Ultimately something is sustainable if you can keep on doing it
indefinitely - it doesn't erode natural, social or financial capital.
The "light green" definition of sustainable is something that doesn't
cause a catastrophe in the short term, while helping you to develop a
system that progressively reduces adverse outcomes in the long term.
The problem is that many things that seem sustainable in the short-
term are unsustainable in the long term. The clearest example of this
is net soil erosion. Some agricultural systems reduce soil erosion,
but still lead to net loss. Eventually you run out of soil ...
Until you stop depleting things, your actions are not truly sustainable.
Regards, Laurie.
On 31/01/2010, at 9:44 AM, Alan Gillanders wrote:
David said in part:- "Any time I hear the word "balance" come out of
a politicians mouth I
start shouting. ... ." Translation: we need to
strike a balance between blowing things up and knocking them down."
David,
Your rant is well justified.
Perhaps you could help me out. I have been asking many people to
define 'sustainable' even at conferences with sustainability as a
theme. I know that language changes but ....
Regards,
Alan
===============================
www.birding-aus.org
birding-aus.blogspot.com
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, send the message:
unsubscribe (in the body of the message, with no Subject line)
to:
===============================
===============================
www.birding-aus.org
birding-aus.blogspot.com
To unsubscribe from this mailing list,
send the message:
unsubscribe
(in the body of the message, with no Subject line)
to:
===============================
|
