Sustainable technology of 4920

79 / 100

Sustainable technology of 4920 ?

Sustainable technology in 4920 would likely be unrecognizable to us today. Here’s a speculative exploration of what it might entail, based on current trends and potential future developments:

Core Principles:

Radical Resource Efficiency: Technologies would minimize or eliminate waste, utilizing closed-loop systems for resource use.
Renewable Energy Dominance: Energy would be sourced entirely from renewable sources like solar, wind, geothermal, and perhaps even more advanced forms like zero-point energy or harnessing energy from space.
Biomimicry and Nature-Inspired Design: Technologies would be designed to mimic natural processes, creating systems that are inherently sustainable and integrated with the environment.
Localized and Decentralized Systems: Production and distribution would be localized, reducing transportation needs and fostering resilience.
Advanced Materials Science: Materials would be developed with properties like self-healing, biodegradability, and the ability to adapt to changing conditions.

Examples of Sustainable Technology in 4920:

Atmospheric Carbon Capture and Utilization: Technologies could efficiently capture and convert atmospheric carbon dioxide into usable materials or fuels, effectively reversing climate change.
Advanced Agriculture: Vertical farms, hydroponics, and aeroponics could be integrated into urban environments, providing fresh, local produce with minimal land and water use.
Personalized Energy Systems: Homes and individuals might have personalized energy systems that generate, store, and manage energy based on their needs.
Closed-Loop Manufacturing: Products could be designed for disassembly and reuse, with materials being recycled or repurposed at the end of their life cycle.
Smart Infrastructure: Cities could be equipped with sensors and AI systems that optimize energy use, water management, and waste disposal.
Biotech and Nanotech Integration: Biotechnology and nanotechnology could be combined to create materials and systems with unique properties, such as self-healing infrastructure or biodegradable electronics.
Space-Based Solar Power: Solar energy could be collected in space and beamed down to Earth, providing a clean and limitless source of energy.

Challenges and Considerations:

Ethical Considerations: Advanced technologies raise ethical questions about their use and impact on society.
Accessibility and Equity: Ensuring that sustainable technologies are accessible to everyone is crucial for creating a just and equitable future.
Technological Risks: New technologies always carry potential risks, and careful consideration must be given to their potential impact on the environment and human health.

It’s important to remember that this is just speculation. The actual sustainable technologies of 4920 could be very different from what we can imagine today. However, by focusing on the core principles of sustainability and continuing to innovate, we can create a future where technology and the environment coexist in harmony.

What is Sustainable technology of 4920 ?

Sustainable technology in 4920 would be highly advanced and integrated into all aspects of life. It would likely be based on principles like radical resource efficiency, renewable energy dominance, biomimicry, localized systems, and advanced materials science.

Some examples of what this might look like include:

Atmospheric carbon capture and utilization: Technologies that efficiently capture and convert atmospheric carbon dioxide into usable materials or fuels.
Advanced agriculture: Vertical farms, hydroponics, and aeroponics integrated into urban environments, providing fresh, local produce with minimal land and water use.
Personalized energy systems: Homes and individuals with personalized energy systems that generate, store, and manage energy based on their needs.
Closed-loop manufacturing: Products designed for disassembly and reuse, with materials being recycled or repurposed at the end of their life cycle.
Smart infrastructure: Cities equipped with sensors and AI systems that optimize energy use, water management, and waste disposal.
Biotech and nanotech integration: Combining biotechnology and nanotechnology to create materials and systems with unique properties, such as self-healing infrastructure or biodegradable electronics.
Space-based solar power: Solar energy collected in space and beamed down to Earth, providing a clean and limitless source of energy.

However, it’s important to remember that this is just speculation. The actual sustainable technologies of 4920 could be very different from what we can imagine today.

Who is required Sustainable technology of 4920 ?

It’s not about who requires sustainable technology in 4920, but rather who will be utilizing it, and that would likely be everyone.

Here’s why:

Necessity: By 4920, the consequences of unsustainable practices would likely be severe. Sustainable technology would be essential for survival and maintaining a habitable planet.
Integration: Sustainable technologies would be deeply integrated into every aspect of life, from energy production and transportation to food systems and manufacturing. Individuals, communities, and entire civilizations would rely on these technologies.
Evolution: Over such a long period, sustainable technologies would likely become the norm, the foundation upon which society functions. It wouldn’t be a matter of choice, but a fundamental part of existence.

Think of it like this: Today, we rely on technologies like electricity, the internet, and sanitation systems. In 4920, sustainable technologies would be just as fundamental and ubiquitous.

Therefore, the “users” of sustainable technology in 4920 would be:

Individuals: For daily life, work, communication, and personal needs.
Communities: For local resource management, infrastructure, and social systems.
Governments and Organizations: For large-scale planning, resource allocation, and maintaining societal well-being.
Industries: For production, manufacturing, and providing goods and services.

Essentially, everyone would be both a beneficiary and a participant in the sustainable technological ecosystem of 4920.

When is required Sustainable technology of 4920 ?

The need for sustainable technology in 4920 wouldn’t be a sudden requirement, but rather an absolute necessity that develops over time. It’s not a question of “when” it’s required, but rather a continuous process of evolution and adaptation.

Here’s a breakdown of how the “when” unfolds:

Long Ago (Our Present and Near Future): The seeds of sustainable technology are being sown now. We are currently in a crucial phase where we recognize the urgency of environmental challenges and are actively developing solutions.
Gradual Transition: Over the centuries, a gradual transition towards sustainable technologies would occur. As resources dwindle and environmental problems worsen, the adoption of sustainable practices would accelerate.
Integration and Evolution: Sustainable technologies would become increasingly integrated into all aspects of life. They would evolve and improve, becoming more efficient and sophisticated.
Necessity by 4920: By 4920, sustainable technology wouldn’t be a choice, but a fundamental requirement for survival. It would be the foundation upon which society functions, a non-negotiable aspect of existence.

Think of it as a marathon, not a sprint. We are in the early stages of that marathon now. The need for sustainable technology grows with each step we take, and by 4920, it will be the very ground we run on.

It’s not about a specific date when sustainable technology is “required,” but rather a continuous journey towards a future where humanity can thrive in harmony with the environment.

COURTESY : Tech Evaluate

Where is required Sustainable technology of 4920 ?

Sustainable technology in 4920 wouldn’t be confined to specific locations; it would be required everywhere. It would be a globally integrated system woven into the fabric of civilization. Think of it less as “where” and more as “how” it’s integrated:

Global Scale: Addressing climate change and resource management requires global cooperation and interconnected systems. Technologies for atmospheric carbon capture, ocean cleanup, and global resource allocation would need to operate on a planetary scale.
Regional and Local Levels: While some technologies might be global, others would be adapted to regional and local needs. This could include localized energy grids, regional food production systems, and community-based waste management.
Urban and Rural Areas: Sustainable technologies would be present in both urban centers and rural communities. Cities might feature vertical farms and smart infrastructure, while rural areas could utilize advanced permaculture and localized renewable energy generation.
Homes and Workplaces: Sustainable technologies would be integrated into homes and workplaces, from personalized energy systems and smart appliances to closed-loop manufacturing processes and sustainable building materials.
Everywhere Life is Lived: Essentially, sustainable technology would be required and utilized everywhere human activity takes place. It would be an inseparable part of daily life, from the smallest personal device to the largest industrial complex.

So, it’s not about a specific place where it’s required, but rather the pervasive integration of sustainable technology into every facet of existence, across the entire planet.

How is required Sustainable technology of 4920 ?

The “how” of sustainable technology in 4920 isn’t about a single method, but a comprehensive and interconnected system. It would be required and implemented through a combination of factors:

Necessity and Evolution: Over centuries, unsustainable practices would have made sustainable technology not just desirable, but essential for survival. It wouldn’t be a sudden switch, but a gradual evolution driven by necessity.
Scientific Advancement: Significant breakthroughs in fields like materials science, biotechnology, nanotechnology, and energy production would be crucial. These advancements would provide the foundation for the technologies needed.
Global Cooperation: Addressing global challenges like climate change and resource scarcity would require unprecedented international cooperation. Sharing knowledge, resources, and technology would be essential.
Economic and Social Shifts: Economic models would likely shift away from unsustainable consumption and towards circular economies. Social values would emphasize sustainability and responsible resource use.
Integration and Interconnectivity: Sustainable technologies would be deeply integrated into all aspects of life, from energy production and transportation to food systems and manufacturing. These systems would be interconnected and optimized for efficiency.
Continuous Innovation: The development and improvement of sustainable technologies would be an ongoing process. Continuous innovation would be needed to adapt to changing conditions and address new challenges.
Education and Awareness: A deep understanding of sustainability and its importance would be ingrained in society. Education and awareness campaigns would ensure that everyone understands how to live sustainably.
Policy and Regulation: Governments would play a role in promoting and regulating sustainable practices. Policies would incentivize sustainable behavior and discourage unsustainable activities.

In short, the “how” of sustainable technology in 4920 would be a complex interplay of scientific advancement, social change, economic shifts, global cooperation, and continuous innovation, all driven by the fundamental need for a sustainable future. It wouldn’t be one thing, but everything working together.

Case study is Sustainable technology of 4920 ?

It’s impossible to provide a real case study of sustainable technology in 4920, as that’s a hypothetical future. However, we can create a fictional case study based on the likely characteristics of such technologies. This will help illustrate how they might function and interact.

Fictional Case Study: The Great Lakes Restoration Project – 4920

Background: By the mid-49th century, the Great Lakes region, while still vital, faced pressures from centuries of human activity, even with advanced sustainable practices. Microplastic contamination, legacy pollutants, and shifts in aquatic ecosystems required a comprehensive restoration effort.

The Solution: The Great Lakes Restoration Project of 4920 employed a multi-pronged approach utilizing several key sustainable technologies:

Nanobot Remediation: Swarms of specialized nanobots were deployed into the lakes. These nanobots were programmed to:
- Identify and break down microplastics into harmless molecules.
- Absorb and neutralize legacy pollutants like heavy metals.
- Filter excess nutrients that contributed to algal blooms.
- Monitor and report real-time data on water quality and ecosystem health.
Bioengineered Ecosystem Enhancement: Genetically modified microorganisms were introduced to restore the natural balance of the ecosystem. These microbes were designed to:
- Break down specific pollutants that the nanobots couldn’t address.
- Promote the growth of beneficial algae and aquatic plants.
- Restore depleted fish populations by targeting invasive species and supporting native ones.
Atmospheric Carbon Capture Integration: The project was powered by localized atmospheric carbon capture facilities. These facilities not only provided clean energy for the nanobots and other operations but also used captured CO2 to create biopolymers for constructing artificial reefs and habitats.
Smart Infrastructure Monitoring: A network of sensors and AI systems constantly monitored the lakes’ health. This system analyzed data from the nanobots, bioengineered organisms, and other sources to optimize the restoration efforts and predict potential problems.
Closed-Loop Resource Management: All materials used in the project, from the nanobots to the construction materials for artificial reefs, were designed for eventual disassembly and reuse. The project operated on a closed-loop system, minimizing waste and maximizing resource efficiency.

Results: The Great Lakes Restoration Project of 4920 successfully revitalized the region’s aquatic ecosystems. Water quality improved dramatically, native fish populations rebounded, and biodiversity increased. The project served as a model for similar restoration efforts around the globe, demonstrating the power of integrated sustainable technologies to heal and protect the environment.

Key Takeaways:

Integration: The project combined multiple sustainable technologies to achieve its goals.
Scale: The technologies were deployed at a scale necessary to address the complex challenges facing the Great Lakes.
Efficiency: The project operated on principles of resource efficiency and minimized waste.
Monitoring and Adaptation: Real-time monitoring and AI systems allowed for adaptive management and optimization of the restoration efforts.

This fictional case study illustrates the kind of integrated, sophisticated, and large-scale approach that sustainable technology in 4920 might take. It highlights the importance of combining different technologies and approaches to address complex environmental challenges

COURTESY : SUSTAINABLE TECHNOLOGY SOLUTIONS

White paper on Sustainable technology of 4920 ?

White Paper: Sustainable Technology in 4920 – A Vision for a Harmonious Future

Abstract: This white paper explores the potential landscape of sustainable technology in the year 4920. Based on current trends, extrapolated scientific advancements, and the critical need for long-term ecological balance, it envisions a future where technology and nature coexist in harmony. The paper outlines core principles, potential technological advancements, and the societal implications of a fully integrated sustainable technological ecosystem.

1. Introduction:

The challenges facing humanity today – climate change, resource depletion, pollution – necessitate a radical shift towards sustainable practices. While current efforts are crucial, this paper looks far into the future, to 4920, to explore a world where sustainability is not just a goal, but a fundamental reality. By examining potential technological advancements and societal adaptations, we can gain valuable insights into the path we must take to achieve such a future.

2. Core Principles of Sustainable Technology in 4920:

Radical Resource Efficiency: Closed-loop systems minimize waste, maximizing resource utilization and eliminating the concept of “disposal.” Materials are designed for reuse, repurposing, or biodegradation.
Renewable Energy Dominance: Energy is sourced entirely from renewable sources, potentially including advanced forms like space-based solar power, geothermal energy, and potentially even harnessing zero-point energy.
Biomimicry and Nature-Inspired Design: Technologies are designed to mimic natural processes, creating systems that are inherently sustainable and integrated with the environment.
Localized and Decentralized Systems: Production and distribution are localized, reducing transportation needs and fostering resilience. Communities manage their own resources and energy.
Advanced Materials Science: Materials possess properties like self-healing, biodegradability, and adaptability to changing conditions. They are often bio-integrated or derived from renewable resources.

3. Potential Technological Advancements:

Atmospheric Carbon Capture and Utilization (ACCU): Highly efficient ACCU technologies not only remove CO2 from the atmosphere but also convert it into usable materials and fuels, effectively reversing climate change.
Advanced Agriculture and Food Systems: Vertical farms, hydroponics, and aeroponics are integrated into urban environments, providing fresh, local produce with minimal land and water use. Personalized nutrition is readily available.
Personalized Energy Systems: Homes and individuals possess personalized energy systems that generate, store, and manage energy based on their needs, creating microgrids and reducing reliance on centralized power sources.
Closed-Loop Manufacturing and Circular Economies: Products are designed for disassembly and reuse, with materials being recycled or repurposed at the end of their life cycle. Manufacturing processes are highly efficient and waste-free.
Smart Infrastructure and Urban Planning: Cities are equipped with sophisticated sensor networks and AI systems that optimize energy use, water management, and waste disposal, creating intelligent and responsive urban environments.
Biotech and Nanotech Integration: Biotechnology and nanotechnology are combined to create materials and systems with unique properties, such as self-healing infrastructure, biodegradable electronics, and personalized medicine.
Space-Based Solar Power (SBSP): Solar energy is collected in space and beamed down to Earth, providing a clean and limitless source of energy.
Advanced Transportation Systems: Transportation relies on highly efficient, sustainable modes, potentially including advanced maglev trains, personal air mobility, and localized, on-demand transportation systems.

4. Societal Implications:

Environmental Harmony: Humanity exists in a state of balance with nature, minimizing its impact on the planet and fostering biodiversity.
Resource Abundance: Resource scarcity is a thing of the past, thanks to efficient resource management and closed-loop systems.
Decentralized Communities: Communities are more self-sufficient and resilient, managing their own resources and energy.
Enhanced Quality of Life: Access to clean energy, fresh food, and advanced healthcare contributes to a higher quality of life for all.
Ethical Considerations: Advanced technologies raise ethical questions about their use and impact on society, requiring careful consideration and regulation.

5. Conclusion:

The vision of sustainable technology in 4920 presented in this white paper is ambitious but achievable. It requires a long-term commitment to research, innovation, and global cooperation. By embracing the core principles of sustainability and developing the technologies outlined, we can create a future where humanity thrives in harmony with the environment, ensuring a prosperous and equitable future for generations to come. This future is not predetermined. The choices we make today will determine whether this vision becomes a reality.

Industrial application of Sustainable technology of 4920 ?

You’re right to ask about industrial applications! Sustainable technology in 4920 wouldn’t just be for individuals or homes. Industries would be completely transformed by it. Here are some potential examples:

1. Closed-Loop Manufacturing:

Resource Efficiency: Factories would operate on closed-loop systems, where raw materials are used and reused endlessly. Waste would be eliminated, as byproducts would be transformed into new materials or energy.
On-Demand Production: Manufacturing would be highly adaptable and localized. 3D printing and advanced fabrication technologies would allow for on-demand production of goods, reducing the need for mass production and long supply chains.
Personalized Products: Products could be customized and personalized to meet individual needs, reducing waste from unwanted or unnecessary features.

2. Sustainable Energy Production:

Renewable-Powered Industries: Factories would be powered entirely by renewable energy sources, such as space-based solar power, geothermal energy, or localized energy generation.
Energy-Efficient Processes: Industrial processes would be optimized for energy efficiency, minimizing energy consumption and maximizing output.
Carbon-Neutral Production: Industries would strive for carbon neutrality, minimizing or eliminating greenhouse gas emissions.

3. Advanced Materials Science:

Bio-Integrated Materials: Industries would utilize bio-integrated materials that are grown or produced using biological processes. These materials could be self-healing, biodegradable, and adaptable to changing conditions.
Lightweight and Durable Materials: Industries would utilize advanced materials that are lightweight, durable, and resistant to corrosion, reducing the need for maintenance and replacement.
Smart Materials: Materials with embedded sensors and actuators could be used to create self-monitoring and adaptive systems in manufacturing and infrastructure.

4. Biotechnology and Nanotechnology Integration:

Biomanufacturing: Industries could use biological processes to produce materials, chemicals, and even electronics. This could lead to more sustainable and environmentally friendly manufacturing processes.
Nanomaterials: Nanomaterials with unique properties could be used to create more efficient and sustainable products, such as stronger and lighter building materials or more effective catalysts for chemical reactions.

5. Smart Automation and AI:

Optimized Processes: AI systems would optimize industrial processes, minimizing waste, maximizing efficiency, and predicting potential problems.
Robotics and Automation: Advanced robotics and automation would be used to perform tasks that are dangerous, repetitive, or require high precision, improving safety and productivity.

6. Sustainable Transportation and Logistics:

Electric and Autonomous Vehicles: Industries would rely on electric and autonomous vehicles for transportation and logistics, reducing emissions and improving efficiency.
Localized Supply Chains: Supply chains would be more localized, reducing transportation needs and supporting local economies.

These are just a few examples of how sustainable technology could transform industries in 4920. The key is that sustainability would be integrated into every aspect of industrial activity, from resource extraction and manufacturing to transportation and logistics. This would create a more efficient, environmentally friendly, and resilient industrial system.

Research and development of Sustainable technology of 4920 ?

You’re hitting on a crucial point! Research and development (R&D) would be the engine driving sustainable technology in 4920. Here’s how it might function:

1. Interdisciplinary Collaboration:

Convergence of Fields: R&D would involve close collaboration between experts from diverse fields: materials science, biotechnology, nanotechnology, AI, energy, environmental science, social sciences, and even philosophy and ethics.
Knowledge Sharing: Open access to research findings and data would be essential to accelerate innovation and avoid duplication of effort.

2. Advanced Research Infrastructure:

State-of-the-art Labs: Research facilities would be equipped with advanced tools and technologies, such as:
- Nanofabrication labs: For creating and manipulating materials at the nanoscale.
- Bioengineering facilities: For designing and engineering biological systems.
- AI research centers: For developing and training advanced AI models.
- Simulation and modeling: For creating virtual environments to test and optimize new technologies.

3. Focus Areas:

Fundamental Research: Continued investment in fundamental scientific research would be crucial for discovering new principles and phenomena that could lead to breakthroughs in sustainable technology.
Applied Research: Applied research would focus on translating scientific discoveries into practical technologies and solutions.
Systems Thinking: R&D would emphasize systems thinking, considering the interconnectedness of different technologies and their impact on the environment and society as a whole.

4. Iterative Development and Testing:

Rapid Prototyping: Advanced fabrication technologies would enable rapid prototyping and testing of new ideas.
Virtual Testing: Simulation and modeling would allow for extensive testing of new technologies in virtual environments before they are deployed in the real world.
Adaptive Management: R&D would incorporate feedback loops and adaptive management strategies to continuously improve and optimize sustainable technologies.

5. Ethical Considerations:

Responsible Innovation: Ethical considerations would be integrated into all stages of R&D, ensuring that new technologies are developed and used responsibly.
Risk Assessment: Careful assessment of potential risks and unintended consequences would be essential.
Public Engagement: Public dialogue and engagement would be crucial for shaping the direction of R&D and ensuring that sustainable technologies are aligned with societal values.

6. Global Collaboration:

International Research Networks: Global collaboration and knowledge sharing would be essential for addressing global challenges like climate change and resource scarcity.
Open Source Technology: Open source technology and data sharing would accelerate innovation and ensure that sustainable technologies are accessible to everyone.

Think of it as a continuous cycle: Research leads to new discoveries, which are translated into technologies, which are then deployed and tested, leading to further research and improvement. This cycle would be driven by the need for sustainability and guided by ethical considerations, ensuring that technology serves humanity and the planet.

COURTESY : Bernard Marr

References

^ 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
^ 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.
^ 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.
^ 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
^ 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.
^ Jump up to:^a ^b ^c “Sustainability”. Encyclopedia Britannica. Retrieved 31 March 2022.
^ “Sustainable Development”. UNESCO. 3 August 2015. Retrieved 20 January 2022.
^ 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.
^ Nelson, Anitra (31 January 2024). “Degrowth as a Concept and Practice: Introduction”. The Commons Social Change Library. Retrieved 23 February 2024.
^ 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.
^ 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.
^ 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.
^ 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.
^ Hardyment, Richard (2024). Measuring Good Business: Making Sense of Environmental, Social & Governance Data. Abingdon: Routledge. ISBN 9781032601199.
^ Bell, Simon; Morse, Stephen (2012). Sustainability Indicators: Measuring the Immeasurable?. Abington: Routledge. ISBN 978-1-84407-299-6.
^ 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.
^ 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.
^ 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.
^ 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.
^ 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.
^ 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.
^ 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.
^ 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.
^ 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.
^ 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.
^ “University of Alberta: What is sustainability?” (PDF). mcgill.ca. Retrieved 13 August 2022.
^ Jump up to:^a ^b Halliday, Mike (21 November 2016). “How sustainable is sustainability?”. Oxford College of Procurement and Supply. Retrieved 12 July 2022.
^ Harper, Douglas. “sustain”. Online Etymology Dictionary.
^ Onions, Charles, T. (ed) (1964). The Shorter Oxford English Dictionary. Oxford: Clarendon Press. p. 2095.
^ “Sustainability Theories”. World Ocean Review. Retrieved 20 June 2019.
^ 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.
^ “Hans Carl von Carlowitz and Sustainability”. Environment and Society Portal. Retrieved 20 June 2019.
^ Dresden, SLUB. “Sylvicultura Oeconomica, Oder Haußwirthliche Nachricht und Naturmäßige Anweisung Zur Wilden Baum-Zucht”. digital.slub-dresden.de (in German). Retrieved 28 March 2022.
^ 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.
^ Basler, Ernst (1972). Strategy of Progress: Environmental Pollution, Habitat Scarcity and Future Research (originally, Strategie des Fortschritts: Umweltbelastung Lebensraumverknappung and Zukunftsforshung). BLV Publishing Company.
^ Gadgil, M.; Berkes, F. (1991). “Traditional Resource Management Systems”. Resource Management and Optimization. 8: 127–141.
^ “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.
^ 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.
^ 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
^ 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.
^ 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)
^ Scott Cato, M. (2009). Green Economics. London: Earthscan, pp. 36–37. ISBN 978-1-84407-571-3.
^ 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.
^ 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.
^ 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.
^ 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.
^ Carson, Rachel (2002) [1st. Pub. Houghton Mifflin, 1962]. Silent Spring. Mariner Books. ISBN 978-0-618-24906-0.
^ 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.
^ 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
^ UNEP (2021). “Making Peace With Nature”. UNEP – UN Environment Programme. Retrieved 30 March 2022.
^ 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.
^ 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.
^ Jump up to:^a ^b Wilhelm Krull, ed. (2000). Zukunftsstreit (in German). Weilerwist: Velbrück Wissenschaft. ISBN 3-934730-17-5. OCLC 52639118.
^ 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.
^ Daly, Herman E. (1996). Beyond growth: the economics of sustainable development (PDF). Boston: Beacon Press. ISBN 0-8070-4708-2. OCLC 33946953.
^ 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)
^ “UN Environment | UNDP-UN Environment Poverty-Environment Initiative”. UN Environment | UNDP-UN Environment Poverty-Environment Initiative. Retrieved 24 January 2022.
^ 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
^ 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.
^ 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.
^ 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.
^ 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.
^ 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.
^ James, Paul; with Magee, Liam; Scerri, Andy; Steger, Manfred B. (2015). Urban Sustainability in Theory and Practice: Circles of Sustainability. London: Routledge. ISBN 9781315765747.
^ 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.
^ 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.
^ 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.
^ “The Regional Institute – WACOSS Housing and Sustainable Communities Indicators Project”. www.regional.org.au. 2012. Retrieved 26 January 2022.
^ 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.
^ “Culture: Fourth Pillar of Sustainable Development”. United Cities and Local Governments. Archived from the original on 3 October 2013.
^ 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.
^ 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.
^ 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.
^ 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.
^ 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.
^ Bosselmann, Klaus (2017). The principle of sustainability: transforming law and governance (2nd ed.). London: Routledge. ISBN 978-1-4724-8128-3. OCLC 951915998.
^ 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
^ James, Paul; with Magee, Liam; Scerri, Andy; Steger, Manfred B. (2015). Urban Sustainability in Theory and Practice: Circles of Sustainability. London: Routledge. ISBN 9781315765747.
^ 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.
^ 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.
^ 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]}
^ Hak, T. et al. 2007. Sustainability Indicators, SCOPE 67. Island Press, London. [1] Archived 2011-12-18 at the Wayback Machine
^ 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.
^ “Sustainable Development visualized”. Sustainability concepts. Retrieved 24 March 2022.
^ 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.
^ “Ten years of nine planetary boundaries”. Stockholm Resilience Centre. November 2019. Retrieved 19 April 2020.
^ 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.
^ Ehrlich, P.R.; Holden, J.P. (1974). “Human Population and the global environment”. American Scientist. Vol. 62, no. 3. pp. 282–292.
^ 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
^ Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2005). Ecosystems and Human Well-being: Biodiversity Synthesis (PDF). Washington, DC: World Resources Institute.
^ TEEB (2010), The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity: Mainstreaming the Economics of Nature: A Synthesis of the Approach, Conclusions and Recommendations of TEEB
^ 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.
^ Groth, Christian (2014). Lecture notes in Economic Growth, (mimeo), Chapter 8: Choice of social discount rate. Copenhagen University.
^ UNEP, FAO (2020). UN Decade on Ecosystem Restoration. 48p.
^ 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.
^ 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.
^ 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
^ European Environment Agency. (2019). Sustainability transitions: policy and practice. LU: Publications Office. doi:10.2800/641030. ISBN 9789294800862.
^ 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.
^ Kuenkel, Petra (2019). Stewarding Sustainability Transformations: An Emerging Theory and Practice of SDG Implementation. Cham: Springer. ISBN 978-3-030-03691-1. OCLC 1080190654.
^ 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
^ Smith, E. T. (23 January 2024). “Practising Commoning”. The Commons Social Change Library. Retrieved 23 February 2024.
^ 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.
^ Pigou, Arthur Cecil (1932). The Economics of Welfare (PDF) (4th ed.). London: Macmillan.
^ Jaeger, William K. (2005). Environmental economics for tree huggers and other skeptics. Washington, DC: Island Press. ISBN 978-1-4416-0111-7. OCLC 232157655.
^ 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.
^ 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.
^ “The Nobel Prize: Women Who Changed the World”. thenobelprize.org. Retrieved 31 March 2022.
^ 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.
^ 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.
^ 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.
^ “About Us”. Sustainable Business Institute. Archived from the original on 17 May 2009.
^ “About the WBCSD”. World Business Council for Sustainable Development (WBCSD). Archived from the original on 9 September 2007. Retrieved 1 April 2009.
^ “Supply Chain Sustainability | UN Global Compact”. www.unglobalcompact.org. Retrieved 4 May 2022.
^ “”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.
^ “The Statement — Interfaith Climate”. www.interfaithclimate.org. Retrieved 13 August 2022.
^ 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.
^ Gambino, Megan (15 March 2012). “Is it Too Late for Sustainable Development?”. Smithsonian Magazine. Retrieved 12 January 2022.
^ 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.
^ Watson, Bruce (20 August 2016). “The troubling evolution of corporate greenwashing”. The Guardian. Archived from the original on 18 October 2016.
^ “The Troubling Evolution Of Large Scale Corporate Greenwashing”. www.bloomberg.ca. BNN Bloomberg. 18 August 2018.
^ “The Troubling Evolution Of Large Scale Corporate Greenwashing”. The Conversation. 18 August 2011.
^ 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.