Sustainable Technology of 3210

Sustainable Technology of 3210 ?

The Nokia 3210, recently relaunched, incorporates several sustainable features:

• Recycled Materials: The phone utilizes recycled materials in its construction.
• Recyclable Packaging: The packaging is 100% recyclable.  
• Energy Efficiency: The charger meets EU energy efficiency standards.  
• Long-lasting Battery: The phone is designed with a long-lasting battery, reducing the need for frequent charging and battery replacements.  
• Durable Design: The robust build of the Nokia 3210 contributes to its longevity, reducing the need for frequent replacements.  

These features contribute to reducing the environmental impact of the phone throughout its lifecycle.Sources and related content

What is Sustainable Technology of 3210 ?

The Nokia 3210, while a retro-inspired phone, incorporates some modern sustainable technology:

• Recycled Materials: The phone utilizes recycled materials in its construction, reducing the need for virgin resources.
• Recyclable Packaging: The packaging is 100% recyclable, minimizing waste and its environmental impact.  
• Energy Efficiency: The charger meets EU energy efficiency standards, reducing energy consumption during charging.  
• Long-lasting Battery: The phone is designed with a long-lasting battery, reducing the need for frequent charging and battery replacements, thus conserving energy and resources.  
• Durable Design: The robust build of the Nokia 3210 contributes to its longevity, reducing the need for frequent replacements and minimizing electronic waste.  

These features contribute to reducing the environmental impact of the phone throughout its lifecycle, from material sourcing to disposal.Sources and related content

Who is required Sustainable Technology of 3210 ?

It seems like you’re asking who benefits from the sustainable technology in the Nokia 3210. Here’s a breakdown:

• The Environment: The use of recycled materials, recyclable packaging, and energy-efficient features all contribute to reducing the phone’s environmental footprint. This helps conserve natural resources, minimize waste, and reduce pollution.  
• Consumers: Sustainable technology can appeal to environmentally conscious consumers who want to make responsible choices. Additionally, features like a long-lasting battery can save users time and money on charging and replacements.
• Nokia (HMD Global): By incorporating sustainable practices, Nokia can enhance its brand image, attract environmentally conscious customers, and potentially reduce costs associated with material sourcing and waste management.
• The Electronics Industry: The adoption of sustainable technology in devices like the Nokia 3210 can encourage wider adoption of eco-friendly practices across the electronics industry, leading to a more sustainable future for the sector as a whole.

Essentially, sustainable technology in devices like the Nokia 3210 benefits everyone by contributing to a healthier planet and promoting responsible consumption.

When is required Sustainable Technology of 3210 ?

You’re right to think about when sustainable technology is needed! It’s not just a nice-to-have, it’s crucial. Here’s when sustainable tech in phones like the Nokia 3210 is most needed:

• Now: The need is urgent. We’re facing increasing environmental challenges like climate change, resource depletion, and pollution. Every product we use contributes to this, so integrating sustainable practices now is essential to minimize further damage.  
• Throughout the product lifecycle: Sustainable technology needs to be considered from the very beginning (material sourcing) to the very end (recycling and disposal). It’s not enough to just have a recyclable phone if the manufacturing process is highly polluting.  
• In all devices: While it’s great that the Nokia 3210 has sustainable features, this needs to be the norm for all electronic devices, not just a few retro models. The more companies adopt these practices, the bigger the positive impact.
• Continuously: Sustainability isn’t a one-time fix. It requires ongoing innovation and improvement. Companies need to constantly seek ways to make their products even more eco-friendly, using new materials, energy-efficient designs, and better recycling solutions.

Essentially, the answer is always! Sustainable technology is not a trend, but a fundamental shift in how we design and manufacture products, and it’s needed urgently and consistently to protect our planet.Sources and related content

COURTESY : Carnegie India

Where is required Sustainable Technology of 3210 ?

That’s a great question! It’s not just about the phone itself, but the whole system around it. Here’s where sustainable technology is needed for the Nokia 3210 (and all phones):

• Manufacturing: This is a big one. Factories need to use renewable energy, minimize waste, and avoid harmful chemicals. Sustainable tech here means cleaner production processes.  
• Materials: Where the materials come from matters. Mines can be environmentally damaging and have poor labor conditions. Sustainable tech means using recycled materials, finding alternatives to rare earth minerals, and ensuring ethical sourcing.  
• Packaging: All that cardboard and plastic adds up! Sustainable packaging is a must – think recycled and recyclable materials, minimal packaging, and avoiding plastics.
• Transportation: Getting the phone from the factory to your hands has an environmental cost. Sustainable tech here means optimizing shipping routes, using less polluting transportation methods, and even considering local manufacturing.
• Use phase: Even after you buy it, sustainability matters. Energy-efficient charging, long-lasting batteries, and software updates that keep the phone running smoothly all play a role.
• End-of-life: What happens when you’re done with the phone? Sustainable tech means making it easy to recycle, with clear instructions and accessible collection points. It also means designing phones that can be repaired and have parts reused, extending their lifespan.  

Basically, sustainable technology needs to be integrated into every step of the Nokia 3210’s journey, from the moment the raw materials are extracted to the point where it’s finally recycled.Sources and related content

How is required Sustainable Technology of 3210 ?

You’re asking about the how of sustainable technology in the Nokia 3210, which is a great way to get specific! Here’s how it’s achieved:

• Material Selection: Nokia chooses materials with a lower environmental impact. This might mean:
  • Recycled plastics: Using plastics that have already been used and recycled, reducing the need for new plastic production.  
  • Fewer harmful substances: Avoiding or minimizing the use of things like PVC, brominated compounds, and certain metals that can be toxic or difficult to recycle.
• Design for Disassembly: Making the phone easier to take apart is key for recycling. This means:
  • Modular design: Parts are easier to separate and reuse.
  • Standardized screws: Using common screws makes it easier to open the phone.
• Energy Efficiency: Reducing the energy the phone uses is important:
  • Efficient charger: The charger meets high energy efficiency standards, minimizing energy waste during charging.
  • Long-lasting battery: A battery that lasts longer means less frequent charging, saving energy and reducing the need for replacements.
• Recyclable Packaging: The packaging is designed to be easily recycled:
  • Recycled content: The packaging itself may be made from recycled materials.
  • Minimal packaging: Reducing the amount of packaging used in the first place.
  • No harmful glues or inks: Avoiding materials that can contaminate recycling streams.

It’s important to remember that sustainable technology is a continuous process. Companies are always looking for new ways to improve, whether it’s finding new recycled materials, designing even more energy-efficient devices, or developing better recycling processes.

Case study is Sustainable Technology of 3210 ?

Unfortunately, detailed case studies specifically about the sustainable technology of the Nokia 3210 are not readily available publicly. This kind of information is often kept within the company for competitive reasons or released in broader sustainability reports.

However, we can piece together a sort of “case study” by looking at the available information and considering it in the context of sustainable technology in general:

Case Study: Sustainable Technology in the Nokia 3210 (2024)

Objective: To analyze the sustainable technology features of the relaunched Nokia 3210 and their potential impact.

Key Features:

• Recycled Materials: Use of recycled plastics in the phone’s construction.
• Recyclable Packaging: 100% recyclable packaging made from eco-friendly materials.
• Energy Efficiency: Charger meets EU energy efficiency standards.
• Long-lasting Battery: Design focused on extended battery life.
• Durable Design: Robust build intended to increase the phone’s lifespan.

Analysis:

• Environmental Impact:
  • Reduced reliance on virgin resources due to recycled materials.
  • Lower waste generation from recyclable packaging.
  • Decreased energy consumption during charging and fewer battery replacements.
  • Minimized electronic waste through increased durability and longevity.
• Consumer Benefits:
  • Appeals to environmentally conscious consumers.
  • Potential cost savings from reduced charging and battery replacements.
• Industry Implications:
  • Demonstrates that sustainable practices can be incorporated even in retro-inspired devices.
  • Encourages wider adoption of sustainable technology across the electronics industry.

Challenges:

• Limited Information: Lack of detailed data on the specific types and percentages of recycled materials used.
• Scope of Impact: The overall environmental impact may be limited due to the phone’s basic functionality and target market.
• End-of-Life Management: The long-term sustainability impact depends on effective recycling and responsible disposal practices.

Conclusion:

The Nokia 3210 (2024) incorporates several sustainable technology features that contribute to reducing its environmental footprint. While the overall impact may be moderate, it serves as a positive example of integrating sustainable practices into a retro-inspired device and highlights the growing importance of eco-conscious design in the electronics industry.

Further Research:

• More detailed information on the specific materials used and their sourcing.
• Analysis of the phone’s lifecycle assessment to quantify its overall environmental impact.
• Comparison with other mobile phones in terms of sustainable technology features.

This “case study” provides a framework for understanding the sustainable technology aspects of the Nokia 3210. As more information becomes available, a more comprehensive analysis can be conducted

COURTESY : Voith Group

White paper on Sustainable Technology of 3210 ?

I can’t produce a full, formal white paper. White papers are typically in-depth, research-backed documents produced by experts or organizations. I don’t have access to Nokia’s internal data or the resources to conduct original research.

However, I can give you an outline and the kind of information that would be included in a white paper about the Nokia 3210’s sustainability:

Title: A White Paper on Sustainable Technology in the Nokia 3210 (2024)

Abstract: (A brief summary of the paper’s key findings and arguments)

1. Introduction:

• The growing importance of sustainability in consumer electronics.
• The context of the Nokia 3210 relaunch and its target audience.
• The paper’s objective: to examine the sustainable technology features of the Nokia 3210 and their potential impact.

2. Sustainable Design Principles:

• Overview of key sustainable design considerations: material selection, energy efficiency, product lifecycle management, etc.
• How these principles are applied in the Nokia 3210.

3. Materials and Manufacturing:

• Detailed analysis of the materials used in the phone’s construction, including the percentage of recycled content.
• Discussion of the sourcing of materials and any ethical considerations.
• Examination of the manufacturing processes and their environmental impact (e.g., energy use, waste generation).

4. Energy Efficiency and Battery Life:

• Analysis of the phone’s energy consumption during use and charging.
• Information on the battery’s capacity, lifespan, and recyclability.
• Discussion of the energy-efficient charger and its compliance with relevant standards.

5. Packaging and Distribution:

• Description of the packaging materials and their recyclability.
• Analysis of the environmental impact of the phone’s distribution network.

6. End-of-Life Management:

• Information on the phone’s recyclability and repairability.
• Discussion of Nokia’s take-back programs or other initiatives to promote responsible disposal.
• Analysis of the potential for component reuse or repurposing.

7. Consumer Benefits and Perceptions:

• How the sustainable features of the Nokia 3210 resonate with consumers.
• Discussion of the potential for increased consumer awareness and demand for sustainable electronics.

8. Industry Implications and Future Directions:

• How the Nokia 3210’s approach to sustainability compares to other mobile phones.
• Discussion of the potential for wider adoption of similar sustainable practices in the electronics industry.
• Recommendations for future research and development in sustainable mobile technology.

9. Conclusion:

• Summary of the key findings and their implications.
• Reiteration of the importance of sustainable technology in consumer electronics.

10. References: (List of sources cited)

11. Appendix (Optional): (Supporting data, charts, graphs)

If you were to research and write this white paper, you would need data from Nokia, industry reports, academic studies, and potentially lifecycle assessments of the phone. This outline provides a structure for that kind of research and writing.

Industrial application of Sustainable Technology of 3210 ?

While the Nokia 3210 itself is a consumer product, the sustainable technologies it employs have broader industrial applications. Here are some examples:

1. Material Selection and Manufacturing:

• Recycled Plastics: The use of recycled plastics in the 3210 can inspire and inform industries that rely heavily on plastics, such as automotive, packaging, and construction. By demonstrating the feasibility and viability of using recycled plastics in a consumer product, it encourages these industries to explore similar solutions to reduce their environmental impact.
• Design for Disassembly: The 3210’s design for disassembly, which makes it easier to recycle and reuse components, can be applied in various manufacturing sectors. This principle can be incorporated into the design of appliances, electronics, and even machinery to facilitate recycling and reduce waste.  

2. Energy Efficiency:

• Efficient Charger and Battery: The focus on energy efficiency in the 3210, particularly the efficient charger and long-lasting battery, has implications for industrial equipment and devices. Industries can adopt similar strategies to reduce energy consumption in their operations, such as using more efficient power supplies and batteries in their machinery and equipment.

3. Circular Economy Principles:

• Recyclable Packaging: The 3210’s recyclable packaging demonstrates the importance of circular economy principles, which aim to minimize waste and maximize resource utilization. Industries can apply these principles by designing products and packaging that are easily recyclable, using recycled materials in their production processes, and implementing closed-loop systems to recover and reuse resources.  

4. Inspiration and Awareness:

• Consumer Awareness: The 3210’s focus on sustainability can raise consumer awareness about the importance of eco-friendly products. This increased awareness can create demand for sustainable products in various industries, encouraging companies to adopt more sustainable practices.

In essence, the sustainable technologies used in the Nokia 3210, while applied to a consumer device, can serve as a model and inspiration for industries across various sectors. By showcasing the feasibility and benefits of sustainable practices, it can encourage companies to adopt similar approaches to reduce their environmental impact and contribute to a more sustainable future.Sources and related content

Research and development of Sustainable Technology of 3210 ?

You’re asking about the behind-the-scenes work that makes the Nokia 3210’s sustainability possible! Here’s a look at the research and development (R&D) that likely went into it:

1. Materials Science:

• Recycled Plastics: R&D is needed to identify and source high-quality recycled plastics that meet the phone’s durability and aesthetic requirements. This involves testing different types of recycled plastics, developing processes to clean and reprocess them, and ensuring they meet safety standards.
• Alternative Materials: Researchers may be exploring alternatives to traditional materials, such as bio-based plastics or recycled metals, to further reduce the phone’s environmental impact.

2. Design for Disassembly:

• Modular Design: Engineers need to design the phone with modularity in mind, making it easy to separate components for recycling or repair. This requires careful consideration of how the phone is assembled and how to minimize the use of adhesives or other materials that make disassembly difficult.
• Fastener Selection: R&D may involve evaluating different types of fasteners (screws, clips, etc.) to find those that are both secure and easy to remove during recycling.

3. Energy Efficiency:

• Battery Technology: Researchers are constantly working on improving battery technology, including increasing energy density, extending lifespan, and making batteries more recyclable. ¹ The 3210 likely benefits from these advancements.   1. Three battery technologies that could power the future | Saft saft.com
• Charger Design: Engineers need to design chargers that are highly efficient, minimizing energy loss during the charging process. This involves optimizing the charger’s circuitry and components.

4. Manufacturing Processes:

• Sustainable Manufacturing: R&D may focus on developing and implementing more sustainable manufacturing processes, such as reducing energy consumption in factories, minimizing waste generation, and using less harmful chemicals.

5. Packaging Design:

• Recyclable Materials: Researchers need to identify and test recyclable packaging materials that can adequately protect the phone during shipping and transportation. This may involve exploring alternatives to traditional plastics, such as recycled cardboard or biodegradable materials.
• Minimal Packaging: Designers need to optimize the packaging design to minimize the amount of material used while still ensuring the phone’s safety.

6. Lifecycle Assessment:

• Environmental Impact: Researchers may conduct lifecycle assessments to evaluate the environmental impact of the phone throughout its entire lifespan, from material extraction to end-of-life management. This data can be used to identify areas for improvement and inform future R&D efforts.

It’s important to note that sustainable technology is an ongoing field of research. Companies like Nokia are likely investing in continuous R&D to further improve the sustainability of their products, including future iterations of the 3210 or other devices.

COURTESY : NPTEL-NOC IITM

References

1. ^ Jump up to:^{a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r} Purvis, Ben; Mao, Yong; Robinson, Darren (2019). “Three pillars of sustainability: in search of conceptual origins”. Sustainability Science. 14 (3): 681–695. Bibcode:2019SuSc…14..681P. doi:10.1007/s11625-018-0627-5. ISSN 1862-4065.  Text was copied from this source, which is available under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License
2. ^ Jump up to:^{a b c d e} Ramsey, Jeffry L. (2015). “On Not Defining Sustainability”. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics. 28 (6): 1075–1087. Bibcode:2015JAEE…28.1075R. doi:10.1007/s10806-015-9578-3. ISSN 1187-7863. S2CID 146790960.
3. ^ Jump up to:^{a b c d e f} Kotzé, Louis J.; Kim, Rakhyun E.; Burdon, Peter; du Toit, Louise; Glass, Lisa-Maria; Kashwan, Prakash; Liverman, Diana; Montesano, Francesco S.; Rantala, Salla (2022). “Planetary Integrity”. In Sénit, Carole-Anne; Biermann, Frank; Hickmann, Thomas (eds.). The Political Impact of the Sustainable Development Goals: Transforming Governance Through Global Goals?. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. pp. 140–171. doi:10.1017/9781009082945.007. ISBN 978-1-316-51429-0.
4. ^ Jump up to:^{a b c d e f} Bosselmann, Klaus (2010). “Losing the Forest for the Trees: Environmental Reductionism in the Law”. Sustainability. 2 (8): 2424–2448. doi:10.3390/su2082424. hdl:10535/6499. ISSN 2071-1050.  Text was copied from this source, which is available under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 International License
5. ^ Jump up to:^{a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r s t u} Berg, Christian (2020). Sustainable action: overcoming the barriers. Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge. ISBN 978-0-429-57873-1. OCLC 1124780147.
6. ^ Jump up to:^a b c “Sustainability”. Encyclopedia Britannica. Retrieved 31 March 2022.
7. ^ “Sustainable Development”. UNESCO. 3 August 2015. Retrieved 20 January 2022.
8. ^ Jump up to:^a b Kuhlman, Tom; Farrington, John (2010). “What is Sustainability?”. Sustainability. 2 (11): 3436–3448. doi:10.3390/su2113436. ISSN 2071-1050.
9. ^ Nelson, Anitra (31 January 2024). “Degrowth as a Concept and Practice: Introduction”. The Commons Social Change Library. Retrieved 23 February 2024.
10. ^ Jump up to:^a b c d UNEP (2011) Decoupling natural resource use and environmental impacts from economic growth, A Report of the Working Group on Decoupling to the International Resource Panel. Fischer-Kowalski, M., Swilling, M., von Weizsäcker, E.U., Ren, Y., Moriguchi, Y., Crane, W., Krausmann, F., Eisenmenger, N., Giljum, S., Hennicke, P., Romero Lankao, P., Siriban Manalang, A., Sewerin, S.
11. ^ Jump up to:^a b c Vadén, T.; Lähde, V.; Majava, A.; Järvensivu, P.; Toivanen, T.; Hakala, E.; Eronen, J.T. (2020). “Decoupling for ecological sustainability: A categorisation and review of research literature”. Environmental Science & Policy. 112: 236–244. Bibcode:2020ESPol.112..236V. doi:10.1016/j.envsci.2020.06.016. PMC 7330600. PMID 32834777.
12. ^ Jump up to:^a b c d Parrique T., Barth J., Briens F., C. Kerschner, Kraus-Polk A., Kuokkanen A., Spangenberg J.H., 2019. Decoupling debunked: Evidence and arguments against green growth as a sole strategy for sustainability. European Environmental Bureau.
13. ^ Parrique, T., Barth, J., Briens, F., Kerschner, C., Kraus-Polk, A., Kuokkanen, A., & Spangenberg, J. H. (2019). Decoupling debunked. Evidence and arguments against green growth as a sole strategy for sustainability. A study edited by the European Environment Bureau EEB.
14. ^ Hardyment, Richard (2024). Measuring Good Business: Making Sense of Environmental, Social & Governance Data. Abingdon: Routledge. ISBN 9781032601199.
15. ^ Bell, Simon; Morse, Stephen (2012). Sustainability Indicators: Measuring the Immeasurable?. Abington: Routledge. ISBN 978-1-84407-299-6.
16. ^ Jump up to:^a b c Howes, Michael; Wortley, Liana; Potts, Ruth; Dedekorkut-Howes, Aysin; Serrao-Neumann, Silvia; Davidson, Julie; Smith, Timothy; Nunn, Patrick (2017). “Environmental Sustainability: A Case of Policy Implementation Failure?”. Sustainability. 9 (2): 165. doi:10.3390/su9020165. hdl:10453/90953. ISSN 2071-1050.
17. ^ Jump up to:^a b Kinsley, M. and Lovins, L.H. (September 1997). “Paying for Growth, Prospering from Development.” Archived 17 July 2011 at the Wayback Machine Retrieved 15 June 2009.
18. ^ Jump up to:^a b Sustainable Shrinkage: Envisioning a Smaller, Stronger Economy Archived 11 April 2016 at the Wayback Machine. Thesolutionsjournal.com. Retrieved 13 March 2016.
19. ^ Apetrei, Cristina I.; Caniglia, Guido; von Wehrden, Henrik; Lang, Daniel J. (1 May 2021). “Just another buzzword? A systematic literature review of knowledge-related concepts in sustainability science”. Global Environmental Change. 68: 102222. Bibcode:2021GEC….6802222A. doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2021.102222. ISSN 0959-3780.
20. ^ Jump up to:^a b c Benson, Melinda Harm; Craig, Robin Kundis (2014). “End of Sustainability”. Society & Natural Resources. 27 (7): 777–782. Bibcode:2014SNatR..27..777B. doi:10.1080/08941920.2014.901467. ISSN 0894-1920. S2CID 67783261.
21. ^ Jump up to:^a b c Stockholm+50: Unlocking a Better Future. Stockholm Environment Institute (Report). 18 May 2022. doi:10.51414/sei2022.011. S2CID 248881465.
22. ^ Jump up to:^a b Scoones, Ian (2016). “The Politics of Sustainability and Development”. Annual Review of Environment and Resources. 41 (1): 293–319. doi:10.1146/annurev-environ-110615-090039. ISSN 1543-5938. S2CID 156534921.
23. ^ Jump up to:^{a b c d e f g h i} Harrington, Lisa M. Butler (2016). “Sustainability Theory and Conceptual Considerations: A Review of Key Ideas for Sustainability, and the Rural Context”. Papers in Applied Geography. 2 (4): 365–382. Bibcode:2016PAGeo…2..365H. doi:10.1080/23754931.2016.1239222. ISSN 2375-4931. S2CID 132458202.
24. ^ Jump up to:^a b c d United Nations General Assembly (1987) Report of the World Commission on Environment and Development: Our Common Future. Transmitted to the General Assembly as an Annex to document A/42/427 – Development and International Co-operation: Environment.
25. ^ United Nations General Assembly (20 March 1987). “Report of the World Commission on Environment and Development: Our Common Future; Transmitted to the General Assembly as an Annex to document A/42/427 – Development and International Co-operation: Environment; Our Common Future, Chapter 2: Towards Sustainable Development; Paragraph 1″. United Nations General Assembly. Retrieved 1 March 2010.
26. ^ “University of Alberta: What is sustainability?” (PDF). mcgill.ca. Retrieved 13 August 2022.
27. ^ Jump up to:^a b Halliday, Mike (21 November 2016). “How sustainable is sustainability?”. Oxford College of Procurement and Supply. Retrieved 12 July 2022.
28. ^ Harper, Douglas. “sustain”. Online Etymology Dictionary.
29. ^ Onions, Charles, T. (ed) (1964). The Shorter Oxford English Dictionary. Oxford: Clarendon Press. p. 2095.
30. ^ “Sustainability Theories”. World Ocean Review. Retrieved 20 June 2019.
31. ^ Compare: “sustainability”. Oxford English Dictionary (Online ed.). Oxford University Press. (Subscription or participating institution membership required.) The English-language word had a legal technical sense from 1835 and a resource-management connotation from 1953.
32. ^ “Hans Carl von Carlowitz and Sustainability”. Environment and Society Portal. Retrieved 20 June 2019.
33. ^ Dresden, SLUB. “Sylvicultura Oeconomica, Oder Haußwirthliche Nachricht und Naturmäßige Anweisung Zur Wilden Baum-Zucht”. digital.slub-dresden.de (in German). Retrieved 28 March 2022.
34. ^ Von Carlowitz, H.C. & Rohr, V. (1732) Sylvicultura Oeconomica, oder Haußwirthliche Nachricht und Naturmäßige Anweisung zur Wilden Baum Zucht, Leipzig; translated from German as cited in Friederich, Simon; Symons, Jonathan (15 November 2022). “Operationalising sustainability? Why sustainability fails as an investment criterion for safeguarding the future”. Global Policy. 14: 1758–5899.13160. doi:10.1111/1758-5899.13160. ISSN 1758-5880. S2CID 253560289.
35. ^ Basler, Ernst (1972). Strategy of Progress: Environmental Pollution, Habitat Scarcity and Future Research (originally, Strategie des Fortschritts: Umweltbelastung Lebensraumverknappung and Zukunftsforshung). BLV Publishing Company.
36. ^ Gadgil, M.; Berkes, F. (1991). “Traditional Resource Management Systems”. Resource Management and Optimization. 8: 127–141.
37. ^ “Resolution adopted by the General Assembly on 16 September 2005, 60/1. 2005 World Summit Outcome” (PDF). United Nations General Assembly. 2005. Retrieved 17 January 2022.
38. ^ Barbier, Edward B. (July 1987). “The Concept of Sustainable Economic Development”. Environmental Conservation. 14 (2): 101–110. Bibcode:1987EnvCo..14..101B. doi:10.1017/S0376892900011449. ISSN 1469-4387.
39. ^ Jump up to:^a b Bosselmann, K. (2022) Chapter 2: A normative approach to environmental governance: sustainability at the apex of environmental law, Research Handbook on Fundamental Concepts of Environmental Law, edited by Douglas Fisher
40. ^ Jump up to:^a b “Agenda 21” (PDF). United Nations Conference on Environment & Development, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, 3 to 14 June 1992. 1992. Retrieved 17 January 2022.
41. ^ Jump up to:^a b c d United Nations (2015) Resolution adopted by the General Assembly on 25 September 2015, Transforming our world: the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development (A/RES/70/1 Archived 28 November 2020 at the Wayback Machine)
42. ^ Scott Cato, M. (2009). Green Economics. London: Earthscan, pp. 36–37. ISBN 978-1-84407-571-3.
43. ^ Jump up to:^a b Obrecht, Andreas; Pham-Truffert, Myriam; Spehn, Eva; Payne, Davnah; Altermatt, Florian; Fischer, Manuel; Passarello, Cristian; Moersberger, Hannah; Schelske, Oliver; Guntern, Jodok; Prescott, Graham (5 February 2021). “Achieving the SDGs with Biodiversity”. Swiss Academies Factsheet. Vol. 16, no. 1. doi:10.5281/zenodo.4457298.
44. ^ Jump up to:^{a b c d e f} Raskin, P.; Banuri, T.; Gallopín, G.; Gutman, P.; Hammond, A.; Kates, R.; Swart, R. (2002). Great transition: the promise and lure of the times ahead. Boston: Stockholm Environment Institute. ISBN 0-9712418-1-3. OCLC 49987854.
45. ^ Ekins, Paul; Zenghelis, Dimitri (2021). “The costs and benefits of environmental sustainability”. Sustainability Science. 16 (3): 949–965. Bibcode:2021SuSc…16..949E. doi:10.1007/s11625-021-00910-5. PMC 7960882. PMID 33747239.
46. ^ William L. Thomas, ed. (1956). Man’s role in changing the face of the earth. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. ISBN 0-226-79604-3. OCLC 276231.
47. ^ Carson, Rachel (2002) [1st. Pub. Houghton Mifflin, 1962]. Silent Spring. Mariner Books. ISBN 978-0-618-24906-0.
48. ^ Arrhenius, Svante (1896). “XXXI. On the influence of carbonic acid in the air upon the temperature of the ground”. The London, Edinburgh, and Dublin Philosophical Magazine and Journal of Science. 41 (251): 237–276. doi:10.1080/14786449608620846. ISSN 1941-5982.
49. ^ Jump up to:^a b c UN (1973) Report of the United Nations Conference on the Human Environment, A/CONF.48/14/Rev.1, Stockholm, 5–16 June 1972
50. ^ UNEP (2021). “Making Peace With Nature”. UNEP – UN Environment Programme. Retrieved 30 March 2022.
51. ^ Jump up to:^a b c d Ripple, William J.; Wolf, Christopher; Newsome, Thomas M.; Galetti, Mauro; Alamgir, Mohammed; Crist, Eileen; Mahmoud, Mahmoud I.; Laurance, William F.; 15,364 scientist signatories from 184 countries (2017). “World Scientists’ Warning to Humanity: A Second Notice”. BioScience. 67 (12): 1026–1028. doi:10.1093/biosci/bix125. hdl:11336/71342. ISSN 0006-3568.
52. ^ Crutzen, Paul J. (2002). “Geology of mankind”. Nature. 415 (6867): 23. Bibcode:2002Natur.415…23C. doi:10.1038/415023a. ISSN 0028-0836. PMID 11780095. S2CID 9743349.
53. ^ Jump up to:^a b Wilhelm Krull, ed. (2000). Zukunftsstreit (in German). Weilerwist: Velbrück Wissenschaft. ISBN 3-934730-17-5. OCLC 52639118.
54. ^ Redclift, Michael (2005). “Sustainable development (1987-2005): an oxymoron comes of age”. Sustainable Development. 13 (4): 212–227. doi:10.1002/sd.281. ISSN 0968-0802.
55. ^ Daly, Herman E. (1996). Beyond growth: the economics of sustainable development (PDF). Boston: Beacon Press. ISBN 0-8070-4708-2. OCLC 33946953.
56. ^ United Nations (2017) Resolution adopted by the General Assembly on 6 July 2017, Work of the Statistical Commission pertaining to the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development (A/RES/71/313)
57. ^ “UN Environment | UNDP-UN Environment Poverty-Environment Initiative”. UN Environment | UNDP-UN Environment Poverty-Environment Initiative. Retrieved 24 January 2022.
58. ^ PEP (2016) Poverty-Environment Partnership Joint Paper | June 2016 Getting to Zero – A Poverty, Environment and Climate Call to Action for the Sustainable Development Goals
59. ^ Boyer, Robert H. W.; Peterson, Nicole D.; Arora, Poonam; Caldwell, Kevin (2016). “Five Approaches to Social Sustainability and an Integrated Way Forward”. Sustainability. 8 (9): 878. doi:10.3390/su8090878.
60. ^ Doğu, Feriha Urfalı; Aras, Lerzan (2019). “Measuring Social Sustainability with the Developed MCSA Model: Güzelyurt Case”. Sustainability. 11 (9): 2503. doi:10.3390/su11092503. ISSN 2071-1050.
61. ^ Davidson, Mark (2010). “Social Sustainability and the City: Social sustainability and city”. Geography Compass. 4 (7): 872–880. doi:10.1111/j.1749-8198.2010.00339.x.
62. ^ Missimer, Merlina; Robèrt, Karl-Henrik; Broman, Göran (2017). “A strategic approach to social sustainability – Part 2: a principle-based definition”. Journal of Cleaner Production. 140: 42–52. Bibcode:2017JCPro.140…42M. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.04.059.
63. ^ Boyer, Robert; Peterson, Nicole; Arora, Poonam; Caldwell, Kevin (2016). “Five Approaches to Social Sustainability and an Integrated Way Forward”. Sustainability. 8 (9): 878. doi:10.3390/su8090878. ISSN 2071-1050.
64. ^ James, Paul; with Magee, Liam; Scerri, Andy; Steger, Manfred B. (2015). Urban Sustainability in Theory and Practice: Circles of Sustainability. London: Routledge. ISBN 9781315765747.
65. ^ Liam Magee; Andy Scerri; Paul James; James A. Thom; Lin Padgham; Sarah Hickmott; Hepu Deng; Felicity Cahill (2013). “Reframing social sustainability reporting: Towards an engaged approach”. Environment, Development and Sustainability. 15 (1): 225–243. Bibcode:2013EDSus..15..225M. doi:10.1007/s10668-012-9384-2. S2CID 153452740.
66. ^ Cohen, J. E. (2006). “Human Population: The Next Half Century.”. In Kennedy, D. (ed.). Science Magazine’s State of the Planet 2006-7. London: Island Press. pp. 13–21. ISBN 9781597266246.
67. ^ Jump up to:^a b c Aggarwal, Dhruvak; Esquivel, Nhilce; Hocquet, Robin; Martin, Kristiina; Mungo, Carol; Nazareth, Anisha; Nikam, Jaee; Odenyo, Javan; Ravindran, Bhuvan; Kurinji, L. S.; Shawoo, Zoha; Yamada, Kohei (28 April 2022). Charting a youth vision for a just and sustainable future (PDF) (Report). Stockholm Environment Institute. doi:10.51414/sei2022.010.
68. ^ “The Regional Institute – WACOSS Housing and Sustainable Communities Indicators Project”. www.regional.org.au. 2012. Retrieved 26 January 2022.
69. ^ Virtanen, Pirjo Kristiina; Siragusa, Laura; Guttorm, Hanna (2020). “Introduction: toward more inclusive definitions of sustainability”. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability. 43: 77–82. Bibcode:2020COES…43…77V. doi:10.1016/j.cosust.2020.04.003. S2CID 219663803.
70. ^ “Culture: Fourth Pillar of Sustainable Development”. United Cities and Local Governments. Archived from the original on 3 October 2013.
71. ^ James, Paul; Magee, Liam (2016). “Domains of Sustainability”. In Farazmand, Ali (ed.). Global Encyclopedia of Public Administration, Public Policy, and Governance. Cham: Springer International Publishing. pp. 1–17. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-31816-5_2760-1. ISBN 978-3-319-31816-5. Retrieved 28 March 2022.
72. ^ Jump up to:^a b Robert U. Ayres & Jeroen C.J.M. van den Bergh & John M. Gowdy, 1998. “Viewpoint: Weak versus Strong Sustainability“, Tinbergen Institute Discussion Papers 98-103/3, Tinbergen Institute.
73. ^ Pearce, David W.; Atkinson, Giles D. (1993). “Capital theory and the measurement of sustainable development: an indicator of “weak” sustainability”. Ecological Economics. 8 (2): 103–108. Bibcode:1993EcoEc…8..103P. doi:10.1016/0921-8009(93)90039-9.
74. ^ Ayres, Robert; van den Berrgh, Jeroen; Gowdy, John (2001). “Strong versus Weak Sustainability”. Environmental Ethics. 23 (2): 155–168. doi:10.5840/enviroethics200123225. ISSN 0163-4275.
75. ^ Cabeza Gutés, Maite (1996). “The concept of weak sustainability”. Ecological Economics. 17 (3): 147–156. Bibcode:1996EcoEc..17..147C. doi:10.1016/S0921-8009(96)80003-6.
76. ^ Bosselmann, Klaus (2017). The principle of sustainability: transforming law and governance (2nd ed.). London: Routledge. ISBN 978-1-4724-8128-3. OCLC 951915998.
77. ^ Jump up to:^a b WEF (2020) Nature Risk Rising: Why the Crisis Engulfing Nature Matters for Business and the Economy New Nature Economy, World Economic Forum in collaboration with PwC
78. ^ James, Paul; with Magee, Liam; Scerri, Andy; Steger, Manfred B. (2015). Urban Sustainability in Theory and Practice: Circles of Sustainability. London: Routledge. ISBN 9781315765747.
79. ^ Jump up to:^a b Hardyment, Richard (2 February 2024). Measuring Good Business. London: Routledge. doi:10.4324/9781003457732. ISBN 978-1-003-45773-2.
80. ^ Jump up to:^a b Bell, Simon and Morse, Stephen 2008. Sustainability Indicators. Measuring the Immeasurable? 2nd edn. London: Earthscan. ISBN 978-1-84407-299-6.
81. ^ Dalal-Clayton, Barry and Sadler, Barry 2009. Sustainability Appraisal: A Sourcebook and Reference Guide to International Experience. London: Earthscan. ISBN 978-1-84407-357-3.^{[page needed]}
82. ^ Hak, T. et al. 2007. Sustainability Indicators, SCOPE 67. Island Press, London. [1] Archived 2011-12-18 at the Wayback Machine
83. ^ Wackernagel, Mathis; Lin, David; Evans, Mikel; Hanscom, Laurel; Raven, Peter (2019). “Defying the Footprint Oracle: Implications of Country Resource Trends”. Sustainability. 11 (7): 2164. doi:10.3390/su11072164.
84. ^ “Sustainable Development visualized”. Sustainability concepts. Retrieved 24 March 2022.
85. ^ Jump up to:^a b Steffen, Will; Rockström, Johan; Cornell, Sarah; Fetzer, Ingo; Biggs, Oonsie; Folke, Carl; Reyers, Belinda (15 January 2015). “Planetary Boundaries – an update”. Stockholm Resilience Centre. Retrieved 19 April 2020.
86. ^ “Ten years of nine planetary boundaries”. Stockholm Resilience Centre. November 2019. Retrieved 19 April 2020.
87. ^ Persson, Linn; Carney Almroth, Bethanie M.; Collins, Christopher D.; Cornell, Sarah; de Wit, Cynthia A.; Diamond, Miriam L.; Fantke, Peter; Hassellöv, Martin; MacLeod, Matthew; Ryberg, Morten W.; Søgaard Jørgensen, Peter (1 February 2022). “Outside the Safe Operating Space of the Planetary Boundary for Novel Entities”. Environmental Science & Technology. 56 (3): 1510–1521. Bibcode:2022EnST…56.1510P. doi:10.1021/acs.est.1c04158. ISSN 0013-936X. PMC 8811958. PMID 35038861.
88. ^ Ehrlich, P.R.; Holden, J.P. (1974). “Human Population and the global environment”. American Scientist. Vol. 62, no. 3. pp. 282–292.
89. ^ Jump up to:^a b c d Wiedmann, Thomas; Lenzen, Manfred; Keyßer, Lorenz T.; Steinberger, Julia K. (2020). “Scientists’ warning on affluence”. Nature Communications. 11 (1): 3107. Bibcode:2020NatCo..11.3107W. doi:10.1038/s41467-020-16941-y. ISSN 2041-1723. PMC 7305220. PMID 32561753. Text was copied from this source, which is available under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License
90. ^ Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2005). Ecosystems and Human Well-being: Biodiversity Synthesis (PDF). Washington, DC: World Resources Institute.
91. ^ TEEB (2010), The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity: Mainstreaming the Economics of Nature: A Synthesis of the Approach, Conclusions and Recommendations of TEEB
92. ^ Jump up to:^a b c Jaeger, William K. (2005). Environmental economics for tree huggers and other skeptics. Washington, DC: Island Press. ISBN 978-1-4416-0111-7. OCLC 232157655.
93. ^ Groth, Christian (2014). Lecture notes in Economic Growth, (mimeo), Chapter 8: Choice of social discount rate. Copenhagen University.
94. ^ UNEP, FAO (2020). UN Decade on Ecosystem Restoration. 48p.
95. ^ Raworth, Kate (2017). Doughnut economics: seven ways to think like a 21st-century economist. London: Random House. ISBN 978-1-84794-138-1. OCLC 974194745.
96. ^ Jump up to:^{a b c d e} Berg, Christian (2017). “Shaping the Future Sustainably – Types of Barriers and Tentative Action Principles (chapter in: Future Scenarios of Global Cooperation—Practices and Challenges)”. Global Dialogues (14). Centre For Global Cooperation Research (KHK/GCR21), Nora Dahlhaus and Daniela Weißkopf (eds.). doi:10.14282/2198-0403-GD-14. ISSN 2198-0403.
97. ^ Jump up to:^a b c d Pickering, Jonathan; Hickmann, Thomas; Bäckstrand, Karin; Kalfagianni, Agni; Bloomfield, Michael; Mert, Ayşem; Ransan-Cooper, Hedda; Lo, Alex Y. (2022). “Democratising sustainability transformations: Assessing the transformative potential of democratic practices in environmental governance”. Earth System Governance. 11: 100131. Bibcode:2022ESGov..1100131P. doi:10.1016/j.esg.2021.100131.  Text was copied from this source, which is available under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License
98. ^ European Environment Agency. (2019). Sustainability transitions: policy and practice. LU: Publications Office. doi:10.2800/641030. ISBN 9789294800862.
99. ^ Noura Guimarães, Lucas (2020). “Introduction”. The regulation and policy of Latin American energy transitions. Elsevier. pp. xxix–xxxviii. doi:10.1016/b978-0-12-819521-5.00026-7. ISBN 978-0-12-819521-5. S2CID 241093198.
100. ^ Kuenkel, Petra (2019). Stewarding Sustainability Transformations: An Emerging Theory and Practice of SDG Implementation. Cham: Springer. ISBN 978-3-030-03691-1. OCLC 1080190654.
101. ^ Fletcher, Charles; Ripple, William J.; Newsome, Thomas; Barnard, Phoebe; Beamer, Kamanamaikalani; Behl, Aishwarya; Bowen, Jay; Cooney, Michael; Crist, Eileen; Field, Christopher; Hiser, Krista; Karl, David M.; King, David A.; Mann, Michael E.; McGregor, Davianna P.; Mora, Camilo; Oreskes, Naomi; Wilson, Michael (4 April 2024). “Earth at risk: An urgent call to end the age of destruction and forge a just and sustainable future”. PNAS Nexus. 3 (4): pgae106. doi:10.1093/pnasnexus/pgae106. PMC 10986754. PMID 38566756. Retrieved 4 April 2024.  Text was copied from this source, which is available under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License
102. ^ Smith, E. T. (23 January 2024). “Practising Commoning”. The Commons Social Change Library. Retrieved 23 February 2024.
103. ^ Jump up to:^a b Haberl, Helmut; Wiedenhofer, Dominik; Virág, Doris; Kalt, Gerald; Plank, Barbara; Brockway, Paul; Fishman, Tomer; Hausknost, Daniel; Krausmann, Fridolin; Leon-Gruchalski, Bartholomäus; Mayer, Andreas (2020). “A systematic review of the evidence on decoupling of GDP, resource use and GHG emissions, part II: synthesizing the insights”. Environmental Research Letters. 15 (6): 065003. Bibcode:2020ERL….15f5003H. doi:10.1088/1748-9326/ab842a. ISSN 1748-9326. S2CID 216453887.
104. ^ Pigou, Arthur Cecil (1932). The Economics of Welfare (PDF) (4th ed.). London: Macmillan.
105. ^ Jaeger, William K. (2005). Environmental economics for tree huggers and other skeptics. Washington, DC: Island Press. ISBN 978-1-4416-0111-7. OCLC 232157655.
106. ^ Roger Perman; Yue Ma; Michael Common; David Maddison; James Mcgilvray (2011). Natural resource and environmental economics (4th ed.). Harlow, Essex: Pearson Addison Wesley. ISBN 978-0-321-41753-4. OCLC 704557307.
107. ^ Jump up to:^a b Anderies, John M.; Janssen, Marco A. (16 October 2012). “Elinor Ostrom (1933–2012): Pioneer in the Interdisciplinary Science of Coupled Social-Ecological Systems”. PLOS Biology. 10 (10): e1001405. doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.1001405. ISSN 1544-9173. PMC 3473022.
108. ^ “The Nobel Prize: Women Who Changed the World”. thenobelprize.org. Retrieved 31 March 2022.
109. ^ Ghisellini, Patrizia; Cialani, Catia; Ulgiati, Sergio (15 February 2016). “A review on circular economy: the expected transition to a balanced interplay of environmental and economic systems”. Journal of Cleaner Production. Towards Post Fossil Carbon Societies: Regenerative and Preventative Eco-Industrial Development. 114: 11–32. Bibcode:2016JCPro.114…11G. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.09.007. ISSN 0959-6526.
110. ^ Nobre, Gustavo Cattelan; Tavares, Elaine (10 September 2021). “The quest for a circular economy final definition: A scientific perspective”. Journal of Cleaner Production. 314: 127973. Bibcode:2021JCPro.31427973N. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.127973. ISSN 0959-6526.
111. ^ Zhexembayeva, N. (May 2007). “Becoming Sustainable: Tools and Resources for Successful Organizational Transformation”. Center for Business as an Agent of World Benefit. Case Western University. Archived from the original on 13 June 2010.
112. ^ “About Us”. Sustainable Business Institute. Archived from the original on 17 May 2009.
113. ^ “About the WBCSD”. World Business Council for Sustainable Development (WBCSD). Archived from the original on 9 September 2007. Retrieved 1 April 2009.
114. ^ “Supply Chain Sustainability | UN Global Compact”. www.unglobalcompact.org. Retrieved 4 May 2022.
115. ^ “”Statement of Faith and Spiritual Leaders on the upcoming United Nations Climate Change Conference, COP21 in Paris in December 2015″” (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on 22 December 2015. Retrieved 21 March 2022.
116. ^ “The Statement — Interfaith Climate”. www.interfaithclimate.org. Retrieved 13 August 2022.
117. ^ McDilda, Diane Gow (2007). The everything green living book: easy ways to conserve energy, protect your family’s health, and help save the environment. Avon, Mass.: Adams Media. ISBN 978-1-59869-425-3. OCLC 124074971.
118. ^ Gambino, Megan (15 March 2012). “Is it Too Late for Sustainable Development?”. Smithsonian Magazine. Retrieved 12 January 2022.
119. ^ Blühdorn (2017). “Post-capitalism, post-growth, post-consumerism? Eco-political hopes beyond sustainability”. Global Discourse. 7 (1): 42–61. doi:10.1080/23269995.2017.1300415. ISSN 2043-7897.
120. ^ Watson, Bruce (20 August 2016). “The troubling evolution of corporate greenwashing”. The Guardian. Archived from the original on 18 October 2016.
121. ^ “The Troubling Evolution Of Large Scale Corporate Greenwashing”. www.bloomberg.ca. BNN Bloomberg. 18 August 2018.
122. ^ “The Troubling Evolution Of Large Scale Corporate Greenwashing”. The Conversation. 18 August 2011.
123. ^ Ebrahimi Sirizi, Mohammad; Taghavi Zirvani, Esmaeil; Esmailzadeh, Abdulsalam; Khosravian, Jafar; Ahmadi, Reyhaneh; Mijani, Naeim; Soltannia, Reyhaneh; Jokar Arsanjani, Jamal (19 October 2023). “A scenario-based multi-criteria decision-making approach for allocation of pistachio processing facilities: A case study of Zarand, Iran”. Sustainability. 15 (20): 15054. doi:10.3390/su152015054. ISSN 2071-1050.