Talk:Environmental effects of aviation

The only problem with this information it’s all real and yes they poisoned air daily with those aircraft — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:7000:2101:1218:4DD0:79CF:E8A:AC75 (talk) 15:00, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

First sentence needs improving

For one thing other stuff burning fossil fuel does not usually produce contrails. How about something like -

Aviation is one of the causes of climate change and sometimes local air pollution. Chidgk1 (talk) 15:28, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

The current 1st sentence is Like other emissions resulting from fossil fuel combustion, aircraft engines produce gases, noise, and particulates, raising environmental concerns over their global effects and their effects on local air quality. There is no "contrails" in it. It has the advantage of being more complete, and has an ICAO ref.--Marc Lacoste (talk)

Ah OK you no doubt know better than me whether or not contrails should be in the first sentence. But I hope you agree that it could be improved - perhaps you or someone else can suggest an improved version bearing in mind MOS:FIRST? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chidgk1 (talk • contribs)

I have reworked that fist sentence to improve the wording and flow. See what you think now. - Ahunt (talk) 15:00, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

Definitely better than before thanks but I think it can be further improved - I hope to suggest something later today or tomorrow but everyones ideas welcome of course Chidgk1 (talk) 15:08, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

Sure, by all means feel free to come up with some improved wording. - Ahunt (talk) 15:21, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

I did not notice any quantitative comparison (for example number of people made ill) of the different effects in the body of the article but would you agree that climate change is the worst? If so I suggest the words "climate change" are included in the first sentence. For example Aviation is one of the causes of climate change and is sometimes noisy and dirty. Chidgk1 (talk) 17:21, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

As per WP:FORMAL can I suggest Aircraft engines produce gases, noise, and particulates from fossil fuel combustion, raising environmental concerns over their climate change contributions and their effects on local air quality.. - Ahunt (talk) 17:48, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

OK I looked more closely at WP:TONE as well as WP:FORMAL. Well at least your suggestion includes “climate change”. And I don’t insist on “aviation” rather than “aircraft engines”. But I think it should be a bit more concise such as: Aircraft engine exhaust is one of the causes of climate change, and sometimes noise and local air pollution. Also the current first sentence is a bit misleading in that engines fuelled only by biojet, although better, could still have some impact for example they might not be carbon neautral due to non-CO2 impact. Chidgk1 (talk) 08:40, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

It's not the simple English Wikipedia either. Biofuel is presented in the following paragraphs.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 08:57, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

I am not suggesting that “biofuel” or “biojet” be mentioned in the first sentence. I am not a professional writer but even I can see that the existing first sentence is not as good as you would find in a professional encyclopedia or a Wikipedia “good” article. Perhaps you can suggest a better one? Chidgk1 (talk) 09:20, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

I'm happy with the current first sentence. The subject is arduous, it needs a complete description and the first sentence does not have to be dumbed down. What's lacking? "Climate change" was (rightfully) included by Ahunt. The WP:LEAD section should be a summary of the article body. It is reasonably achieved right now.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 10:19, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

What is wrong with the current sentence is a good question. 1) “raising environmental concerns” is too weak 2) Repetition of “effects” does not read smoothly 3) The words “combustion” and “particulates” are too technical for a first sentence 4) Does not name the main impact - climate change @Ahunt: as we are agreed on 4 you could fix that point now if you like Chidgk1 (talk) 10:40, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

More opinions on how much history is needed?

As you can see from https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Environmental_effects_of_aviation&diff=1137083068&oldid=1137076208 @Marc Lacoste and I disagree. What do you think and why? Chidgk1 (talk) 11:14, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

Removal of important content in Mitigation section

In this revert by Ahunt various content was removed, please allow me to undo that for the following reasons:

• The removal was not explained – in the edit summary for the removal Ahunt only wrote "Not really much value in this section at all, it can just go"
• That section on facilitating vacations to nearby regions by train, traveling less, improved rail and telepresence/remote work has many WP:RS
• These WP:RS even call that the most important first way to mitigate flight emissions, it's very important content and should absolutely not be removed
• The rest of my edit was things like proper referencing-style, converting CO2 to CO₂, fixing layout inconsistencies, etal to et al. and the following:
  • I also added further WP:RS sources to the modified content that's already there,
  • added a mention of Norms using WP:RS
  • and removed unwarranted "importance-inline" tags that were set because the editor felt like the content was obvious (calling it "truism") but even if it was obvious that makes it no less important/notable and relevant (and the WP:RS even indicate it's among the most important things to include) (I left multiple other inline tags as they were)
• Also added this content from the study as it was apparently excluded in particular despite the relevance and importance: "Food security and land use are "enormous hurdles" for a large scale-up of "sustainable aviation fuels" and decreasing the demand for flights and improvements in energy intensity can reduce their future demand"
• To summarize: the removals (/revert) were unwarranted, unexplained, and are inconsistent with policies like WP:RS and WP:DUE

Prototyperspective (talk) 21:54, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

Ahunt wrote "Not really much value in this section at all, it can just go" because I already tagged this paragraph sentences with importance? (and as you noted, with truism as a reason). When we are two editors thinking the same way, we are more certain of our decisions. It had RS but was not so important.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 06:56, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

• But while it may arguably not be very important (note that I'd disagree on that too), it's definitely notable and due there regardless.
• Also, as said, the sources even go so far as to name these things as the most important and first way to mitigate emissions so that violates WP:NPOV to exclude that.
• Another indication that this is important to include and due is that many sources name these things, sometimes extensively and/or at the top of the source.
• But okay as to the explanation: maybe the removal was not unexplained so that point of mine may be false (nevertheless truism should then probably be in the edit summary too).

Prototyperspective (talk) 09:43, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

I reviewed User:Marc Lacoste's tagging of that section and agreed that the text added nothing of value to the article, regardless of any refs cited. The text was far too general to be included in a section of much more specific information. Furthermore statements like Taking local vacations or travelling close to home can avoid taking planes. was what could be charitably called "brilliant grasp of the obvious", just not encyclopedic content. The same concepts are covered earlier in the article but in more depth. With one editor tagging it for importance and another assessing and removing it, that is an editing consensus. This discussion just comes to the same conclusion. - Ahunt (talk) 12:24, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the laugh :)--Marc Lacoste (talk) 12:29, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

1. Then remove that content only

2. It does NOT matter if you get a "brilliant grasp of the obvious" if it's highly significant to the topic or if it's laughable to you. The reader may be aware of that or in some cases not, but if it's highly relevant and significant and has WP:RS it should be there per WP:DUE

3. To address your concerns, the reverted content was Supporting local vacations or travels close to home rather than at distant destinations can reduce flight demand. and that is very important to at least mention briefly in a section called Reducing air travel. I can look if more WP:RS state this but afaik the ones given are more than sufficient. Prototyperspective (talk) 13:19, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

I did remove that content only. Regardless, you have now argued your case and two other editors disagree with you. Let's see if any other editors support your proposed additions or not. - Ahunt (talk) 13:29, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

I propose a compromise in that whilst there is a section on "Reducing air travel" I feel it should be moved higher up. And it could certainly do with some improvements by Prototyperspective and others. For example it could say more on discouraging frequent flying and the info on virtual working could perhaps be updated - presumably there are now academic studies of pandemic years guiding how much people should meet face to face for work and how much can be done remotely. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chidgk1 (talk • contribs)

Wikipedia is not a guidebook to reduce air travel. The subject is the mitigation of the environmental effects of aviation not a soapbox for political advocacy to ban air travel. We are not here to discourage flying. Mitigation solutions with reliable sources are welcome, like updating the remote work part, indeed.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 18:09, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

Perhaps my phrasing was bad as you misunderstand - I am not saying that Wikipedia should take a political stand or discourage frequent flying. However in the taxation section, for example, we can write a sentence about groups calling for a Frequent Flyer Levy. Chidgk1 (talk) 18:28, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

It's not a guidebook for that if it includes WP:DUE on-topic brief significant content on that. Also it's neither advocacy not about "banning" air travel at all. The content consisted of signficant notable Mitigation solutions with reliable sources.

@Chidgk1 academic studies of pandemic years was/were part of the sources used. The removed content was well-referenced and there are probably way more good-quality refs for that, the removal was unwarranted and is not WP:NPOV.

One thing that could be valid criticism of the content as is would be (and why do I have to articulate such instead of the content-removers?) is that the sources provided mostly describe personally-motivated more-local travel, rather than (any kind of) Support for such. This was changed to address prior criticism of "truism" albeit the change wasn't needed. I'll check if there are even more refs for the Supporting .. travels close to home (e.g. in neighboring countries) in specific. Prototyperspective (talk) 18:28, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

The problem was not with the refs, which were fine, it was with the text. It was out of place in the article, poorly written and, as noted, plainly obvious anyway, plus fails WP:NPOV as taking a political stance and giving instructions per WP:NOTMANUAL. To include this sort of section it needs to be totally rewritten and moved up in the article so it is not down in the portion of the article dealing with technical details. If you would like to prose new section text here on the talk page then I am sure we would be all be happy to have a look at it. - Ahunt (talk) 22:58, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

Okay thank you for clarifying – now I understand your concerns better.

I find it always important to communicate the reasons for removals/reverts/deletions because otherwise the issues usually can neither be addressed at talk nor solved via edits
(and additionally it makes me somewhat unsure if the respective editors are serious about improving the state of the article rather than just trying to keep certain content out for unknown reasons and hence whether or not further debate and effort is pointless).

It was indeed relatively badly written and wasn't as on-point as it should have been – sorry for that, I think that was mainly because I didn't want to spend that much time on it and just to quickly patchfix the most severely missing parts. However, now I have put a real effort into it and worked on it much longer,

• using lots of high-quality sources (mostly studies explicitly about mitigation solutions, including an IPCC report, and better ones than a few of the earlier used news sources),
• made sure it's more on-point as in about "Measures", not void info about more or less personal-level changes and truist/obvious info,
• and improved the writing too.

I may still slightly copyedit the draft, but I now consider it largely finished. Please have a look and tell me if it's okay to include (maybe via excerpt of the Measures section). If not, please edit it directly or provide explanations what should be improved.

It's here: Draft:Air travel demand mitigation

Prototyperspective (talk) 22:27, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

Okay, well it looks like you have moved all the text under discussion here into that new draft article, so unless there is anything else for this article, perhaps we can close out this discussion. - Ahunt (talk) 22:32, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

What do you mean? I copied the content from this article there and then started editing (see the edit summaries). I did not insert the removed content "Close vacations and remote presence" there. Prototyperspective (talk) 22:40, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

Draft articles are for writing and editing new and proposed articles, not for proposing changes to existing articles. That should be done either here on the talk page or perhaps a personal sandbox. So I am not sure what your aim is with that new draft article. - Ahunt (talk) 22:50, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

The content is far too long to put on and edit on a talk page. If that's usually done in sandbox I didn't know that but I don't think that's the case. I also wasn't sure what the aim was: now I also submitted it to afc but that wasn't the original aim. If it's a separate article, the Measures section from there could be transcluded to/as the "Reducing air travel" section here. Prototyperspective (talk) 22:55, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

Well you have now submitted it to AfC. You will have to clip any overlap with this article and attribute any text copied from this article as well, as per Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. - Ahunt (talk) 23:03, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I did that and added the attribution. Prototyperspective (talk) 23:10, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

To avoid duplicates and maintenance problems, only one copy should be kept there, with a summary and a link.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 06:39, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

Possible source re alternative fuels

About UK but there may be globally relevent info which could be copied and pasted if I understand creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0 right Chidgk1 (talk) 19:19, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

not sure what are you talking about, maybe the recent royal society report? I summarized it earlier today.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 19:34, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

yes that sorry forgot to post the link Chidgk1 (talk) 14:40, 3 March 2023 (UTC)