This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Note 40 is dead link
Please somebody fix Yoandri Dominguez Garcia 17:04, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
Comments of June 17 2018
Efficiency
efficiency is THE number one mitigation. this article completely misrepresented the IPCC & any ecological. i fixed it so delete this, i dont know. knowledge Yoandri Dominguez Garcia 16:12, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
Regarding California Goals
"Energy efficiency alone may not be sufficient to meet these goals, switching fuels used on the demand side will help lower carbon emissions." This is completely wrong not reflective of the source. Deep decarbonization works in the PRESENT. In other words, as the temperature rises & air conditioning is demanded more, solar & wind simply achieve nothing. Yoandri Dominguez Garcia 17:29, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
there is no heating demand in brazil. this is a mistake
"In areas like Norway, Brazil, and Quebec that have abundant hydroelectricity, electric heat and hot water are common." Yoandri Dominguez Garcia 17:32, 17 June 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yoandri Dominguez Garcia (talk • contribs)
Incorrect Cliche
"primarily social and political, not technological or economic". Actually that is wrong. Capitalism is the source of climate change, therefore in the short term, we have to forgo GDP growth whether voluntarily or involuntarily from disasters. Yoandri Dominguez Garcia 17:41, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
Regarding Capitalism
This article is fundamentally wrong because it ignores the non-measurable human indifference to the issue, much created by capitalism & profit margin motivation. For example, many resources are spent to market a product even if it remains unsold & unused. iPhones & electronic waste are examples. At the heart of this is indifference. The article hints at it with the quote about media & textbooks only encouraging small changes in lifestyle not substantial but the FUNDAMENTAL issue is MARKETING of products which WASTED. Another example, PLASTIC CONTAINERS & products, such as COCA COLA ET CETERA.
Textbooks themselves go thru endless versions etc. This needs to be strongly alluded to in the article, which is basics semiotics of overconsumption. Yoandri Dominguez Garcia 17:57, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
- You have the wrong article, and perhaps even the wrong project William M. Connolley (talk) 19:57, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
adding images
add this image https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Climate_change_mitigation_icon.png --Tommaso.sansone91 (talk) 08:26, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
- The image addition has been reverted as it appeared to be a personal invention with no source to suggest that it might be in use by any reputable organisation. Velella Velella Talk 16:14, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
decarbonizing pipeline gas through power to gas?
This does not sound right to me. Power to gas is a technology to store excess energy. I think it would not decarbonize the pipeline gas.Uralunlucayakli (talk) 16:02, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
- Hi Uralunlucayakli. I saw your question because this article is on my watchlist. Most likely, the concept is that you create electricity using solar or wind, then store the energy as methane, then put the methane into the natural gas pipeline. I don't know whether this process would be feasible enough to be worth mentioning in this article though. Cheers, Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 15:29, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
- Apparently you can use pure hydrogen in natural gas lines if you keep the concentration at around 10%. They do this in Hawaii. Potential source: https://www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2014/03/f11/blending_h2_nat_gas_pipeline.pdf - MrOllie (talk) 15:38, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
- Hello Uralunlucayakli. There are a few mentions of energy storage but I think this article needs more because of the relationship with solar and wind (I understand we need more than batteries for seasonal energy storage in UK for example to replace natural gas heating) and a lot more work generally. I saw you made some useful changes last month. If you have time to make more it would be great.Chidgk1 (talk) 17:44, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
This page needs to have more navigation and more direction. If someone we're to read this article, it would be easy for them to get lost as a lot of the information seems like it was copied, and pasted which makes it more redundant. A way to help this is by minimizing the categories and condensing the information to make it more understandable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Th1529 (talk • contribs)
- Hi @Th1529:. Just letting you know I moved your comment from the bottom of the article to the article Talk page. And I agree with you. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 05:03, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
- Hi @Th1529: You are absolutely right. But I don't have time to do it sorry. If you have time perhaps you could make a start or if unsure suggest here before making your changes.Chidgk1 (talk) 19:35, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
- Over the next few weeks I would like to update, restructure and shorten some parts. It will happen step by step, concentrating on the methods and means section, with some emphasis on the potential of renewable energy. The market situation has completely changed in the last 10 years. The older sources of the article do not reflect the rapid development. Storage and grids still remain a challenge though. I would also like to shorten parts of the lead and stabilisation section. Much of it is self-evident. Lengthy explanations about UNFCCC and Paris goals could be modified, too. They already appear in the main global warming article. Suggestions are welcome. Hedgehoque (talk) 23:08, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
A new structure is now online while most of the content remains untouched yet - it has just moved to other places. This is a major necessary step before editing and shortening in smaller steps can begin. I have added a few sentences about fossil fuel alternatives and removed a few pictures (solar cookers, activists) because the section was overloaded. Hedgehoque (talk) 15:22, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
New information about Territorial Policies (beginning with the European Union policy)
There are some important news about the the commitments of EU. But the article is very long (before there was even a reminder about this in the head of the page I do not know where he gone), So I think the more important (like the commitments in Paris agreement) and updated (like the target of zero emissions by 2050 in the 2019 UN Climate Action Summit information should be putted in the page and less important or more old putted in the subpages like Climate change in Europe. If there is new commitment different from the old probably the policy will go by the new. I will not delete information, only place it in the more detailed page. The same work will possibly be needed for other countries actions.
--אלכסנדר סעודה (talk) 08:03, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
New page "Territorial policies on Climate Change mitigation" is needed
There are 195 countries in the world better not to place all in 1 page. I will add the information about New Zealand, but in the next time I will need to add something I think I should create this page and add it there. If there is no objection.
--אלכסנדר סעודה (talk) 10:36, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
Revert
Hi @Velella: I see you think I should have used a more explanatory edit summary for archiving this talk page. I just wanted to ask what you think I should have said instead of Removed 22 threads to Talk:Climate_change_mitigation/Archive_3
? Just as an FYI: that's the automatic edit summary added by the user script at User:Σ/Testing facility/Archiver. Seagull123 Φ 19:57, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
Point readers to articles on climate change (mitigation) in Country X?
I am wondering how we could make the reader better aware that we now have those articles dealing with climate change at country level, see in this category. Most of those articles contain a section on mitigation and they should all have a section on greenhouse gas emissions. There are also some articles on "greenhouse gas emissions in Country X", see this category. I just wonder how best to point readers towards those. I can't put them in the "see also" list because they are categories, not list articles. EMsmile (talk) 13:22, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
- I've added it now in a new section heading "By country", just after "By sector". Is that OK? Have done the same for Climate change adaptation. I think it's useful so that people can jump straight to the country they are interested in. Over time, I hope that all the CCC articles (climate change by country) will become more and more detailed about mitigation and adaptation efforts. EMsmile (talk) 14:12, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
I think specifically pointing out the major countries of greenhouse gases emission is divergent from talking about climate change mitigation, and this might lead the readers to blame some large contributors. Xiaojing Hu (talk) 06:45, 25 April 2022 (UTC) Xiaojing Hu (talk) 01:51, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
I think by pointing out certain countries, the tone of the article might be changed, as readers would think why the editors are pointing out some countries, and query the editors if they are biased. Zeyuanfu1 (talk) 10:38, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
Climate change mitigation scenarios
@Efbrazil: You just reverted "Climate change mitigation scenarios cover a range from 1.5 °C (2.7 °F) warming with net negative emissions in the late 21th century to 4.8 °C (8.6 °F) warming without climate politics." with the comment "Has typo, plus net negative emissions are not necessary yet, rather it is the zeroing out emissions by 2050 that is important, plus 4.8 degrees is predicated on emissions tripling by 2080."
Good point about negative emissions. They are a part of the IPCC scenarios for 1.5°C but more recent studies like the one from LUT/EWG (just included) point out that an exponential developmemt of PV is the more likely option to reach the goals, rather than relying on BECCS or whatever. Would you be fine with the sentence without the negative emissions? Actually, I just wanted to build a connection to the scenarios article and tried to put in words what I find in the SVG [1] originally created by you. It implies that negative emissions are required for 1.5°C. Should we remove or modify it? Hedgehoque (talk) 18:40, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
- @Hedgehoque: Thanks for checking in on this. My issue is that we should be focusing on emissions going to zero vs tripling, since that is the key difference in high and low RCP scenarios. Negative emission are unproven and not remotely economical at present, and they are arguably a dangerous distraction from the key task at hand. So I'd suggest a sentence like this:
- Climate change mitigation scenarios from the IPCC Fifth Assessment Report cover a range from 1.5 °C (2.7 °F) of warming by 2090 if emissions can go to net zero by 2050, or 4.8 °C (8.6 °F) by 2090 if emissions continue upwards until they are triple current levels. Efbrazil (talk) 19:58, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
- If you wanted to go further and talk about mitigation technologies like solar and wind and carbon capture and so forth that makes sense, but I wouldn't frame the whole discussion in terms of one unproven technology. Efbrazil (talk) 19:58, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
- @Efbrazil: Thank you for the draft. You are welcome to edit - with two things in mind: In the original on Climate Action Tracker it is 2100. The figures on AR5 WG1 Ch12 p1100 refer to the span 2090-2099. "By the end of the 21st(!) century" could be the better wording. And I wonder if the "baseline" scenario by CAT ("no climate policies" in Ourworldindata) is a representation of RCP8.5. If so, it reads 4.1-5.6°C above pre-industrial in AR5 for me. But probably at CAT they do their own calculations, as the site seems to be regularly updated. Hedgehoque (talk) 21:53, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
Provide alternative term in first sentence?
From time to time I see people use the term "climate mitigation". I think it's a bit silly but perhaps it's here to stick? If so, should we add it to the first sentence (the redirect is already in place)?: "Climate change mitigation (or climate mitigation) consists of actions...". A colleague that I discussed this with wrote to me: ". If you google the two terms, you will find more hits for "climate change mitigation" than for "climate mitigation". But, the term "climate mitigation" is also used on the web by a number of respected institutions. Here are some examples:
- https://www.siwi.org/latest/why-water-is-crucial-to-climate-mitigation/
- https://www.wri.org/insights/5-strategies-achieve-climate-mitigation-and-adaptation-simultaneously
- https://www.giz.de/en/worldwide/28499.html
- https://www.imf.org/en/Publications/Departmental-Papers-Policy-Papers/Issues/2020/09/16/EU-Climate-Mitigation-Policy-49639
- https://www.bmwi.de/Redaktion/EN/Publikationen/technologies-and-services-for-climate-mitigation-and-adaptation-from-germany.pdf?__blob=publicationFile&v=2" EMsmile (talk) 13:34, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
- And the same for "climate adaptation" where the same colleague wrote to me: "The use of the term "Climate Adaptation" seem even less problematic to me. If you google it, you will find more hits for "climate adaptation" than for "climate change adaptation". Climate adaptation is for example used on the following web pages:
- https://climate-adapt.eea.europa.eu/
- https://www.unep.org/explore-topics/climate-action/what-we-do/climate-adaptation
- https://www.wri.org/insights/key-points-climate-adaptation-new-ipcc-report
- https://www.cas2021.com/ EMsmile (talk) 13:34, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
Improvements needed
Hello Shoefly
While you are certainly right that the article needs a lot of improvement I doubt Wikipedia:WikiProject Council would be able to find anyone more expert than you to fix the low quality structure. Hope you might have time to fix it. If you have any questions which need a subject expert please ask as there are plenty at Wikipedia:WikiProject Climate change. Also EMsmile is experienced with fixing structure if you want a second opinion before making changes.
Not quite sure what you mean by "fact-opinion mixture". If you are saying there are opinions not backed up by cites please could you tag the sentences with "citation needed" or "original research" or "opinion". For the sections you tagged "opinion" I am not quite sure which sentence(s) you are referring to - could you move the tags?
By "overloaded ambition and content" do you mean that some info should be in more detailed articles rather than here?
Re writing style we should maybe send it to the guild of copy editors once the other problems are fixed.
Chidgk1 (talk) 18:27, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
Carbon dioxide is one of the greenhouse gases, so the first sentence on second paragraph needs improvement. Xiaojing Hu (talk) 06:45, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
- I agree. Instead of "Fossil fuels emit most carbon dioxide(CO2) and greenhouse gas as a whole.", it should be changed to "Fossil fuels emit most greenhouse gas as a whole, such as carbon dioxide(CO2). Zeyuanfu1 (talk) 05:57, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
Wiki Education assignment: Disrupting the Status Quo- Social Justice in Technical and Professional Com
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 18 January 2022 and 2 May 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Sylvia.Noralez.
Structure of the article and updating with IPCC AR6 WG3 report
Hello Sylvia.Noralez,
I was about to add a sentence or 2 from https://report.ipcc.ch/ar6wg3/pdf/IPCC_AR6_WGIII_FinalDraft_TechnicalSummary.pdf about pathways and got as far as a new section heading when I noticed your assignment above and decided to leave it to you if you wish. Your timing is very good with the report from https://report.ipcc.ch/ar6wg3/ just come out. As this is a big subject if you need any advice, for example about the structure of the article please ask here or at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Climate change But if only pages 120 and 121 of the tech summary above are relevant to your course you may decide to leave pathways to someone else and dig deeper into the full report for more detail on "Policies that increase the political access and participation of women, racialised, and marginalised groups, increase the democratic impetus for climate action". Hope you enjoy your course.
Chidgk1 (talk) 07:12, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
Wiki Education assignment: Introduction to Policy Analysis
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 28 March 2022 and 30 May 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Jime7878, ENPEREZ90, Xiaojing Hu. Peer reviewers: Xiaojing Hu, Zeyuanfu1.
Incorrect linkage
1. Under Fossil fuel substitution, The word Secured contains an incorrect link which takes you to a law enforcement wiki media page. I will be removing the incorrect link. ENPEREZ90 (talk) 22:38, 20 April 2022 (UTC) PEREZUCSD (talk) 15:34, 20 April 2022 (UTC). ENPEREZ90 (talk) 22:38, 20 April 2022 (UTC) Bergmanucsd (talk) 15:34, 20 April 2022 (UTC).
2. Replacing incorrect linkage. The current link reverts to the industrial revolution and not the pre-industrial era like the article mentions. ENPEREZ90 (talk) 23:15, 20 April 2022 (UTC) PEREZUCSD (talk) 16:14, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
Up to date findings.
Under the climate Change by country, in terms of the United States, The paragraph requires updates due to the fact that the Global warming solutions act of 2006 was again extended and strengthened for another decade in 2016. The state of California has raised its goal for green house emissions to 40% below 1990 level by 2030. ENPEREZ90 (talk) 23:36, 20 April 2022 (UTC) PEREZUCSD (talk) 16:36, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
Removed Further reading section
I've removed the further reading section as I think it's not useful to have an arbitrary listing here on a topic that changes so fast. Also, the books tend to be focused on the U.S. and Europe. If they're important they should be used for inline citations instead.
- Paul Hawken (2021). Regeneration: Ending the Climate Crisis in One Generation. Penguin Books.
- National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (2019) Negative Emissions Technologies and Reliable Sequestration: A Research Agenda.
- E McGaughey, M Lawrence and Common Wealth, 'The Green Recovery Act 2020', a proposed United Kingdom law, and pdf
- Bernie Sanders, Green New Deal (2019) proposal in the United States
- Green New Deal for Europe (2019) Edition II, foreword by Ann Pettifor and Bill McKibben EMsmile (talk) 10:20, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
- Specifically describing different greenhouse gases seems to be unnecessary in the topic of mitigation. It could be eliminate to only CO2 since this is the main greenhouse gases contribute to climate change. Xiaojing Hu (talk) 06:45, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
Neutrality in sentence
Under the "Energy conservation and efficiency" heading you talk about how,"improved energy efficiency could reduce the world's energy needs in 2050 by one third, and help control global emissions of greenhouse gases". I think that claims like this make the article seem bias towards the subject. The article should remain at a neutral state. J2ortiz (talk) 06:59, 26 April 2022 (UTC) J2ortiz
- I don't understand what you mean. This sentence seems perfectly valid to me: "improved energy efficiency could reduce the world's energy needs in 2050 by one third, and help control global emissions of greenhouse gases" EMsmile (talk) 10:58, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
How to shorten the article
I see there is a comment at the top of the article that it is too long. Sorry I don't have time but ways to shorten it could include:
Move some stuff to Climate change mitigation scenarios which is very short.
Move stuff to the main articles.
Delete all old stuff e.g. pre-2010.
Summarise, summarise, summarise.
- I have just moved this unsigned and undated comment to the end of the talk page because I wanted to say the same thing: This article is very long (93 kB (14561 words) "readable prose size"). Is there any appetite to work collaboratively on shortening it? E.g. I would look for content that could be moved to sub-articles. EMsmile (talk) 10:57, 1 June 2022 (UTC)