Talk:Sustainable Development Strategy in Canada

message: I think it is sad to see that no attempts have been made to address concerns raised in the peer review.  Please only list articles on peer review when you are prepared to do extensive work on them afterward.  Many people do not get much of a response to a peer review and it is a shame to waste people's time reviewing articles that are not actually being worked on.--Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 19:54, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hello Birgitte§β ʈ Talk, thank you for offering your input on my peer review request.  It took me awhile to write the article and I need a break right now from that subject.  I hope to return it with motivation at some point in the near future.  Good day. Octopus-Hands 00:39, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Peer review 

message: There is an error in this section.  It is claimed that using metal recovered from batteries consumes 75 percent less energy and 46 percent less energy than extracting it from primary sources.  Perhaps an unclear tag is called for.  Further, the source cited, a Recycling Council of Ontario web page does not have related information in any obvious location.--Fartherred (talk) 15:57, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  The section on "Rechargeable batteries" 

message: The article gives considerable prominence to reducing greenhouse gas emissions and to saving trees by saving paper.  It seems to me that these two goals are incompatible.  The destiny of paper pulp trees that are saved by not harvesting them for making paper is to burn in a forest fire emitting carbon dioxide or be rotted by fungi emitting carbon dioxide.  It is just a matter of time.  The destiny of paper pulp trees that are made into paper is to be sequestered in a landfill where they will never burn.  So, saving paper is counter productive to the greenhouse gas limiting goal.  I would not substitute my opinion without scholarly support for the unsupported goals of the article, but it seems that we should know who to blame for these inconsistent goals.  How were these goals arrived at?  Was there any accountability in producing these goals?--Fartherred (talk) 23:25, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  General goals 

message: The article might be very accurate of the strategy of sustainable development as deployed by the Canadian federal government but the title itself is misleading:
- It is not a "Sustainable Development Strategy" in Canada but a "Canadian Government Sustainable Development Strategy" which is quite different.  The first one should include sustainable development efforts made by Canadian NGOs, provincial governments, citizens, etc.
While the latter only represent the view of the Canadian government as what it considers itself to be an adequate "sustainable development".  The internationally accepted view of what actually is sustainable development runs quite in the opposite direction as the actual Canadian views on how the exploitation of natural resources should be done; 
The article as a whole looks more like an official page of the Canadian government.  In order for this article to be more objective, it should contain a "Criticism" section discussing about how this strategy is perceived in Canada by non-governmental stakeholders.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.205.240.73 (talk) 16:18, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Governmental bias