Talk:Sustainability/application-implementation
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Started page. This is the outline for this section. I for one need to think about this more - and also to see how what is in the "live" article that we haven't used so far relates to it. Granitethighs (talk) 22:48, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
- Agreed. Nick carson (talk) 00:23, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
Further to discussion on the article talk page, I've copied the "Environmental management" section here for editing and reduction based on summary style. Sunray (talk) 06:09, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
Need to focus on sustainability not unsustainability. The sustainability article is too long since it stray too far from the title. The sections on extinctions and invasive weeds etc are all about environmental issues and conservation (ethic). -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 11:46, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
- We are now making headway in reducing the article and this section reduction here should be a great help. Thanks for your input. But, just for clarity, what exactly do you mean when you draw a distinction between sustainability and unsustainability? And what criteria do you use do differentiate between conservation, environmental issues, environmental ethics and sustainability? Clearing this sort of thing up a bit will help enormously in dealing with the material here. Granitethighs (talk) 14:19, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
- Wind power is sustainable, coal fired power plants are unsustainable. Extinctions, over fishing, and water crisis are a result of unsustainable practices. Environmental issues are due to unsustainable practices. Etc. The articles about the topics you mention should clearly (I hope) spell out the distinctions between the topics. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 20:08, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
- I agree with Alan that we need to focus on sustainability, not unsustainability. I also think that the heading "Environmental management" is not descriptive of what is included. Nor do I think that we should give too many column inches to environmental management. It doesn't seem to me to be within the scope of the article. Sunray (talk) 23:31, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
- OK, good points. I'll try and have a go at this over the next few days.
Granitethighs 23:44, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
I guess I'm only repeating what others have said but in re-approaching this section I wonder if it might be best to keep it extremely general - providing a synthesis that sets the scene for other articles and steering well clear of any detail. There are good articles that synthesise the topics discussed here, for example, climate change and food so there is really no need for us to say it all at once. Putting this another way - perhaps we can develop the article more as an outline of sustainability so that readers understand where individual topics fit into the overall scheme of sustainability. Doing this we can perhaps reduce the number of headings quite drastically. I'll have a go and see what you think. Sunray, it will mean a much simpler approach to things like air pollution and climate change. Granitethighs 01:11, 2 November 2009 (UTC)