That is, they mimic or imitate the elegance of ecosystems in order to reach a higher level of resource-productivity. Vast possibilities exist, however, not only to imitate nature, but to actually integrate within it. The green economy should move like a sailboat in the wind of natural processes. This is true not only with renewable energy like solar and wind power, but also in the case of material resources and general patterns of production and consumption. An ecological economy must evolve in the direction of bioregionality, where economic and regulatory boundaries take the approximate boundaries of ecoregions. It is because of this essential character of the green economy in re-embedding economic activities within natural processes that spatial designand the builtenvironment generallyare so important. The late John T. Lyle (1994, p. 102) saw the green economys relationship to the landscape as its most crucial feature. Industrialism, he wrote, signalled a shift in key sources of productivity from the landscape (mainly in the form of agriculture) to machinery and centralized energy supply. By contrast, he argued, authentic postindustrialism would disperse productivity over the landscapein the form of eco-infrastructure, distributed generation of energy, urban agriculture, etc. This tendency toward decentralization of production and power is the third D of postindustrial green economics that goes hand-in-hand with dematerialization and detoxification. It is an intrinsic tendency of knowledge-based technological developmentas expressed in smaller more compact production systems (like steel minimills) and energy systems (fuel cells). But in industrial capitalism, it is limited by the systems basis in material accumulation and its resistance to an end-use approach. As