Sustainable technology of 3890

69 / 100

Sustainable technology of 3890 ?

It’s impossible to predict with certainty what sustainable technology will look like in 3890. However, we can make some educated guesses based on current trends and potential future developments:

Possible Trends:

Advanced Energy Solutions: Fusion power, highly efficient solar energy, and advanced energy storage solutions could be commonplace.
Closed-Loop Systems: Technologies that minimize waste and pollution by creating closed-loop systems for resource use.
Biotechnology and Biomimicry: Advanced biotechnology could be used to create sustainable materials, fuels, and even food sources.
Artificial Intelligence and Automation: AI could optimize resource use, manage infrastructure, and automate tasks to reduce human impact on the environment.
Space-Based Solutions: Space-based solar power, asteroid mining, and even off-world settlements could play a role in sustainable resource management.

Challenges and Considerations:

Unforeseen Discoveries: Technological advancements are often unpredictable, so there could be breakthroughs we can’t even imagine.
Societal Changes: Sustainable technology will need to be integrated with societal changes in consumption patterns and values.
Ethical Considerations: Advanced technologies raise ethical questions about their use and impact on society and the environment.

In Conclusion:

Sustainable technology in 3890 will likely be a complex and advanced field, driven by the need to address environmental challenges and ensure a sustainable future for humanity. It will require a combination of technological innovation, societal change, and ethical considerations.

What is Sustainable technology of 3890 ?

Predicting the exact nature of sustainable technology in 3890 is a fascinating thought experiment! Here’s a breakdown of potential trends and considerations, keeping in mind that unforeseen discoveries could drastically alter the landscape:

Possible Trends:

Advanced Energy Solutions: Imagine fusion power plants providing clean and abundant energy, or perhaps highly efficient solar energy harnessed from space. Advanced energy storage solutions would likely be crucial for balancing supply and demand.
Closed-Loop Systems: Technologies that mimic natural ecosystems, creating closed-loop systems for resource use. This could involve recycling every material, minimizing waste, and even producing resources on demand.
Biotechnology and Biomimicry: Advanced biotechnology could be used to create sustainable materials, fuels, and even food sources. Imagine buildings that “grow” themselves or materials that self-repair.
Artificial Intelligence and Automation: AI could optimize resource use, manage infrastructure, and automate tasks to reduce human impact on the environment.
Space-Based Solutions: Space-based solar power, asteroid mining, and even off-world settlements could play a role in sustainable resource management.

Challenges and Considerations:

Unforeseen Discoveries: Technological advancements are often unpredictable, so there could be breakthroughs we can’t even imagine.
Societal Changes: Sustainable technology will need to be integrated with societal changes in consumption patterns and values.
Ethical Considerations: Advanced technologies raise ethical questions about their use and impact on society and the environment.

In Conclusion:

Who is required Sustainable technology of 3890 ?

This is a really interesting question! When we talk about sustainable technology in 3890, it’s not just about who needs it, but who will be affected by it. Here’s a breakdown:

Humanity: This is the most obvious one. Sustainable technology in 3890 would be essential for human survival and well-being. It would likely provide clean energy, manage resources, and mitigate the effects of climate change.
The Environment: Sustainable technology would be crucial for preserving and protecting the environment. This includes all ecosystems, biodiversity, and natural resources.
Future Generations: The decisions we make today about sustainable technology will have a profound impact on future generations. They will inherit the world we create and will need to continue the work of maintaining sustainability.
Other Species: Sustainable technology should also consider the needs of other species on Earth. Protecting biodiversity and ensuring the health of ecosystems is essential for all life.

Beyond Needs:

It’s important to think beyond just “needs” and consider how sustainable technology in 3890 would shape society and culture. It could lead to:

New ways of living: Perhaps cities would be designed to be completely self-sufficient, or maybe people would live in harmony with nature in new ways.
Economic changes: Sustainable technology could create new industries and jobs, while others might become obsolete.
Social and ethical considerations: Advanced technologies raise ethical questions about their use and impact on society.

In essence, sustainable technology in 3890 would be something that affects and is shaped by all of life on Earth. It would be a fundamental part of how humanity interacts with the planet and ensures a future for generations to come.

When is required Sustainable technology of 3890 ?

While it’s impossible to pinpoint an exact date for when sustainable technology will be absolutely required in 3890, we can explore the factors that would make it essential:

Resource Depletion: If non-renewable resources continue to be used at unsustainable rates, they could become scarce or depleted by 3890. This would necessitate a shift to sustainable alternatives for energy, materials, and other essential needs.
Environmental Degradation: Climate change, pollution, and other forms of environmental degradation could reach critical levels by 3890, making sustainable technologies crucial for mitigating their effects and restoring ecosystems.
Population Growth: Continued population growth could put immense pressure on resources and the environment, requiring sustainable technologies to provide for a larger population without causing further harm.
Technological Advancement: As technology advances, we may develop a deeper understanding of our impact on the planet and find more efficient and effective ways to live sustainably. This could make sustainable technology not just necessary, but also highly desirable.

It’s important to remember that the need for sustainable technology is not just a future concern. We need to be developing and implementing sustainable solutions now to avoid the worst consequences of environmental degradation and resource depletion. The choices we make today will determine the kind of world we live in 3890 and beyond.

In a sense, sustainable technology is always required. It’s an ongoing process of finding better ways to live in harmony with the planet and ensure a healthy and prosperous future for all.

COURTESY : SUSTAINABLE TECHNOLOGY SOLUTIONS

Where is required Sustainable technology of 3890 ?

This is a great question that requires us to think big! When we consider sustainable technology in 3890, it’s not just about specific locations, but rather about the interconnectedness of the entire planet (and potentially beyond). Here’s a breakdown:

Globally: Sustainable technology in 3890 would be needed everywhere on Earth. This includes cities, rural areas, and even remote wilderness regions. It would be essential for managing resources, providing energy, and mitigating environmental problems on a global scale.
In Space: By 3890, humanity might have a significant presence in space. Sustainable technology would be crucial for space-based activities like resource extraction (asteroid mining), space-based solar power, and maintaining off-world settlements.
Everywhere Life Exists: Ideally, sustainable technology in 3890 would be used wherever life exists, whether it’s in the deepest oceans, the highest mountains, or even on other planets. This would ensure the long-term health and well-being of all ecosystems and species.

Thinking Beyond Location:

It’s important to remember that sustainable technology in 3890 wouldn’t just be about physical locations. It would also be about:

Interconnected Systems: Sustainable technologies would likely be integrated into complex, interconnected systems that span the globe. This could include things like global energy grids, resource management networks, and environmental monitoring systems.
Shared Knowledge and Collaboration: The development and implementation of sustainable technology in 3890 would require global collaboration and the sharing of knowledge and resources.
Ethical Considerations: Sustainable technology would need to be guided by ethical considerations that take into account the needs of all people and the environment, regardless of location.

In essence, sustainable technology in 3890 would be a fundamental part of how humanity interacts with the entire planet and potentially beyond. It would be a tool for creating a sustainable future for all, regardless of where they live.

How is required Sustainable technology of 3890 ?

That’s a fantastic question! It really gets to the heart of how sustainable technology in 3890 might function. Here are some possibilities, keeping in mind that unforeseen advancements could lead to even more innovative approaches:

1. Integration with Natural Systems:

Biomimicry: Imagine technologies that mimic natural processes, like trees that absorb pollution or materials that self-repair like living tissue.
Ecosystem-based Solutions: Sustainable technologies could be designed to work in harmony with existing ecosystems, enhancing their natural functions and promoting biodiversity.

2. Advanced Material Science:

Self-assembling Materials: Perhaps materials could be designed to assemble and disassemble themselves as needed, reducing waste and allowing for dynamic adaptation to changing conditions.
Smart Materials: Materials that can respond to their environment, such as changing color to reflect temperature or adapting their shape to optimize energy use.

3. Artificial Intelligence and Automation:

AI-driven Optimization: AI could manage complex systems like energy grids and resource allocation, constantly optimizing for efficiency and sustainability.
Autonomous Systems: Robots and other automated systems could perform tasks like environmental cleanup, resource gathering, and infrastructure maintenance, reducing human impact.

4. Closed-Loop Systems:

Resource Regeneration: Technologies that can regenerate resources on demand, perhaps through advanced recycling or even creating new materials from waste.
Pollution Capture and Conversion: Systems that capture pollutants and convert them into useful resources or harmless substances.

5. Energy and Resource Management:

Decentralized Energy Systems: Energy could be generated and distributed locally, reducing reliance on large power plants and minimizing transmission losses.
Precision Agriculture: Technologies that allow for highly efficient and sustainable food production, minimizing water and resource use.

Important Considerations:

Interconnectedness: Sustainable technologies in 3890 would likely be highly interconnected, working together in complex systems to achieve sustainability goals.
Adaptability: Technologies would need to be adaptable to changing conditions, such as climate change or resource availability.
Ethical Framework: The development and use of sustainable technology would need to be guided by a strong ethical framework that prioritizes the well-being of both humanity and the environment.

In essence, sustainable technology in 3890 would be a sophisticated and integrated approach to living in harmony with the planet. It would involve a deep understanding of natural systems, advanced materials science, artificial intelligence, and a commitment to ethical and sustainable practices.

Case study is Sustainable technology of 3890 ?

It’s impossible to create a real case study of sustainable technology in 3890, as it’s so far in the future. However, we can create a hypothetical case study based on the trends and possibilities we’ve discussed. This allows us to explore what such a technology might look like in practice.

Hypothetical Case Study: The Global Resource Symbiosis Network (GRSN) – 3890

Background: By 3890, resource scarcity and the lingering effects of past environmental damage have necessitated a radical shift in how humanity manages its resources. The Global Resource Symbiosis Network (GRSN) is a planetary-scale system designed to achieve near-total resource circularity.

Technology:

AI-Powered Resource Management: The GRSN is controlled by a sophisticated AI that constantly monitors resource flows across the globe. It anticipates demand, optimizes distribution, and identifies opportunities for resource regeneration.
Advanced Material Science: “Symbiotic Materials” are at the heart of the GRSN. These materials are designed to be infinitely recyclable and can even be broken down and reformed into different materials as needed. They are embedded with sensors that allow the AI to track their location and composition.
Decentralized Regeneration Facilities: Distributed across the globe are advanced regeneration facilities. These facilities use a combination of nanotechnology, biotechnology, and advanced energy sources to break down waste materials into their basic components and rebuild them into new products.
Energy Integration: The GRSN is powered by a network of clean energy sources, including fusion power, space-based solar, and geothermal energy. Energy is distributed efficiently through a global smart grid managed by the AI.
Biomimetic Manufacturing: Many products are “grown” rather than manufactured in traditional factories. Biomimetic processes use biological systems to create materials and products with minimal waste and maximum efficiency.

How it Works in Practice:

A consumer purchases a new device made of Symbiotic Material.
When the device is no longer needed, the consumer simply returns it to a designated recycling center.
The AI tracks the device and directs it to the nearest regeneration facility.
At the facility, the Symbiotic Material is broken down into its constituent elements.
The AI identifies current resource needs and directs the facility to use the recycled materials to create new products.
The entire process is powered by clean energy, and any waste generated is further processed and reused.

Impact:

Near-Zero Waste: The GRSN has dramatically reduced waste and pollution.
Resource Abundance: Resource scarcity is largely a thing of the past.
Environmental Restoration: The GRSN helps to restore damaged ecosystems by providing the resources needed for reforestation, pollution cleanup, and other restoration projects.
Sustainable Economy: The GRSN supports a sustainable global economy based on circularity and resource efficiency.

Challenges:

Complexity: Building and maintaining such a complex system is a massive undertaking.
Security: Protecting the GRSN from malicious actors is crucial.
Ethical Considerations: Ensuring equitable access to resources and preventing misuse of the technology are ongoing challenges.

This hypothetical case study illustrates how a combination of advanced technologies could create a truly sustainable system for resource management in the future. While the specifics are speculative, it highlights the potential for innovation to address the challenges of resource scarcity and environmental degradation.

COURTESY : Voith Group

White paper on Sustainable technology of 3890 ?

White Paper: Envisioning Sustainable Technology in 3890

Abstract:

This white paper explores the potential landscape of sustainable technology in the year 3890. While predicting the future with certainty is impossible, we can extrapolate from current trends and envision potential breakthroughs that could revolutionize how humanity interacts with its planet and beyond. This paper examines possible technological advancements, societal shifts, and ethical considerations crucial for achieving true sustainability over such a vast timescale.

1. Introduction:

The concept of “sustainable technology” implies meeting the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs. By 3890, the challenges of climate change, resource depletion, and population growth may have reached critical levels, making sustainable solutions not just desirable, but essential for survival. This paper explores potential technological and societal pathways to achieve this long-term sustainability.

2. Potential Technological Advancements:

2.1 Advanced Energy Solutions:
- Fusion Power: Controlled nuclear fusion could provide a near-limitless source of clean energy.
- Space-Based Solar: Harnessing solar energy from space could provide a constant and abundant power supply.
- Advanced Energy Storage: Highly efficient and scalable energy storage solutions would be crucial for balancing energy supply and demand.
2.2 Closed-Loop Resource Management:
- Material Regeneration: Technologies capable of breaking down waste materials into their constituent elements and rebuilding them into new products, achieving near-perfect resource circularity.
- Atmospheric Capture and Conversion: Systems that capture pollutants from the atmosphere and convert them into useful resources.
2.3 Biotechnology and Biomimicry:
- Bio-based Materials: Materials grown or engineered using biological processes, offering sustainability and biodegradability advantages.
- Self-Repairing Systems: Technologies inspired by biological systems that can self-repair damage, extending lifespan and reducing waste.
2.4 Artificial Intelligence and Automation:
- AI-Driven Optimization: AI systems managing complex networks like energy grids, transportation systems, and resource allocation for maximum efficiency and sustainability.
- Autonomous Systems: Robots and other automated systems performing tasks like environmental cleanup, resource gathering, and infrastructure maintenance.
2.5 Space-Based Solutions:
- Asteroid Mining: Extracting resources from asteroids could supplement terrestrial resources and reduce environmental impact.
- Space-Based Manufacturing: Manufacturing in space could take advantage of unique conditions like zero gravity and vacuum.

3. Societal Shifts and Considerations:

3.1 Global Cooperation: Achieving true sustainability by 3890 would require unprecedented levels of global cooperation and shared responsibility.
3.2 Ethical Frameworks: Advanced technologies raise complex ethical questions about their use and impact on society. Robust ethical frameworks will be essential to guide technological development and ensure equitable access to resources.
3.3 Sustainable Consumption: Shifts in consumption patterns and values will be necessary to reduce demand for resources and minimize environmental impact.
3.4 Education and Awareness: Education and public awareness campaigns will be crucial for fostering a culture of sustainability and empowering individuals to make informed choices.

4. Challenges and Uncertainties:

4.1 Unforeseen Discoveries: Technological advancements are often unpredictable, and unforeseen breakthroughs could drastically alter the landscape of sustainable technology.
4.2 Geopolitical Instability: Geopolitical conflicts and instability could hinder progress towards sustainability.
4.3 Natural Disasters: Large-scale natural disasters could disrupt supply chains and infrastructure, making it more difficult to achieve sustainability goals.

5. Conclusion:

Sustainable technology in 3890 is likely to be a complex and multifaceted field, driven by the need to address global challenges and ensure a prosperous future for humanity. It will require a combination of technological innovation, societal change, and ethical considerations. While the specifics remain uncertain, a commitment to research, development, and global collaboration is essential to pave the way for a truly sustainable future.

Disclaimer: This white paper presents a speculative vision of sustainable technology in 3890. The technologies and societal shifts described are based on current trends and potential future developments, but their realization is not guaranteed.

Industrial application of Sustainable technology of 3890 ?

This is where it gets really interesting! Imagining the industrial applications of sustainable technology in 3890 allows us to explore how entire industries could be transformed to operate in harmony with the planet. Here are some potential examples:

1. Manufacturing:

Resource Regeneration: Factories of the future might not “manufacture” in the traditional sense, but rather “regenerate” products from recycled materials or even grow them using bio-based processes. Imagine a factory that can take any discarded product and break it down into its basic components, then use those components to create something entirely new.
Closed-Loop Production: Manufacturing processes would likely be entirely closed-loop, with no waste generated. Every byproduct would be captured and reused within the system.
On-Demand Production: Advanced 3D printing and other additive manufacturing technologies could allow for on-demand production of goods, eliminating the need for mass production and reducing waste from overproduction.

2. Energy Production:

Fusion Power Plants: Fusion power plants could provide clean and abundant energy to fuel industrial processes. These plants would likely be highly efficient and produce minimal waste.
Space-Based Solar: Industries could be powered by energy beamed down from space-based solar arrays, providing a constant and reliable source of clean energy.
Decentralized Energy Systems: Factories and industrial complexes might have their own localized energy generation systems, reducing reliance on large power grids and minimizing transmission losses.

3. Agriculture:

Vertical Farms: Vertical farms could be used to grow crops in urban areas and other locations where land is scarce. These farms could use advanced hydroponics and aeroponics to minimize water and resource use.
Precision Agriculture: Technologies like AI and sensors could be used to optimize agricultural practices, reducing water and fertilizer use while maximizing yields.
Sustainable Food Production: New technologies could be developed to create sustainable and nutritious food sources, such as cultured meat or protein-rich algae.

4. Transportation:

Sustainable Fuels: Industries could be powered by sustainable fuels, such as biofuels or hydrogen, reducing reliance on fossil fuels.
Advanced Transportation Systems: New transportation technologies, like hyperloops or autonomous vehicles, could be used to move goods and people more efficiently and sustainably.

5. Construction:

Self-Healing Materials: Buildings and infrastructure could be made from self-healing materials that can repair damage automatically, extending their lifespan and reducing maintenance needs.
Modular Construction: Buildings could be constructed from modular components that can be easily assembled and disassembled, allowing for flexible and adaptable infrastructure.
Biomimetic Architecture: Buildings could be designed to mimic natural systems, such as trees that absorb pollution or structures that regulate temperature naturally.

Important Considerations:

AI Integration: AI would play a crucial role in optimizing industrial processes, managing resources, and ensuring sustainability.
Global Collaboration: Achieving sustainable industrial practices would require global cooperation and the sharing of knowledge and technologies.
Ethical Considerations: Ethical considerations would be paramount in the development and implementation of sustainable technologies, ensuring that they are used responsibly and for the benefit of all.

These are just a few examples of how sustainable technology could revolutionize industry by 3890. The possibilities are vast, and the future of industry will likely be shaped by our ability to innovate and create solutions that are both efficient and sustainable.

Research and development of Sustainable technology of 3890 ?

Research and development (R&D) for sustainable technology in 3890 would be a continuous and evolving process, building upon the foundations laid by previous generations. Here’s how it might function:

1. Interdisciplinary Collaboration:

Global Research Network: A vast network of researchers from diverse fields (physics, biology, materials science, AI, etc.) would collaborate on sustainable technology projects.
Knowledge Sharing: Open access to research findings and data would be crucial for accelerating progress.
International Institutions: Dedicated institutions and organizations would foster collaboration and coordinate research efforts on a global scale.

2. Advanced Research Infrastructure:

Simulation and Modeling: Advanced AI and supercomputing would allow researchers to simulate complex systems and test new technologies in virtual environments before real-world implementation.
Advanced Laboratories: Cutting-edge laboratories equipped with nanotechnology tools, bioengineering facilities, and other advanced equipment would be essential for developing and testing new materials and technologies.
Living Laboratories: Real-world environments, like eco-cities or protected wilderness areas, could serve as “living laboratories” for testing sustainable technologies in complex ecosystems.

3. Focus Areas:

Fundamental Science: Continued research into fundamental scientific principles would be crucial for discovering new energy sources, materials, and processes.
Biotechnology and Biomimicry: Exploring the potential of biological systems for creating sustainable materials, fuels, and technologies would be a major focus.
Artificial Intelligence: Developing AI systems capable of managing complex systems, optimizing resource use, and adapting to changing conditions would be essential.
Space-Based Technologies: Research into space-based solar power, asteroid mining, and other space-based solutions would be crucial for long-term sustainability.

4. Iterative Development and Testing:

Rapid Prototyping: Advanced manufacturing technologies would allow for rapid prototyping and testing of new ideas.
Adaptive Management: Sustainable technologies would be continuously monitored and adapted based on real-world data and feedback.
Continuous Improvement: The process of research and development would be one of continuous improvement, constantly seeking better and more sustainable solutions.

5. Ethical Considerations:

Ethical Guidelines: Research and development would be guided by strict ethical guidelines to ensure that new technologies are used responsibly and for the benefit of all.
Risk Assessment: Thorough risk assessments would be conducted for all new technologies to identify and mitigate potential negative impacts.
Public Engagement: Public engagement and dialogue would be essential for ensuring that sustainable technologies are developed in a way that reflects societal values and needs.

In essence, research and development for sustainable technology in 3890 would be a highly collaborative, interdisciplinary, and iterative process. It would involve pushing the boundaries of scientific knowledge, leveraging advanced technologies, and prioritizing ethical considerations to create a truly sustainable future.

COURTESY : BASF

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.