Sustainable Technology of 3300

Sustainable Technology of 3300 ?

Sustainable Technology of 3300 ?

Sustainable technology in the year 3300 would likely be far more advanced and integrated into daily life than what we can currently imagine. Here are some potential areas of focus:

• Advanced Energy Systems: Fusion power may be a primary energy source, providing clean and abundant energy. Solar energy would likely be harvested and utilized with much higher efficiency. Energy storage solutions would be highly advanced, allowing for seamless distribution and usage.
• Closed-Loop Resource Management: Technologies for complete recycling and reuse of materials would be perfected, eliminating waste and pollution. Manufacturing processes would be entirely sustainable, with minimal impact on the environment.
• Environmental Restoration: Technologies for large-scale ecosystem restoration and climate change mitigation would be highly developed. This could include advanced carbon capture and storage, weather modification systems, and even terraforming technologies.
• Sustainable Agriculture: Food production would likely rely on advanced vertical farming, hydroponics, and other sustainable methods. Genetically modified crops could be optimized for resource efficiency and nutritional value.
• Smart Infrastructure: Cities would be designed with sustainability in mind, featuring efficient public transportation, green buildings, and smart grids. AI and automation would optimize resource usage and minimize environmental impact.

It’s important to note that this is just speculation. The actual sustainable technologies of 3300 could be vastly different, depending on the challenges and opportunities that humanity faces in the intervening centuries.

What is Sustainable Technology of 3300 ?

It’s tough to say exactly what sustainable technology will look like in 3300, as that’s over a thousand years in the future! But, we can make some educated guesses based on current trends and what we know about the challenges humanity will likely face. Here are some possibilities:

• Energy:
  • Fusion Power: This could be a primary energy source, providing clean and almost limitless power.
  • Advanced Solar: Solar energy would likely be harvested with incredible efficiency, perhaps from space-based solar farms or through advanced materials that can capture even faint light.
  • Hyper-Efficient Energy Storage: We’d need incredibly advanced ways to store energy, perhaps using exotic materials or technologies we can’t even imagine yet.
• Resource Management:
  • Complete Recycling: We’d likely have perfected closed-loop systems where every material is reused endlessly, eliminating waste altogether.
  • Sustainable Manufacturing: Manufacturing would have to be completely sustainable, with minimal impact on the environment.
• Environment:
  • Climate Change Reversal: Technologies to actively reverse climate change and heal ecosystems would be essential. This might include advanced carbon capture, weather modification, or even large-scale geoengineering projects.
  • Ecosystem Restoration: We might have the ability to repair damaged ecosystems or even create new ones.
• Food:
  • Vertical Farming & Hydroponics: Food production would likely be highly efficient, using methods like vertical farms and hydroponics to maximize yield while minimizing land use.
  • Lab-Grown Food: Meat and other products could be grown in labs, reducing the need for traditional agriculture.
• Infrastructure:
  • Smart Cities: Cities would be designed for sustainability, with efficient public transport, green buildings, and smart grids that optimize resource use.
  • AI & Automation: Artificial intelligence and automation would play a huge role in managing resources and minimizing environmental impact.

It’s important to remember that this is just speculation. The actual sustainable technologies of 3300 could be very different, depending on the challenges and opportunities that humanity faces in the coming centuries.

Who is required Sustainable Technology of 3300 ?

It’s not a matter of who requires sustainable technology in 3300, but rather who will benefit from it, which is essentially everyone! Here’s why:

• Humanity as a whole: The primary beneficiary of sustainable technology in 3300 would be humanity itself. By ensuring a healthy planet and responsible resource management, these technologies would allow future generations to thrive.
• Ecosystems and the environment: Sustainable technology would be crucial for maintaining healthy ecosystems and biodiversity. This would benefit not only humans but all living organisms on Earth.
• Future generations: The choices we make today will have a lasting impact on the future. Sustainable technology in 3300 would be a direct result of efforts made by those living today to ensure a habitable planet for those to come.

Essentially, sustainable technology in 3300 would be a necessity for the continued well-being of both humanity and the planet. It would be a testament to our ability to learn from the past and create a future where progress and sustainability go hand in hand.

When is required Sustainable Technology of 3300 ?

Sustainable technology is needed now and will continue to be needed in the future, including 3300. Here’s why:

• Addressing current challenges: We are already facing significant environmental challenges like climate change, resource depletion, and pollution. Sustainable technology is crucial for addressing these issues and mitigating their impacts.
• Preventing future problems: The choices we make today will have long-lasting consequences. By developing and implementing sustainable technologies now, we can prevent even more severe problems from arising in the future.
• Ensuring a healthy planet: Sustainable technology is essential for maintaining healthy ecosystems, preserving biodiversity, and ensuring a habitable planet for future generations. This is not just about 3300, but about every year leading up to it and beyond.

Essentially, the need for sustainable technology is not confined to a specific point in time. It’s an ongoing requirement, a continuous effort to balance human progress with the health of our planet. By focusing on sustainability today, we can pave the way for a better future, including the world of 3300.

COURTESY : RBC

Where is required Sustainable Technology of 3300 ?

That’s a great question! It’s not just about when sustainable technology is needed, but also where it’s needed. Here are some key areas where sustainable technology would be essential in 3300:

• Everywhere on Earth:
  • Urban Centers: Cities would need to be designed for maximum sustainability, with efficient transportation, green buildings, and smart grids.
  • Rural Areas: Sustainable agriculture, renewable energy, and responsible land management would be crucial for maintaining healthy ecosystems and supporting communities.
  • Remote Locations: Even in the most remote areas, sustainable technology would be needed for resource management, environmental monitoring, and supporting scientific research.
• Beyond Earth:
  • Space Exploration: As humanity ventures further into space, sustainable technology would be essential for long-term missions, including resource utilization, waste recycling, and creating self-sustaining habitats.
  • Other Planets: If humanity were to colonize other planets, sustainable technology would be crucial for terraforming, creating habitable environments, and ensuring the long-term survival of human settlements.

Essentially, sustainable technology in 3300 would be needed wherever human activity takes place, whether it’s on Earth or beyond. It would be a fundamental part of how we live and interact with our environment, ensuring a sustainable future for all.

How is required Sustainable Technology of 3300 ?

It’s not just when, where, and who needs sustainable technology in 3300, but also how it will be implemented and integrated into society. Here are some key aspects of how sustainable technology might be required in 3300:

• Holistic Integration: Sustainable technology wouldn’t be a separate sector but would be woven into every aspect of life. From the energy we use to the materials we produce, sustainability would be a core principle guiding technological development and application.
• Decentralized and Localized Solutions: While large-scale projects might exist, there would likely be a greater emphasis on decentralized and localized solutions. This could involve communities managing their own resources, generating their own energy, and adapting technologies to their specific needs and environments.
• Adaptive and Resilient Systems: In a constantly changing world, sustainable technology would need to be adaptive and resilient. This means designing systems that can withstand environmental shocks, adjust to new challenges, and learn from experience.
• Human-Centered Design: Sustainable technology in 3300 would need to be designed with humans in mind. This means ensuring that technology is accessible, equitable, and enhances people’s lives without compromising their well-being or the environment.
• Global Collaboration: Addressing global challenges like climate change and resource depletion would require international cooperation and the sharing of knowledge and technology. Sustainable technology in 3300 would likely be a product of global collaboration and shared responsibility.

Essentially, sustainable technology in 3300 would be a way of life, a set of principles that guide how we interact with the world around us. It would be a testament to our ability to learn from the past, adapt to the present, and create a future where humanity and nature can thrive together.

Case study is Sustainable Technology of 3300 ?

It’s difficult to provide a specific case study on sustainable technology in 3300, as that’s far into the future and we can only speculate about the technologies that might exist. However, we can create a hypothetical case study based on current trends and potential future developments:

Case Study: The Revitalization of the Amazon Rainforest in 3300

Background:

By the 33rd century, climate change and deforestation have severely impacted the Amazon rainforest, leading to significant biodiversity loss and ecological damage. Recognizing the crucial role of the Amazon in regulating the global climate and maintaining ecological balance, a global initiative is launched to restore the rainforest to its former glory.

Technology:

The revitalization project relies on a combination of advanced sustainable technologies:

• Advanced Bioengineering: Scientists have developed techniques to rapidly regenerate damaged ecosystems, including genetically engineered trees that are resistant to climate change and pests, and microorganisms that can break down pollutants and restore soil health.
• Climate Modification: Advanced weather modification systems are used to create optimal conditions for rainforest regeneration, including regulating rainfall patterns and temperature.
• Autonomous Systems: Drones and robots are deployed to monitor the rainforest, plant trees, and remove invasive species. These systems are powered by renewable energy and operate autonomously, minimizing human intervention.
• Closed-Loop Resource Management: All resources used in the revitalization project are carefully managed and recycled. Waste is minimized, and any byproducts are used to create new materials or energy.

Results:

The revitalization project is a success. The Amazon rainforest is restored to its former glory, with thriving biodiversity and a stable ecosystem. The project serves as a model for ecosystem restoration efforts around the world, demonstrating the power of sustainable technology to reverse environmental damage and create a more sustainable future.

Lessons Learned:

This hypothetical case study highlights the potential of sustainable technology to address even the most challenging environmental problems. It emphasizes the importance of:

• Long-term vision: Sustainable solutions require a long-term perspective and a commitment to future generations.
• Technological innovation: Investing in research and development of sustainable technologies is crucial for finding solutions to complex problems.
• Global cooperation: Addressing global challenges requires international collaboration and the sharing of knowledge and resources.

While this is just a hypothetical example, it illustrates the potential of sustainable technology to create a better future. By focusing on sustainability today, we can pave the way for a world where technology and nature coexist in harmony.

COURTESY : Tech Evaluate

White paper on Sustainable Technology of 3300 ?

White Paper: Sustainable Technology in 3300: A Glimpse into the Future

Abstract:

Predicting the technological landscape of 3300 is inherently speculative, yet exploring potential trajectories of sustainable technology is crucial for guiding present-day development. This white paper examines plausible advancements in key sectors, considering the imperative for ecological balance and resource optimization in a future characterized by complex global challenges. It emphasizes the interconnectedness of these technologies and their potential to reshape human civilization.

1. Introduction:

Humanity’s journey has been marked by continuous technological innovation, often with unintended environmental consequences. The imperative for sustainable practices has become increasingly clear. This paper looks beyond current trends to envision the potential state of sustainable technology in 3300, acknowledging the inherent uncertainties while aiming to inspire long-term vision and responsible innovation.

2. Energy:

• Fusion Power Dominance: Fusion energy, if realized, could become the primary energy source, offering clean, near-limitless power. Advanced containment and control systems would ensure safety and efficiency.
• Space-Based Solar Power: Large-scale solar arrays in orbit could capture vast amounts of solar energy, beaming it wirelessly to Earth. This would minimize land use conflicts and maximize energy capture.
• Ambient Energy Harvesting: Nanotechnology could enable the harvesting of energy from ambient sources like vibrations, heat, and even electromagnetic radiation, powering small devices and sensor networks.

3. Resource Management:

• Closed-Loop Material Cycles: Advanced recycling and material processing technologies would achieve near-perfect closed-loop systems. Every material would be infinitely reusable, eliminating waste and minimizing resource depletion.
• Advanced Material Science: New materials with exceptional properties (strength, lightness, biodegradability) would be engineered at the molecular level, reducing the need for scarce resources and minimizing environmental impact.
• Resource Extraction from Space: Asteroid mining and other space-based resource extraction could supplement terrestrial resources, reducing pressure on Earth’s ecosystems.

4. Environment and Climate:

• Global Climate Regulation: Sophisticated geoengineering techniques, carefully calibrated and monitored, could help regulate the global climate, mitigating the effects of past environmental damage.
• Ecosystem Restoration: Advanced bioengineering and ecological restoration techniques could revitalize damaged ecosystems, restoring biodiversity and ecosystem services.
• Pollution Remediation: Nanotechnology and bioremediation could be used to clean up pollution from air, water, and soil, restoring environmental health.

5. Food and Agriculture:

• Vertical Farming and Controlled Environment Agriculture: Highly efficient vertical farms and controlled environment agriculture would maximize food production while minimizing land and water use.
• Cultivated Meat and Alternative Proteins: Cultivated meat and other alternative protein sources would reduce reliance on traditional animal agriculture, reducing greenhouse gas emissions and land use.
• Precision Agriculture: Advanced sensors, AI, and robotics would optimize agricultural practices, minimizing resource inputs and maximizing yields.

6. Infrastructure and Urban Planning:

• Smart Cities: Cities would be designed for sustainability, with integrated smart grids, efficient transportation systems, and green buildings that minimize energy consumption and waste generation.
• Resilient Infrastructure: Infrastructure would be designed to withstand extreme weather events and other environmental challenges, ensuring the resilience of communities.
• Decentralized Systems: Local energy generation, water management, and waste processing systems would empower communities and reduce reliance on centralized infrastructure.

7. Social and Ethical Considerations:

• Equitable Access: Ensuring equitable access to sustainable technologies and resources would be crucial for promoting social justice and preventing a widening gap between the rich and poor.
• Ethical Frameworks: Robust ethical frameworks would be needed to guide the development and deployment of advanced technologies, ensuring that they are used responsibly and for the benefit of all humanity.
• Education and Awareness: Education and public awareness campaigns would be essential for fostering a culture of sustainability and empowering individuals to make informed choices.

8. Conclusion:

The sustainable technologies of 3300 represent a potential pathway towards a future where humanity lives in harmony with nature. While the specifics remain uncertain, the general direction is clear. By investing in research, fostering innovation, and prioritizing sustainability today, we can pave the way for a brighter future for generations to come. This vision requires global collaboration, ethical considerations, and a commitment to long-term thinking, but the potential rewards are immense.

Industrial application of Sustainable Technology of 3300 ?

You’re asking a fascinating question! It’s exciting to think about how sustainable technology might revolutionize industries in 3300. Here are some potential applications, keeping in mind that this is imaginative speculation:

1. Manufacturing & Production:

• Closed-loop Manufacturing: Imagine factories where every material is recycled and reused endlessly. Advanced material science and nanotech would allow for on-demand production with minimal waste.
• Personalized Production: 3D printing and advanced fabrication technologies could enable highly personalized manufacturing, with products tailored to individual needs and preferences.
• Localized Production: Decentralized manufacturing facilities could be located closer to consumers, reducing transportation costs and environmental impact.

2. Resource Extraction & Processing:

• Sustainable Mining: Advanced robotics and AI could enable highly precise and minimally invasive mining operations, reducing environmental damage and ensuring responsible resource management.
• Space-Based Resource Utilization: Asteroid mining and other space-based resource extraction could provide access to rare materials without harming Earth’s ecosystems.
• Advanced Material Processing: Technologies for extracting and processing materials with minimal energy input and environmental impact would be crucial.

3. Energy Production & Distribution:

• Fusion-Powered Industries: Industries could be powered by clean and abundant fusion energy, eliminating reliance on fossil fuels.
• Smart Grids: Highly sophisticated smart grids would optimize energy distribution and usage, minimizing waste and maximizing efficiency.
• Localized Energy Generation: Industries could generate their own energy using renewable sources like solar, wind, or geothermal, reducing reliance on centralized power plants.

4. Transportation & Logistics:

• Hyper-Efficient Transportation: Advanced transportation systems, like hyperloops or maglev trains, could enable rapid and sustainable movement of goods and people.
• Autonomous Vehicles: Self-driving vehicles and drones could optimize logistics and reduce traffic congestion, minimizing fuel consumption and emissions.
• Sustainable Aviation: Advanced biofuels or electric propulsion systems could make air travel more sustainable.

5. Agriculture & Food Production:

• Vertical Farms: Large-scale vertical farms located in urban areas could provide fresh, locally grown produce with minimal land and water use.
• Automated Agriculture: Robots and AI could automate agricultural tasks, optimizing resource inputs and maximizing yields.
• Sustainable Aquaculture: Advanced aquaculture systems could provide a sustainable source of seafood, reducing pressure on wild fish populations.

6. Construction & Infrastructure:

• Green Buildings: Buildings could be constructed from sustainable materials and designed to generate their own energy, minimizing their environmental footprint.
• Self-Healing Materials: Advanced materials that can self-repair could extend the lifespan of infrastructure and reduce maintenance costs.
• Modular Construction: Buildings could be constructed from modular components that can be easily assembled and disassembled, allowing for flexible and adaptable infrastructure.

7. Waste Management & Recycling:

• Zero-Waste Systems: Industries could operate on a zero-waste model, where all byproducts are recycled and reused.
• Advanced Recycling Technologies: Technologies for breaking down materials at the molecular level could enable the complete recycling of even the most complex products.
• Waste-to-Energy: Waste could be used to generate energy, reducing reliance on fossil fuels and minimizing landfill space.

These are just a few examples of how sustainable technology could transform industries in 3300. The possibilities are vast, and the only limit is our imagination. By prioritizing sustainability today, we can pave the way for a future where industries operate in harmony with the environment, ensuring a healthy planet for generations to come.

Research and development of Sustainable Technology of 3300 ?

It’s exciting to imagine the kind of research and development that might lead to the sustainable technologies of 3300! Here’s how we might get there, building on current trends and imagining future possibilities:

1. Fundamental Scientific Research:

• Advanced Physics: Continued exploration of fundamental physics, including areas like quantum mechanics, field theory, and cosmology, could unlock new sources of energy, new materials, and new ways of manipulating matter and energy.
• Materials Science: Research into new materials with extraordinary properties, such as superconductors, metamaterials, and self-healing materials, would be crucial for developing advanced technologies.
• Biology and Biotechnology: Deepening our understanding of biological systems could lead to breakthroughs in areas like bioengineering, synthetic biology, and genetic engineering, with applications in medicine, agriculture, and environmental restoration.

2. Engineering and Applied Sciences:

• Nanotechnology: Continued development of nanotechnology could lead to the creation of incredibly small devices and machines with applications in medicine, manufacturing, and environmental cleanup.
• Artificial Intelligence: Advancements in AI could lead to the development of intelligent systems that can optimize resource use, manage complex infrastructure, and even design new technologies.
• Energy Research: Continued research into fusion energy, advanced solar technologies, and other renewable energy sources would be crucial for ensuring a sustainable energy future.

3. Interdisciplinary Collaboration:

• Convergence of Disciplines: Addressing complex challenges like climate change and resource depletion would require collaboration between scientists and engineers from a wide range of disciplines, including physics, biology, materials science, computer science, and engineering.
• Open Innovation: Sharing research findings and collaborating across institutions and national borders would accelerate the development of sustainable technologies.
• Public-Private Partnerships: Collaboration between governments, industry, and academia would be essential for funding and translating research into practical applications.

4. Long-Term Vision and Ethical Considerations:

• Future-Oriented Research: Investing in research that might not yield immediate results but has the potential to revolutionize technology in the long term would be crucial.
• Ethical Frameworks: Developing ethical guidelines and frameworks for the development and deployment of new technologies would be essential for ensuring that they are used responsibly and for the benefit of all humanity.
• Education and Public Engagement: Educating the public about the importance of sustainability and engaging them in the research process would be crucial for building support for sustainable technologies.

5. Experimental Platforms and Testbeds:

• Large-Scale Research Facilities: Building and maintaining large-scale research facilities, such as particle accelerators, fusion reactors, and advanced materials characterization labs, would be essential for conducting cutting-edge research.
• Living Laboratories: Creating “living laboratories” where new technologies can be tested and evaluated in real-world settings would be crucial for accelerating the development of sustainable solutions.
• Virtual Worlds: Using advanced simulations and virtual reality environments could allow researchers to test and optimize new technologies before they are deployed in the real world.

It’s important to remember that the research and development of sustainable technology is an ongoing process. By investing in fundamental research, fostering interdisciplinary collaboration, and prioritizing ethical considerations, we can pave the way for a future where technology and nature coexist in harmony.

COURTESY : NPTEL-NOC IITM

References

[edit]

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.