Quotes About Sustainability

The earth we leave is beautiful and rich; it gave us all we needed for all the generations we have lived.

The earth we leave is beautiful and rich; it gave us all we needed for all the generations we have lived. How will you leave it when it is your turn? What can you do?

Can a door protect a world that has lived too long?

A community that is growing rich and seeks only to defend its goods and its reputation is dying. It has ceased to grow in love. A community is alive when it is poor and its members feel they have to work together and remain united, if only to ensure that they can all eat tomorrow!

Tout le monde veut sauver la planète, mais personne ne veut descendre les poubelles

Indigenous foods die when no one learns to cook them.

It smelt as if those fields had been given over to excessive productivity, which would wear out the earth's heart.

God also set man to be the keeper of creation (Gen 2:15),49 to protect it and keep it safe.

Avec le Néolithique, les hommes ne sont plus seulement prédateurs, ils deviennent producteurs. Ce n'est plus la carrying capacity de l'environnement qui limite leur nombre, mais leur capacité à produire, capacité qui évolue rapidement. Agriculture et élevage entraînent une expansion démographique spectaculaire.

Sobriety and health is the greatest thing.

I first got involved with ending world hunger, and I got hip to the facts about it - what a huge problem it was and how it wasn't a matter of not having food or not knowing how to end it, but it was a matter of creating the political will.

When it comes to energy, cost isn't everything - but it's a lot. Everybody wants cheap power.

In the world of energy politics, the sudden vanishing of the word 'coal' is a remarkable and unprecedented event.

The biggest tab the public picks up for fossil fuels has to do with what economists call 'external costs ' like the health effects of air and water pollution.

LOYAL TO THE SOIL—WE NEED WATER NOT OIL and IF WE DESTROY CREATION, CREATION WILL DESTROY US.

Visualize any wooded area you remember visiting. It is beautiful, majestic - and no one ever fertilized any of the plants there. Not one single time.

Von Liebig's Law of the Minimum states that if one nutrient doesn't reach the minimum required by a plant, then it doesn't matter how much more of the others you apply. In short, the barrel will only hold up to its lowest stave.

Can you milk 'em? If you can't milk 'em, they're pets!

The General Theory of Walkability explains how, to be favored, a walk has to satisfy four main conditions: it must be useful, safe, comfortable, and interesting.

most American cities have been designed or redesigned principally around the assumption of universal automotive use, resulting in obligatory car ownership, typically one per adult—starting at age sixteen. In these cities, and in most of our nation, the car is no longer an instrument of freedom, but rather a bulky, expensive, and dangerous prosthetic device, a prerequisite to viable citizenship.

Nobody likes congestion, and, despite appearances, I am not arguing here for more of it. Rather, I am asking that it be better understood by those who build and rebuild our communities, so that we can stop making stupid decisions that placate angry citizens while only hurting them in the long run.

all the fancy economic development strategies, such as developing a biomedical cluster, an aerospace cluster, or whatever the current economic development 'flavor of the month' might be, do not hold a candle to the power of a great walkable urban place.

But only a soulless pundit funded by the automotive industry--and there are several--would claim that people are not more likely to be healthy in environments that invite walking.

A typical carbon map, such as that produced in 2002 by the Vulcan Project at Purdue University, sends a very clear signal: countryside good, cities bad. For a long time, these were the only maps of this type, and there is certainly a logic in looking at pollution from a location-by-location perspective. But this logic was based on an unconsidered assumption, which is that the most meaningful way to measure carbon is by the square mile. It isn't. The best way to measure carbon is per person.