Sustainable technology of 3900

Leave a Comment / Sustainable technology of 3900 / By
69 / 100
Powered by Rank Math SEO

Sustainable technology of 3900 ?

Sustainable technology is the use of science to create and innovate products that are environmentally friendly. It is a way of using technology to reduce our impact on the planet.

Some examples of sustainable technology include:

  • Renewable energy: Renewable energy sources, such as solar, wind, and geothermal power, produce electricity with little to no pollution.
  • Energy efficiency: Energy-efficient technologies, such as LED lighting and high-efficiency appliances, reduce energy consumption.
  • Sustainable transportation: Sustainable transportation options, such as electric vehicles and public transportation, reduce emissions from the transportation sector.
  • Green building: Green building practices, such as using sustainable materials and energy-efficient designs, reduce the environmental impact of buildings.
  • Sustainable agriculture: Sustainable agriculture practices, such as crop rotation and organic farming, reduce the environmental impact of agriculture.
  • Waste reduction: Waste reduction strategies, such as recycling and composting, reduce the amount of waste that goes to landfills.

Sustainable technology is an important part of creating a sustainable future. By using technology to reduce our impact on the planet, we can help to protect the environment and ensure a better future for all.

What is Sustainable technology of 3900 ?

It seems you’re asking about sustainable technology in the year 3900. That’s a fascinating question! It requires a bit of imagination, as we can only speculate about what technology might look like that far in the future.

However, we can make some educated guesses based on current trends and the ongoing need for sustainability:

  • Closed-loop resource systems: By 3900, we might have perfected closed-loop systems where resources are continuously recycled and reused. This could involve advanced material science, nanotechnology, and highly efficient recycling processes.
  • Energy from space: Perhaps we’ll have large-scale energy collection systems in space, beaming clean energy down to Earth. This could involve solar power satellites or even more advanced technologies we can’t yet imagine.
  • Biologically integrated technology: Technology might be seamlessly integrated with living systems. Imagine buildings that grow themselves, or devices that are made from biodegradable materials and can be easily composted.
  • Hyper-efficient transportation: Transportation could be revolutionized with technologies that minimize energy use and emissions. This might involve advanced forms of levitation, teleportation (if it’s ever possible!), or highly optimized networks for ground and air travel.
  • Personalized and localized production: Manufacturing could be highly localized and personalized, with on-demand production of goods using advanced 3D printing or other fabrication technologies. This would reduce the need for long-distance transportation and mass production.
  • AI-driven sustainability: Artificial intelligence could play a crucial role in optimizing resource use, predicting environmental changes, and managing complex systems to ensure sustainability.

Of course, this is just speculation. The actual sustainable technologies of 3900 could be far more advanced and unimaginable. But one thing is certain: the need for sustainability will likely be even more critical by then, and technology will play a key role in achieving it.

Who is required Sustainable technology of 3900 ?

It’s interesting to think about who might need sustainable technology in the year 3900! Here’s a breakdown of potential stakeholders:

  • Humanity: Even in 3900, humans will likely still rely on resources for survival and well-being. Sustainable technology would be essential for:
    • Providing basic needs: Food, water, shelter, and energy.
    • Maintaining a habitable environment: Clean air and water, stable climate, and healthy ecosystems.
    • Supporting advanced civilizations: If humanity has expanded beyond Earth, sustainable technology would be crucial for off-world settlements and space exploration.
  • Other intelligent life: If we encounter or develop other intelligent life forms, sustainable technology might be necessary for:
    • Coexistence: Sharing resources and minimizing environmental impact.
    • Communication and collaboration: Developing technologies that allow for interaction and understanding.
  • The planet itself: Earth will still need care, regardless of human presence. Sustainable technology could help:
    • Restore damaged ecosystems: Repairing past environmental damage.
    • Maintain balance: Ensuring the planet’s systems can continue to support life.
    • Adapt to changes: Helping the planet and its inhabitants adjust to natural or human-induced changes.

It’s important to remember that the concept of “need” might evolve by 3900. Perhaps technology will have advanced to a point where basic needs are effortlessly met, and the focus shifts to more abstract concepts like:

  • Preserving biodiversity: Ensuring the survival of all species, not just those directly useful to humans.
  • Exploring the universe: Expanding our understanding of the cosmos while minimizing our impact.
  • Enhancing consciousness: Developing technologies that allow for deeper understanding and connection with ourselves and the universe.

Ultimately, whoever exists in 3900 will likely need sustainable technology to thrive and ensure a positive future for themselves and their world.

When is required Sustainable technology of 3900 ?

That’s a great question with a few layers to it! Here’s a breakdown of when sustainable technology might be needed in the context of the year 3900:

  • Continuously: In a broad sense, sustainable technology will likely be needed all the time in 3900. Just like today, maintaining a healthy planet and thriving society will require ongoing effort and innovation. This means that sustainable technology won’t be a one-time solution, but rather an integral part of daily life and progress.
  • Proactively: It’s likely that by 3900, humanity (or whoever inhabits Earth) will have learned from the past and will prioritize proactive measures. This means using sustainable technology to prevent environmental problems before they arise, rather than just reacting to them. This could involve things like:
    • Continuous monitoring of ecosystems and resource levels
    • Predictive modeling to anticipate potential challenges
    • Adaptive technologies that can adjust to changing conditions
  • In response to change: Even with proactive measures, unexpected events can still occur. Sustainable technology will be needed to:
    • Adapt to natural changes: This could include things like climate shifts, natural disasters, or changes in ecosystems.
    • Address unforeseen consequences: New technologies or societal changes might have unintended environmental impacts that require sustainable solutions.
    • Support recovery: If damage does occur, sustainable technology will be needed to help ecosystems and communities recover.
  • For ongoing development: Sustainable technology won’t just be about maintaining the status quo. It will also be needed to:
    • Support progress: As societies evolve and explore new frontiers, sustainable technology will be crucial for developing in a way that doesn’t harm the planet.
    • Improve quality of life: Sustainable technology can be used to create solutions that not only protect the environment but also enhance human well-being.

In essence, the need for sustainable technology in 3900 will be a constant and evolving one, driven by the ongoing need to balance progress with the health of the planet and the well-being of its inhabitants

courtesy : NPTEL-NOC IITM

.

Where is required Sustainable technology of 3900 ?

This is a really interesting question that requires us to think beyond our current understanding of technology and society! Here are some potential “where” scenarios for sustainable technology in 3900:

  • Earth: Even in 3900, Earth will likely still be a primary location for sustainable technology. This could include:
    • Urban centers: Cities would likely be highly optimized for resource efficiency, with advanced infrastructure for energy, water, and waste management.
    • Rural areas: Sustainable agriculture and resource management would be crucial for food production and maintaining healthy ecosystems.
    • Extreme environments: Sustainable technology might be needed to help humans adapt to and thrive in challenging environments like deserts, polar regions, or deep oceans.
  • Space: If humanity has expanded beyond Earth, sustainable technology would be essential for:
    • Off-world settlements: Habitats on other planets or moons would need to be self-sustaining in terms of resources and energy.
    • Space exploration: Sustainable propulsion systems, life support systems, and resource utilization would be crucial for long-duration space travel.
    • Asteroid mining: Extracting resources from asteroids in a sustainable way could provide materials for space-based industries and settlements.
  • Other planets or celestial bodies: If we encounter or develop life on other planets, sustainable technology might be needed for:
    • Coexistence: Sharing resources and minimizing our impact on alien ecosystems.
    • Terraforming: If we attempt to make other planets habitable, sustainable technology would be essential for doing so without harming existing life or the planet itself.
  • Virtual environments: In 3900, virtual reality or simulated worlds might be highly advanced. Sustainable technology could be needed to:
    • Power virtual environments: Maintaining large-scale virtual worlds would require significant energy resources.
    • Manage virtual resources: Even in a virtual world, resources might be limited and require careful management.

It’s important to remember that the “where” of sustainable technology in 3900 might be very different from what we imagine today. Perhaps technology will be so integrated with the environment that it’s no longer confined to specific locations. Or maybe we’ll have developed entirely new ways of interacting with the universe that make our current concepts of “where” irrelevant.

Ultimately, the need for sustainable technology in 3900 will likely be universal, applying to wherever humans (or other intelligent beings) exist and interact with their environment.

How is required Sustainable technology of 3900 ?

That’s a very insightful question! It’s not just about what sustainable technology will exist in 3900, but how it will be utilized. Here are some possibilities:

  • Integrated systems: Sustainable technology might be deeply integrated into all aspects of life. Imagine infrastructure that automatically optimizes resource use, buildings that generate their own energy and recycle waste, and transportation systems that are seamlessly interwoven with the environment.
  • Decentralized solutions: Perhaps sustainable technology will be highly localized and adaptable, with communities or individuals having the tools and knowledge to manage their own resources and meet their needs sustainably. This could involve advanced fabrication technologies, renewable energy systems, and closed-loop resource management.
  • AI-driven optimization: Artificial intelligence could play a crucial role in managing and optimizing sustainable technology. AI systems could monitor resource levels, predict environmental changes, and adjust technology to minimize impact and maximize efficiency.
  • Biologically inspired technology: We might see technology that mimics natural processes and ecosystems. This could involve things like self-healing materials, biodegradable electronics, or energy systems that function like biological organisms.
  • Conscious use: By 3900, there might be a strong cultural emphasis on mindful consumption and resource use. Sustainable technology would be used not just to meet needs, but also to enhance well-being and connection with the natural world.
  • Adaptive technology: Sustainable technology would likely be highly adaptable to changing conditions. This could involve systems that can adjust to climate shifts, natural disasters, or unexpected events.
  • Collaborative networks: Perhaps sustainable technology will be managed through global networks that allow for sharing of knowledge, resources, and technology. This could involve collaboration between humans, AI, and even other intelligent life forms.

It’s important to remember that these are just possibilities. The actual “how” of sustainable technology in 3900 could be far more complex and nuanced than we can imagine. But one thing is certain: it will likely be deeply interwoven with all aspects of life and focused on creating a harmonious relationship between technology, society, and the environment.

Case study is Sustainable technology of 3900 ?

It’s difficult to create a traditional “case study” for sustainable technology in 3900, as we don’t have concrete examples to draw from. However, we can use a hypothetical scenario to explore how sustainable technology might function in that distant future.

Scenario: The Floating City of Aethel

Imagine a city in 3900 called Aethel, a floating metropolis high above the Earth’s surface. This city is entirely self-sufficient and operates on principles of complete sustainability.

Key Sustainable Technologies:

  • Atmospheric Energy Harvesting: Aethel collects energy from the atmosphere using advanced technologies that capture and convert air currents, solar radiation, and even subtle temperature differences into usable power. This energy is stored in highly efficient, compact energy cells.
  • Closed-Loop Resource Systems: Aethel operates on a completely closed-loop system for all resources. Water is recycled endlessly through advanced filtration and purification systems. Waste is not discarded but transformed into usable materials or energy. Food is grown in vertical farms using hydroponics and aeroponics, with nutrients recycled back into the system.
  • Biologically Integrated Architecture: Aethel’s buildings are not just structures but living ecosystems. They are grown from bio-engineered materials that can self-repair and adapt to changing conditions. These buildings integrate with the environment, providing habitats for plants and animals, and even helping to regulate the city’s climate.
  • Personalized Production and Consumption: Residents of Aethel have access to advanced fabrication technologies that allow them to create almost anything they need on demand, from clothing and tools to food and even medicines. This eliminates the need for mass production and long-distance transportation, reducing waste and energy consumption.
  • AI-Driven Optimization: Aethel’s systems are managed by a sophisticated AI that constantly monitors and optimizes resource use. The AI can predict potential problems, adjust technology to changing conditions, and even communicate with residents to encourage sustainable practices.

Challenges and Solutions:

  • Maintaining Balance: Even with advanced technology, maintaining the delicate balance of Aethel’s ecosystem is a constant challenge. The AI and human experts work together to monitor resource levels, manage populations, and adapt to unforeseen events.
  • Ensuring Equity: Aethel strives to provide equal access to resources and opportunities for all its residents. The AI helps to distribute resources fairly and ensure that everyone has access to the technology they need.
  • Adapting to Change: The world of 3900 is likely still dynamic and unpredictable. Aethel’s sustainable technology must be able to adapt to climate change, natural disasters, and other unforeseen challenges.

Lessons Learned:

  • Integration is Key: Sustainable technology in 3900 is not just about individual devices or solutions, but about creating integrated systems that work together to support a thriving society and a healthy planet.
  • Proactive Management: By 3900, humanity has learned the importance of proactive environmental management. Sustainable technology is used not just to react to problems, but to prevent them from occurring in the first place.
  • Collaboration is Essential: Sustainable technology in 3900 requires collaboration between humans, AI, and potentially even other intelligent life forms. Sharing knowledge, resources, and technology is crucial for addressing global challenges.

This hypothetical case study of Aethel provides a glimpse into how sustainable technology might function in 3900. It highlights the importance of integration, proactive management, and collaboration in creating a sustainable future.

courtesy : Voith Group

White paper on Sustainable technology of 3900 ?

White Paper: Sustainable Technology in 3900 – A Glimpse into the Future

Abstract:

This white paper explores the potential landscape of sustainable technology in the year 3900. While predicting the future with certainty is impossible, we can extrapolate from current trends and imagine how technology might evolve to address the ongoing need for sustainability. This paper examines potential technologies, their applications, and the societal context in which they might exist.

Introduction:

The concept of sustainability has become increasingly critical in the 21st century. As we move further into the future, the need for sustainable practices will only intensify. By 3900, humanity (or whatever intelligent life may exist on Earth) will likely have developed highly advanced technologies to ensure a harmonious relationship with the planet and its resources.

Potential Technologies:

  • Closed-Loop Resource Systems: By 3900, the concept of “waste” as we know it might be obsolete. Advanced material science and nanotechnology could enable the creation of closed-loop systems where resources are continuously recycled and reused. This could involve:
    • Molecular manufacturing: The ability to manipulate matter at the atomic level, allowing for the creation of materials with specific properties and the transformation of waste into valuable resources.
    • Advanced recycling technologies: Highly efficient processes for breaking down materials into their basic components and reusing them to create new products.
    • Self-healing materials: Materials that can automatically repair themselves, extending their lifespan and reducing the need for replacement.
  • Energy from Space: Large-scale energy collection systems in space could provide clean and abundant energy for Earth. This could involve:
    • Solar power satellites: Orbiting solar panels that collect sunlight and beam it down to Earth as energy.
    • Advanced energy transmission: Technologies for efficiently transmitting energy from space to Earth, potentially using microwaves or lasers.
    • Harnessing other celestial energy sources: Exploring and utilizing energy from other celestial bodies, such as lunar resources or even energy from distant stars.
  • Biologically Integrated Technology: Technology could become seamlessly integrated with living systems, blurring the lines between the artificial and the natural. This could involve:
    • Living buildings: Structures that are grown from bio-engineered materials and can adapt to their environment.
    • Biodegradable electronics: Devices made from materials that can be easily composted, reducing electronic waste.
    • Bio-integrated devices: Technologies that interact directly with biological systems, such as implantable medical devices or sensors that monitor environmental health.
  • Hyper-Efficient Transportation: Transportation technologies could be revolutionized to minimize energy use and emissions. This could involve:
    • Advanced levitation systems: Technologies that allow vehicles to levitate above surfaces, reducing friction and energy consumption.
    • Personalized air mobility: Small, electric aircraft that provide on-demand transportation, reducing traffic congestion and emissions.
    • Hyperloops or other high-speed ground transport: Systems that allow for rapid and efficient travel over long distances.
  • Personalized and Localized Production: Manufacturing could become highly localized and personalized, with on-demand production of goods using advanced 3D printing or other fabrication technologies. This would reduce the need for mass production and long-distance transportation, minimizing waste and energy consumption.
  • AI-Driven Sustainability: Artificial intelligence could play a crucial role in optimizing resource use, predicting environmental changes, and managing complex systems to ensure sustainability. This could involve:
    • Real-time monitoring and analysis: AI systems that monitor resource levels, environmental conditions, and the impact of human activities.
    • Predictive modeling: AI that can predict potential environmental problems and suggest solutions.
    • Adaptive management: AI systems that can adjust technology and human behavior to maintain sustainability in the face of changing conditions.

Societal Context:

By 3900, sustainability might not just be a technological imperative but also a deeply ingrained cultural value. Societies might prioritize:

  • Mindful consumption: A shift away from consumerism towards a focus on needs rather than wants.
  • Resource stewardship: A sense of responsibility for the planet and its resources, with individuals and communities actively participating in sustainable practices.
  • Global cooperation: Collaboration between nations and even potentially other intelligent life forms to address global sustainability challenges.

Challenges and Considerations:

Even with advanced technology, challenges will likely remain:

  • Maintaining balance: Ensuring that technological advancements do not disrupt delicate ecosystems or create unintended consequences.
  • Equity and access: Ensuring that the benefits of sustainable technology are available to all, regardless of their location or social status.
  • Adapting to change: Remaining flexible and adaptable in the face of unforeseen challenges, such as climate change or natural disasters.

Conclusion:

Sustainable technology in 3900 will likely be a complex and integrated system that is deeply intertwined with all aspects of life. It will require not only technological advancements but also societal shifts in values and behaviors. By embracing innovation, collaboration, and a long-term perspective, humanity can strive towards a future where technology and sustainability coexist in harmony.

Further Research:

  • Explore the ethical implications of advanced technologies in the context of sustainability.
  • Investigate the potential for collaboration between humans and AI in managing sustainable systems.
  • Consider the role of education and cultural change in promoting sustainable practices.

This white paper serves as a starting point for imagining the possibilities of sustainable technology in 3900. It is a call for continued exploration, innovation, and a commitment to creating a sustainable future for all.

Industrial application of Sustainable technology of 3900 ?

Let’s imagine some potential industrial applications of sustainable technology in 3900. It’s important to remember this is speculative, but based on current trends and the absolute need for long-term sustainability:

1. Resource Extraction and Processing:

  • Asteroid Mining with Minimal Environmental Impact: By 3900, asteroid mining could be commonplace, providing crucial resources without damaging Earth’s ecosystems. Sustainable technologies would be vital:
    • Autonomous Mining Systems: AI-controlled robots and drones would handle extraction, minimizing human presence and risk.
    • Closed-Loop Refining: On-site processing facilities on asteroids would refine resources into usable forms, minimizing waste and the need to transport raw materials back to Earth.
    • Energy-Efficient Propulsion: Spacecraft would utilize advanced propulsion systems like solar sails, fusion power, or other futuristic technologies to minimize fuel consumption and pollution.
  • Deep-Sea Mining with Ecosystem Preservation: If deep-sea mining is still necessary, it would be done with extreme care:
    • Precision Extraction: Advanced sensors and robotics would target specific mineral deposits, minimizing disturbance to surrounding ecosystems.
    • Habitat Restoration: Technologies would be developed to restore deep-sea habitats after mining operations, ensuring long-term ecological health.

2. Manufacturing and Production:

  • Molecular Manufacturing: This could revolutionize manufacturing:
    • On-Demand Production: Factories would be able to create almost any product from basic building blocks, eliminating the need for mass production and reducing waste.
    • Customized Products: Products could be designed and manufactured to meet specific needs, minimizing resource use and maximizing efficiency.
    • Closed-Loop Material Flow: Manufacturing processes would be designed to reuse all materials, eliminating waste and creating a circular economy.
  • Vertical Farming and Food Production:
    • Automated and Optimized Systems: Indoor vertical farms would be highly automated, using AI to optimize growing conditions and minimize resource use (water, energy, nutrients).
    • Localized Food Production: Vertical farms could be located in urban centers, reducing transportation costs and ensuring access to fresh produce.

3. Energy Production and Distribution:

  • Space-Based Solar Power: Large-scale solar power satellites would collect energy and beam it to Earth:
    • Efficient Energy Transmission: Highly efficient technologies would transmit energy to Earth with minimal loss.
    • Global Energy Grid: A global energy grid would distribute power to where it’s needed, ensuring access to clean energy for everyone.
  • Advanced Fusion Power: If fusion power becomes viable:
    • Clean and Abundant Energy: Fusion reactors would provide a virtually limitless source of clean energy.
    • Safe and Sustainable Operation: Advanced safety systems would ensure that fusion reactors operate without risk of meltdowns or radioactive waste.

4. Transportation and Infrastructure:

  • Hyper-Efficient Transportation Systems:
    • Maglev Trains and Hyperloops: High-speed ground transportation systems would connect cities and regions, reducing travel time and emissions.
    • Personal Air Mobility: Electric vertical take-off and landing (eVTOL) aircraft would provide on-demand transportation, reducing traffic congestion and emissions.
  • Smart Infrastructure:
    • Self-Healing Materials: Infrastructure would be built from materials that can self-repair, reducing maintenance costs and extending lifespan.
    • Adaptive Systems: Infrastructure would be equipped with sensors and AI to monitor conditions and adapt to changing needs, optimizing resource use and minimizing environmental impact.

5. Waste Management and Remediation:

  • Advanced Recycling and Resource Recovery:
    • Complete Resource Recovery: All waste would be processed and transformed into usable resources, eliminating landfills and pollution.
    • Pollution Remediation: Technologies would be developed to clean up existing pollution and restore damaged ecosystems.

These are just a few examples of how sustainable technology might be applied in industry in 3900. The key themes are:

  • Resource efficiency: Minimizing waste and maximizing the use of resources.
  • Renewable energy: Transitioning to clean and sustainable energy sources.
  • Ecosystem preservation: Protecting and restoring natural ecosystems.
  • Technological integration: Integrating technology into all aspects of industry to optimize sustainability.

Research and development of Sustainable technology of 3900 ?

It’s fascinating to consider the research and development that might lead to sustainable technology in 3900! While we can’t know for sure, we can imagine some potential areas of focus:

1. Fundamental Science:

  • Advanced Material Science: Research into new materials with extraordinary properties, such as self-healing materials, materials that can adapt to their environment, or materials that can be easily recycled and repurposed.
  • Energy Physics: Exploring new sources of energy, such as harnessing zero-point energy, or developing more efficient ways to convert and store energy.
  • Biological Systems: Studying biological systems to understand how they function with such efficiency and resilience, and applying those principles to technology design.
  • Consciousness and AI: Investigating the nature of consciousness and its potential connection to technology, which could lead to AI systems that are more intuitive and better able to manage complex systems.

2. Engineering and Technology:

  • Molecular Manufacturing: Developing technologies that can manipulate matter at the atomic level, allowing for the creation of materials and products with unprecedented precision and efficiency.
  • Space-Based Energy Systems: Designing and building large-scale energy collection systems in space, and developing efficient ways to transmit that energy back to Earth.
  • Biologically Integrated Technology: Creating technologies that can seamlessly integrate with living systems, such as living buildings, biodegradable electronics, and bio-integrated devices.
  • Hyper-Efficient Transportation: Developing new forms of transportation that minimize energy use and emissions, such as advanced levitation systems, personalized air mobility, and hyperloops.
  • AI-Driven Sustainability: Creating sophisticated AI systems that can monitor and optimize resource use, predict environmental changes, and manage complex systems to ensure sustainability.

3. Social Sciences and Humanities:

  • Sustainable Societies: Studying how societies can be organized and governed to promote sustainability, including research into economic models, social structures, and cultural values.
  • Environmental Ethics: Exploring the ethical implications of technology and its impact on the environment, and developing frameworks for making responsible decisions about technology use.
  • Human-Technology Interaction: Investigating how humans can interact with technology in a way that is both sustainable and enhances well-being.
  • Global Cooperation: Studying how to foster cooperation between nations and even potentially other intelligent life forms to address global sustainability challenges.

Research Methods:

  • Interdisciplinary Collaboration: Research in sustainable technology in 3900 would likely involve collaboration between scientists, engineers, social scientists, and even artists and philosophers.
  • Simulation and Modeling: Advanced computer simulations would be used to model complex systems and predict the impact of different technologies and policies.
  • Experimentation and Prototyping: New technologies would be tested and refined through experimentation and prototyping, with a focus on minimizing environmental impact.
  • Citizen Science: Individuals and communities might play a greater role in research and development, contributing data, ideas, and even participating in experiments.

Challenges:

  • Predicting the Future: It’s impossible to know for sure what technologies will be needed in 3900, so research must be flexible and adaptable.
  • Ethical Considerations: Developing sustainable technology raises important ethical questions about the relationship between humans and the environment, and the potential impact of technology on society.
  • Global Collaboration: Addressing global sustainability challenges will require collaboration between researchers, policymakers, and communities around the world.

Ultimately, research and development of sustainable technology in 3900 would be an ongoing process, driven by the need to create a future where technology and sustainability coexist in harmony.

courtesy : SUSTAINABLE TECHNOLOGY SOLUTIONS

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.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Translate »