Talk:Sustainability/Transformation/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Earlier Archives

Archive 1: Earlier drafts/discussion

Relook at last section

Post-environmentalism

Haven't included the infobox as it's absolutely fine in my view the way it is

The World Wide Fund for Nature report Weathercocks and Signposts (ref WWF) points to the ineffectiveness of the “small painless step” marketing approach to behavioural change which encourages less consumptive consumerism by turning off appliances, using energy efficient light bulbs, offering financial rewards, appealing to self-interest, social norms, status etc. Small painless steps can bring about small changes, but big changes will also be needed to achieve sustainability. This in turn requires a political strategy that tackles underlying individualistic and materialistic societal values head-on by offering an unequivocal statement of alternative values – an approach referred to as “post-environmentalism”. According to George Lakoff "People do not always vote in their self interest. They vote their identity. They vote their values." (ref Lakoff) Pro-environmental behaviour is more easily achieved by encouraging ‘intrinsic’ values (personal growth, community, relationships) than ‘extrinsic values’ (material goods, social status, financial reward). The report ends by offering eight practical steps for change:

It is no use saying,
"We are doing our best."
You have got to succeed in
doing what is necessary.

Winston Churchill

• Establish greater clarity on environmental values
• Emphasise intrinsic goals in environmental communication
• Use a broader vocabulary of values in policy debates
• Find common ground between these values and those of development agencies
• Help business to think beyond “the business case for sustainable development”
• Highlight the way marketing manipulates behaviour
• Support public figures who promote intrinsic values
• Identify and promote ways of making public appreciation of nature more relevant (ref WWF).

Comments

I'm glad TP has proposed taking another look at this subsection. While I like the WWF principles, I've long been bothered that we ended the article on a quote. It makes us seem like a mouthpiece for WWF. I don't disagree with quoting the principles, just that we wouldn't add other views to make the section more balanced and neutral. Sunray (talk) 19:42, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Also, though I've archived the previous subsections (Social ecology and Deep ecology) we need to bear in mind that these three subsections work together. In a way, SE and DE pose a problematic - we are destroying the planet, what do we do about it? This latter section proposes a way to deal with it (post-environmentalism). There is plenty of convergence on this. One aspect of that transformative view is spiritual (I think of Wendell Berry, David Holmgren, Janine Benyus, Wes Jackson, Ken Wilber, Joanna Macy, David Suzuki, Daniel Goleman, and others who posit different aspects of the need for a new consciousness on the part of humans. Sunray (talk) 20:04, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree about avoiding ending the section in a quote. I think in addition to serving as an answer to the problem and question, post-environmentalism also functions as a distinction between the whole 1960's awakening/environmentalism, etc, and the more practical nuts and bolts "how are we going to achive sustainability" era. The transformative era hinges on mass-education and awareness which will result in behavioral change, you can see this beginning to happen on a very small scale in the general population overall, people changing light bulbs, saving money on electricity bills, etc, and businesses buying carbon offset credit "things". But overall, this mass-education must be far more swift than it currently is and far far more encompassing and holistic, not merely 'saving money' or 'looking green', because such tiny percieved changes are distortive and mean little in the long term.

I'm not keen on the George Lakoff statement that people vote on their values, etc. People vote based on what information they have at the time, for all sorts of reasons, not just values, but on particular funding policies, big construction projects, etc. Overall, the mainstream comemrcial media has a big say in who people vote for, if the minor parties were treated as equals within the mainstream media, far more people would be aware they exist and would know about their policies, thus, more people would vote for them, as one example. Nick carson (talk) 03:37, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, all these points seem important. It strikes me that, in a way, the whole of the "implementation" section is pertinent here. At the risk of being repetitious perhaps we could summarise with a brief opening sentence that points out that just as sustainability is multifacteted so too, surely, must be the solution ... and refer to improved direct management of the land, air and water around us; the re-establishment of "spiritual connection" with the natural world (a move towards ecocentrism and away from anthropocentrism) through a more holistic (I agree Nick, it must be in there somewhere) perspective and a deeper ecological awareness; a renewal of our awareness of the many dependencies on the natural world including food sources, even parks and gardens. That sustainability has found broad acceptance and has now been given a place at all levels of human organisation including action through formal legislation through to the exchange of values by informal networks; that it also constitutes a vast challenge for science and technology through improved management of resources as they pass through production and consumption. … That all sounds a bit weak and needs work. But you get the drift – it is, at least, trying to be neutral by looking at a range of points of view and approaches! We are back to the old problem of the complexity of sustainability. I agree that we need “mass education”, I also agree that we need “spiritual connection” but it is all interconnected – we also need better land management, better legislation and improved technology. It is always easier if there is only one or a few “key” solutions and approaches. It seems to me that some may be a bit “prior” to others (i.e. we wont get change if people don’t want it). However, I think the sustainability juggernaut must move forward on all fronts at once. Perhaps I’m just confused. … .well, yes, no doubt about it … I am confused. TP, you suggested a re-think – what did you have in the back of your mind?

On George Lakoff - I think at the back of his mind was perhaps the view that people always vote out of self-interest and that generally puts paid to any environmental values. He offers a slightly different view. But yes, I take your point - I'm not completely convinced by him either. I suppose it creates a desperately needed sound of hope. Granitethighs (talk) 04:07, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Oh most definitely, we should pursue the multi-faceted solution within the text. I don't see the complexity of sustainability a problem, we just have to accommodate the subject matter and we can't let policies, guides and conventions compromise the subject matter, that's rule number one in encyclopedia editing, the subject matter comes first, without it what's the use? Without a doubt, everything must be persued at once. We're having trouble at the moment in the AGV policy working group, with the co-ordination of different working groups (freight relies on rail and ports and public transit relies on rail and transport determines urban form which is also affected by planning and so on and so on...) but as I've been saying, I think if we view this article as the main hub so to speak, then everything else can branch off it. We don't need to include everything all at once right here, this is merely the starting point, the introduction to sustainability, it's history, definition, concepts and touch on everything else slightly, that's all we need do. Then we can tackle transforming other articles to include elements of their inevitable gravitation towards sustainability. Nick carson (talk) 15:02, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Re-draft

I'll start with some suggestions.

• Firstly, I think the "social ecology and deep ecology" will need to be moved, I suggest, to fall after "peace, security, social justice" in the "social concerns" section. Its placement under "transformation" does imply that deep ecology is a basis of society's next great step forward, which is probably not a neutral assessment of the importance of a relatively small minority view.

• The tag
  Main article: Sociocultural evolution

is I suggest also removed: it's a bit of a mental leap to see why this is the main article for a conclusion about sustainability.

• Is the heading "Transformation" ? I personally like it, but then I am a greenie. Does it sound neutral? Should it?

• The WWF report recommendations were recommendations to opinion leaders and communicators; ie: we should take their advice on board in terms of how best to communicate sustainability. I think we should apply the list, not quote it

• Much of what used to be in this section ought not to be lost, but there are other homes elsewhere in the article for it...

Now a very brave, very very draft suggested end section, please disagree with it...

From analysis to action

The earth has a finite capacity to provide resources and to absorb waste, and human demands already exceed that capacity. (ref MEA) Current lifestyles in the developed world, which people in the developing world also aspire to, rely on depleting natural capital, and are not sustainable (ref Sachs).

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 zone (ref Macy).

There is a wealth of advice available to individuals on how to make small reductions in environmental impact by small, easy steps (ref Gore). But big changes will also be needed to achieve sustainability. This in turn requires a political strategy that tackles underlying individualistic and materialistic societal values head-on, strengthens people's connections with the natural world, and establishes community and political structures to safeguard the life-supporting capacity of the Earth (ref WWF). Political change has been cited as a barrier to progress on sustainability , but George Lakoff points out that politics is itself an expression of changing social values: "People do not always vote in their self interest. They vote their identity. They vote their values." (ref Lakoff).

It is no use saying,
"We are doing our best."
You have got to succeed in
doing what is necessary.

Winston Churchill

Internationally, and in most developed countries, the political debate has moved from questioning the status of sustainability relative to other political priorities, to accepting the need to take action to improve sustainability. The scale of change needed to bring human consumption back within natural limits is daunting, requiring new cultural norms, social structures and behaviours at all levels and contexts of society (ref Macy).

Final inspiring sentence/s needed...

--Travelplanner (talk) 11:12, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Comments

Not good. That may work as a personal essay on the subject but it reads like a political cultural manifesto. It is totally not encyclopedic. Calling for political aspects such as voting? Making the focus a political thing? Not a good ideas except for a personal essay presentation.

A different more neutral version.. with one new link

Transformation... A sustainable future may involve cultural, socio-political, psychological and behavioural change at all levels and contexts of society.[1] Many groups view the present situation as in need of urgent change.[2] Even so, weight of information and scientific evidence is often insufficient to produce social change, especially if that change entails moving people out of their comfort zones.[3]

The antithesis of sustainability is a disregard for limits, which is the concept of being unable to develop sustainability, resulting in the depletion of natural resources. http://strategy.sauder.ubc.ca/nemetz/jibe.pdf Basic Concepts of Sustainable Development for Business Students —Preceding unsigned comment added by Skipsievert (talk • contribs) 06:44, 8 April 2009

Comments such as "not good" are judgments, thus not often helpful in collaborative editing. I would like to stay with what TP is attempting to do here. Skipsievert's comments seem to be directed towards the fact that TP has incorporated the WWF message rather than quoting it. Skip seems to want to throw it out and tinker with the former wording instead. I would like to hear other views about this.

Skip, if you are going to edit this article, we are following a consensus-based approach. Decisions are made on the subpages and then, assuming consensus, transferred to the main article page. If you can operate within this process, you will be welcome. However, your accusations and claims in the past — Archives 18 and 19 of the main talk page (approximately 70Kb worth) — have interfered with other editors who are working on the article. I would like to see you agree to the editing terms for the project stated on the talk page, before you re-commence editing the subpages. As to the article page, we need a stable article before we can submit to FA review. So we are only able to accept edits that are agreed to on the talk page. Sunray (talk) 17:14, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Agreed Sunray, the point is to work these things out on the talk page. Skip your suggestion of "Many groups view the present situation as in need of urgent change." is a helpful one but itself needs more work. How many groups, and what's the balance vis a vis groups that see no need for urgent change. What about...

"Most national governments have adopted policies recognising the need for urgent change, including Australia and the United States where previous policies which blocked international agreement on climate change have been overturned by governments elected in 2008."--Travelplanner (talk) 22:56, 8 April 2009 (UTC

Thanks TP for putting this together: crafting this sort of thing is sheer hard slog. Fusing the list is a good idea as FA discourages lists … and IMO what you have written flows very well. I am happy with “Transformation” … “Transition” is perhaps less confronting (happy with this if people prefer it), but a word like “Revolution” wouldn’t do! IMO our basic challenge is creating a summary that is NPOV. We must bear in mind that, on the one hand, there will be people reading this who will feel that our society is healthily focused on the economic growth that is necessary tackle any (exaggerated) environmental and social issues. This POV will be looking out for irrelevant, unrealistic and disruptive greenie propaganda. On the other hand there will be those who feel that either the whole show is over, or that if we have any chance at all then we need drastic, immediate and profound social change (we have a steady stream of disenchanted editors like this who feel the article needs to be really “hard hitting”). Then again, out of this it seems to me we have a majority who are numb and rather apathetic (with good reason). We must give voice to all these elements … What to do? Some thoughts. Firstly I think that, rightly or wrongly, the environmental movement does not have a high standing at present and so I think it is reasonable for the article to implicitly acknowledge this and to approach sustainability “afresh” through the use of the expression “post-environmentalism” (i.e. keep it in) … it suggests putting away old differences. Perhaps we can take an even more “inclusive” tack by mentioning (as it did in the values list) that business is a key component of the “transition”. I agree with Sunray that this final section under transformation should be understood as a unit examining and synthesizing divergent views. What to do with Bookchin? I agree he is one minority voice but think he represents a strong undercurrent of thought. Perhaps, as I have tried to suggest above, we can quote his view fair and square in combination with that of DE and contrast it directly with more “mainstream” views. That will confront the reader with the two ?extreme cases. Stating these views clearly and succinctly is surely the nearest we can get to NPOV. The reader no doubt will then question his/her alignment. To summarise this diatribe my suggestion is this:

• Use what you have written as the basis for the following suggestions

• keep the current headings (except for deep ecology and social ecology)

• put deep ecology, social ecology, and Bookchin in the text but use them more as a vehicle (got to get transport systems in somewhere …) for comparing and contrasting various other views – which you have essentially done really well already - including the strand of thought relating to “connection” that Sunray has mentioned above and which is, at present, IMO only hinted at. In other words, just a massage of what you have done to make different points of view more apparent.
• I am happy with Socio-cultural change

(sorry about the length of this post) Granitethighs (talk) 23:51, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Oh dear I have had a go (see below) but I fear I am making things worse, will take a few days break here and see if miracles occur while I am away (again). --Travelplanner (talk) 11:02, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

I was in agreement with TP's original recommendations, above. With respect to SE and DE, she suggested moving those sections to the previous section (she said under "Peace, Security and Social Justice, but I assume they could be anywhere in the Social Concerns section). That made sense to me because we are talking about the human-environment interface. That could be done in a new subsection immediately prior to the transformation section. I really did like our former subheading "post environmentalism."

That suggests a completely new paradigm, one that automatically accepts that humans are part of nature and moves on from there. Thinkers like Joanna Macy and Ken Wilber posit such a human evolution beyond the environmentalism/social justice phase. That is beyond the scope of our article, but if SE and DE were moved to the end of the "Social concerns" section, we could have a one-liner referring to "post environmentalism" at the end of that section which could serve as a lead-in to this final section. And at the end of the "Transformation" section, we might bring in the spiritual dimension. I'm thinking about NPOV ways to do that. Sunray (talk) 17:19, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, looking again at this I think it would work very well. We could make these moves and major changes and then discuss the final tweaks needed. Lets do it. Granitethighs (talk) 20:40, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

By the way, I love all the new age honky tonk and will try to make a contribution after easter with some heavy metal (a french horn and possibly a flute). Granitethighs (talk) 05:18, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

I've gone through and made some additions/changes/comments. It's very close. Also note that I've changed my colour to orange as red was clashing with broken links. Haha, the flute, very heavy metal, it'll be interesting to hear the end product. Nick carson (talk) 11:44, 11 April 2009 (UTC) What about Jethro Tull?--Travelplanner (talk) 23:11, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

I would not consider Ken Wilbur a thinker and that would be a really poor addition on this article to have commentary from him. I would consider him a hack money writer and a third or fourth rate intellectual skip sievert (talk) 16:31, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't think TP was suggesting that his 'thoughts' or words would be potential candidates for this article. Nick carson (talk) 13:29, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

TransformationTransition

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, from a range of groups and sources, on how individuals can reduce their impact on the environment through small, cheap and easily achievable steps. But reducing transitioning human consumption to within natural sustainable limits will require much larger changes, at all levels and contexts of society. [This is hardly disputed and does not warrant a fact tag]But it doesn't hurt to include GT's link here, and it's a good fit

The importance of education for sustainability, to instill "respect for the planet and what it provides to us" has been affirmed by the United Nations Environment Programme and is currently embodied in the United Nations Decade of Education for Sustainable Development, 2005-2014.

The Worldwide Fund for Nature proposes a strategy that goes beyond education to tackle underlying individualistic and materialistic societal values head-on, strengthens people's connections with the natural world, and establishes community and political structures to safeguard the life-supporting capacity of the Earth.

[Deep ecology bit needed here - which I am not the best person to write How about we go with TP's original suggestion that it be in the previous section of the article (see comments above)?]

[not sure about this bit]A global lack of political change will progression has been cited as a barrier to progress on sustainability, but George Lakoff points out that politics is itself an expression of changing social values: "People do not always vote in their self interest. They vote their identity. They vote their values." [The George Lakoff quote may be adequate in some instances, but not globally, and it doesn't serve the section well enough to allow nice flow into an exiting sentence. It's education and speedy political progression that are key to the timliness of human sustainability. Anywhere else I'd be quoted there, I'm happy to provide the optimistic exiting sentence once we've resolved this paragraph.]

It is no use saying,
"We are doing our best."
You have got to succeed in
doing what is necessary.

Winston Churchill

Final inspiring sentence/s needed...In a recent statement (April 2009) Andrew Simms policy director of N.E.F. stated that 'using thresholds for risk identified by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), on current trends, in only 92 months - less than eight years - we will move into a new, more perilous phase of warming. It will then no longer be "likely" that we can prevent some aspects of runaway climate change. We will begin to lose the climatic conditions which, as Nasa scientist James Hansen points out, were those under which civilisation developed. end quoted material, Policy director of the New Economics Foundation (nef), and author of Ecological Debt: Global Warming and the Wealth of Nations

Notes

The antithesis of sustainability is a disregard for limits, which is the concept of being unable to develop sustainability, resulting in the depletion of natural resources. http://strategy.sauder.ubc.ca/nemetz/jibe.pdf Basic Concepts of Sustainable Development for Business Students

I think the article is currently a mess and far from neutral. This is a problem when three people try to control something that seem to share mostly the same point of view... double sourcing the U.N. at the end is a mistake, just like sourcing the U.N. out of all context, through out the article, is a mistake. I think the team as you refer to yourselves has not improved the article in the sense of making it more non neutral... and drifted it into a political/governmental scold instead of a science based commentary of information. skip sievert (talk) 16:40, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Skip, this is an article on subject matter for an encyclopedia, not political/governmental scold and not commentary of any nature. If you'd like an example of what I would write personally if I was being politically/governmentally scolding I'd be happy to provide it. I too am skeptical of the UN's ability to achieve it's prescribed goals, it is very much a paper tiger, but it's the best UN we've got. What are your particular points of critique concerning this section? Nick carson (talk) 13:10, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Skip, anyone is free to join the editing team. No-one is trying to control the article - except clearly you, who have not decided to join the team, but wish to have your minority view prevail. That's fine, but the editing team proceeds by consensus. You have made your point about the UN many times - what about backing away from a dead horse after beating it to death. I have reverted the sentence about the antithesis of sustainability as I dont think it has anything useful to say. However, I am willing to abide by consensus if others disagree. Granitethighs (talk) 07:20, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't think the antithesis of sustainability is held by the general human population. If they are capable, educated and aware, people want nothing more than to sustain their own existences, it harks back to survival in general. I don't this the sentence on the antithesis of sustainability serves the section well, so I support the revert. Nick carson (talk) 07:53, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Nick, I don't understand the term "political progression." Would you be able to provide a quote that addresses it? I had thought that "political will" was what we were talking about. Sunray (talk) 08:36, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I re added the information and do not consider that it was debated, it was sourced and meaningful. The article should also not be a rah rah cheering section about what may or may not happen. The added info was meant as a balancer. It fails neutral presentation by promoting aspects instead of discussing aspects objectively and consequences objectively. Also, 'Transformation' is not a good article section title. It is leading the reader, and saying that... The importance of education for sustainability, to instill respect for the planet and what it provides to us -Instill sounds like inculcate. That is not education. skip sievert (talk) 16:52, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

The statement you added doesn't seem to contribute much to the article, so I've removed it (again). The title of that section has been discussed. Consensus, thus far, is to continue with "Transformation." The statement you refer to about education is sourced with a reliable source. I personally think it is appropriate in this section and I would like to retain it. Sunray (talk) 21:31, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Just for information - have a look at http://gsg.org and also the publication at http://www.gtinitiative.org/documents/Great_Transitions.pdf . There might be a precedent for preferring "Transition" to "Transformation" - I'm not fussed but see what you think. There are some interesting ideas here too for this last section. Granitethighs (talk) 01:01, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Well obviously two against one trumps any so called discussion. I don't think in general what the team is doing is a consensus though. I do think with this particular article a name change would be appropriate Sustainability and the U.N., as I have said before, and seriously it would reflect the article contents better. At least in the old article there was only one major section where the focus was U.N. projected, whereas this one spills over through out. Anyone care to actually count the mentioned U.N. related groups and links and citations/notes in this article in total?... with that sourcing through out from beginning to end of the article. This last section is particularly over done with that. Five references to it in statements and links. That is overboard as to sourcing in this little section... and automatically puts the information into the non neutral pov aspect as to presentation with that mono like view. It kind of turns U.N. stuff into promotion of a 'fan site' in the context of the article. Pity because there is so much better or newer information around much of it more up to date. All the U.N. really does is collate information anyway, and that from mostly an economic (money) viewpoint, in accord with the World Bank, I.M.F., etc... but that is another subject.

Particularly the over use of the Millennium link seems sad... much of that information is antique now.

Neither transformation or transition is a good way to frame or present things. Too p.o.v. and that is the problem in general with the teams focus of information presentation (being advocates). Instead of hectoring people, the idea, (my opinion) is only present the various perspectives and notable aspects, and let people do the thinking instead of leading people. skip sievert (talk) 17:01, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

I vote for "transition" and for the link to the Stockholm Institute document

I struggled with the quotes in the early section as so many are from the UN. These are reliable but Skip won't be the only reader who has a thing about the UN, and the whole point of my edit was to make a more convincing case that the need for change is the balanced conclusion of the bulk of reliable published sources not some personal or organisational POV. If we take Skip's comments on board and expand our brief to include convincing UN-skeptics we need more links to other high level meta-analyses of reliable published sources.

Most of the orange changes are great, but I struggled myself with "there is a range of information available on how to reduce individual environmental impact" and the addition of "from many groups and sources" doesn't solve the problem that this is all too vague. The statement is true - there is a range of such info, Al Gore's list has some status but I've found at least 10 different and equally good lists of actions by googling "reducing ecological footprint". What's needed, that I can't find, is an overall list of such lists. One way around this would be to add a section on "reducing ecological footprint" to the ecological footprint page (which incidentally is in a bit of a mess) and handle this one via a wikilink.

The section on politics needs more work. Quoting any individual, inc Lakoff, at the end is quite lame in the context as above of trying to state that the weight of world opinion recognises the need for transition. I did try hard to find quotes looking at the election of Obama in the US and Rudd in Australia, which resulted in these two countries finally joining the rest of the developed world in accepting the need for international climate change treaties, as confirmation of a lasting shift in world political opinion about the environment. I didn't succeed but there must be something out there, the point seems to me too obvious to be original.

I think the best quote to end on is Winston Churchill as redefined by WWF - this would mean taking the quote out of its box and stating that it is used as an environmental quote by WWF.

This is definitely falling into shape, please let me know what you think of the ideas above and who should implement them.--Travelplanner (talk) 19:53, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

It should not be that hard to find good information as we are surrounded by it on all fronts... like this,

'In a recent statement (April 2009) Andrew Simms policy director of N.E.F. stated that 'using thresholds for risk identified by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), on current trends, in only 92 months - less than eight years - we will move into a new, more perilous phase of warming. It will then no longer be "likely" that we can prevent some aspects of runaway climate change. We will begin to lose the climatic conditions which, as Nasa scientist James Hansen points out, were those under which civilisation developed. Policy director of the New Economics Foundation (nef), and author of Ecological Debt: Global Warming and the Wealth of Nations http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7988648.stm ' end quote, Andrew Simms. Policy director of the New Economics Foundation

Again... closed circles are just that, and following ones nose to information already known or thought to be known makes for one very boring article. skip sievert (talk) 22:16, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

It is coming along; the ideas are getting more focused but IMO it is showing the signs of multiple editors a bit. TP, you have done the running on this section and have improved it enormously, it would be good if you could see it through. We have now transferred the deep ecology and SE material elsewhere and this section is looking more like a final synthesis. I think if you smooth out the language so that it flows better that would be a great help. More specific suggestions ... perhaps we get rid of Lakoff but not his point about values. (A few quotes make the article more digestible and illustrate points - that is why I put him in, but he has irritated people, including me). This end section IMO needs to be broad-based and general so statements like that above by the IPCC seem IMO too specific, shrill and declamatory here. If , in summarising, we repeat points given previously then we need fresh wording or it becomes repetitive. I still like the general points about "connection", "holism" and others that have been raised at different times; and I also liked much of your early write. All in all - I think it is nearly there but needs to make the various points steadily, and clearly and without jumping about too much. The Great Transition includes some good general principles that give people something to hold on to and might be a help. Yes, we could reduce some of the UN stuff. Meta-analyses include: the WWF 2008 Living Planet Report; the IUCN 2008 Transition to Sustainability report, the Millennium Development Goals; The Great Transition (Stockholm; yes, the IPCC plus, dare I say it, a lot of material from UNEP, FAO and other UN-related bodies. The core points and trends indicated by the MEA are as relevant now as they were when printed in 2005. Other people can perhaps think of other "meta"sources. (PS any chance of the diagram being tweaked too?) Granitethighs (talk) 23:12, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Please do not make Winston Churchhill, into a zombie speaker for something that is totally unrelated to him and his time period. Also... drop the Al Gore link. He is not a credible voice, for many, and mostly it reinforces the overtly wrong political/traditional/ aspect of the present article. skip sievert (talk) 23:44, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

WHAT? Did I see someone saying Al Gore is not a credible voice? Then what do the Nobel Peace Prize committee thinking about? Unfortunately, their credibility is stronger than yours. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 05:11, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Happy to tackle the rest of the writing and thanks for all the useful links and suggestions. I'll be offline for a few days though, so it won't happen till early next week, someone else might want to do it quicker. I'll do the diagram tweak early next week too. Three small questions in the meantime:

• Suggested favourite environmental quotes? Skip is right to point out that Winston is dead...however wrong he may be in reflecting the balance of published opinion on Gore. There's got to be a great quote out there...
• What about the idea of creating a meta-list of "what you can do" advice on another page and on which page should this be?
• What should we work on next?

--Travelplanner (talk) 05:38, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

... Thanks TP, I am more than happy to wait.

... Quote - "Be an independent producer rather than a dependent consumer"

... Meta-list. I've tried to do this and it is a great education in sustainability. First point is that you can develop lists for all levels of any kind of hierarchy of categories that you care to create. However, assuming you are talking about a list for the "individual" (as opposed to neighbourhood, household etc) this gets really interesting because it can quickly expand to infinity. Which then poses at least the following questions "Can we develop a way of prioritising the list?", "What should be the "categories" that we choose for assessment (it could be expressed in terms of lifestyle behaviours, the products we use etc.) also "How do we compare and rank different things - like energy and water relative to one-another?". And what "measures" do we use for our prioritisation within the categories we have chosen?" Which then brings us to context, your local environment determines at least in part how much impact you have - so wont priorities be different for each person? In our attempt to think through all this we came up with the (not very clever) idea of simple categories like energy, materials, water, food and biodiversity and how we influence all of these. This seems to cover a large number of sustainability issues relating to the environment anyway.

... Next, I am keen to revisit a few bits, especially the Lead but will be happy to pull my head in if people feel like screaming. Sunray will know what our plan should be here. We could all promise to read it through beginning to end - I think there may still be some repetition and strangled expression.

Granitethighs (talk) 06:14, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

It makes sense to take a last look at each of the sections in the context of a final edit. I agree that we should each read it through from top to bottom. I'm thinking that it needs some trimming. At 120 kb, the article strikes me as being a tad bloaty. We need to revisit the idea of subpages one more time, IMO. Sunray (talk) 07:59, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand the concept of a meta list. We would have to take care that we don't transgress what Wikipedia is not: Wikipedia is not a manual, guidebook, or textbook. Given that, I'm not sure how we could do a meta list. Sunray (talk) 08:06, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Sunray, I don't think a meta list is a good idea at all, it's up to each individual to source and find information pertaining to them and their particular situations, their local area, etc, any list we attempt will conflict with what WP is not and be incomplete and inadequate. I only added the "there are a range of sources, etc to find information..." sentence to explain that there is information out there and available.

The only way to deal with the reduction of the size of the article properly is to split off subsections into dedicated articles. We can do this and it'll probably have to be done at some stage eventually, but that isn't to say that it should be done now, it would probably be best if we do it progressively. Nick carson (talk) 14:39, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, point made - its not Wikipedia fare. Granitethighs (talk) 21:31, 16 April 2009 (UTC)