Comments 1 to 8:

1. From Peru at 10:53 AM on 18 June, 2012
   Hmmm, unlike things like "sustainable growth" , sustainable development is not an oxymoron.
   
   Of course if "development" is identified with the economic model that rules the world since the Industrial Revolution, that is, an endless economic growth that depends on the intensive use of limited and non-renewable natural resources, sustainable "development" is an oxymoron.
   
   However, if "development" is identified not with identified with things like the GDP growth, but with the quality of life of the common people (health, a purchasing power that permits everyone to cover at least the basic needs, social equality, education, etc) then not only sustainable development isn't an oxymoron, but sustainability becomes a necessary condition for development.
2. Bernard J. at 20:35 PM on 19 June, 2012
   The thing with "sustainable development" in natural systems, especially if they're living systems, is that at some point the "development" involves a greater or lesser degree of senescence.
   
   At the system level, development (which is analogous to complexity) is asymptotically constrained by energetic input into the system.
3. John Hartz at 01:20 AM on 20 June, 2012
   Note: This thread is now open to a discussion of the ongoing Rio+20 Conference .
4. adamski at 03:25 AM on 20 June, 2012
   Feeling so helpless and useless at the moment. Quite depressing. Did you guys read this??
   Game Over For The Climate?
   
   'Whatever happened to the green movement? It’s been 50 years since the publication of Rachel Carson’s classic Silent Spring, a powerful book about the environmental devastation wreaked by chemical pesticides. Since then we’ve had the rise and fall - or at least the compromised assimilation - of green groups such as Friends of the Earth, Greenpeace and Forum For the Future.
   
   Last week, the Independent marked the half-century with a well-meaning but frankly insipid ‘landmark series’ titled ‘The Green Movement at 50’. But there’s a glaring hole in such coverage; and, indeed, in the ‘green movement’ itself: the insidious role of the corporate media, a key component of corporate globalisation, in driving humanity and ecosystems towards the brink of destruction"
   
   http://www.medialens.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=section&layout=blog&id=1&Itemid=50
5. adamski at 04:17 AM on 21 June, 2012
   what do people think about this?? Billions and billions of trees to solve the problem??
   
   http://members5.boardhost.com/medialens/msg/1340210498.html
6. SoundOff at 10:24 AM on 23 June, 2012
   Here’s an article that ran today and that really raised my ire. Perhaps someone at SkS has the energy to respond to it.
   
   Science held hostage in climate debate – a Financial Review article by Garth Paltridge
7. adamski at 17:19 PM on 23 June, 2012
   Soundoff - I am sick of this line of attack. Garth Paltridge's puff piece shows how capitalists genuinely fear AGW, not because of the devastation that they KNOW is more and more likely to occur the more we pollute, but rather the changes in social relations, hierarchy, decision making and power. Challenging the current economic model is a challenge to neo-liberial laissez-faire capitalists like Paltridge where the principles and laws of science must be bypassed, ignored or even suspended to protect faith based beliefs. A post modernist claiming post modernist science?? Pathetic.
8. Riccardo at 18:37 PM on 23 June, 2012
   I've not much to say to someone who frame the discourse politically and then claim that science is held hostage. This is exactly what he's trying to do and what the scientists are fighting against.

You need to be logged in to post a comment. Login via the left margin or if you're new, register here.