Talk:Climate change mitigation: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 11:35, 29 December 2005

Latest revision as of 04:50, 1 June 2025

Line 1:

{{climatetalk changeheader}}

{{Contentious topics/talk notice|cc}}

{{afd-merged-from|Climate action|Climate action|18 February 2016}}

{{WikiProject banner shell|class=C|vital=yes|1=

{{WikiProject Environment|importance=High}}

{{WikiProject Climate change|importance=Top}}

{{WikiProject International relations|importance=High}}

{{WikiProject Geology|importance=Low}}

{{WikiProject Soil|importance=Mid}}

{{WikiProject Politics|importance=High}}

{{WikiProject Science Policy|importance=High}}

{{WikiProject Energy|importance=High}}

{{WikiProject Weather |importance=High |climate-task-force=yes}}

}}

{{annual readership}}

{{section sizes}}

{{British English}}

{{User:MiszaBot/config

|maxarchivesize = 475K

|counter = 4

|minthreadsleft = 5

|algo = old(180d)

|archive = Talk:Climate change mitigation/Archive %(counter)d

}}

{{Broken anchors|links=

* <nowiki>[[Energy transition#Metal and mineral extraction|mining for metals and minerals]]</nowiki> The anchor (#Metal and mineral extraction) has been [[Special:Diff/1147487268|deleted by other users]] before. <!-- {"title":"Metal and mineral extraction","appear":{"revid":1121931253,"parentid":1121055170,"timestamp":"2022-11-14T22:50:47Z","removed_section_titles":["Mineral extraction","CITEREFCalma2021"],"added_section_titles":["Metal and mineral extraction","CITEREF2021"]},"disappear":{"revid":1147487268,"parentid":1147487131,"timestamp":"2023-03-31T08:19:56Z","removed_section_titles":["Metal and mineral extraction","CITEREF2021","CITEREFAli2020"],"added_section_titles":[]}} -->

}}

== Merged [[Co-benefits of climate change mitigation]] ==

== Mitigation/adaption ==

I've just carried out the merger from [[Co-benefits of climate change mitigation]]. This has made the section on co-benefits a bit too long probably. I've already looked for ways of condensing. Please help with condensing this further (if you think it ought to be condensed). We are actually so lucky that CC mitigation has so many co-benefits. Imagine if it didn't, how much harder it would then be to push it through... [[User:EMsmile|EMsmile]] ([[User talk:EMsmile|talk]]) 08:33, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

There is a fairly clear distinction between mitigation (ie, reducing CO2) and adaption (ie, how to live with warming). Probably the two concepts should be split into two articles. After all, the IPCC produed two separate reports (http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg3/004.htm and http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg2/006.htm). [[User:William M. Connolley|William M. Connolley]] 2005-07-07 18:53:03 (UTC).

: I had intended to wait until adaptation was more developed, but splitting the article sooner may encourage that, and also help the structure here. [[User:Rd232|Rd232]] 7 July 2005 22:17 (UTC)

== How do we feel about overall length? More culling? ==

== G8 statement on global warming ==

The overall length of the article is still on the long side: 60 kB (9271 words) "readable prose size".

WMC, where would this link be best put on Wikipedia? [http://www.cnn.com/2005/TECH/science/07/08/g8.climate.reut/index.html G8 statement on climate change, July 9, 2005] in Current Events, perhaps? I only know enough to know that the ___location of the link in / on Wikipedia carries connotations which raise defensive postures in some editors. [[User:Ancheta Wis|Ancheta Wis]] 22:23, 9 July 2005 (UTC)

What do folks suggest regarding options for condensing and culling. Does anything jump at you that can be condensed or even taken out? - Or do we argue that 60 kB is not too long for this kind of article. For comparison, the [[climate change]] article is 54 kB. [[User:EMsmile|EMsmile]] ([[User talk:EMsmile|talk]]) 11:42, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

: Personally, I think its just about worthless (the statement, not the link!) http://mustelid.blogspot.com/2005/07/reading-runes-part-iii-g8-statement.html. It would probably belong in the proposed new [[politics of global warming]], but that doesn't exist yet. Perhaps under [[Kyoto protocol]]? [[User:William M. Connolley|William M. Connolley]] 22:28:26, 2005-07-09 (UTC).

:Personally as this is such a high level subject I would prefer more excerpts but only if the excerpted articles were rated good. So in practice that probably is not going to happen any time soon. [[User:Chidgk1|Chidgk1]] ([[User talk:Chidgk1|talk]]) 17:13, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

== Isn't the 400ppm goal flawed and obsolete? ==

:: General comment: I'm very wary of excerpting, since they often bring unintended and nonobvious consequences in unspecified locations. —<span style="font-family:Times New Roman;font-size:100%;color:dark blue;background-color:transparent;;">[[User:RCraig09|RCraig09]] ([[User talk:RCraig09|talk]])</span> 19:49, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

::: There's always room for updating and conciseness. I think that as public consciousness—along with related political controversy—continues to grow, mitigation will rise in importance, bringing an even greater need for updating and conciseness. As [[Effects of climate change]] has been promoted to Good Article status, the present article might be high on the community's to-do list. —<span style="font-family:Times New Roman;font-size:100%;color:dark blue;background-color:transparent;;">[[User:RCraig09|RCraig09]] ([[User talk:RCraig09|talk]])</span> 19:46, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

Given the age of the Kyoto negotiations, hasn't the 400ppm assumption been invalidated by the climate commitment studies published since the TAR, including that study published the year of the TAR? If the 400pm was without including climate commitment, then 400ppm will result in the 2C goal being significantly exceeded. Was the 2C from the low end or the high end of the predictions, i.e., how conservative is it, what are the error bars?--[[User:Silverback|Silverback]] 11:22, September 5, 2005 (UTC)

: What is the 400ppm assumption to which you refer? Who is assuming what? ([[User:SEWilco|SEWilco]] 15:13, 5 September 2005 (UTC))

::preventing CO2 concentrations from exceeding 400ppm is assumed to keep the warming to 2C or less. Search on 400ppm in the article.--[[User:Silverback|Silverback]] 15:15, September 5, 2005 (UTC)

::: Since the commitment was known at the time of the TAR, this is an odd question. [[User:William M. Connolley|William M. Connolley]] 20:33:06, 2005-09-05 (UTC).

::::The size of the commitment wasn't known and the models didn't account for it, since papers were able to get published on that value later.--[[User:Silverback|Silverback]] 20:53, September 5, 2005 (UTC)

:::: Agreed. I think condensing is needed but am unsure which sections in particular need to be condensed, given [[WP:DUE]] considerations. And it would be great if the wider Wikipedia editing community took an interest. We have come a long way with this article. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Climate_change_mitigation&oldid=1099572321 The version from one year ago] was quite shocking! 101 kB long and rambling and all over the place, impossible to read and understand. I think we should roughly aim for no longer than 50 kB (which means culling by about 15% compared to the current length).

:::: Looking at the section sizes (see link at the top of the talk page), I have the following suggestions:

# The section "Preserving and enhancing carbon sinks" has perhaps become a bit too long (perhaps we should rely more on the sub-article [[carbon sequestration]] to provide people with details).

# Also "mitigation by sector" is probably too long (given that this is covered anyway at [[greenhouse gas emissions]]

# Is the section "policies" too long and detailed, given the myriad of sub-articles on this topic?

# Maybe we should drop the entire "example by country" section? Then again, US, China and EU are probably the three most important players (?). The section on the US is anyway only an excerpt, so it doesn't add to the overall word count. Still, perhaps remove all three examples? [[User:EMsmile|EMsmile]] ([[User talk:EMsmile|talk]]) 07:57, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

::::: I came back to this one year later and the article has become even longer in the meantime, currently at 63 kB! I think it would be good to get it down to say 58 kB. I had a look at the "section sizes" table at the top of the talk page to see which sections stood out as being overly long. I then condensed the content in:

:::::* Health and wellbeing

:::::* ‎Integrating variable renewable energy

:::::* National policies

:::::* Soils

::::: What do you all think? I think it would make this article more useful for our readers if we looked carefully for paragraphs with excessive detail and moved those to sub-articles. Also we need to ensure that the overall balance and [[WP:DUE]] is just right. [[User:EMsmile|EMsmile]] ([[User talk:EMsmile|talk]]) 14:30, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

=="Effectively inevitable"?==

That doesn't make any sense. Something is either inevitable or it isn't. If it is only "effectively inevitable", that's saying that it is isn't inevitable at all but just "probable" or "likely". It is one of those phrases like "virtually certain" that actually means the opposite of what it purports to mean. --[[User:SpinyNorman|SpinyNorman]] 19:46, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

:Hi [[User:Xuhang1204]], I've removed this recently added content of yours, because I regard this as excessive detail for a high level article that is already overly long. Look for another article to inculde it in, e.g. greenhouse gas emissions or the one on AI maybe?:

Okay. I changed it to "inevitable". It was just weaselling, trying to counter the inevitable profossil argument that you can't say it's inevitable because we might invent some superduper coal that actually removes carbon from the atmosphere. But what it means to say is that 2C is going to happen no matter what, not that it might happen in some unlikely future. "Virtually certain" is an idiom, Spiny, clearly understood by English speakers. One says that a cricket team nine wickets down in their second innings, requiring 600 to win, on the morning of the fourth day is virtually certain to lose because unless something truly extraordinary happens, they will lose. But there's always the tiny possibility that God hates Hampshire enough to send a tornado. -- Grace Note.

:"AI-driven optimization and predictive maintenance in industrial processes are emerging as key strategies to enhance energy efficiency and reduce emissions, particularly in energy-intensive sectors like steel and cement.<ref>{{Cite journal |last=Akomea-Frimpong |first=Isaac |last2=Dzagli |first2=Jacinta Rejoice Ama Delali |last3=Eluerkeh |first3=Kenneth |last4=Bonsu |first4=Franklina Boakyewaa |last5=Opoku-Brafi |first5=Sabastina |last6=Gyimah |first6=Samuel |last7=Asuming |first7=Nana Ama Sika |last8=Atibila |first8=David Wireko |last9=Kukah |first9=Augustine Senanu |date=2023-12-25 |title=A systematic review of artificial intelligence in managing climate risks of PPP infrastructure projects |url=https://www.emerald.com/insight/content/doi/10.1108/ECAM-01-2023-0016/full/html |journal=Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management |language=en |doi=10.1108/ECAM-01-2023-0016 |issn=0969-9988}}</ref>" [[User:EMsmile|EMsmile]] ([[User talk:EMsmile|talk]]) 12:30, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

:{{reflist-talk}} [[User:EMsmile|EMsmile]] ([[User talk:EMsmile|talk]]) 12:30, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

== CostImage ofcut extremefrom storms grapharticle ==

I removed this image as it's extremely hard to read. [[File:2022 Worldwide GHG Emissions (per capita; by region; growth).png |thumb|2022 Worldwide GHG emissions (per capita, by region, growth). Vertical scale shows emissions per person, and areas of rectangles indicate total emissions for countries. Though China has larger emissions, the U.S. has more emissions per person. |alt=Variable-width bar chart showing regional per capita emissions; per person emissions are around twice as high in the US compared to China, and seven times as high compared to India.]] [[User:Clayoquot|Clayoquot]] ([[User_talk:Clayoquot|talk]] <nowiki>&#124;</nowiki> [[Special:Contributions/Clayoquot|contribs]]) 21:59, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

[[Image:Extreme-weather-cost.gif|thumb|right|250px|The cost of extreme weather is rising rapidly and could reach 350 billion 2001 U.S. dollars '''per year''' by 2025. [http://www.ipcc.ch/present/graphics/2001syr/small/08.17.jpg source data: IPCC, 2001]. Some of the cost increase is due to added exposure such as building on the coast.]]

== Content on degrowth for the section on demand reduction? ==

[[User:William M. Connolley|William M. Connolley]] removed this graph from the "Encouraging technology and use changes" section because he believes that it implies incorrect information about the cause of the trend. I believe the graph has substantial merit, has a NPOV, is not original research, and does not imply anything about the relative proportion of the causes of the variation. I am asking third party climate bloggers to independently comment on it and will report the results back to [[Talk:Global_warming#Image:Cost-of-storms-by-decade.gif|the graph's primary comment thread]]. I intend to replace the graph here after their review, unless any significant issues are raised. --[[User:Nrcprm2026|James P. S.]] 02:32, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

There is a discussion on the talk page of [[economics of climate change mitigation]] whether this text block, called "degrowth", should be moved back to here where it once was before I moved it to the sub-article. It could perhaps fit under the section of "demand reduction" but it sounds somehow wordy/academic to me, and it might overlap with existing content. I have no clear opinion on this, other to say that the article [[climate change mitigation]] is on the long side already. It's 64 kB and we put a lot of effort into shrinking it down to this size. This is the text block in question:

I am asking third party climate bloggers to independently comment on it and will report the comments back to [[Talk:Global_warming#Image:Cost-of-storms-by-decade.gif]]. I intend to replace the graph here after their review, unless any significant issues are raised. [[User:Nrcprm2026|James P. S.]] 22:17, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

+++++++

One expert nominated by Connolley has already called the extrapolation reasonable, not implying the cause of the variation, NPOV, and only technically borderline OR. Therefore, I'm replacing it here and on effects pending outcome at [http://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=14593249&postID=113450951520354245 Climate Change Action] and [[Talk:Global_warming#Image:Cost-of-storms-by-decade.gif]]. --[[User:Nrcprm2026|<small><b>James S.</b></small>]] 18:46, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

'''Degrowth'''

There is a debate about a potentially critical need for new ways of economic accounting, including directly monitoring and [[Value (economics)|quantifying]] positive real-world environmental effects such as air quality improvements and related unprofitable [[Work (human activity)|work]] like forest protection, alongside far-reaching structural changes of lifestyles<ref>{{cite journal |author1=Thomas Wiedmann |author2=Manfred Lenzen |author3=Lorenz T. Keyßer |author4=[[Julia Steinberger]] |date=19 June 2020 |title=Scientists' warning on affluence |journal=Nature Communications |volume=11 |issue=1 |page=3107 |bibcode=2020NatCo..11.3107W |doi=10.1038/s41467-020-16941-y |pmc=7305220 |pmid=32561753 |doi-access=free}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |title=Why GDP is no longer the most effective measure of economic success |url=https://www.worldfinance.com/strategy/why-gdp-is-no-longer-the-most-effective-measure-of-economic-success |access-date=17 September 2020 |website=www.worldfinance.com}}</ref> as well as acknowledging and moving beyond the limits of current economics such as GDP.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Kapoor |first1=Amit |last2=Debroy |first2=Bibek |author-link2=Bibek Debroy |date=4 October 2019 |title=GDP Is Not a Measure of Human Well-Being |url=https://hbr.org/2019/10/gdp-is-not-a-measure-of-human-well-being |journal=Harvard Business Review |access-date=20 September 2020}}</ref> Some argue that for effective climate change mitigation [[degrowth]] has to occur, while some argue that [[eco-economic decoupling]] could limit climate change enough while continuing high rates of traditional GDP growth.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Hickel |first1=Jason |last2=Hallegatte |first2=Stéphane |year=2021 |title=Can we live within environmental limits and still reduce poverty? Degrowth or decoupling? |journal=Development Policy Review |language=en |volume=40 |doi=10.1111/dpr.12584 |issn=1467-7679 |s2cid=239636388|doi-access=free }}</ref><ref>{{cite news |last1=Landler |first1=Mark |last2=Sengupta |first2=Somini |date=21 January 2020 |title=Trump and the Teenager: A Climate Showdown at Davos |newspaper=The New York Times |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/21/climate/greta-thunberg-trump-davos.html |access-date=20 September 2020}}</ref> There is also research and debate about requirements of how [[economic system]]s could be transformed for [[sustainability]] – such as how their jobs could transition harmonously into [[green job]]s – a [[just transition]] – and how relevant sectors of the economy – like the [[renewable energy industry]] and the [[bioeconomy]] – could be adequately supported.<ref>{{cite web |title=Skills for Green Jobs: A Global View |url=http://www.oit.org/wcmsp5/groups/public/---dgreports/---dcomm/---publ/documents/article/wcms_165282.pdf |access-date=8 November 2021}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal |last1=van der Ree |first1=Kees |date=1 June 2019 |title=Promoting Green Jobs: Decent Work in the Transition to Low-Carbon, Green Economies |journal=International Development Policy {{!}} Revue internationale de politique de développement |language=en |issue=11 |pages=248–271 |doi=10.4000/poldev.3107 |issn=1663-9375 |s2cid=197784487|doi-access=free }}</ref>

Also, I am replacing the graph because the person who pulled the graph from its original ___location at [[Global warming]] has been engaging in selective x-axis reversal. Please see [[User_talk:Dragons_flight/Images]]. --[[User:Nrcprm2026|<small><b>James S.</b></small>]] 20:23, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

While degrowth is often believed to be associated with decreased [[living standard]]s and [[austerity]] measures, many of its proponents seek to expand universal public goods<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Hickel|first1=Jason|author-link1=Jason Hickel|last2=Kallis|first2=Giorgos|author-link2=Giorgos Kallis|last3=Jackson|first3=Tim|author-link3=Tim Jackson (economist)|last4=O'Neill|first4=Daniel W.|last5=Schor|first5=Juliet B.|author-link5=Juliet Schor|last6=Steinberger|first6=Julia K.|author-link6=Julia Steinberger|display-authors=etal.|date=December 12, 2022|title=Degrowth can work — here's how science can help|url= |journal=[[Nature (journal)|Nature]]|volume=612|issue=7940|pages=400–403|doi=10.1038/d41586-022-04412-x|pmid=36510013 |bibcode=2022Natur.612..400H |s2cid=254614532 |access-date=|quote=Researchers in ecological economics call for a different approach — degrowth. Wealthy economies should abandon growth of gross domestic product (GDP) as a goal, scale down destructive and unnecessary forms of production to reduce energy and material use, and focus economic activity around securing human needs and well-being.|doi-access=free}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |url=https://monthlyreview.org/2023/07/01/planned-degrowth/|title=Planned Degrowth: Ecosocialism and Sustainable Human Development|last=Foster|first=John Bellamy|author-link=John Bellamy Foster|date=July 1, 2023 |website=[[Monthly Review]] |publisher= |access-date=August 24, 2023 |quote=Degrowth, in this sense, is not aimed at austerity, but at finding a "prosperous way down" from our current extractivist, wasteful, ecologically unsustainable, maldeveloped, exploitative, and unequal, class-hierarchical world. Continued growth would occur in some areas of the economy, made possible by reductions elsewhere. Spending on fossil fuels, armaments, private jets, sport utility vehicles, second homes, and advertising would need to be cut in order to provide room for growth in such areas as regenerative agriculture, food production, decent housing, clean energy, accessible health care, universal education, community welfare, public transportation, digital connectivity, and other areas related to green production and social needs.}}</ref> (such as public transport), increase health<ref name="10.1057/s41285-017-0032-7">{{cite journal |last1=Borowy |first1=Iris |last2=Aillon |first2=Jean-Louis |date=1 August 2017 |title=Sustainable health and degrowth: Health, health care and society beyond the growth paradigm |journal=Social Theory & Health |language=en |volume=15 |issue=3 |pages=346–368 |doi=10.1057/s41285-017-0032-7 |issn=1477-822X |s2cid=152144759}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |last1=Aillon |first1=J. |last2=Cardito |first2=M. |date=2020 |title=Health and Degrowth in times of Pandemic |url=https://www.ojs.unito.it/index.php/visions/issue/download/495/Visions%20for%20Sustainability%20%2314%20-%20Full%20Issue#page=3 |language=en}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal |last1=Missoni |first1=Eduardo |author-link1=Eduardo Missoni |date=1 July 2015 |title=Degrowth and health: local action should be linked to global policies and governance for health |url=https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11625-015-0300-1 |journal=Sustainability Science |language=en |volume=10 |issue=3 |pages=439–450 |doi=10.1007/s11625-015-0300-1 |bibcode=2015SuSc...10..439M |issn=1862-4057 |quote=Volume and increase of spending in the health sector contribute to economic growth, but do not consistently relate with better health. Instead, unsatisfactory health trends, health systems' inefficiencies, and high costs are linked to the globalization of a growth society dominated by neoliberal economic ideas and policies of privatization, deregulation, and liberalization. A degrowth approach, understood as frame that connects diverse ideas, concepts, and proposals alternative to growth as a societal objective, can contribute to better health and a more efficient use of health systems. |s2cid=55806403}}</ref> (fitness, wellbeing<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Büchs |first1=Milena |last2=Koch |first2=Max |date=1 January 2019 |title=Challenges for the degrowth transition: The debate about wellbeing |journal=Futures |language=en |volume=105 |pages=155–165 |doi=10.1016/j.futures.2018.09.002 |issn=0016-3287 |quote=The first part reviews the arguments that degrowth proponents have put forward on the ways in which degrowth can maintain or even improve wellbeing. It also outlines why the basic needs approach is most suitable for conceptualising wellbeing in a degrowth context. The second part considers additional challenges to maintaining or even improving current levels of wellbeing under degrowth |s2cid=149731503|doi-access=free }}</ref> and freedom from diseases) and increase various forms of, often unconventional commons-oriented,<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Kostakis |first1=Vasilis |last2=Latoufis |first2=Kostas |last3=Liarokapis |first3=Minas |last4=Bauwens |first4=Michel |date=1 October 2018 |title=The convergence of digital commons with local manufacturing from a degrowth perspective: Two illustrative cases |journal=Journal of Cleaner Production |language=en |volume=197 |pages=1684–1693 |doi=10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.09.077 |bibcode=2018JCPro.197.1684K |issn=0959-6526 |quote=A large part of the activity taking place under the CBPP umbrella presents a lot of similarities with the degrowth concept of unpaid work and decommodification (Nierling, 2012). The majority of "peers" engaged in commons-oriented projects are motivated by passion, communication, learning and enrichment (Benkler, 2006, 2011). Kostakis et al. (2015, 2016) have only theoretically and conceptually explored the contours of an emerging productive model that builds on the convergence of the digital commons of knowledge, software and design with local manufacturing technologies. They tentatively call it "design global, manufacture local" |s2cid=43975556}}</ref> labor. To this end, the application of both advanced technologies and reductions in various demands, including via overall reduced labor time<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Scarrow |first1=Ryan |date=April 2018 |title=Work and degrowth |journal=Nature Sustainability |language=en |volume=1 |issue=4 |pages=159 |doi=10.1038/s41893-018-0057-5 |bibcode=2018NatSu...1..159S |issn=2398-9629 |s2cid=149576398}}</ref> or sufficiency-oriented strategies,<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Haberl |first1=Helmut |last2=Wiedenhofer |first2=Dominik |last3=Virág |first3=Doris |last4=Kalt |first4=Gerald |last5=Plank |first5=Barbara |last6=Brockway |first6=Paul |last7=Fishman |first7=Tomer |last8=Hausknost |first8=Daniel |last9=Krausmann |first9=Fridolin |last10=Leon-Gruchalski |first10=Bartholomäus |last11=Mayer |first11=Andreas |last12=Pichler |first12=Melanie |last13=Schaffartzik |first13=Anke |last14=Sousa |first14=Tânia |last15=Streeck |first15=Jan |date=10 June 2020 |title=A systematic review of the evidence on decoupling of GDP, resource use and GHG emissions, part II: synthesizing the insights |journal=Environmental Research Letters |language=en |volume=15 |issue=6 |pages=065003 |bibcode=2020ERL....15f5003H |doi=10.1088/1748-9326/ab842a |issn=1748-9326 |last16=Creutzig |first16=Felix |author16-link=Felix Creutzig |s2cid=216453887|doi-access=free }}</ref> are considered to be important by some.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Hickel |first1=Jason|author-link1=Jason Hickel|date=3 October 2021 |title=What does degrowth mean? A few points of clarification |journal=Globalizations |volume=18 |issue=7 |pages=1105–1111 |doi=10.1080/14747731.2020.1812222 |issn=1474-7731 |s2cid=221800076|doi-access=free |bibcode=2021Glob...18.1105H }}</ref><ref name="10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2020.102168">{{cite journal |last1=Millward-Hopkins |first1=Joel |last2=Steinberger |first2=Julia K. |last3=Rao |first3=Narasimha D. |last4=Oswald |first4=Yannick |date=1 November 2020 |title=Providing decent living with minimum energy: A global scenario |journal=Global Environmental Change |language=en |volume=65 |pages=102168 |doi=10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2020.102168 |issn=0959-3780 |s2cid=224977493|doi-access=free |bibcode=2020GEC....6502168M }}</ref>

:That was no reason to add a questioned graph. Whatever you are implying by ''...selective x-axis reversal''. Also note I suffered a strange blanking error with the last edit, don't really know what happened there. Sorry 'bout that. [[User:Vsmith|Vsmith]] 22:00, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

+++++++

Note also my proposal on the talk page of [[economics of climate change mitigation]] to delete outdated content and to merge the rest into [[climate change mitigation]]. The [https://pageviews.wmcloud.org/?project=en.wikipedia.org&platform=all-access&agent=user&redirects=0&range=all-time&pages=Economics_of_climate_change_mitigation pageviews] of [[economics of climate change mitigation]] are very low (about 20 per day), and the recent engagement of editors with that article is also very low, which has led to a lot of outdated content (a lot of that outdated content I've already deleted last week). [[User:EMsmile|EMsmile]] ([[User talk:EMsmile|talk]]) 09:22, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

:: I did not suggest any reviewers. I said that if the graph had been published by a reputable blog, that would affect its status. Please be more careful how you report my words. [[User:William M. Connolley|William M. Connolley]] 22:10, 28 December 2005 (UTC).

{{reflist-talk}} [[User:EMsmile|EMsmile]] ([[User talk:EMsmile|talk]]) 09:22, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

::: You did indeed specifically suggest RealClimate, and you seconded the statement that the extrapolation is reasonable, doesn't imply anything about the cause, is NPOV, and only technically borderline OR. Exactly how are you insinuating that I misrepresented your position?

== Merge [[Decarbonization pathway]] into this article? ==

::: Replacing. &mdash;[[User:Nrcprm2026|<i>James S.</i>]] 00:40, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

I have proposed this merge at [[Talk:Decarbonization pathway]]. I would love to hear your views on my proposal. -- <b>[[User:Y|Y]]&nbsp;[[User_talk:Y|not?]]</b> 12:06, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

== Wind power direct mitigation ==

I am reverting the edits of the person who suggested that solar energy might remove energy directly from the atmosphere; only to the extent that it reduces albedo. Clarified.

I have also removed the example about mining; electric mining equipment exists and is commonly used in mines where gas fire hazard presents a risk. Therefore, there is no reason that mining must create greenhouse gases. --[[User:Nrcprm2026|<small><b>James S.</b></small>]] 20:35, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

:Pending further discussion in talk, I have removed:

::''[[Wind power]] is the only direct form of greenhouse gas mitigation, because it removes energy from the atmosphere.'' and ''[[Wind power]] is the only renewable form of energy which is a direct mitigation, drawing energy directly from the atmosphere. ''.

:* First of all, it only needs to be said once. --[[User:Kmf164|Kmf164]] 20:46, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

::: The statement is appropriate for both locations. &mdash;[[User:Nrcprm2026|<i>James S.</i>]] 00:44, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

:* Second, the word "only" sounds POV to me and I suggest something else less strong. It sounds like you're marketing wind power; I'd rather the article not sound like a commercial advertisement. --[[User:Kmf164|Kmf164]] 20:46, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

::: "Only" is factually true, unless you know of any other form of energy which extracts power directly from the atmosphere. That would be news to me. &mdash;[[User:Nrcprm2026|<i>James S.</i>]] 00:44, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

:* Third, please backup the statement with further explanation and sources. --[[User:Kmf164|Kmf164]] 20:46, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

::: The [[wind turbine]] article, or it's talk page, has a discussion of the net power to build and install compared to the lifetime output. If you need sources because you are unable to confirm something, please just ask here first before reverting other people's work. Restoring. &mdash;[[User:Nrcprm2026|<i>James S.</i>]] 00:44, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

::::I still think the statement "[[Wind power]] is the only direct form of greenhouse gas mitigation,..." sounds narrow (and tangentally related to the article). If readers want more detail on the various [[renewable energy]] sources, the pros and cons, they can go to that article. Despite all this, if the statement is still included here, it only needs to be said once. And, it does need sources here, if the statement is included. It doesn't matter if I can go out and search for sources to confirm something. I do see that wind power has many advantages. But in Wikipedia, you need to directly [[WP:CITE|cite sources]]; You can't expect readers to know to find the discussion of "net power to build and install..." on the [[wind turbine]] article, when that article isn't linked with the statement and sources are not provided here. Thanks. --[[User:Kmf164|Kmf164]] 04:45, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

::::: Tangentally? The article is about global warming mitigation. My POV is that the statement is pertinent to both sections. Perhaps we can make a deal: if you will remove all of the redundant qualifications in the climate change-related articles such as that global warming is a scientific theory, "not a proven fact," and that "there is still some controversy over whether scientists believe human activities cause climate change," and the dozens of similar statements, then I'll clip one of the two comments about wind power being the only direct form of global warming mitigation. &mdash;[[User:Nrcprm2026|<i>James S.</i>]] 06:20, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

::::I think the statement "For example, a wind turbine typically produces about 50 times as much energy over its lifetime as is consumed by its construction and installation." suffices and readers can go to [[renewable energy]] or [[wind turbine]] for more details. --[[User:Kmf164|Kmf164]] 04:48, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

::::: I agree and will change it to that. &mdash;[[User:Nrcprm2026|<i>James S.</i>]] 06:20, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

I think it should be pointed out that wind power does no in any way mitigate greenhouse gases, rather it mitigates the greenhouse effect. it does not remove the gasses from the atmosphere, merely the energy. also, the amount of energy removed would probably be minute enough to be fairly insignificant. on the otherhand, I'm all for wind power propaganda, so I'll leave it up to others to edit this piece.