Talk:Sustainability/Archive 14

Archive 10

←

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

→

Archive 20

Noting colours in the 'Sign Up' section

I reckon we should assign a colour to each member of the editing team and note it in the 'sign up' section so that everyone is clear on who is who. I'm not flash with html and colours and I'm not sure what colours have already been assigned, can someone with more knowledge than I help out with this? Nick carson (talk) 00:24, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Good idea. In the past, I've taken blue, GT green and TP purple. I've taken the liberty of adding those colours in the sign-up section, above. Red and cyan are still available (also magenta , orange ...).

I like the use of colours because it not only quickly identifies editors but helps in following discussions on the page. Perhaps a nice clear colour could also be allocated to the text currently being edited? Granitethighs (talk) 03:56, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm a little bit confused about where and when we use the colours. For everything? Just for edits we make to the sections? Nick carson (talk) 04:27, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

I would say we would use colours mostly when we are editing, so we can tell who is adding what. For discussions, it usually isn't needed unless one wants to interleave text to answer questions in a long post. Of course, our posts will invariably be short and sweet  ;-) Sunray (talk) 06:32, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, exactly right - I meant for editing. I just wondered whether the "proposed" text that is under review might benefit from being a different colour. No matter. I see Skip has flown the coop. Is that because we are now tackling the history section? Granitethighs (talk) 06:42, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

I like the suggestion that proposed text be a different colour. How about orange (which shows links well). Sunray (talk) 06:51, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

How about, all our individual propositions, edits & comments be done in our own colours (in the sub talk pages only) and then just use the colour black (what it'll look like finished anyway) for the most recent version of whatever section we're working on? Nick carson (talk) 08:09, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

To do list (again)

Some time ago, I proposed that we use the "To do" box at the top of the page as a one-stop message board. That way, when we wanted to alert each other to something needing attention, we could leave a note there. There was brief discussion and my recollection was that we did not get consensus, although not everyone commented. I do recall that GT was in favour. Would other team members {Nick, TP) be willing to comment on this proposal now? Sunray (talk) 06:51, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

• Agree. And I would also add that I reckon it'd be best if we ticked off each section as such: Done only if it's finished, 90% if it's 90&, 50% if it's 50%, etc. This gives other editors an easy view of how the rewrite is progressing. Also, we should only mark a section as Done if it is done to such an extend that it cannot be further improved upon without finishing the entire rewrite first, at which point each section will need tweaking & adjusting. Nick carson (talk) 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Sure, it would be simpler to go to "50%," "90%," "Done." Or, simplest of all, just "Done." Sunray (talk) 18:18, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

• Agree. This will make things clearer. Let's all be careful not to agree too much though, or things might get boring...--Travelplanner (talk) 08:49, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

I disagree with the second sentence above (sorry, someone had to say it) Granitethighs (talk) 21:24, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

PS. One question - once things are done does that mean they are uploaded to the main article? And who does that?

Consensus to use "To do" list for messaging. Each team member will use to alert others to work or decisions needed. Suggest that we upload once there is general agreement on a version. Any one of us can do that. I will upload the current version of the lead once everyone has had a last look at it. Sunray (talk) 17:16, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good, once a section is done we upload it to the main article (then we can go through the article as a whole later). I reckon 50%, 90%, etc would be a good idea for some of the bigger sections that are going to take a bit more time, especially if we get bogged down in them, but the smaller ones we can just say done. I've applied these changes and updated the sections as per the outline. Nick carson (talk) 01:54, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Category

"Sustainability science" section. This may not be an appropriate category. This is a recent article that may be using a neologism and the page is under debate. It was also created by a team member here. This may create a conflict here as to information. Sustainable development or Environmental science as to notability, could be more proper in the Sustainability article for a heading instead of Sustainability science. Combining the two in a sentence would probably be even better. skip sievert (talk) 17:01, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Some important background. When I first started editing the Sustainability article on Wikipedia I realised that there are three key "operational" ideas to convey:

Firstly there is the business of analysing, conceptualising, knowledge structuring and the like that is an inevitable part of clarifying what sustainability is and where it is going, I see this as part of what we have been doing over the past few weeks.

Secondly there is the business of decision-making we undergo in trying to become more sustainable - which we do in all sorts of ways from international legislation to personal decisions about the way we live.

Thirdly the decisions on how to become more sustainable (second point above) must be based on sound quantitative information that is transparent and open to improvement.

Because I thought these were important ideas underpinning the whole sustainability enterprise and each deserving an individual article in Wikipedia, I raked around in the literature for terms that expressed these ideas clearly and succinctly. There were no universally accepted terms available (because we are dealing with a new area no doubt). I therefore chose what I considered to be the best terms around in the literature. The first I called Sustainability Science, the second Sustainability Governance,the third Sustainability Accounting (to convey the idea of actions based on routine calculations - something people would be familiar with in their financial lives) and created articles accordingly. Skip has astutely observed that these are not "universally accepted" terms and tagged them all as being neologisms which means their names could either be changed or the articles deleted altogether. My concern is not so much with the words as with the ideas. For example, I recognised that sustainability accounting was a bit controversial (it has been questioned by team members here) - so I redirected the article to a new title "Sustainability measurement". However, Skip now would like Sustainability Accounting retained but with an emphasis on "economics" and suggests that with its revised emphasis it would not be a neologism but that Sustainability Measurement certainly would be a neologism. There are several pages of discussion about this issue on the talk page of Sustainability Science if you want to wade through it all. I do not have a solution. I do feel that using "familiar" terminology (for example we could call the second point Sustainability Management or somesuch) demeans its significance - however, it may be the only way out. There is an article loosely doing what the Sustainability measurement article is now and it is called "Sustainability metrics and indices" - a neologism if ever I saw one but I couldn't be bothered tagging it - possibly merge it at some stage. Anyway, I think it is important to make all this clear. I cant help feeling that as a new area the "accepted" terminology is very much in the melting pot.

To answer Skip's point directly - I dont care what we call it - but the principles behind it are importantGranitethighs (talk) 22:22, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

I do not care too much what we call it either... just that it is close enough to the mark that it comes through loud and clear to the ideas and information... and in this case that probably means using the most mainstream terms as possible. It is noted that However, Skip now would like Sustainability Accounting retained but with an emphasis on "economics" and suggests that with its revised emphasis it would not be a neologism but that Sustainability Measurement certainly would be a neologism. That is not the case actually of what I was thinking or saying or trying to communicate. Although the original article title I do now believe is accurate, and descriptive and mainstream as a moniker. Point here is, I am not saying to over or under emphasize economics. Only that realistically, in our system currently in use, it is unavoidable that all the economic issues be brought into the discourse... because mostly decision making is done according to them (money economics). However Economics does not always have to do with money, there is Energy economics - Thermoeconomics etc. and these are of vital importance as to sustainability and give an energy economic picture.

This is why I put some mainstream accounts of energy economics into the article such as this http://telstar.ote.cmu.edu/environ/m3/s3/05account.shtml

This is also why I have tried to introduce more thought into the article concerning energy economics in general that use thermodynamics in a relation to environment and society and resource base limits. Things like Natural capital compared to money capital, and ecological economics... which uses more a metric `of out of the box` thinking in regard to energy, and the effects of using energy on the environment/society. Today is a good example of the tragic way that money economics undermines sustainability. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7778787.stm

In my view:

Sustainability Science is a new term, but not totally new. I met a Professor of Sustainability a few days ago, who teaches Sustainability as a new and important category of Environmental Science. The name may change, like any new term "Sustainability Science" is only good enough until something better comes along. But it's not a neologism - smart people have spent whole careers doing this.

Sustainability accounting / sustainability metrics / measuring sustainability - again the terms haven't settled down but this is a real and meaningful category with lots of well-established work to draw on to create a Wikipedia article. I like "measuring sustainability" as a subheading of this article, I just like the way it fits in context with the rest. I actually myself prefer "Sustainability accounting" as a heading for a standalone article, but could be persuaded otherwise.

Sustainability governance is a process of decision making which aims to secure long-term benefits over short-term gain, and puts strong emphasis on the environment. The great majority of the content of Agenda 21 is about these issues of governance and there are many subsequent lessons about the importance of "how" - eg. the four principles of international Green Parties. Again no need to invent content under this heading.

To keep the main article manageable in length, these sub-articles have to exist. Who created them is not the point.

Granted the total achievements of all current efforts under all three headings are not making the planet sustainable. But nor are they trivial or neologisms.

Adding more economic content and links to the main article is unhelpful. Of course the way the world works has everything to do with economics. But we are trying to write a structured article introducing a newcomer to the key concepts in sustainability - not explain everything that's wrong with the planet.--Travelplanner (talk) 09:27, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

The arbiter of whether we have a section on Sustainability Science, IMO, should be the availability of sources. If there are good sources we could have a small section. I agree with TP on Sustainability accounting. She points out that Measuring sustainability fits well within the context of this article, so let's go with that. Some aspects of sustainability accounting are already covered in the article on Triple bottom line. In any case, it will be an increasingly major topic that deserves its own article. With respect to Sustainability governance, also agree with TP. We do need a summary section on ecological economics, though, IMO, since it is so important to sustainability. Sunray (talk) 17:42, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Looks good - thanks for helping to sort this out. Seems we have ?Sustainability Science (this is still being sorted out on its page), Measuring Sustainability and Sustainability Governance. Also the addition of a summary section on ecological economics. There is a section on economics in the current article - especially as related to growth. Could it go there - or asa section of history. Agree it needs to be in somewhere. Granitethighs (talk) 20:09, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Physical resource theory is the science dealing with physical resources and their conversion in various systems. The systems can be societal (e.g., technical, such as energy conversion systems or an industrial process), geophysical (e.g., the atmosphere or a mineral deposit), or ecological (e.g., an ecosystem or an organism). Special attention should be given to the conversion of physical resources in societal systems. This has to be studied with reference to human needs, availability of resources and the possibilities of incorporating these conversions in the natural system. Another important task for physical resource theory is to develop methods to optimize resource conversion processes. The systems are described and analyzed by means of the methods of mathematics and the natural sciences. http://exergy.se/goran/thesis/ skip sievert (talk) 21:33, 13 December 2008 (UTC)