Friday, 26 March 2010




It's been calculated that nature's "Ecosystem Services" are worth over $33 trillion dollars a year – nearly double the size of the global economy. And while that figure is important for putting a value on Nature's contributions to the economy, it belies the fact that without nature we could not survive at all. http://solveclimate.com/blog/20090422/top-10-reasons-mother-nature-too-big-fail

Three Pillars of Sustainability
Saving the world, one website at a time.
Every quarter, yadaDROP donates 5% of our revenues to a 501(c)3 non-profit of your choice. A nominated non-profit organization must support one of the following three pillars of sustainability:
1. Economic
2. Environmental
3. Social

Economic
The people in the western world are heavy consumers. In fact, we consume far more than our fair share. Meanwhile, the people in developing countries are exploding in population and some are aspiring to have high-consumption lifestyles too. We need a sustainable economic model that ensures fair distribution and efficient allocation of our resources. This pillar ensures that our economic growth maintains a healthy balance with our ecosystem.

Environmental
We take our natural resources for granted and sometimes we forget that those resources are not unlimited. More importantly, our planet must be protected from corporate exploitation and neglect. This pillar supports initiatives like: renewable energy, reducing fossil fuel consumption and emissions, sustainable agriculture and fishing, organic farming, tree planting and reducing deforestation, recycling, and better waste management.

Social
yadaDROP is a global citizen and you are too. As a global citizen, we must never turn a blind eye to social disruptions that threaten the well-being of people and our environment. We have an ethical responsibility to do something about human inequality, social injustice, and poverty. This pillar supports initiatives like peace, social justice, reducing poverty, and other grassroots movements that promote social equity.

http://yadadrop.com/about/sustainability
bad post smells of doctrine, try another-tam
Sustainability is also known as:
design for sustainability (DfS)
design for environment (DfE)
eco-design
green design
The triple bottom line is often mentioned in the context of sustainability. What exactly is it?
As well as minimising environmental impact, sustainable design also involves optimising performance and well-being. It can also aid business competitiveness which has led some to the notion of a ‘triple bottom line'. The triple bottom line seeks to expand the conventional economic or financial focus of the ‘bottom line’ to include social and environmental calculations. This reflect the three key pillars of sustainability which are:
Social - people
Environmental - planet
Economic - profit
The word 'pillar' suggests separate, static entities when in fact there is a dynamic between all three elements. It might be easier to think of them as three balls in a juggling act - the trick is to keep them working together in a simple, smooth process. At the moment, it has to be said, we often don't juggle too well. But we're making progress.
Eco-efficiency is a management
philosophy which encourages business to
search for environmental improvements
that yield parallel economic benefits. It
focuses on business opportunities and
allows companies to become more
environmentally responsible and more
profitable. It fosters innovation and
therefore growth and competitiveness.

As defined by the WBCSD: Eco-efficiency
is achieved by the delivery of
competitively-priced goods and services
that satisfy human needs and bring
quality of life, while progressively
reducing ecological impacts and resource
intensity throughout the life-cycle to a
level at least in line with the earth s
estimated carrying capacity.
In short, it
is concerned with creating more value
with less impact
ive got no no problem with this so its difficult to add anything. ''less impact '' suggests less energy spent so why doesn't this cost less? can john adams and frederick taylor's designs of work efficiency be redesigned to address environmental issues? is that out with the control of product designers? i've wandered off track again...

No comments:

Post a Comment