i vote for "equilibrium"

to reach an equilibrium with the planet. Maybe its not so good

The McDonough quote is striking, and I get that sustainability is not romantic, but when the current situation is NOT sustainable, moving toward sustainability is a step in the right direction. McDonough's book, Cradle to Cradle, puts down the idea of "being less bad" or "causing less harm," but it seems like a really valuable first step.

If we refer back to the marriage analogy, a man who stops beating his wife has made progress. He may still have a ways to go, but he's on the right track, moving in the right direction.

I see a connection here with the previous Infrastructure post - sustainability, like maintenance, is not sexy, but very much preferable to the alternatives of depletion and decay.

The fact the resources are used does not mean an enterprise is not good. I can't think of a better us for 2.5 million pieces of paper than the OED. The key here is the paper was not wasted - it was used well - a crucial distinction.

Let me take a crack at this knowing very well that I may very well open up a verbage war of epic proportions. What my gut has always told me is this:

sustainable- Adaquate and nuetral. Responsible enough without going the "extra mile."

green- Much more marketable and catchy in nature because sustainability is improved upon by cleverness, efficiency or even the possibility of offsetting more than one's burden on given resources.

Sustainable being an oil company or something cleaning up their act and updating technology. Boooring. Green literally being the way that forests absorb CO2, create oxygen and regulate climate.

I totally wish I invented trees.

Ok Lloyd you asked for it

The term Green is mostly used as a noun, it should be mostly used as a a verb. It means moving the current state of affairs governed by the existing economic system towards one where each transaction fully accounts for all externalities it unleashes on the planet. So when I build my own cabinets out of wood I harvest myself out back instead of buying particle board from China, I am going green.

Sustainability is when these transaction are fully accounted for.

mjo

I think "green" means coexisting with nature, with respect shown by humans to all the flora and fauna.

We can't expect to be able to "create" our food sources mechanically...

Something that disturbed me yesterday at the grocery store was that there were only two aisles labeled "natural foods" and the rest of the store had produce and food-products infused with chemicals from concept to purchase.

I think that to "be green" means one thing: to be respectful of planet Earth's systems. Beyond that one tiny thing, "green" doesn't say much. People will fight all day about how best to go green, what is or is not "greenwashing," what political systems we need or don't need, etc. That's why, in my mind, the "green movement" is not really a movement; it's way too pluralistic. For instance, one may get Amory Lovins and Bill McDonough to agree on some things, but they probably wouldn't even want to share a beer with, say, John Zerzan. In fact, the term "green" doesn't even imply much about core ethical beliefs... do we or do we not believe that humans are inherently destructive, for example? The answer is that you'll find people who believe both ways in this "movement."

To continue on the importance of ethics: a friend of mine felt that we should do away with the word sustainability, replacing it with "abundance." I would mix the two ideas and talk about "sustainable abundance," and I feel that this concept is what McDonough and Braungart are talking about in "Cradle to Cradle." Early in that book, they compare ants to humans... making the point that, although the biomass of ants is greater than the biomass of humans on this planet, the impact of ants is overwhelmingly positive while the human impact has been overwhelmingly negative. The most important thing that "Cradle to Cradle" offers is an ethical system that states that human impact is negative not inherently, but because of poor design of human systems. We don't want to reduce our impact outright, they seem to say... we really want to reduce our negative impact and increase our positive impact. As I wrote above, not everyone who is green or going green believes in this.

So the word "green" means nothing except that the planet is taken into consideration. All sorts of people with all sorts of beliefs are taking this word and mapping it onto themselves. I don't think that's inherently bad, but it would be more appropriate to use the word as an adjective and attach a noun to it to get the message across. Green capitalism; green socialism; green anarcho-post-civilizationism...

I think that when we are describing something as "sustainable", we're only really talking about technology doing the job it should already be doing. Technology exists to support humanity; If it endangers the environment it doesn't serve its purpose successfully. You could replace "sustainable" with "functional" in every case, taking in the broad scope of the product or industry's function.

Sustainability is meeting the current population's needs without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.

When used as a noun, green is just a synonym with some different connotations. When used as a verb, it means to move towards sustainability.

I like the word sustenance, to give energy to. I also like lifegiving, or perhaps condusive to life, life creating better conditions for other life, rather than "just" reaching equlibrium. But still, the best word/concept is simply Green.

"Green" is a marketing shortcut. It is for people chasing a branded aesthetic. "Green" is for the mainstream who want to "be" something. Those who drive Hummers to Wholefoods. it is for the masses.

"Sustainable" is confusing. It is best used in industry discourse. It is the language of those not chasing a branded aesthetic, but those who a "deeply green."

Both levels are needed. "Eco-anything" is now meaningless, but it has value as a marketing term.

Like any culture we shape-shift our language when we move through our daily audiences. "Green" encompasses more than the sum of its parts and therefore is beneficial for advertising, but detrimental when specificity is required.

i joke about the green movement as representing the fist full of dollars companies are either already making or hope to from marketing as an environmentally responsible entity..much like 'organic.' but..it has delivered the concept of sustainability to otherwise disinterested segments and so far i dont see them return[ing] to sender. must mean progress!

i do not care to label my efforts as 'green' but appreciate what it represents in the u.s. market place, especially. we are overdue to set that highest standard.