Our environment has never been more in jeopardy than it is today. Clearly, we are using resources faster than the earth can reproduce. If this continues, mankind will be doomed to a chemical wasteland.

Having studied Environmental Ethics, we must work with those in the develpment industries to produce "eco-friendly" designs and processes that will allow us to continue living on this planet, without furthering our destruction.

Marco Garcia "Who ever is spared personal pain, must feel himself called to help in diminishing the pain of others." Albert Schweitzer

Three points:

There's a reason the adjective is "sustainable" and the noun is "development."  Let's consider developing sustainability instead; the further development of ecological economics and renewable technologies will follow.

The precursor of Brundtland's "sustainable development" was UNEP's "ecodevelopment."  When UNEP stepped on UNDP's toes (e.g., as several countries, including El Salvador, wrote ecodevelopment into their national development plans), UNDP objected and the two organizations' approaches were mediated by the WCED.

The three-circle paradigm is fundamentally flawed.  Society rests either entirely within the environment or, if you are spiritually or religiously inclined, includes an additional metaphysical aspect.  Economic activity should be portrayed as the abstract description of the interaction between society and our environment; labor and technology are the concrete reality of that interaction.  Both economics and technology are entirely within the intersection of society and our environment, our human ecology.

TomH is right: The three-circle symbol is all wrong.  But that symbol is powerful, and well-recognized, so we need to try to salvage it.

My prefered rendering has three concentric circles: economy inside society inside the environment.  Turn it on its side, and it looks like a wedding cake.

One can argue, as TomH has, that "the economy" is a manifestation of activity (interaction) rather than a thing in its own right.  I don't disagree.  But I think that it's a relatively minor distinction, within the context of a symbol with very broad application.  So I would suggest that it makes sense, in this context, to retain the common labeling of the parts, and simply rearrange them to reflect the reality of how they relate to each other.

Thanks to all for the comments so far.  I agree completely that our human society and economy are ultimately embedded within the natural world and that the "wedding cake" diagram would be more accurate as an expression of reality.

Being somewhat spiritually inclined, I also like the reminder that the whole shebang might be animated by...well, let's just say "something greater".  Our world would certainly be very different if all of us were walking around with the sense that our "economic" actions were grounded in our social connections to each other, which in turn are grounded in our deeper connection to the natural systems that support all life on Earth, which in its turn draws existence from the Source.  

For the purposes of environmentally-inclined people seeking public, private and nonprofit employment in 2007, however, that greater reality might be a bit abstract to draw career and job search help from.

It seems to me that the "three circles" diagram in the original article does a good job of showing environmental institutions and professionals what is expected of them right now.  That is, we are asked to invent and implement "sustainable solutions" which somehow result in improved ecological health, social justice and economic security, on a global scale, at the same time.

I don't think that the institutions and professions that were created to pursue missions like "environmentalprotection", "conservation", and "natural resource management" have completely caught up to that change yet.

The effect on emerging professionals is profound.  Intellectually, we understand that the goal posts have been moved.  In fact, those of us in the "ecological health" circle had a lot to do with moving them.  We are being prepared in college to think in terms of transforming our society/economy to something more sustainable.  When we go looking for paid work, however, we find that our environmental institutions are still set up under the more limited (albeit essentially important) goal of "environmental protection", perceived by the mainstream economy as a "separate circle" of action.

So, we're struggling a bit.  I like to think that one of Grist's functions is to document the struggle and to provide a place to tell our stories and help each other out along the way.

Kevin Doyle National Director, Program Development The Environmental Careers Organization (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) //= 0; i=i-1){ if (l[i].substring(0, 1) == ' ') output += "&#"+unescape(l[i].substring(1))+";"; else output += unescape(l[i]); } document.getElementById('eeEncEmail_uT1rjH6eWC').innerHTML = output; //]]> 617-426-4375, ext. 123

It used to be that being an environmentalist meant giving up all your earthly possessions, living on nothing but vegan gruel and "cleansing" herbal teas, and wearing nothing but sackcloths and ashes, with Birkenstocks in the wintertime.  

As the cruise ship that is American public perception turns slowly towards understanding sustainability and its implications, it is to be hoped that all of our long words, committee and task force meetings, and laws and policies and plans, become no more than paper band-aids over the hole in the national viewpoint.  Once that fabric is mended, or at least several large stitches are in place, we will be able to properly combat global climate crises and other concerns that will affect literally every living being (and a lot of non-living ones as well).

And by "we," I mean the global "we."  It's not a matter of us vs. them any more.  

"We have met the enemy, and he is us." - Pogo, Walt Kelly, Earth Day 1970.

Kay in Centreville, VA

Actually, the conceptual diagram is quite accurate at depicting the three primary institutions of our living world.  The intersection of this diagram is where we enviromental professionals vie to reach.  However, these institutions may be accomodated sequentially, as the evolution of our society has not generally adopted each concurrently.

In the business world, this is referred to as the "triple bottom line," a concept to create products or services that are economically viable, environmentally friendly, and socially acceptable.  However, we all well know that many practices lie far outside this ideal intersection, which illustrates the continual demand on our profession.  Furthermore, each of these institutions are dynamic and move with changing conditions and influences.  Considering our own nation, we have a thriving economy that is generally socially acceptable (at least within our own borders), yet is extremely wasteful.  So the challenge for us is; Can we modify the unaccomodated institutions to meet in the middle?  
The answer is of course yes.  There is abundant opportunity to to create solutions to environmental problems that are economically viable.  However, one challenge we will continue to face is the mass consumption of resources, as we americans consume more per capita than any other nation on earth.  So, we must not find efficient uses of these resources to stretch them further, but also modify the Social institution by campaigning this inequity.

The problem for a majority of our environmental problems is the lack of creativity and innovation to seek this triple bottom line. Sustainable development up to this point has mostly been performed through regulations and policies that attempt to punish polluting or degrading practices, however, this has proven to be extremely inefficient. The solution lies in market forces and entrepreneurial ventures.  Sustainable design, energy efficiency, and innovative technology will be our environmental poster children for sustainable development.  
So, thank god we have ambitious dedicated and most importantly creative professionals, and enough challenges to give us all jobs.  Finally, may the force be with us all...

Ryan Emery "I can change the world, with my own two hands..." Ben Harper