Sustainable technology of 4990

79 / 100

Sustainable technology of 4990 ?

Sustainable technology in 4990 would likely be unrecognizable to us today. It’s safe to say that by that point, technology would have advanced far beyond our current understanding. However, based on current trends and our understanding of sustainability, we can make some educated guesses:

Possible Focus Areas:

Closed-loop systems: By 4990, we might have perfected closed-loop systems for resource use. This would mean that resources are continuously recycled and reused, minimizing waste and the need for new resource extraction.
Energy independence: Sustainable energy sources would likely be the norm, with advanced technologies for harnessing solar, wind, geothermal, and other renewable resources. Perhaps even new, undiscovered energy sources would be utilized.
Advanced materials: Materials science would likely have produced incredibly durable, adaptable, and biodegradable materials, reducing the environmental impact of construction and manufacturing.
Precision agriculture: Food production might rely on highly efficient and localized agriculture, with technologies that optimize resource use and minimize environmental impact.
Ecological restoration: Techniques for restoring and revitalizing ecosystems could be highly advanced, allowing us to reverse the damage caused by past environmental degradation.

Underlying Principles:

Harmony with nature: Technology in 4990 would likely be designed to work in harmony with natural systems, rather than against them.
Resource efficiency: Extreme efficiency in resource use would be a guiding principle, with technologies designed to minimize waste and maximize output.
Resilience: Sustainable technologies would likely be highly resilient to environmental changes and disruptions, ensuring long-term stability and adaptability.

Challenges and Considerations:

Unforeseen consequences: Even with the best intentions, technological advancements can have unintended consequences. It’s important to consider the potential impacts of any technology, no matter how sustainable it seems.
Ethical considerations: As technology advances, ethical considerations become increasingly important. Decisions about the development and use of sustainable technology must be guided by ethical principles that prioritize the well-being of both humans and the environment.

In Conclusion:

While we can only speculate about the specific technologies that might exist in 4990, it’s clear that sustainability would be a central concern. By that time, we would likely have developed a deep understanding of our planet’s ecosystems and the technologies needed to live in harmony with them.

What is Sustainable technology of 4990 ?

Sustainable technology in 4990 is a fascinating thought experiment! While we can’t know for sure, here’s a breakdown of what it might entail, based on current trends and our understanding of sustainability:

Core Principles

Harmony with Nature: Technology would likely be designed to work with natural systems, not against them. Think of it as mimicking nature’s processes for maximum efficiency and minimal waste.
Resource Independence: Closed-loop systems would be perfected. Resources would be continuously recycled and reused, eliminating the need for constant extraction of new materials.
Resilience: Technologies would be incredibly adaptable to environmental changes and disruptions, ensuring long-term stability.

Possible Technologies

Energy:
- Highly advanced renewable energy sources (solar, wind, geothermal, perhaps even new sources we can’t imagine).
- Fusion power might be mastered, providing clean and abundant energy.
- Energy storage solutions would be incredibly efficient, allowing for reliable power even when renewable sources fluctuate.
Materials:
- Materials science would produce incredibly durable, adaptable, and biodegradable materials.
- “Living materials” might be developed, capable of self-repair and adaptation.
- Manufacturing would likely be localized and on-demand, minimizing transportation needs.
Food:
- Precision agriculture with advanced sensors and AI to optimize resource use (water, nutrients, etc.).
- Vertical farms and hydroponics could be widespread, allowing food production in any environment.
- Lab-grown meat and other protein sources could be commonplace, reducing the impact of animal agriculture.
Environment:
- Advanced ecological restoration techniques to repair past environmental damage.
- Technologies to capture and utilize atmospheric carbon dioxide.
- Global-scale environmental monitoring systems to detect and address problems early on.

Challenges and Considerations

Unforeseen Consequences: Even with the best intentions, new technologies can have unintended side effects. Careful consideration and ethical guidelines would be crucial.
Maintenance: With such advanced tech, maintenance and repair could be complex. Self-repairing systems might be necessary.
Accessibility: Ensuring equitable access to these technologies would be vital to prevent a technological divide.

In Conclusion

Sustainable technology in 4990 would likely be a seamless blend of advanced science and ecological understanding. It would represent a shift from our current extractive model to a circular, regenerative one, ensuring a healthy planet for generations to come.

Who is required Sustainable technology of 4990 ?

It’s interesting to think about who would “need” sustainable technology in 4990! Here’s a breakdown:

Humans: This is the most obvious answer. By 4990, humans would likely be completely reliant on sustainable technologies for everything from energy and food to shelter and transportation. It would be an integral part of daily life.
Other life forms: Sustainable technology in 4990 would likely play a crucial role in maintaining healthy ecosystems and supporting biodiversity. It might even be used to help restore damaged environments and protect endangered species.
The planet itself: In a sense, the planet would be a “user” of sustainable technology. These technologies would be essential for maintaining the Earth’s delicate balance and ensuring its long-term health and resilience.

Thinking beyond the obvious:

Future civilizations: It’s possible that by 4990, humans might have expanded beyond Earth. Sustainable technologies would be crucial for establishing and maintaining settlements in new environments, whether on other planets or in space.
AI and advanced beings: If artificial intelligence or other advanced life forms exist in 4990, they would also rely on sustainable technologies for their survival and development.

Key takeaway:

Sustainable technology in 4990 wouldn’t just be about meeting human needs. It would be about creating a harmonious relationship between all living things and the planet itself, ensuring a thriving future for all.

When is required Sustainable technology of 4990 ?

That’s a great question with a few layers to it! Here’s how we can think about “when” sustainable technology would be required in 4990:

Necessity, not choice: By 4990, it’s highly likely that sustainable technology wouldn’t be optional. It would be an absolute necessity for survival and maintaining any semblance of civilization. The consequences of not having sustainable systems in place would likely be catastrophic.
Long-term survival: The need for sustainable technology in 4990 stems from the understanding that resources are finite. Over centuries, unsustainable practices would have exhausted resources, polluted the environment, and potentially led to societal collapse. Sustainable technology would be the result of learning from past mistakes and adapting to ensure long-term survival.
Ongoing maintenance: It’s not just about having sustainable technology in 4990, but also maintaining and evolving it. Continuous improvement and adaptation would be crucial to address new challenges, environmental changes, and unforeseen consequences.

In essence, the “when” is a continuous “now” for 4990. Sustainable technology wouldn’t be something implemented at a specific point in time, but rather an ongoing requirement for that era. It would be woven into the fabric of society, constantly in use and evolving to meet the needs of that time.

It’s a bit like asking “when” we need air to breathe – the answer is constantly! Similarly, by 4990, sustainable technology would be an ongoing, fundamental need.

COURTESY : Tech Evaluate

Where is required Sustainable technology of 4990 ?

“Where” sustainable technology would be required in 4990 is, in short, everywhere. Here’s a breakdown:

Globally: Sustainability isn’t a local issue; it’s interconnected. Sustainable technologies in 4990 would need to be implemented on a global scale to address planetary challenges like climate change, resource depletion, and pollution. International cooperation and shared knowledge would be essential.
In every aspect of life: Sustainable technology wouldn’t be confined to just one sector. It would be integrated into every facet of existence:
- Cities and infrastructure: Sustainable urban planning, transportation, energy systems, and waste management would be crucial.
- Agriculture and food production: Sustainable farming practices, vertical farms, and alternative protein sources would be necessary to feed the population.
- Manufacturing and industry: Sustainable materials, closed-loop systems, and renewable energy would power production.
- Homes and personal life: Sustainable appliances, energy-efficient housing, and personal technologies would be commonplace.
Beyond Earth (potentially): If humanity has expanded beyond Earth by 4990, sustainable technologies would be even more critical for establishing and maintaining off-world settlements. Closed-loop life support systems, resource utilization, and adapting to alien environments would be paramount.
Within the digital realm: Even in a highly digital future, the infrastructure supporting that digital world would need to be sustainable. Data centers, communication networks, and computing devices would need to be powered by renewable energy and use resources efficiently.

Essentially, by 4990, sustainability wouldn’t be a separate “thing” but rather a fundamental principle woven into the fabric of everywhere – from the smallest personal device to the largest planetary systems. It would be the foundation upon which civilization and potentially even interplanetary existence is built.

How is required Sustainable technology of 4990 ?

That’s a very insightful question! It gets at the heart of how sustainable technology in 4990 would function and be integrated into society. Here’s how it might be “required”:

1. By Necessity:

Resource Scarcity: By 4990, unsustainable practices of the past would likely have depleted many essential resources. Sustainable technologies would be the only way to provide for basic needs like food, water, and energy.
Environmental Limits: Climate change and other environmental damage would likely have made traditional ways of life unsustainable. Sustainable technologies would be crucial for adapting to these changes and mitigating further harm.

2. By Design:

Integrated Systems: Sustainable technologies in 4990 would likely be deeply integrated into the infrastructure and systems of that time. From the way cities are built to how food is produced, sustainability would be a core design principle.
Closed-Loop Systems: Technologies would be designed to minimize waste and maximize resource efficiency. This would involve closed-loop systems where resources are continuously recycled and reused, reducing the need for new extraction.

3. By Social and Cultural Norms:

Sustainability Ethos: By 4990, sustainability would likely be a deeply ingrained value in society. People would understand the importance of living in harmony with the environment and would expect technologies to reflect this ethos.
Community-Based Solutions: Sustainable technologies might be developed and implemented at the community level, fostering a sense of shared responsibility for environmental stewardship.

4. By Economic and Political Structures:

Incentivized Sustainability: Economic and political systems might be structured to encourage and reward sustainable practices. This could involve policies that promote renewable energy, reduce waste, and protect natural resources.
Global Cooperation: International cooperation would be essential for addressing global environmental challenges and ensuring that sustainable technologies are accessible to all.

In essence, sustainable technology in 4990 would be “required” not just by necessity, but also by design, social norms, and the very structure of society. It would be a fundamental part of how people live and interact with the world around them.

Case study is Sustainable technology of 4990 ?

It’s impossible to provide a real case study of sustainable technology in 4990, as it’s far in the future. However, we can create a hypothetical case study based on current trends and our understanding of sustainability principles. This allows us to explore what such a case study might look like.

Hypothetical Case Study: The Great Lakes Restoration Project – 4950-4990

Background: By the mid-49th century, despite significant advancements in sustainable technology, the Great Lakes ecosystem in North America was still recovering from centuries of industrial pollution and climate change. While much progress had been made, certain key challenges remained, particularly regarding microplastic contamination and the resurgence of invasive species.

The 4950 Initiative: A global consortium of scientists, engineers, and environmentalists launched the “Great Lakes Restoration Project 4950” with the goal of achieving complete ecological restoration by the end of the century. This project wasn’t just about cleaning up pollution; it was about creating a self-sustaining and resilient ecosystem.

Key Technologies and Approaches:

Nanobot Remediation: Microscopic, self-replicating nanobots were deployed to target and break down microplastics at the molecular level. These nanobots were programmed to identify specific types of plastics and convert them into harmless byproducts.
Bioengineered Filter Systems: Advanced bioengineered filter systems were installed at the outlets of rivers and streams flowing into the Great Lakes. These filters used genetically modified microorganisms to remove pollutants and excess nutrients from the water.
Ecological Repatterning: Using advanced AI and ecological modeling, scientists developed “repatterning” strategies to restore the natural balance of the ecosystem. This involved introducing native species, removing invasive species, and creating artificial habitats to support biodiversity.
Climate Change Mitigation: While not directly focused on the Lakes, the project was intrinsically linked to global climate mitigation efforts. By 4950, carbon capture technologies and advanced renewable energy systems were widespread, helping to stabilize the climate and reduce the stress on the Great Lakes ecosystem.

Results (by 4990):

Near-complete removal of microplastics: Nanobot remediation proved highly successful, reducing microplastic levels to near zero.
Restored water quality: Bioengineered filters significantly improved water quality, making the lakes safe for swimming, fishing, and drinking.
Thriving biodiversity: Ecological repatterning helped restore the natural balance of the ecosystem, leading to a resurgence of native species and a decline in invasive species.
Resilient ecosystem: The Great Lakes ecosystem became more resilient to climate change and other environmental stressors.

Lessons Learned:

Long-term commitment: Ecological restoration is a long-term process that requires sustained effort and investment.
Interdisciplinary collaboration: The success of the project relied on collaboration between scientists, engineers, environmentalists, and policymakers.
Technological innovation: Advanced technologies like nanobots and bioengineered systems played a crucial role in achieving the project’s goals.
Holistic approach: Addressing environmental challenges requires a holistic approach that considers the interconnectedness of ecosystems and the impact of human activities.

This hypothetical case study illustrates how sustainable technology in 4990 might be applied to address complex environmental problems. It highlights the importance of long-term planning, interdisciplinary collaboration, and technological innovation in achieving ecological restoration and creating a sustainable future

.COURTESY : SUSTAINABLE TECHNOLOGY SOLUTIONS

White paper on Sustainable technology of 4990 ?

White Paper: Sustainable Technology in 4990 – A Vision for a Thriving Future

Abstract:

This white paper explores the potential landscape of sustainable technology in the year 4990. While precise predictions are impossible, by extrapolating current trends and fundamental sustainability principles, we can envision a future where technology and nature coexist in harmony, supporting a thriving planet and potentially even interplanetary civilizations. This paper examines potential technological advancements, societal shifts, and the crucial role of ethical considerations in shaping this future.

1. Introduction:

The challenges of the 21st century, including climate change, resource depletion, and pollution, underscore the urgent need for sustainable practices. By 4990, it is posited that humanity (and potentially other advanced civilizations) will have fully embraced sustainability as a core principle, driving technological development and societal organization. This paper explores what that might look like.

2. Core Principles of Sustainable Technology in 4990:

Regenerative Systems: Moving beyond simply minimizing harm, technologies will focus on regenerating and restoring ecosystems. Closed-loop systems will be perfected, mimicking nature’s cycles of resource use and reuse.
Resource Abundance through Efficiency: Extreme resource efficiency will be paramount. “Waste” as we understand it today will be largely eliminated, with materials repurposed and energy harnessed with near-perfect efficiency.
Resilience and Adaptability: Technologies will be designed to withstand environmental fluctuations, natural disasters, and unforeseen challenges. Adaptability and responsiveness to change will be key features.
Symbiotic Integration with Nature: Technology will no longer be seen as separate from nature but as an integral part of it. Bio-integrated technologies and “living machines” may blur the lines between the artificial and the natural.

3. Potential Technological Advancements:

Energy: Fusion power, or other currently unknown, highly efficient energy sources, will provide clean and abundant energy. Global energy grids will be highly sophisticated and resilient, minimizing transmission losses. Advanced energy storage solutions will ensure consistent power availability.
Materials: “Living materials” with self-healing properties and adaptive capabilities will be commonplace. Materials will be bio-degradable, recyclable at a molecular level, or even grown on demand.
Food: Precision agriculture, vertical farms, and lab-grown protein sources will provide sustainable and nutritious food for all. Personalized nutrition and food synthesis technologies might also exist.
Environment: Geoengineering technologies, if used at all, will be highly precise and carefully managed, focusing on restoring ecological balance rather than large-scale manipulation. Nanotechnology and biotechnology will be used for targeted environmental remediation.
Computation and AI: AI will be instrumental in optimizing resource use, managing complex systems, and driving scientific discovery. However, safeguards will be in place to ensure ethical and responsible use of AI.
Space Exploration and Colonization: Sustainable technologies will be crucial for establishing and maintaining off-world settlements, including closed-loop life support systems, in-situ resource utilization, and adapting to extraterrestrial environments.

4. Societal and Ethical Considerations:

Global Cooperation: Addressing global sustainability challenges will necessitate unprecedented levels of international cooperation and shared knowledge.
Ethical Frameworks: Robust ethical frameworks will be essential to guide the development and deployment of advanced technologies, ensuring they are used for the benefit of all and the preservation of the planet.
Education and Awareness: A deep understanding of sustainability principles will be integrated into education systems, fostering a culture of environmental stewardship.
Equitable Access: Ensuring equitable access to sustainable technologies will be crucial to prevent a technological divide and promote global well-being.

5. Conclusion:

While the specifics of sustainable technology in 4990 remain speculative, this white paper highlights the potential for a future where technology and nature are intertwined, creating a thriving and resilient world. Achieving this vision requires a long-term commitment to sustainability, continuous innovation, and a strong ethical compass. The journey towards this future begins today, with the choices we make and the technologies we develop. By embracing sustainability as a core principle, we can pave the way for a brighter future for generations to come.

Industrial application of Sustainable technology of 4990 ?

You’re asking about the practical, real-world applications of sustainable technology in 4990. That’s a great way to make this futuristic concept more tangible! Here are some potential industrial applications:

1. Manufacturing and Production:

Closed-loop Factories: Imagine factories where raw materials are endlessly recycled and reused. Manufacturing processes would be designed to eliminate waste entirely, with byproducts from one process becoming the raw materials for another.
On-Demand Production: Advanced 3D printing and nanotechnology could allow for on-demand production of goods, minimizing the need for mass manufacturing and reducing transportation costs.
Localized Production: Manufacturing would likely be more localized, with smaller, highly efficient facilities serving specific communities. This would reduce the environmental impact of long-distance shipping and transportation.
Bio-Integrated Manufacturing: “Living factories” might utilize biological processes to produce materials and products. Imagine growing materials like wood or bioplastics to exact specifications, reducing waste and energy consumption.

2. Energy Production and Distribution:

Decentralized Energy Grids: Energy production would likely be decentralized, with communities generating their own power from renewable sources like solar, wind, and geothermal. Smart grids would efficiently distribute energy where it’s needed.
Advanced Energy Storage: Highly efficient energy storage solutions would be essential for ensuring a reliable power supply, even when renewable sources fluctuate.
Energy-Efficient Infrastructure: Buildings, transportation systems, and other infrastructure would be designed to minimize energy consumption.

3. Resource Management:

Automated Recycling Systems: Advanced recycling systems would be able to sort and process waste at the molecular level, allowing for the complete reuse of materials.
Resource Extraction from Waste: Technologies might exist to extract valuable resources from waste streams, such as rare earth minerals from electronic devices.
Water Purification and Management: Highly efficient water purification technologies would ensure access to clean water for everyone, even in arid regions. Advanced water management systems would minimize water waste and optimize its use in agriculture and industry.

4. Agriculture and Food Production:

Vertical Farms and Urban Agriculture: Vertical farms and urban agriculture would allow for food production in any environment, reducing the need for long-distance transportation and minimizing the environmental impact of agriculture.
Precision Agriculture: Advanced sensors and AI would be used to optimize resource use in agriculture, reducing water waste and the need for fertilizers and pesticides.
Alternative Protein Sources: Lab-grown meat and other alternative protein sources would be commonplace, reducing the impact of animal agriculture.

5. Transportation:

Sustainable Transportation Systems: Transportation systems would be based on renewable energy sources, with electric vehicles, high-speed trains, and other sustainable modes of transportation being the norm.
Autonomous Vehicles and Smart Traffic Management: Autonomous vehicles and smart traffic management systems would optimize traffic flow, reducing congestion and fuel consumption.

These are just a few examples of how sustainable technology might be applied in industry in 4990. The possibilities are vast, and it’s exciting to imagine the innovative solutions that might be developed to address the challenges of the future.

Research and development of Sustainable technology of 4990 ?

It’s fascinating to imagine the kind of research and development that might be happening in 4990 to push the boundaries of sustainable technology! Here are some potential areas of focus:

1. Advanced Materials Science:

“Living Materials”: Developing materials that can self-heal, adapt to their environment, and even grow themselves. This could revolutionize construction, manufacturing, and even medicine.
Programmable Matter: Creating materials that can change their properties on demand, allowing for dynamic and adaptable structures and devices.
Extreme Resource Efficiency: Researching materials that are incredibly durable, lightweight, and easily recyclable, minimizing the need for new resource extraction.

2. Energy Technologies:

Exotic Energy Sources: Exploring and harnessing new, currently unknown energy sources, perhaps beyond our current understanding of physics.
Energy Transmission and Storage: Developing highly efficient and lossless energy transmission systems, as well as revolutionary energy storage solutions that can store vast amounts of energy for long periods.
Fusion Energy Mastery: Perfecting fusion power technology to provide clean, safe, and abundant energy for all.

3. Environmental Science and Engineering:

Ecological Restoration: Developing advanced techniques for restoring damaged ecosystems and even reversing the effects of climate change.
Geoengineering: Researching safe and effective methods for managing the Earth’s climate, if necessary, with a focus on restoring balance rather than large-scale manipulation.
Bioremediation: Utilizing biological systems to clean up pollution and restore contaminated environments.

4. Biotechnology and Nanotechnology:

Nanobot Technology: Developing and refining nanobots for a wide range of applications, from environmental cleanup to medical treatments to manufacturing.
Bio-Integrated Systems: Creating technologies that seamlessly integrate with living organisms, blurring the lines between the artificial and the natural.
Synthetic Biology: Designing and engineering new biological systems for various purposes, such as producing biofuels, creating new materials, and even enhancing human capabilities.

5. Artificial Intelligence and Complex Systems:

AI for Sustainability: Utilizing AI to optimize resource use, manage complex systems like energy grids and transportation networks, and model the impact of human activities on the environment.
Global Systems Modeling: Developing sophisticated models of the Earth’s systems to better understand the interconnectedness of environmental challenges and develop effective solutions.
Ethical AI Development: Ensuring that AI is developed and used responsibly, with safeguards in place to prevent unintended consequences and protect human values.

6. Space Exploration and Colonization:

Closed-Loop Life Support Systems: Researching and developing self-sustaining life support systems for long-duration space missions and off-world settlements.
In-Situ Resource Utilization: Developing technologies to extract and utilize resources found on other planets and celestial bodies.
Terraforming and Planetary Engineering: Exploring the possibility of terraforming other planets to make them habitable for humans.

7. Social and Ethical Research:

Sustainable Societies: Studying how to create sustainable societies that are equitable, just, and resilient.
Ethical Frameworks: Developing robust ethical frameworks to guide the development and use of advanced technologies, ensuring they are used for the benefit of all.
Human-Technology Interaction: Researching how humans can best interact with advanced technologies in a sustainable way, maximizing the benefits and minimizing the risks.

These are just a few examples of the kind of research and development that might be happening in 4990. The possibilities are vast, and it’s exciting to imagine the innovative solutions that might be developed to address the challenges of the future and create a truly sustainable world.

COURTESY : TURILYTIX

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.