http://www.co-operative.coop/corporate/Press/Press-releases/CFS/Co-operative-Financial-Services-named-worlds-most-sustainable-bank/

Something is either sustainable or it's not.
How can it be the most sustainable ?
That's like being the most unique or most permanent.

Well it's better than being least sustainable.
Bit like being in the the top third of a race at 51st of 53 isn't it?

Something can be sustainable for a period of time, can it not? My control over my bladder when I wake in the morning is sustainable for about an hour before the python must be syphoned and I must rise and face the challenges of day. It's the same for banking. Only it's not, as a bank is not a bladder with finite capacity for the job in question. Rather, the bank's modus operandi of investing in things that will not likely deplete finite resources and/or lead to a decline in environmental or people's living standards is what makes it sustainable.

could be sustained for the longest, perhaps

or sustainable in the greatest number of aspects maybe, assuming banking is a complicated business with a varied range of impacts and consequences.

They print your account statements on fair trade rice cakes.

Probably.

"They print your account statements on fair trade rice cakes.

Probably."

HSBC print your statements on the flayed hides of third world children.

Probably.

I imagine they are the closest to being sustainable, which isnt the same thing I know.

I bank with smile their internet bank and they are very good.

"Bit like being in the the top third of a race at 51st of 53 isn't it?"

See what I mean about people responding to what they would like to imagine I said ?
I regularly cycle to work. I regularly eat at least three meals a day.
Citing isolated instances where I didn't doesn't disprove my claims.
Anyway, I could have won the race, but I was offered £150 000 by a shady far Eastern gambling syndicate to lose.
150 grand buys a lot of pies.

Back on topic, maybe it's just the way the English language is changing.
"Sustainable " no longer means sustainable, it seems to mean "A bit less unsustainable than the alternatives".
Drive a car that does 20mpg and you are personally responsible for drowning Polar Bears.
Drive a car that does 50mpg and we all live happily ever after.

Preumably 'most sustainable' is just another way of saying 'most ethical'?

"Sustainable " no longer means sustainable, it seems to mean "A bit less unsustainable than the alternatives".

Yes.

However a lot of CO2 (for example) is absorbed by the oceans and forests and whatnot. We could still emit plenty of CO2 from fossil fuels and the like, but if it was under the amount absorbed by the various sinks, it would be sustainable.

So if we approach this threshold, the closer to sustainability we will get. So a 50mpg car might not save the world, but a 500mpg car might, despite not having a car at all being preferable.

"…50mpg car might not save the world, but a 500mpg car might…"
I get your point, but I'm not convinced.
Either way, all the carbon that is currently under the ground as hydrocarbons ends up in the atmosphere as CO2. It's just the timescale that differs.

There was a newspaper article a while ago about how the local tip would be full within 9 years.
Reducing household waste to 10% of its current level was put forward as the only solution.
Postponing a problem for 81 years doesn't sound like a solution to me.

Either way, all the carbon that is currently under the ground as hydrocarbons ends up in the atmosphere as CO2. It's just the timescale that differs

Yeah but some of it goes back into the ground, and the oceans can store a crapload of the stuff on the ocean floor. There is a carbon cycle, including natural sequestration as well as natural and man-made emissions.

All we have to do is make sure the rate of emissions is less or equal to the rate of absorption and bingo – problem solved.