Talk:Sustainability/Measuring sustainability/Archive 2

This is an archive of past discussions about Sustainability. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Its not a big deal but I am now lost as to what we all think should go in this "measuring" section, especially which bits of the "live" article should be included. Once I get your views I will be happy to get stuck into it again. Granitethighs (talk) 03:03, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

We're working on the reverted section just above this conversation here. We should be including summaries of the various ways we can measure the sustainability or unsustainability of human systems or biological systems, etc, such as 'Ecological Footprint' and other methods of measuring sustainability or lack there of. Nick carson (talk) 04:14, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Right, here we go! Granitethighs (talk) 04:23, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I have put the latest clean attempt at this section at the top of this page. It is just not possible to go into detail on the various sustainability metrics so this section has been built to just give readers an overview and then guide them to other articles. IMO TPs graph is extremely important and I have made it big so that people can actually read what is in it - it might be an idea to make it even bigger. It needs a block of the graph marked as "Sustainable" - easily done, I will talk to TP about it. Like all sustainability topics I wonder if this is what you expected - perceptions on what is appropriate for this section might be quite different. Anyway - this is at least a start. Granitethighs (talk) 01:07, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Looking good! All we needed for this section was an overview of the various ways in which sustainability/unsustainability can be measured, and I think we're pretty much on target to finalise. Nick carson (talk) 01:58, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm confused. What are we working on here? There is a "Measuring sustainability" section, but it is then followed by a whole bunch of other stuff from the main article (from "Sustainability perspectives" on down). Also, some of the changes that were made to the "Measuring sustainability" draft we were working on didn't get incorporated (for example, I had used the "Main article" template, which I think is much cleaner). And I don't understand why the current version goes to the top of the page. We did that once before and I found it hellish confusing. For one thing, all the chronology is then lost, which makes it harder to see what was changed when. I would like to move the section we are working on (and only what we are working on) to the bottom of the page. Do we need the stuff on "Sustainability perspectives here? If we are working on it, why doesn't it have its own subpage? Please help me out on this. Confused in BC. Sunray (talk) 05:24, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry mostly my fault. I moved the latest version to the top of the page because I thought that was where we were generally tending to edit the "latest version". All the "Sustainability perspectives" stuff is left over from when Skip transferred a mass of material from the live article. Sorry (again) I made so many changes to the text that it was unwieldy so I left it clean - all the substance is still there though. The "Main" template is certainly best - that did get lost and needs to go back. I will fit in with whatever people prefer and realise the loss of chronology was not a good idea.Granitethighs (talk) 06:36, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree it does get confusing which is the "Live" version! The "Latest clean version" at the top of the article is a bit unwieldy - though I made a couple of corrections where editing had compromised the accuracy a bit, I didn't read it all the way through (I'm using the pay-per-minute internet at the hostel) which is possibly a bad sign. The links box is a great addition and I'm happy for the text I wrote about ecological footprint to go under "measures of human impact" (it's currently in two places) but I hope the graph stays. The "sustainability perspectives" section needs to be meditated upon and tried out on some readers; the language is too dense and though the ideas are important there's probably a simpler way to convey them. Then there are the sections on "water", "land" etc which I didn't think would fit under this heading. That said, the whole section seems to be in good hands; I'm sad not to be able to contribute but no doubt will get the chance to make up for it somehow; meanwhile don't wait for me to come back to finalise. Great work.--Travelplanner (talk) 09:21, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Hehe, wow! If only this team got more excited about the actual editing than they did about the organisation :] Seriously though, it is important. Good organisational and chronological observations Sunray. Nick carson (talk) 11:41, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Just for this section the suggested version is at the top of the page. It is relatively short and ends at the "sustainability perspectives" heading. This section too is information-dense - seems the only way to deal with it all using side bars to allow people to get at some of the detail, and again when we are done we can perhaps lighten it up a bit. Anyway, is it OK now? Perhaps the headings could be better? Granitethighs (talk) 21:31, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

That's clear. I am moving the current version to the bottom. Sunray (talk) 23:17, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Sustainability measurement Key concepts & tools
Carbon accounting Ecological footprint Ecological economics Environmental impact assessment Environmental indicator Environmental Performance Index Environmental Sustainability Index Happy Planet Index Input output analysis Life cycle assessment Natural resource economics Natural step Social accounting State of the Environment Sustainability reporting Thermoeconomics Triple bottom line accounting
This box: view talk edit

By establishing quantitative measures for sustainability it is possible to set goals and measure progress. To survive on planet Earth humans must live within its measurable biophysical constraints. The Natural Step (TNS) framework developed by Karl-Henrik Robert examines sustainability and resource use from its thermodynamic foundations to eventually combine look at how humans use and apportion natural capital<human capital, social capital and financial capital in a way that is sustainable and just. The TNS framework's system conditions of sustainability provide the basis forsuggest a means for the into a scientifically-based measurement of sustainability. sustainable development management program.

Knowing whether we are progressing towards sustainability requires measurement. To be effective, measurement of sustainability must be grounded in scientific principles. The first law of thermodynamics deals with the conservation of energy in a given system. The second law describes how entropy affects isolated systems—how concentrated energy disperses over time, leaving less energy to do work. Taken together the laws of thermodynamics provide a basis for measurement. One framework that has been based on the laws of thermodynamics is the system conditions of sustainability developed by Karl-Henrik Robert and called "The Natural Step framework."

The system conditions of sustainability address how we use, and share resources. TheseNatural capital includes resources from the earth's crust (i.e., minerals, oil), those produced by humans (synthetic substances), and those of the biosphere. Equitable access to natural capital is also a component of sustainability. As resources are used, energy is consumed. The energy generated in use of resources - referred to as exergy^[1] - is the embodied energy, of a product or service over its life cycle. It's analysis, as in methods such as life cycle analysis or ecological footprint analysis are basic indicators of sustainability on various scales. Unsustainabliity occurs when the human production of an economic good depletes the exergy of Earth's natural resources more quickly than those resources are able to receive exergy.

By establishing quantitative measures for sustainability it is possible to set goals and measure progress. There is now a vast number of sustainability indicators,^[2] metrics, benchmarks, indexes as well as reporting procedures, audits and more. They include environmental, social and economic measures separately or together over many scales and contexts from the biosphere as a whole to households, national economies, wetlands and cities. Environmental factors are integrated with economics through ecological economics, resource economics and thermoeconomics, and social factors through metrics like the Happy Planet Index which measures the well-being of people in the nations of the world while taking into account their environmental impact.^[3]. In addition to measures such as Ecological footprint analysis, and the Cradle to Cradle resource analysis of products and services through Life Cycle Assessment, some of the best known and most widely used sustainability measures are listed in the side bar and include consumption, corporate Sustainability reporting, including Triple bottom line accounting, and estimates of the quality of sustainability governance by for individual countries using the Environmental Sustainability Index and Environmental Performance Index.

On a global scale we need to know the human impact on the overall carrying capacity of the planet – are humans living sustainably on planet Earth? The Ecological footprint measures human consumption in terms of the biologically productive land needed to provide the resources, and absorb the wastes of the average global citizen. In 2008 it required 2.7 global hectares per person, 30% more than the natural biological capacity of 2.1 global hectares (assuming no provision for excluding that needed for other organisms). ^[4] The resulting ecological deficit must be met from unsustainable sources - use of stored resources including fossil fuels, and "mining" natural resources including forests and fisheries at greater than their rate of regeneration. The figure to the left indicates the sustainability of a range of countries in terms of the Ecological footprint compared to the UN Human Development Index (a measure of standard of living). The chart is a graphic presentation showing what is necessary for countries to maintain an acceptable standard of living while also living at a globally sustainable level. At present only Cuba falls withinis the best example in this category. ^[5] The general trend is for higher standards of living to become less sustainable. As always population growth has a marked influence on levels of consumption and the efficiency of resource use.^[6]

A wealth of information generated by reports at the national, regional and city scales confirm the global trend to societies that are becoming less sustainable over time.^[7][8]

Biodiversity & sustainability Key concepts & information
Applied ecology Biodiversity Conservation biology Ecosystem services Endangered species Environmental science Extinction Genetic erosion Habitat fragmentation Systems ecology Wildlife conservation World Conservation Monitoring Centre
This box: view talk edit

The Millennium Ecosystem Assessment^[9] provides the most comprehensive current synthesis of the state of the Earth’s ecosystems. Human activity is having an escalating and potentially critical impact on the biodiversity of ecosystems, reducing both their resilience and capacity. The report refers to natural systems as humanity's life-support system, providing the necessary services for humans to flourish. It includes measures of 24 ecosystem services concluding that only four have shown improvement over the last 50 years, 15 are in serious decline, and five are in a precarious condition.

This section is looking good, do we require any further references? What more needs to be done for us to say it is "Done", tick it and upload it to the main article? Nick carson (talk) 00:45, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm happy. Granitethighs (talk) 01:07, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I would like to talk a bit more about the frameworks for measurement. We need an anchor in the science, IMO. The Laws of Thermodynamics. The best framework I've yet seen for this is The Natural Step's system conditions of sustainability. I also think that we need a bit more on actual measurement that is currently ongoing. I should be able to get to this later this evening unless convinced, in the meantime, that it's not a good idea. Sunray (talk) 02:10, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I like. Granitethighs (talk) 03:26, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I've added a paragraph on a framework for measurement. If you think it worthwhile, I will add references. Or we could take a different approach. More to come, but I'm off to bed right now. Sunray (talk) 09:11, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm having trouble loading the scatter diagram (and if I have difficulty, many others will). Perhaps it needs to be reduced in size or otherwise tweaked. I will explore this. Sunray (talk) 19:27, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

There seems to be a problem with the source file. I'm not sure how to fix this. Sunray (talk) 19:34, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

For reasons beyond my ken, the diagram is now available. I've downsized it slightly to widen the right hand column. Sunray (talk) 22:23, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

That per capita graph is going to be a tricky one, I use three different computers during the day so I get to see it in three separate display/browser sizes and sometimes it works sometimes it doesn't, it's going to depend on the reader's browser and display size. It'll need tweaking in the article overall so lets call it good enough for now and we'll perfect it later. Nick carson (talk) 11:10, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

I've added a second paragraph at the beginning of the section. The first still needs references. The second needs more work. I tried to throw together the ideas that establish the basis for measurement. Needless to say, it's not my strongest suit. Too bad TP isn't around. However, I will work at it and if GT and Nick can assist, we may get something worthwhile. Sunray (talk) 09:23, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Further to the above comments: The second paragraph, I think, says approximately what we need to say by way of scientific background. However, I am no expert in thermodynamics and am not sure if the terms are correct the way I've worded it. GT, your knowledge of this field is no doubt superior to mine. Can you work with it? Simpler is always better in my book. Meanwhile, I'm still tracking down references. Sunray (talk) 20:47, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

It's looking pretty good. The details appear to be in order as to my knowledge, but nor am I an expert in physics or scientific measurement, so I'll offer some comments on how it reads. I think all the thermodynamics and scientific measurement jargon might be a bit too much for the reader first up, perhaps we should include a brief sentence or two to establish what we're about to talk about and lead them into the subsequent information? Nick carson (talk) 11:20, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

I like the idea of presenting the thermodynamic constraints of the Earth but I’m not sure it can be done in a brief and user-friendly way. I have been reading about TNS and although their work is presumably sound (as you know it has been read and agreed to by many reputable scientists) their stated broad principles present, to me, more questions than they answer. That may be my problem but I think it will also be that of readers. Peopl e doing the TNS course no doubt get the full story but I think it will be difficult for us to do it justice other than to give it a mention. The conditions and principles they state may well be scientifically sound but they are IMO so general as to not provide clear guidance. Their available practical management advice seems to be largely all the principles of dematerialisation, life cycle assessment etc. that we have covered and which people can probably follow more easily than thermodynamics. I understand what you are trying to do but I’m not sure we can do it convincingly. You will know all about the following TNS material (in red):

You are quite right that there is an overhead of explanation required to introduce something like TNS. It is just that I haven't found too many frameworks based on scientific principles. The two that seem to be most useful are TNS and EF. Of the two, I find that TNS gets the science across fairly simply. And we do need to keep it simple (which I did not achieve in my second paragraph). Your descriptive overview below is excellent. We need to focus on the measurement piece, as I see GT has begun to do. I will pursue that further. Sunray (talk) 19:10, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

For what it is worth I think what TNS is driving at is the following:

Planet Earth is essentially a closed biophysical system except for the input of energy from the Sun. The Sun’s energy is stored by plants which, as primary producers, pass this energy through the food chain to all other organisms, so it is this energy which powers the biosphere. Humans depend totally on the environmental conditions provided by other organisms (ecosystem services) and therefore cannot, indefinitely, consume nature’s ecosystem services or use the Earth’s resources (mostly organic) faster than they can be replenished by nature. In dealing with materials human activity is more sustainable if it emulates the processes in nature that cycle materials and thus minimise waste and energy use.

Where does this leave us? Could I suggest a very general opening paragraph – it may not do what you want it to do though:

By establishing quantitative measures for sustainability it is possible to set goals and measure progress. To survive on planet Earth humans must live within its measurable biophysical constraints. The Natural Step (TNS) framework developed by Karl-Henrik Robert examines sustainability and resource use from its thermodynamic foundations to eventually combine look at how humans use and apportion natural capital<human capital, social capital and financial capital in a way that is sustainable and just. The TNS framework's system conditions of sustainability provide the basis forsuggest a means for the into a scientifically-based measurement of sustainability. sustainable development management program. Granitethighs (talk) 11:56, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

I like how this is shaping up. There could, of course be criticism that we are "propounding a particular model" however, we can make it clear that this is just one approach and that it is not a competition for the right model, but rather a dialogue across the planet about how to deal with the human condition and become more sustainable as a species. Sunray (talk) 19:33, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

I put in just one tweaklet hope it is OK. Granitethighs (talk) 20:17, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Funny how our minds run in tandem sometimes. I had paused over that wording, but drew a blank for an alternative. Your wording captures what was wanting to say. Sunray (talk) 20:25, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

I've added it as the first paragraph and re-worked the second para. What do you think? Sunray (talk) 20:41, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

I think that is good. We can take another bight if we need to when we see how the whole thing gels. I reckon go live now. Granitethighs (talk) 21:53, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Sustainability measurement Key concepts & tools
Carbon accounting Ecological footprint Ecological economics Environmental impact assessment Environmental indicator Environmental Performance Index Environmental Sustainability Index Happy Planet Index Input output analysis Life cycle assessment Natural resource economics Natural step Social accounting State of the Environment Sustainability reporting Thermoeconomics Triple bottom line accounting
This box: view talk edit

By establishing quantitative measures for sustainability it is possible to set goals and measure progress. To survive on planet Earth humans must live within its measurable biophysical constraints. The Natural Step (TNS) framework developed by Karl-Henrik Robert examines sustainability and resource use from its thermodynamic foundations to look at determine how humans use and apportion natural capital in a way that is sustainable and just. The TNS framework's system conditions of sustainability suggest a means for the scientifically-based measurement of sustainability.^[1]

Natural capital includes resources from the earth's crust (i.e., minerals, oil), those produced by humans (synthetic substances), and those of the biosphere. Equitable access to natural capital is also a component of sustainability.^[1] The energy generated in use of resources - referred to as exergy^[2] - is the embodied energy, of a product or service over its life cycle. It's analysis, as in methods such as Life Cycle Analysis or Ecological Footprint are basic indicators of sustainability on various scales.^[3]

There is now a vast number of sustainability indicators,^[4] metrics, benchmarks, indexes as well as reporting procedures, audits and more. They include environmental, social and economic measures separately or together over many scales and contexts from the biosphere as a whole to households, national economies, wetlands and cities. Environmental factors are integrated with economics through ecological economics, resource economics and thermoeconomics, and social factors through metrics like the Happy Planet Index which measures the well-being of people in the nations of the world while taking into account their environmental impact.^[5] In addition to measures such as Ecological footprint analysis, and the Cradle to Cradle resource analysis of products and services through Life Cycle Assessment, Some of the best known and most widely used sustainability measures are listed in the side bar, they include corporate sustainability reporting, Triple Bottom Line accounting accounting, and estimates of the quality of sustainability governance for individual countries using the Environmental Sustainability Index and Environmental Performance Index.

On a global scale we need to know the human impact on the overall carrying capacity of the planet – are humans living sustainably on planet Earth? The Ecological footprint measures human consumption in terms of the biologically productive land needed to provide the resources, and absorb the wastes of the average global citizen. In 2008 it required 2.7 global hectares per person, 30% more than the natural biological capacity of 2.1 global hectares (assuming no provision for excluding that needed for other organisms). ^[6] The resulting ecological deficit must be met from unsustainable sources - use of stored resources including fossil fuels, and "mining" natural resources including forests and fisheries at greater than their rate of regeneration. The figure to the left indicates the sustainability of a range of countries in terms of the Ecological footprint compared to the UN Human Development Index (a measure of standard of living). The chart is a graphic presentation showing what is necessary for countries to maintain an acceptable standard of living while also living at a globally sustainable level. At present Cuba is the best example in this category.^[7] The general trend is for higher standards of living to become less sustainable. As always population growth has a marked influence on levels of consumption and the efficiency of resource use.^[8]

A wealth of information generated by reports at the national, regional and city scales confirm the global trend to societies that are becoming less sustainable over time.^[9][10]

Biodiversity & sustainability Key concepts & information
Applied ecology Biodiversity Conservation biology Ecosystem services Endangered species Environmental science Extinction Genetic erosion Habitat fragmentation Invasive species Systems ecology Wildlife conservation World Conservation Monitoring Centre
This box: view talk edit

The Millennium Ecosystem Assessment^[11] provides the most comprehensive current synthesis of the state of the Earth’s ecosystems. Human activity is having an escalating and potentially critical impact on the biodiversity of ecosystems, reducing both their resilience and capacity. The report refers to natural systems as humanity's life-support system, providing the necessary services for humans to flourish. It includes measures of 24 ecosystem services concluding that only four have shown improvement over the last 50 years, 15 are in serious decline, and five are in a precarious condition.