> The odd thing is that what we're doing has been "sustainable" since the Industrial Revolution.
You then go on to set out how you're not sure what sustainable means. So let me see if I can help.
A simple guide would be that resource is being used in a sustainable way if the resource isn't being used up faster than it is replenished, or in other words 'If we keep doing this, can we keep doing this for a long time?'
So by that measure, solar power, wind, geo-thermal are sustainable - the fact that we use them, doesn't diminish the amount available. To an extent cutting down a tree and burning is sustainable, if you can grow trees fast enough. Fossil fuels aren't sustainable.
Firstly, there is a finite amount in the ground, and the speed at which we extract it far, far outweighs the speed at which new deposits are being laid down.
Secondly, we need to use the atmosphere as the dumping ground for fossil fuels' waste products - including CO2. The atmosphere isn't infinite and we can measure that CO2 concentrations are rising in line with our output.
Clearly, this is a simplified explanation, but I hope it is helpful. It does illustrate that no, we haven't being using resources in a sustainable fashion since the industrial revolution. Just because something hasn't run out yet, doesn't mean than it has been used sustainably.
Finally - sustainable resource use isn't a magic get out of jail free card. Yes, the dinosaur ecosystem was sustainable. That doesn't mean that they were immune from meteor strikes.
> My feeling is that the sense of emergent disaster is manufactured by those with vested political and financial interests.
My feeling is that if you looked into the actual science a bit, your feeling may change.
You then go on to set out how you're not sure what sustainable means. So let me see if I can help.
A simple guide would be that resource is being used in a sustainable way if the resource isn't being used up faster than it is replenished, or in other words 'If we keep doing this, can we keep doing this for a long time?'
So by that measure, solar power, wind, geo-thermal are sustainable - the fact that we use them, doesn't diminish the amount available. To an extent cutting down a tree and burning is sustainable, if you can grow trees fast enough. Fossil fuels aren't sustainable.
Firstly, there is a finite amount in the ground, and the speed at which we extract it far, far outweighs the speed at which new deposits are being laid down.
Secondly, we need to use the atmosphere as the dumping ground for fossil fuels' waste products - including CO2. The atmosphere isn't infinite and we can measure that CO2 concentrations are rising in line with our output.
Clearly, this is a simplified explanation, but I hope it is helpful. It does illustrate that no, we haven't being using resources in a sustainable fashion since the industrial revolution. Just because something hasn't run out yet, doesn't mean than it has been used sustainably.
Finally - sustainable resource use isn't a magic get out of jail free card. Yes, the dinosaur ecosystem was sustainable. That doesn't mean that they were immune from meteor strikes.
> My feeling is that the sense of emergent disaster is manufactured by those with vested political and financial interests.
My feeling is that if you looked into the actual science a bit, your feeling may change.