Misplaced Pages

The issue with renewable resources till the early 20 century lead to major extinctions, as in Whaling, fur and seal hunting and is neither was a gurantee for preservation / conservation. Fire wood is contributing to major problems but still provides more than 10% of human global energy needs. Renewable energies and resources, the most important by far ist still wood, are predominantly using our natural environment and its resources, wether they help to conserve them by sustained usage is a questions of management and policy. Serten (talk) 13:39, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

What is it about renewable energy that does not make it a renewable resource, and why would a summary of that content not be suitable in this article? If renewable energy is a subcategory, or type of renewable resource, then it should be covered in this article, in WP:SUMMARY style. Also, I have reverted the content removal until this discussion is completed. This is a Misplaced Pages:BOLD,_revert,_discuss_cycle, and to remove it again would descent it into a WP:3RR situation. --NickPenguin_(contribs) 18:35, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Don't revert due solely to "no consensus" applies as well. First the bold version presented actual renewables and a current scientific definition. The previous lacked all of that.

• It included not a summary, but long off topic deliberations about different sort of energy sources and somewhat erratic POV.
• neither food nor water are normally included in reneweables.
• a title like "Renewable resources endangered by the industrial world is completely useless", the article first should describe the use of reneweables as in fishery or forestry, not the dangers involved. A subtitle in that section called "Sustainable agriculture" a) erratic and b) most "sustainable" reneweables are being used in the developed world.

Good point about the essays, however lets discuss and come to an understanding on how to improve the overall quality. I agree that the renewable energy sections could be reduced, and condensed probably into a single section. If the content in the "Renewable resources endangered by the industrial world" provides a POV problem, then the content should be balanced out with more general information about the fishing, agriculture, water resources, forestry and species endangerment. An unbalanced section with valuable content should be integrated with the additional content, including the re-characterization or rephrasing of existing content, if the information is valid and contributes to an overall presentation of the subject. --NickPenguin_(contribs) 20:28, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

First Nicks cooperative approach is much appreciated.

• I suggest to first give an overview about what is being done actually and then to come up with risks. Renewable resources are an important part of the economy, especially in the developed world, but they are not a snake-oil-cure-it-all for all environmental problems, actually they provide important environmental problems as well.
• "Renewable resources endagered by the industrial world" is sort of a non starter, balancing doesnt help much. Take traditional chinese medicine, which endangers specific species like Rhinos, bears and Tigers - thats not at all about industry, to the contrary, Viagra may have helped more to protect Rhinos than any conservation attempt, similar as using oil from fossil fuels helped to conserve the remaining whales, which had been harvested as a reneweable resource nearly to extinction ;). Serten (talk) 21:02, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Disagreements need not lead to confrontation. In general your changes to the article is a vast improvement, and although much of the new writing is good, and believable, the Overview and Historical Role sections need sources. The caption on the lede image also leads me to wonder who says leather is a "classical renewable resource". We could also look for more examples of renewable resources, particularly ones that are identified in sources as such. --NickPenguin_(contribs) 05:22, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

I introduced some further cites, but the basic linkages should not be oversourced, as this is a sort of intro. I am maybe prone to "teutonizing" the article, as I use "classical" as in the sense of German "NAWARO". Germany research on the topic is fairly advanced (there are interesting rteasons for that ;), but if you have issues with my wording or can provide links and sources more adapt to the enWP, dont hesitate to edit, its a Wiki ;) Serten (talk) 14:45, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

The German wiki has articles de:Zucker_als_nachwachsender_Rohstoff (sugar as renewable resource) and de:Stärke_als_nachwachsender_Rohstoff (starch as renewable resource). would this article be improved with the additon of content about agricultural products that are 'renewable' resources? This definition seems to be getting quite broad, I could see every agricultural product being considered as renewable.

Specific resources that might warrant inclusion could be vegetable oils, sugar starch, animal raw materials like wool and silk, natural rubber and fishing. We might also consider a section on recycling, a related topic. --NickPenguin_(contribs) 17:14, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

The writing the German articles (by a rather experienced old deWP hand) has been subsidized by the German NAWARO association, they are sometimes good, sometimes too local to be of value here.

I added some links to financial and political background, that needs extension. It should not cover the german case alone. Maybe you have some ideas about lobbists and associations involved with renewables.

Some of the content you mentioned could be used for a section about agricultural gentech, as from next generation biofuels or in modified starch potatoes as amflora.

Lets be careful with anything about food, as in fishing, however side products as chitin etc are already included.

I dont see much use for a separate entry covering recycling. Reneweables regrow, predominantly metals are being recycled. Serten (talk) 17:35, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

POV Tag

The article claimes that "renewable resources endangered by the industrial world". The contrary is the case. Wood and other Renewable resources and their sustained usage are quite important for the wealth and success of industrialized countries, and most controversial usage is to be found in developing countries. If you compare timber exports from Afrika and just one German state, lets say bavaria, Africa is nearly non existant in timber trade and usage. Serten (talk) 13:02, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

I am not sure to understand your point of view. Water used by the industry is polluted by this same industry (refer to Japan nuclear industry as a late example) killing wild life as well as endangered wild life. Forests in Africa, Asia, South America are devastated for industrial timber and by unsustainable agriculture. This is not only a twentieth century problem. There will be a need of sustained efforts during the twenty first century to save our planet from the industry and the battle is far to be won... Especially if people think that the problem is already solved, which is far to be the case. http://siteresources.worldbank.org/EXTFORESTS/Resources/985784-1217874560960/Uzbekistan.pdf - http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2006/sep/29/houseofcommons.politics

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Christophe Krief (talk • contribs) 20:13, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Christophe, to put it into perspective, Germany produces about 50-70 million cubic metres wood and makes around 170 Billion Euro with it. Now compare South africa, timber turnover is around 4 million Euro, the rest of Africa is non-existant in relation to the world market. The whole of Africa produces about 650 Millions m³ of fire wood per year in a not very sustainable nor profitable way. Even worse,

Serten, What about Honey bees? http://www.nrdc.org/wildlife/animals/bees.asp Whales? http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2014/10/02/brydes-whale-endangered-species/16580101/ You say that timber is not an endangered resource? This is an arrogant denyal!!! Here are some relevant facts that you will need to read about endangered species of trees and deforestation: http://www.mortonarb.org/science-conservation/conservation/saving-endangered-trees - http://environment.nationalgeographic.com/environment/global-warming/deforestation-overview/ Why was the Endangered Species Act created, why is it still enforced today if there is not threat? Why do we need applied ecology if there is no threat?? why is this off topic? This is one of the most problematic issues in respect of renewable resources? What is your point with the production of timber in Germany? You are off topic on this subject? This article is not about Germany or its timber industry, not about the industry in South Africa neither.

I agree that the cause cannot be blame solely on the industry, as in most developed countries a part (still a minority) of the industry is now working towards a solution. But the fact is that there is a threat which is putting our environment at risk, so why to you deny it?The threat to resources is growth within a non-regulated industry. I am reinserting the article about endangered resources, without reference to industry in its title. I am also changing the main article photo which is poorly representative.

Do not not remove this section, as you do not have a valid argument for doing so, Your denial of the present threat towards the natural environment appears motivated by political or vested interest. This is not authorised on Misplaced Pages where different points of view can and must be expressed without censorship.--Christophe Krief (talk) 09:49, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Whatever you might say, what does it have to do with the articles topic? Serten (talk) 14:16, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Serten please seek consensus before continuing to edit the article any further. Your approach is very distrubing. - Rfassbind (talk) 11:27, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

First I think Christophe Kriefs additions fotowise have been valuable. Second he did erase valuable sources for the lede, those have been restored. I dont think the endangered resources is very much helpful, as it contradicts the evidence about the challenges of renewables itself - renewable use actually endanger some species. I doubt - based on solid science - that there is anything like a "natural environment" in Europe, at least since about 4000 years. Serten (talk) 14:23, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

SERTEN!!! What? You doubt about a natural environment in Europe!? The natural environment is everywhere, even in the cities centre. The air that you breath is part of it. The sun which warms up your skin too... The migrating birds passing over, the microbes that you do not see or the foxes, rabbits, rats, insects and so on... There is no problem for quoting a German author translated in English, but your quotation in German language in this article is inappropriate as it does not relate to a German subject and as many quotes in English can be used. Please insert it in the German wiki version of the article--Christophe Krief (talk) 14:38, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Goddness, not I do, environmental history does. a Speak white approach is not appropriate or do you deny that since the days of Konrad Meyer and rubbber dandelions in Auschwitz germans have been leading the field? Serten (talk) 15:03, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Be clever SETERN, this is addressed to English speakers and many English, Americans or German translated, as well as French translated will be more relevant in the article. You are missing many points. First this article does not relate to the industrial point of view which you are only considering. It relates to renewable resources in all aspects. Also, can you reference your theory about food not being a renewable resource, because I have plenty of reference to contradict your position on this subject. --Christophe Krief (talk) 15:26, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

As said, you better revert to a non controversial version in due time. Just to ignore the German scholarly definition, which does explicitely exclude (animal and human) food is a nice try, but not helping to improve the article. I doubt there is any relevant French voice on the issue. Serten (talk) 22:41, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Renewable resource may provide for food. Paul Alfred Weis defined it this way and here is a much more recent link defining it the same way: http://www.opic.gov/blog/opic-in-action/food-is-a-renewable-resource Do you have a reference in English to support your position? If there is a difference of point of view within the definition of Renewable Resources, so it should be expressed in the article without taking position--Christophe Krief (talk) 12:23, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

German science is science and provides valid sources, right? You quoted a 1960 definition and a US Overseas Private Investment Corporation blog. Stop cherrypicking. Real sources, e.g. Renewable Resources and Plant Biotechnology Ryszard Kozłowski, Gennadiĭ Efremovich Zaikov, Frank Pudel 2006, Agricultural materials as renewable resources: nonfood and industrial applications Glenn Fuller, Thomas A. McKeon, Donald D. Bills, American Chemical Society. Division of Agricultural and Food Chemistry, American Chemical Society, 1996 and the European Commission confirm the non-food outlook. Thats said, refrain from further editwarring and revert to an acceptable version. Serten (talk) 14:01, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

I checked the European Commission's document and it concerns a research for non food renewable, this is not the subject of this article. Your reference to "Agricultural materials as renewable resources: nonfood and industrial applications" Glenn Fuller, Thomas A. McKeon, Donald D. Bills, American Chemical Society, is a specific research too... However this is not the subject of this article, but it can be a subsection as now set up in the article. You are pointing your references on non-food researches, but this does not mean that renewable resources are not providing for food... Anyway, you know like me that they are. The oxygen that you breath as well as the water that you drink and many fruits that you eat, the milk which you drink and the honey to make it sweet. If too many cows are killed to make the beef that you eat, then there will be not enough milk for your breakfast and it could lead to extinction. You are referring to researches which are non-food orientated, however, you have no exact quote with a page number pointing to a general definition of Renewable Resources excluding these which contribute to providing men with food. You selected researches which were orientated towards non-food renewable resources for industrial and politico-economical purposes. I am not picky, I am realistic. There are 2 main groups related to the subject of this article. These 2 groups are Renewable Resources and non-Renewable Resources. The subject that you are interested with "non-food Renewable Resources", is a sub-group of the first main group. If honey is not a renewable resource, so what is it? If fishes that you eat are not neither, so which group do they belong to? --Christophe Krief (talk) 15:14, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

If you believe the subject of the article is not the subject of the article, better look for a forum or a blog, and if you want to preach, sorry, I have heard much better and less boring homilies. I use scientific sources and I dont care where the come from- the last in After Saturday Comes Sunday was arab. Do the same and stop soapboxing. Serten (talk) 15:57, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Serten you are an arrogant individual. This article is about Renewable Resources and you want to transform it into non-food renewable resources. Plus you are using it to promote non translated German researches.--Christophe Krief (talk) 21:09, 5 October 2014 (UTC)