit confused as to what exactly he's objecting to), is to slightly change the "Decoupling environmental degradation and economic growth" section.  Here are three sources I pulled from the Prosperity page that discuss a different perspective--that it's not decoupling growth from environment damage, but rather, throwing out the idea that growth is necessary for prosperity, thus one can have economic propserity without this idea of continual growth:

Hope this helps, I'll return to do this if someone else doesn't beat me to it. Cazort (talk) 13:57, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Michael J. Kinsley, "Sustainable development: Prosperity without growth", Rocky Mountain Institute, Snowmass, Colorado, USA, (1997).
 * Michael J. Kinsley, L. Hunter Lovins, "Paying for Growth, Prospering from Development", Rocky Mountain Institute, Snowmass, Colorado, USA.
 * "The sustainability debate: Idealism versus conformism—the controversy over economic growth", Globalizations, Vol. 2, No. 3, pp. 349-362, (Dec 2005).

Economic opportunity part two with added lower section
Rather than treating the environment as an externality, by focussing on the triple bottom line, sustainable business practices attempt to integrate ecological concerns with social and economic ones. This approach views sustainability as a business opportunity. Waste in an industrial process is often a sign that inputs are being used inefficiently; waste itself can be seen as an "economic resource in the wrong place". The benefits of waste reduction include savings from disposal costs, fewer environmental penalties, and reduced liability insurance, in addition to increased market share due to an improved public image. Energy efficiency can also increase profit margins through reducing costs. The concept of sustainability as a business opportunity has led to the formation of organizations such as the Society for Organizational Learning's Sustainability Consortium, oriented towards large corporations, as well as regional groups such as Entrepreneurs for Sustainability in the Greater Cleveland area which are oriented towards small and medium sized enterprises. The idea of sustainability as a driver of job creation was pushed in the 2008 presidential election by Barack Obama through the rhetoric of Green-collar jobs.

Economic opportunities are sometimes in conflict with uneconomic growth. In human development theory, welfare economics (the economics of social welfare), and some forms of ecological economics, is economic growth that reflects or creates a decline in the quality of life. The concept is attributed to the economist Herman Daly, though other theorists can also be credited for the incipient idea. . Note that economic degrowth is different from uneconomic growth (or uneconomic degrowth), it is meant as a reduction of the size of the economy that would bring well-being and sustainability, see http://events.it-sudparis.eu/degrowthconference/en/. End

Added counterpoint section above to balance previous material section, which I think is still too one sided.. and linking political and hodgepodge stuff and pro-growth... pro profit people under the guise of Industrial ecology. skip sievert (talk) 17:57, 9 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm moving the text that was recently added here for further discussion. My view is that the section was already well balanced between different points of view on economic growth. If we are to add more to the section, it should be well-written and properly sourced. The way the citations are used right now are not up to standard.


 * "Economic opportunities are sometimes in conflict with uneconomic growth. In human development theory, welfare economics (the economics of social welfare), and some forms of ecological economics, is economic growth that reflects or creates a decline in the quality of life. The concept is attributed to the economist Herman Daly, though other theorists can also be credited for the incipient idea. . Note that economic degrowth is different from uneconomic growth (or uneconomic degrowth), it is meant as a reduction of the size of the economy that would bring well-being and sustainability, see http://events.it-sudparis.eu/degrowthconference/en/."


 * Perhaps we could discuss this here and determine the best approach. Sunray (talk) 18:13, 9 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Why? Because it does not mention the U.N.?

It is well written and properly sourced and makes it more well rounded. There seems to be a problem here with ownership of article issues... Remember Sunray when we went to dispute resolution and you were told that a team does not control an article beyond guidelines... and certain editors can not be auto blocked from editing. I can provide the link to that discussion if you like. You seem to want to control all aspects of information here. skip sievert (talk) 18:18, 9 March 2009 (UTC)


 * We have worked pretty hard at the article now by considering the major points for each heading and the overall balance between different topics within the article. TP has said she thinks we are now close to satisfactory and balanced in this 3-parted economics section. I would be keen to have discussion pages for each of our main sections so that the archived material for that section is available in future for editors to see the history of discussion before making substantial changes. I am becoming better informed on ecological economics - been doing a lot of reading on the topic to get up to speed. I can see what Skip is driving at but IMO the words need massage. I also think that a discussion page is the place for this kind of editing before we put it up. I'll have a go and see what you think. I agree with Skip that the idea of a "green" workforce preceded Obama who seems superfluous to this point. I have made substantial changes to the point where I have simply added the suggestion as "option 2" Granitethighs (talk) 21:49, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Option 2 (Possible re-write suggested by GT and incorporating various suggestions - comments welcome)
Sustainable business attempts to “internalize” current environmental and social externalities through triple bottom line accounting and business development that does not entail environmentally damaging growth (known to ecological economists as uneconomic growth which ultimately leads to a decline in quality of life). For example, industrial waste can be treated as an "economic resource in the wrong place". The benefits of waste reduction include savings from disposal costs, fewer environmental penalties, and reduced liability insurance, in addition to increased market share due to an improved public image. Energy efficiency can also increase profits by reducing costs. The idea of sustainability as a business opportunity has led to the formation of organizations such as the Society for Organizational Learning's Sustainability Consortium, oriented towards large corporations, as well as regional groups such as Entrepreneurs for Sustainability. In ways like these sustainability can contribute to job creation through the introduction of green-collar workers.

Internalization of former externalities is also achieved at a government level through the introduction of ecotaxes, offfering of economic incentives, and trading of former externalities in financial markets (e.g. carbon trading, water trading etc.). Granitethighs (talk) 04:35, 10 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Sorry but that has virtually nothing in common with my suggestion and is another topic altogether.


 * Could you then re-express what is said below in plain English so that me and others can follow what it is yiou are trying to convey? Granitethighs (talk) 04:50, 10 March 2009 (UTC)


 * "Economic opportunities are sometimes in conflict with uneconomic growth. In human development theory, welfare economics (the economics of social welfare), and some forms of ecological economics, is economic growth that reflects or creates a decline in the quality of life. The concept is attributed to the economist Herman Daly, though other theorists can also be credited for the incipient idea. . Note that economic degrowth is different from uneconomic growth (or uneconomic degrowth), it is meant as a reduction of the size of the economy that would bring well-being and sustainability, see http://events.it-sudparis.eu/degrowthconference/en/." End. skip sievert (talk) 04:43, 10 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I want to point out that if I have a bias here, it is anti-growth and not a "pro-growth" one. I made a recommendation at the end of the economic growth section above and gave three sources that discuss de-coupling economic growth from the idea of prosperity, in the context of sustainability.  It seems that these sources and the comments I made there have been largely ignored, and the material I added is being labeled as "pro-growth" for reasons I don't fully understand.  At this point, I'm not convinced that moving the material to the talk page is a constructive way to resolve this issue.  I'd rather everyone edit it on the main page.  I think peoples' edits and justification (or lack thereof) speak for themselves, which will make this work itself out.  Cazort (talk) 00:55, 10 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I made the new section under the old section as a result of your link suggestions Cazort. I just did not think your links were that great or got at the issue strongly enough. That is why I put in the new area under your area. This is the way articles get better. By editing. Not by controlling an article by two involved people... and reverting good additions. You could have looked at what I put in if it had been left... and maybe sourced something or edited something. That whole aspect of editing here is currently not working because of article ownership issues. skip sievert (talk) 02:28, 10 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes C, I did not interpret your contribution as "pro-growth" - Option 2 was an attempt to de-fuse this perceived contrast of views. Sorry, I missed your "decoupling" contribution - where is it as I would like to read it? Editing "live" is fine while everyone responds to suggestions and shows flexibility (which does not mean "giving in all the time"). If anyone in an editing group is inflexible then the only result is unpleasant edit wars. Sorry Cazort but that is why this editing team has opted to edit in this way - so that differences can be ironed out away from the article. It also saves readers being exposed to constant change. Would you like to sign up to the editing team? Granitethighs (talk) 01:35, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * There's a bit too much structure for me here! The anarchist in me is coming out!  Cazort (talk) 01:40, 10 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you for presenting this option, GT. As with most collaborations, I think that it is an improvement. It avoids WP:SYNTH and generally handles the sources well. HOWEVER, it still needs some work to improve its readability, IMO. Phrases such as: "Sustainable business attempts to “internalize” current environmental and social externalities..." and "Internalization of former externalities..." are likely to prove daunting to the average reader.


 * It is a complex subject, and I think it appropriate that we take a bit of care in making it both informative and readable. I had thought that the paragraph by Cazort, on "Economic opportunity" added to what we already had on "Nature as an economic externality and "Decoupling environmental degradation and economic growth" was about right. My favoured option would have been to put the Economic opportunity section before the decoupling section, to ensure that the reader doesn't assume that it will all be fine if businesses reduce paper consumption and change out to more efficient florescents. I acknowledge Skip's point here.


 * The problem is how do we keep it both neutral (i.e., with a balance of perspectives) and readable? I think that Cazort's references may be a useful in this. After all, we have already summarized Daly on this subject. Should we move this discussion back to the Economic subpage? Sunray (talk) 06:05, 10 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Things are getting pretty crowded and confusinfg here. I think working on it on the economics page is a good idea. Granitethighs (talk) 11:59, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

[Above discussion moved here for further discussion/action] Sunray (talk) 09:04, 11 March 2009 (UTC)


 * You were asked not to do that move by another editor... you were asked to keep it on the main page. I agree with the other editor. Dead ending aspects to obscure talk pages serves no one. Please move the material back so everyone can see it easily. Since the article is nearly done... maybe the assortment of talk discussion pages are not needed. skip sievert (talk) 16:17, 11 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I missed that. Perhaps we need to discuss this more. I have no problem moving it back if that is what the consensus is.  Sunray (talk) 17:04, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

[The above section on Economic Opportunity was a suggested Option to this section immediately below. Sunray has made a number of suggestions for improving the above (see the talk). In the version below Skip added the second paragraph to the first (which was written by someone outside the editing team) and said the above version of his second paragraph bore no resemblance at all to his original paragraph (which is below) ... or words to that effect. The discussion was getting confusing so it was moved here ...]

Big edit on early sections
Much against my better judgement, and with not enough time available to really see it through, I have attempted to edit this section and placed my version at the top of this page. Most of my edits are adding references, improving readability, and getting rid of what I think of as "ivory tower" statements which confuse progress in the study of something with actual progress in the thing itself (and example is "The economic significance of natural resources has been acknowledged by sustainability science"). I've marked some statements in purple because while good in themselves they seemed to be in the wrong place relative to the structure of the article so I'd like your opinion on moving them.

Can I please also put in a plug for editing on these talk pages. I would never hack around with the main article in this way; you would all get furious if I did. I don't even know if what I took as the starting point of my edit was the latest version. All this can be easily checked and resolved on a talk page, if it happened on the main page / main discussion page it would be called an Edit War.--Travelplanner (talk) 00:12, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Sunray can you have a go at the third ("Economic Opportunity" section in above - just so we start from the correct starting point?--Travelplanner (talk) 03:45, 12 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Your edits and proposals look good to me. I would suggest that you continue in that vein. I did some copyediting of the "Economic opportunity" subsection. It needs more work. I also moved the section to the bottom of the page (immediately below) so we can all be sure that this is the latest version.Sunray (talk) 09:38, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Economic concerns
Economic activity has social and environmental consequences, which are central to understanding sustainability. Sustainability economics is the study of these interactions and involves: "... a broad interpretation of ecological economics where environmental and ecological variables and issues are basic but part of a multidimensional perspective. Social, cultural, health-related and monetary/financial aspects have to be integrated into the analysis." The following statement is very broad, does it belong in this subsection? At present the developing world per capita consumption is sustainable (as a global average) but population numbers are increasing and individuals are aspiring to high consumption Western lifestyles. The developed world population is not increasing but consumption levels are unsustainable. The task of sustainable development is to curb and manage Western consumption while raising the standard of living of the developing world - all without increasing its resource use and environmental impact.

Historically there has been a close correlation between economic growth and environmental degradation: as communities grow and become more prosperous, so the environment declines. Reducing environmental impacts can conflict with the legitimate aspirations of individuals in developing countries to a more affluent lifestyle, and with continuing economic growth in developed countries. To resolve these conflicts, it is necessary to:
 * manage the consequences of nature being treated as an economic externality;
 * decouple the relationship between environmental degradation and economic growth; and
 * develop a more ethical economy that takes greater account of the social and environmental consequences of market behaviour.

'' The following para belongs here if we are happy with it. Personally it's a bit emotive for me...'' Unsustainable economic growth has been compared to the malignant growth of a cancer because it eats away at the Earth's ecosystem services which are its life-support system. There is concern that, unless resource use is checked, our civilization will follow the path of civilizations that collapsed through overexploitation of their resource base.

Nature as an economic externality
Natural resources have always been economically significant; this includes ecosystem services, such as the ability of the oceans to provide food and absorb waste, which have in the past tended to be regarded as unlimited or free.

In a market system, as a commodity or service becomes more scarce the price increases and this acts as a restraint on demand and a spur to technical innovation and alternative products. Nature and natural resources are generally treated as economic externalities; in an uncontrolled market they will be overused and degraded, a situation referred to as the Tragedy of the Commons.

Strategies for ensuring that economic decisions take into account the limits to natural resources include regulation, international agreements and "internalising" market strategies such as ecotaxes, economic incentives, and trading of former externalities in financial markets including carbon trading,  water trading and emissions trading.

Decoupling environmental degradation and economic growth
In the second half of the 20th century world population doubled, food production tripled, energy use quadrupled, and overall economic activity quintupled. The fact that growth in energy use is slower than overall economic growth is referred to as "decoupling" of energy use and economic growth. Tooze (2005) states that "it is very probable that the energy intensity of Shakespearean England, measured in terms of joules per unit of gdp, was higher than that of the UK today"."

Part of the task for sustainability is to find ways of reducing (decoupling) the total resource impact (including water, energy, and materials) needed for the production, consumption and disposal of a unit of good or service based on the assumption that reducing resource use generally equates to reduced environmental degradation.

Even in the case of energy use, where some decoupling has been proven, total impact continues to rise. Decoupling has not produced change on the scale that would be necessary to allow continued expansion in the global economy to be reconciled with stabilizing, let alone reducing, environmental impact.

Not sure if the last paragraph adds a lot relative to the "main article" link above: Ecological economics includes the study of societal metabolism, the flows of energy and materials that enter and exit the economic system. Analysts from a variety of disciplines have conducted research on the economy-environment relationship, with concern for energy and material flows, sustainability, environmental quality, and economic development.

Economic opportunity
[ I have not edited the section below; I'm confused as to what is the latest version of it. This is the one! I'm attempting to integrate the passage that Skip added (below). ]

Rather than treating the environment as an externality, by focussing on the triple bottom line, sustainable business practices attempt to integrate ecological concerns with social and economic ones. This approach views sustainability as a business opportunity Sustainable business attempts to "internalize" deal with current environmental and social externalities through triple bottom line accounting so that economic and business development is and attempts to minimise any environmentally damaging growth. (known to ecological economists as (or Growth that depletes ecosystem services is sometimes termed "uneconomic growth" as it leads to a decline in quality of life  For example, industrial waste can be treated as an "economic resource in the wrong place". The benefits of waste reduction include savings from disposal costs, fewer environmental penalties, and reduced liability insurance. in addition to This may lead to increased market share due to an improved public image. Energy efficiency can also increase profits by reducing costs. The idea of sustainability as a business opportunity has led to the formation of organizations such as the Society for Organizational Learning's Sustainability Consortium, oriented towards large corporations, organizations with an educative mission, such as the Sustainable Business Institute, and international organizations such as the World Council for Sustainable Development. In ways like these The expansion of sustainable business opportunities sustainability can contribute to job creation through the introduction of green-collar workers.

[ last para here merged into "nature as environmental externality" ]

Comments

 * Purple above... I do not know either... and I do wonder why it is that this org is being interjected into the article at all http://www.solonline.org/aboutsol/history/

It appears to be a sponsored by a bunch of Corporations. I suggest dropping this whole section from the article (Economic opportunity) and the counterpoint from the article as I suspect something fishy about this whole injection of corporate media connected with very very little information that could be done to better effect... differently without fake corporate promo.


 * By 1995, the center consisted of 19 organizational partners including Amoco, AT&T, Chrysler, EDS, Federal Express, Ford Motor Company, Harley Davidson Motorcycle Company, Hewlett Packard, IBM, Intel Corporation, Lucent Technologies, Merck & Company, National Semi-Conductor, Pacific Bell, Philips, and the Quality Management Network (a consortium of healthcare organizations), Shell Oil Company, Texas Instruments, and US West. Working in partnership with researchers at MIT, a number of these companies undertook a variety of significant organizational experiments. Through these experiments, we have explored building learning capabilities in intact teams, developing new organizational learning infrastructures, transforming the assumptions and practices of executive leadership, and developing internal learning communities. Over time, some companies have involved thousands of people in these organizational experiments and they are a money donation outfit also... very much a corporate entity http://store-solonline.org/


 * On top of that their founder is a promotional speaker http://www.bigspeak.com/peter-senge.html


 * Can I note that people are being paid on the internet to inject corporate connectors... like this... and note that originally the posting had multiple companies included in the article edit? This smells funny to me, like corporate spamming the article with major corporation promoting right below the surface.

I say drop the ref to this corporate for profit non profit.


 * Also a cursory mention of this type of thing economic incentives, and trading of former externalities in financial markets (e.g. carbon trading, water trading etc.). is pointless and gratuitous, and the end section can be dropped entirely and if needed an actual critique of carbon trading could be made... but not this toss off which gets at nothing really about it. Carbon trading is highly controversial... and should not be bandied about without much more critical comment... as is trading water. Why are we advertising a corporation that advertises other corporations... probably for promo reasons? This seems like a very bad idea to pad the article with what some could say is fake money making non profit groups... that advertise corporations. skip sievert (talk) 16:36, 12 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree that the one organisation "Society for Organisational Learning" is given undue prominence. It is one of any number of groups which both involve large corporations and have (or proclaim) environmental goals - others like WWF are much more prominent.  I'll try to think of a way to convey this point more objectively, but it's an important and true point that such organisations exist, and surely you're not saying that you can't reference a corporate organisation in verification of a statement that such organisations exist?


 * Skip the accusation of "corporate spamming the article" is a really inflamatory one that I suggest you may want to retract. User:Cazort was already commenting that we are an unwelcoming bunch....and I think this is over the top.


 * Regarding carbon trading, it exists, it has everything to do with nature as an environmental externality, and the controversy around it is well covered on the carbon trading page. I don't think there's any problem there at all.--Travelplanner (talk) 19:14, 12 March 2009 (UTC)


 * It is a fact that there are paid corporate spammers... so lets not be naive. It is also a fact that intelligence agencies have made an appearance on Wikipedia...to promote some political disinformation... so lets not be naive. As far as carbon trading ... this is a complex subject. To toss it off in the manner it was tossed off is pointless. As far as retracting things... sorry... but the original post was purely corporate spam... it listed multiple companies... and yes this stinks to high heavens. skip sievert (talk) 22:26, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Recently changed
Economic opportunity

Rather than treating the environment as an externality, by focussing on the triple bottom line, sustainable business practices attempt to integrate ecological concerns with social and economic ones. This approach views sustainability as a business opportunity. For example, the benefits of waste reduction in industry include savings from disposal costs, fewer environmental penalties, and reduced liability insurance. Energy efficiency can increase profit margins through reducing costs. The concept of sustainability as a business opportunity has led to the formation of organizations such as Entrepreneurs for Sustainability in the Greater Cleveland area which are oriented towards small and medium sized enterprises. Ideas of sustainability as a driver of job creation through green-collar jobs has gained recent attention. ''

Recent edit to try and reduce corporate spam aspect and also streamline information presentation skip sievert (talk) 23:07, 12 March 2009 (UTC)


 * That about nails it, Skip. I think that we all share the problem with corporate spam, nevertheless, if humans are to move off the dime on this problem the business sector will be a crucial component of the change. I also agree that the example organization is not a good one. I've been looking at green business organizations (there are many) and will find a better example. Sunray (talk) 02:16, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I am very happy with this result too. Much cleaner than my original paragraph.  Cazort (talk) 20:37, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
 * This is not my territory but I've added "sustainopreneurship" as the main heading to this subsection as this seems to be what is being discussed. Remove it if you think I have missed the point. Thanks for your patience Cazort - I think we all appreciate the frustration of editing "minutiae" - there is an anarchist in all of us - but with a team it seems the only way to go. This subsection has forced us to reconsider content of the other two subsections of this economic section. I like changes that have been made above by TP & Sunray. We are close to putting it all up? Granitethighs (talk) 22:44, 13 March 2009 (UTC)Granitethighs (talk) 20:47, 13 March 2009 (UTC)


 * "Sustainopreneurship?" Ugh. I don't like that much. Also, I'm going to ask our peer reviewers about the use of the "Main article" template. I had thought it was mainly for sub-articles and that it was preferable to incorporate links to related articles in the body text.


 * BTW, I've begun incorporating Skip's wording into the section above. Sunray (talk) 07:19, 14 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Happy to leave this task in your capable hands Sunray, I agree we are close to done with this section.--Travelplanner (talk) 09:02, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Revised version (June 17, 2009)
Rather than Treating the environment as an externality may generate short-term profit at the expense of sustainability. . By focussing on all three components of Sustainable business practices, on the other hand, integrate ecological concerns with social and economic ones (i.e., the triple bottom line). This approach views Sustainability as a business opportunity, and attempts to Growth that depletes ecosystem services is sometimes termed "uneconomic growth" as it leads to a decline in quality of life. Minimising environmentally damaging such growth can provide opportunities for local businesses. For example, industrial waste can be treated as an "economic resource in the wrong place". The benefits of waste reduction include savings from disposal costs, fewer environmental penalties, and reduced liability insurance. This may lead to increased market share due to an improved public image. Energy efficiency can also increase profits by reducing costs.

The idea of sustainability as a business opportunity has led to the formation of organizations such as the Society for Organizational Learning's Sustainability Consortium, oriented towards large corporations, organizations with an educative mission, such as the Sustainable Business Institute, and international organizations such as the World Council for Sustainable Development. The expansion of sustainable business opportunities can contribute to job creation through the introduction of green-collar workers.

Here it is cleaned up. Sunray (talk) 00:53, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Treating the environment as an externality may generate short-term profit at the expense of sustainability. Sustainable business practices, on the other hand, integrate ecological concerns with social and economic ones (i.e., the triple bottom line). Growth that depletes ecosystem services is sometimes termed "uneconomic growth" as it leads to a decline in quality of life. Minimising such growth can provide opportunities for local businesses. For example, industrial waste can be treated as an "economic resource in the wrong place". The benefits of waste reduction include savings from disposal costs, fewer environmental penalties, and reduced liability insurance. This may lead to increased market share due to an improved public image. Energy efficiency can also increase profits by reducing costs.

The idea of sustainability as a business opportunity has led to the formation of organizations such as the Society for Organizational Learning's Sustainability Consortium, the Sustainable Business Institute, and the World Council for Sustainable Development. The expansion of sustainable business opportunities can contribute to job creation through the introduction of green-collar workers.