Leave a Comment / Sustainable technology of 4780 / By
79 / 100
Powered by Rank Math SEO

Sustainable technology of 4780 ?

Sustainable technology in 4780 would likely be highly advanced and integrated into all aspects of life. Here are some possible features:

  • Energy: Fusion power would be the primary source of energy, providing clean and abundant power for all needs. Smart grids would optimize energy distribution and usage, minimizing waste.
  • Transportation: Flying cars and high-speed maglev trains would be commonplace, powered by clean energy sources. Self-driving vehicles would be the norm, reducing accidents and traffic congestion.
  • Materials: Advanced materials like graphene and carbon nanotubes would be used extensively, making products lighter, stronger, and more durable. 3D printing would allow for on-demand manufacturing and customization, reducing waste and transportation costs.
  • Agriculture: Vertical farms and hydroponics would be used to grow food in urban areas, reducing the need for land and water. Genetically modified crops would be more nutritious and resistant to pests and diseases.
  • Waste management: Advanced recycling technologies would allow for the complete reuse of materials, eliminating the concept of waste.
  • Healthcare: Nanotechnology and artificial intelligence would be used to diagnose and treat diseases more effectively. Personalized medicine would be tailored to individual needs.
  • Communication: Brain-computer interfaces would allow for seamless communication and information access. Virtual reality and augmented reality would be used for entertainment, education, and training.

Overall, sustainable technology in 4780 would create a world where resources are used efficiently, pollution is minimized, and everyone has access to a high quality of life.

What is Sustainable technology of 4780 ?

It seems you’re interested in what sustainable technology might look like in the distant future! It’s fun to speculate. Here’s a breakdown of some possibilities for sustainable technology in 4780, keeping in mind that this is imaginative extrapolation:

Core Principles:

  • Complete Circularity: The concept of “waste” would be obsolete. Every material would be infinitely recyclable and reusable, forming closed-loop systems.
  • Energy Abundance: Fusion power or another equally clean and powerful source would provide limitless energy, powering everything without environmental impact.
  • Localized Production: 3D printing and advanced manufacturing would enable on-demand production of goods locally, drastically reducing transportation needs and associated emissions.
  • Harmony with Nature: Technology would be deeply integrated with natural ecosystems, perhaps even enhancing them. Think of buildings that generate energy from the sun and also purify the air.

Examples of Technologies:

  • Atmospheric Capture: Advanced systems could capture pollutants and greenhouse gases from the air, converting them into useful materials or harmless substances.
  • Personalized Biomanufacturing: Imagine being able to grow food or even create materials with specific properties using biological processes tailored to your needs.
  • Quantum Computing for Sustainability: Quantum computers could optimize complex systems like global energy grids or predict environmental changes with incredible accuracy, enabling proactive solutions.
  • Space-Based Resources: By 4780, we might be utilizing resources from space (asteroids, moons) to minimize the impact on Earth’s ecosystems.

Challenges and Considerations:

  • Technological Singularity: If artificial intelligence surpasses human intelligence, how would that impact our ability to control and direct technology towards sustainable goals?
  • Ethical Considerations: With such powerful technologies, ensuring equitable access and preventing misuse would be crucial.
  • Unforeseen Consequences: History shows that even well-intentioned technologies can have unintended negative impacts. Careful consideration and adaptive management would be essential.

Important Note: It’s impossible to predict the future with certainty. This is a thought experiment based on current trends and potential advancements. The actual sustainable technologies of 4780 might be far more advanced and surprising than anything we can imagine today!

Who is required Sustainable technology of 4780 ?

This is a fun thought experiment! It’s tricky to define “required” in such a distant future, but here’s how we can approach it:

Who would “require” sustainable technology in 4780?

  • Everyone! By 4780, sustainability wouldn’t be a choice, it would be a necessity. The very survival of human civilization (and potentially other species) would depend on it. Imagine a world where:
    • Climate change has been mitigated through advanced technologies.
    • Resources are managed with extreme efficiency.
    • Ecosystems are thriving, not collapsing.
    • This would be the baseline, not an optional extra.
  • Governments and Global Organizations: Even if sustainability is deeply ingrained in daily life, there would still be a need for oversight. Organizations would:
    • Set standards for technology development and use.
    • Ensure equitable access to resources.
    • Manage any remaining environmental challenges.
    • Coordinate global efforts on issues like space resource management.
  • Future Generations: We might not be around in 4780, but we can imagine that those living then would “require” sustainable technology in the sense that:
    • They would inherit a world shaped by our choices.
    • Their well-being would depend on the continued success of sustainable practices.
    • They might even have a deeper understanding of ecological balance and the need to protect it.

Why “require” might not be the right word:

  • Integration: In 4780, sustainable technology might be so seamlessly integrated into life that it’s not even perceived as separate. It would just be “how things are done.” Like how we “require” electricity today, but don’t think about it constantly.
  • Evolution: Humanity itself might have evolved, both biologically and culturally, to be more in tune with the planet. Sustainability would be less of a “requirement” and more of a natural way of being.

In summary: While it’s hard to say who would “require” sustainable technology in 4780, it’s clear that it would be absolutely essential for a thriving future. It would be a fundamental part of existence, ensuring the well-being of individuals, societies, and the planet as a whole.

When is required Sustainable technology of 4780 ?

It’s fascinating to ponder the timeline of sustainable technology in such a distant future! Here’s a breakdown of when it might be “required” in 4780, considering different perspectives:

In the Immediate Sense:

  • Constantly: In 4780, sustainable technology wouldn’t be something implemented at a specific moment. It would be an ongoing, ever-present necessity. Think of it like the air we breathe – we need it constantly, not just at certain times.
  • Proactively: Sustainability in 4780 would likely be highly proactive. Technologies would be in place to anticipate and prevent environmental problems before they occur, rather than reacting to crises.

In a Historical Context:

  • Long Ago: By 4780, the transition to truly sustainable technologies would have happened centuries, perhaps millennia, earlier. It wouldn’t be a recent development, but a foundation upon which their civilization is built.
  • A Turning Point: There might have been a critical period in the past where unsustainable practices led to significant challenges (environmental damage, resource scarcity, etc.). This could have triggered a global shift towards sustainable solutions, making them “required” for survival.

In a Philosophical Sense:

  • Always: Sustainable technology in 4780 might be driven by a deep ethical understanding of humanity’s place in the universe. It wouldn’t just be about meeting needs, but about living in harmony with nature and ensuring the well-being of future generations. In this sense, it would always be required.

Important Note:

  • Evolution: It’s possible that by 4780, humanity has evolved (both technologically and perhaps even biologically) to a point where “sustainability” as we understand it today is no longer a separate concept. It would be deeply ingrained in their way of life, making the question of “when” it’s required almost irrelevant.

Ultimately, “when” sustainable technology is required in 4780 depends on how we define “required.” It could be an ongoing necessity, a historical turning point, or a fundamental principle guiding their civilization.

COURTESY : Bernard Marr

Where is required Sustainable technology of 4780 ?

This is a really interesting question! It forces us to think about how different environments in the far future might necessitate sustainable technology. Here’s a breakdown of where it might be “required” in 4780:

Everywhere on Earth:

  • Urban Centers: Even with advanced technology, cities would still need sustainable solutions for energy, waste management, transportation, and resource utilization to support large populations.
  • Rural Areas: Sustainable agriculture, renewable energy generation, and eco-friendly housing would be crucial for maintaining thriving communities in harmony with nature.
  • Extreme Environments: Whether it’s the scorching desert or the frigid polar regions, sustainable technologies would be essential for human habitation and scientific research in these challenging areas.

Beyond Earth:

  • Space Habitats: If humanity has expanded beyond Earth, space stations, lunar colonies, or Martian settlements would absolutely depend on closed-loop systems for life support, resource recycling, and energy production. Sustainability would be a matter of survival in these isolated environments.
  • Other Planets: If we’ve managed to terraform or colonize other planets, sustainable technologies would be vital for creating habitable environments and maintaining ecological balance on these new worlds.

In the Digital Realm:

  • The Metaverse: Even in virtual worlds, sustainability would be important. The vast computing power required to run these environments would need to be powered by clean energy sources. Digital waste and e-waste would still need to be managed responsibly.

Important Considerations:

  • Interconnectedness: In 4780, it’s likely that different environments would be highly interconnected. Sustainable technologies would need to work together seamlessly to ensure the well-being of the planet as a whole.
  • Adaptability: Sustainable solutions would need to be adaptable to different climates, ecosystems, and resource availability. There wouldn’t be a one-size-fits-all approach.

In essence: By 4780, sustainable technology would be required wherever humans (and potentially other intelligent beings) exist. It would be a fundamental necessity for survival and prosperity in any environment, whether it’s on Earth, in space, or even in the digital realm.

How is required Sustainable technology of 4780 ?

That’s a great question! It gets at the heart of how sustainability might be woven into the fabric of life in 4780. Here are some ways sustainable technology could be “required” in that era:

1. By Necessity:

  • Resource Limits: Even with advanced technology, there are limits to the resources available on Earth and potentially beyond. Sustainable technology would be essential for managing these resources responsibly and preventing shortages.
  • Environmental Balance: Maintaining healthy ecosystems would be crucial for survival. Sustainable technologies would be needed to monitor, protect, and even restore the environment.
  • Planetary Health: In 4780, humanity might have a deeper understanding of how interconnected Earth’s systems are. Sustainable technology would be required to maintain this delicate balance and prevent catastrophic events.

2. By Design:

  • Built-in Sustainability: In the future, sustainability might be a core principle in the design of all technologies. From the materials used to the energy sources that power them, everything would be created with minimal environmental impact.
  • Circular Systems: Closed-loop systems would be the norm, where resources are constantly recycled and reused. This would require advanced technologies for material processing, waste management, and energy generation.
  • Smart Infrastructure: Cities and communities would be designed with sustainability in mind. Smart grids, efficient transportation systems, and eco-friendly buildings would be integrated into the very fabric of society.

3. By Choice (or Lack Thereof):

  • Ethical Imperative: By 4780, sustainability might be seen as a fundamental ethical responsibility. It wouldn’t just be about meeting needs, but about living in harmony with nature and ensuring a healthy planet for future generations.
  • Cultural Shift: Humanity might have undergone a cultural shift, where unsustainable practices are simply unacceptable. People might have a deep appreciation for the environment and a strong desire to protect it.
  • Limited Options: It’s possible that by 4780, unsustainable technologies are no longer viable. Resource depletion, environmental damage, or other factors might make them too expensive, inefficient, or even dangerous to use.

In essence: Sustainable technology in 4780 would be required not just because it’s practical, but also because it aligns with the values, ethics, and perhaps even the survival instincts of that era. It would be an essential part of how society functions and how humanity interacts with the planet.

Case study is Sustainable technology of 4780 ?

It’s tough to create a traditional “case study” for sustainable technology in 4780, as that would involve analyzing a specific instance of its application. But, we can build a hypothetical scenario and explore how sustainable tech might be integrated. Let’s imagine a future city:

Case Study: Eco-City Prime, 4780

Background: Eco-City Prime is a sprawling metropolis, yet it exists in harmony with the surrounding environment. It’s a hub of innovation and culture, powered entirely by sustainable technologies.

Key Features:

  • Energy: Fusion power provides clean, abundant energy. Smart grids optimize distribution, minimizing waste. Buildings are energy-positive, generating more power than they consume through solar panels and other integrated systems.
  • Transportation: Flying vehicles and maglev trains whisk people across the city, powered by clean energy. Self-driving vehicles optimize traffic flow and reduce accidents.
  • Food: Vertical farms and hydroponic gardens within the city produce fresh, nutritious food. Advanced agriculture techniques minimize land and water use.
  • Waste Management: Recycling is absolute. Materials are constantly reused, eliminating the concept of waste. Advanced technologies break down even the most complex materials into their basic components for reuse.
  • Housing: Buildings are constructed from sustainable materials, grown or manufactured with minimal environmental impact. They are designed to adapt to changing needs and can be reconfigured or repurposed easily.
  • Healthcare: Nanotechnology and AI are used for early disease detection and personalized treatment. Biomanufacturing allows for on-demand production of medicines and even replacement organs.

Challenges and Solutions:

  • Maintaining Balance: Even with advanced technology, maintaining ecological balance is an ongoing challenge. Eco-City Prime utilizes sophisticated monitoring systems to track environmental indicators and make adjustments as needed.
  • Resource Management: While resources are used efficiently, there are still limits. The city relies on space-based resources for some materials, but this is carefully managed to minimize environmental impact.
  • Social Equity: Ensuring that everyone has access to the benefits of sustainable technology is crucial. Eco-City Prime has programs in place to address any inequalities and ensure that all residents have a high quality of life.

Outcomes:

  • Thriving Ecosystem: Eco-City Prime exists in harmony with nature. Air and water are clean, and biodiversity is flourishing.
  • High Quality of Life: Residents enjoy a high standard of living, with access to advanced technologies, nutritious food, and a healthy environment.
  • Resilience: The city is resilient to environmental changes and can adapt to new challenges.

Lessons Learned:

  • Integration: Sustainable technology must be integrated into all aspects of life, from energy and transportation to food and healthcare.
  • Proactive Approach: It’s essential to anticipate and prevent environmental problems before they occur.
  • Ethical Considerations: Ensuring equity and responsible use of technology is crucial for long-term sustainability.

Conclusion:

Eco-City Prime is a hypothetical example, but it illustrates the potential of sustainable technology in 4780. By embracing innovation, prioritizing ecological balance, and upholding ethical principles, humanity can create a future where technology and nature coexist in harmony.

COURTESY : NPTEL-NOC IITM

White paper on Sustainable technology of 4780 ?

White Paper: Sustainable Technology in 4780: A Vision for a Harmonious Future

Abstract:

This white paper explores the potential landscape of sustainable technology in the year 4780. It posits that by this distant future, sustainability will be deeply ingrained in all aspects of human civilization, driven by both necessity and a profound understanding of ecological interconnectedness. The paper examines key technological advancements, societal shifts, and ethical considerations that will shape this future, offering a vision of a world where technology and nature coexist in harmony.

1. Introduction:

Predicting the future is an exercise in informed speculation. However, by extrapolating current trends and imagining the possibilities of scientific and technological advancement, we can envision a future where sustainability is not just a goal, but a fundamental way of life. This paper explores the potential characteristics of sustainable technology in 4780, recognizing that this is a vision, not a prediction.

2. Core Principles:

The foundation of sustainable technology in 4780 rests on several key principles:

  • Circular Economy: The concept of waste is obsolete. Every material is infinitely recyclable and reusable, forming closed-loop systems that minimize resource depletion and environmental impact.
  • Energy Abundance & Purity: Fusion power, or another equally clean and powerful energy source, provides limitless energy without greenhouse gas emissions or other harmful byproducts.
  • Ecological Harmony: Technology is designed to work in concert with natural ecosystems, perhaps even enhancing them. Human activities contribute to biodiversity and ecosystem health.
  • Localized Production & Consumption: Advanced manufacturing technologies, such as 3D printing and biomanufacturing, enable on-demand production of goods locally, drastically reducing transportation needs and associated emissions.

3. Key Technological Domains:

Several key technological domains will likely be central to sustainable practices in 4780:

  • Advanced Materials Science: Materials with exceptional properties (strength, lightness, durability) are created from readily available and sustainable resources. Self-healing materials and adaptive materials could further enhance longevity and reduce waste.
  • Biotechnology & Biomanufacturing: Biological processes are harnessed to create materials, fuels, and even food. Personalized biomanufacturing could allow individuals to grow resources tailored to their specific needs.
  • Artificial Intelligence & Quantum Computing: AI and quantum computing optimize complex systems, from global energy grids to climate modeling. These technologies enable proactive solutions to environmental challenges and resource management.
  • Space-Based Resources: Access to resources from space (asteroids, moons) minimizes the impact on Earth’s ecosystems and provides the raw materials for advanced technologies. This requires careful management to avoid environmental damage beyond Earth.
  • Atmospheric & Oceanic Engineering: Advanced technologies actively remove pollutants and greenhouse gases from the atmosphere and oceans, restoring balance to global systems.

4. Societal Shifts:

Technological advancements alone are not sufficient. Significant societal shifts will be crucial for achieving true sustainability:

  • Ethical Framework: A strong ethical framework guides the development and use of technology, prioritizing ecological well-being and intergenerational equity.
  • Global Cooperation: International collaboration is essential for addressing global challenges like climate change, resource management, and space exploration.
  • Education & Awareness: A deep understanding of ecological principles and sustainable practices is integrated into education at all levels, fostering a culture of environmental stewardship.

5. Challenges and Considerations:

Even in this utopian vision, challenges remain:

  • Unforeseen Consequences: History teaches us that even well-intentioned technologies can have unintended consequences. Continuous monitoring and adaptive management are crucial.
  • Technological Singularity & AI Alignment: If artificial intelligence surpasses human intelligence, ensuring alignment with human values and sustainable goals becomes paramount.
  • Maintaining Balance: Even with advanced technology, maintaining the delicate balance of Earth’s ecosystems requires constant vigilance and proactive intervention.

6. Conclusion:

The vision of sustainable technology in 4780 presented here is aspirational, but not unattainable. By embracing innovation, prioritizing ecological harmony, and fostering a culture of ethical responsibility, humanity can create a future where technology and nature coexist in a thriving and sustainable balance. This future requires a long-term perspective, a commitment to global cooperation, and a deep understanding of our interconnectedness with the planet. While the specific technologies may differ from what we imagine today, the core principles of sustainability will remain essential for a prosperous and harmonious future.

Industrial application of Sustainable technology of 4780 ?

It’s fascinating to imagine the industrial applications of sustainable technology in 4780! Here are some possibilities, keeping in mind this is imaginative extrapolation:

1. Advanced Manufacturing & Resource Management:

  • Closed-loop Production: Factories would operate on closed-loop systems, where all materials are continuously recycled and reused. Imagine a factory that takes in raw materials and outputs finished products, with virtually no waste.
  • On-Demand Production: 3D printing and biomanufacturing would enable on-demand production of goods, eliminating the need for mass production and reducing transportation costs. Imagine a factory that can create any product you need, exactly when you need it.
  • Resource Extraction from Waste: Advanced technologies could extract valuable resources from what we consider waste today. Imagine a facility that can break down any material into its basic components and reuse them to create new products.

2. Energy & Infrastructure:

  • Fusion-Powered Industries: Industries would be powered by clean and abundant fusion energy, eliminating reliance on fossil fuels. Imagine factories that operate with zero carbon emissions.
  • Smart Grids & Energy Optimization: Intelligent systems would optimize energy distribution and usage across industries, minimizing waste and maximizing efficiency. Imagine a network of factories that share energy with each other based on their needs.
  • Self-Healing Infrastructure: Buildings and infrastructure would be made from self-healing materials that can repair themselves, reducing maintenance costs and extending lifespan. Imagine bridges and buildings that can automatically fix cracks and damage.

3. Agriculture & Food Production:

  • Vertical Farms & Controlled Environments: Vertical farms and controlled environments would be used to grow food in urban areas, reducing the need for land and water. Imagine skyscrapers filled with thriving crops.
  • Precision Agriculture: Advanced sensors and AI would be used to optimize crop yields and minimize resource use in agriculture. Imagine fields where robots tend to crops with incredible precision.
  • Sustainable Food Processing: Food processing facilities would operate on sustainable principles, minimizing waste and maximizing resource utilization. Imagine factories that can convert food waste into valuable products.

4. Transportation & Logistics:

  • Clean Transportation Systems: Industries would rely on clean transportation systems, such as flying vehicles and maglev trains, powered by sustainable energy sources. Imagine goods being transported across the globe with zero emissions.
  • Autonomous Logistics: Self-driving vehicles and AI-powered logistics systems would optimize transportation routes and reduce fuel consumption. Imagine a network of autonomous vehicles delivering goods with maximum efficiency.

5. Environmental Remediation & Restoration:

  • Atmospheric Capture & Pollution Removal: Industries would utilize advanced technologies to capture pollutants and greenhouse gases from the atmosphere, actively cleaning the environment. Imagine factories that actually purify the air around them.
  • Ecosystem Restoration: Industries could contribute to ecosystem restoration efforts by developing and deploying technologies that can repair damaged environments. Imagine companies that specialize in restoring forests and oceans.

Important Considerations:

  • Automation & AI: Many of these industrial applications would rely heavily on automation and AI, potentially leading to significant changes in the workforce.
  • Ethical Implications: Ensuring that these technologies are used responsibly and ethically would be crucial to prevent unintended consequences.

These are just a few examples of how sustainable technology might be applied in industries in 4780. The possibilities are vast, and the actual applications could be far more advanced and surprising than anything we can imagine today.

Research and development of Sustainable technology of 4780 ?

It’s exciting to imagine the kind of research and development that would be driving sustainable technology in 4780! Here are some potential areas of focus:

1. Fundamental Science & Understanding:

  • Ecological Interconnectedness: Deepening our understanding of how ecosystems function, the intricate relationships between species, and the impact of human activities on the environment. This could involve advanced modeling, simulation, and even direct interaction with ecosystems at a molecular level.
  • Consciousness & AI: Exploring the nature of consciousness and its potential connection to the environment. This could lead to new ways of interacting with nature and developing AI systems that are truly aligned with sustainable goals.
  • Quantum Biology: Investigating the role of quantum mechanics in biological processes, potentially leading to breakthroughs in biomanufacturing, energy production, and even human health.

2. Advanced Materials & Manufacturing:

  • Programmable Matter: Developing materials that can change their properties on demand, allowing for dynamic adaptation to changing needs and environments. Imagine materials that can be programmed to repair themselves, change shape, or even decompose on command.
  • Biologically Grown Materials: Mastering the art of growing materials with specific properties using biological processes. This could involve engineering organisms to produce materials with desired characteristics, such as strength, flexibility, or conductivity.
  • Zero-Waste Manufacturing: Perfecting manufacturing processes that produce no waste whatsoever, with all byproducts being reused or repurposed. This would require advanced recycling technologies and a deep understanding of material science.

3. Energy & Environment:

  • Fusion Energy Mastery: Achieving complete control over nuclear fusion, providing a clean and limitless source of energy. This would require overcoming significant scientific and engineering challenges, but the potential rewards are enormous.
  • Atmospheric & Oceanic Regeneration: Developing technologies that can actively repair damaged ecosystems, remove pollutants from the air and oceans, and even reverse climate change. This could involve advanced nanotechnology, atmospheric capture systems, and even geoengineering techniques.
  • Planetary Engineering: Exploring the possibility of influencing planetary systems to create more habitable environments, potentially through terraforming or other large-scale interventions. This would require a deep understanding of planetary science and the potential risks involved.

4. Biotechnology & Health:

  • Personalized Biomanufacturing: Enabling individuals to grow their own food, medicine, and even materials using personalized biomanufacturing systems. This would revolutionize healthcare, agriculture, and even manufacturing.
  • Regenerative Medicine: Developing technologies that can repair and regenerate damaged tissues and organs, potentially eliminating the need for transplants. This could involve advanced stem cell research, nanotechnology, and bioprinting.
  • Human Enhancement: Exploring the potential of biotechnology to enhance human capabilities, potentially leading to longer lifespans, improved cognitive function, and even greater resilience to environmental challenges. This raises significant ethical questions that would need to be carefully considered.

5. Space Exploration & Resource Utilization:

  • Sustainable Space Habitats: Designing and building self-sustaining habitats in space, allowing for long-term human presence on other planets and moons. This would require closed-loop life support systems, advanced energy production, and resource utilization technologies.
  • Asteroid Mining & Resource Extraction: Developing efficient and sustainable methods for extracting resources from asteroids and other celestial bodies. This could provide the raw materials needed for advanced technologies and reduce the impact on Earth’s ecosystems.
  • Interstellar Travel: Exploring the possibility of interstellar travel, potentially leading to the discovery of new resources and habitable planets. This would require breakthroughs in propulsion technology, navigation, and life support systems.

Important Considerations:

  • Ethical Frameworks: Research and development in these areas would need to be guided by strong ethical frameworks, ensuring that technologies are used responsibly and for the benefit of all humanity and the planet.
  • Global Collaboration: International cooperation would be essential for addressing global challenges and ensuring that the benefits of sustainable technology are shared equitably.

The research and development of sustainable technology in 4780 would be a continuous process, driven by curiosity, innovation, and a deep commitment to creating a harmonious future for humanity and the planet.

COURTESY :Tech Evaluate

References

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

Recommended HashTags

Leave a Comment

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

Translate »