Talk:Climate change

Fifth paragraph in lead

I know there are several issues, but since we are debating lead...The last paragraph could use addition of few things such as (maybe a sentence): uncertainty in carbon budget/two-thirds chance in limiting warming to 1.5, negative emissions, uncertainties in such tech, etc.

And, after that, maybe another sentence about if we are on track with Paris goals, after this section is expanded a bit Climate_change#National_responses. I'd consider the lead pretty much complete after then. Bogazicili (talk) 16:35, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

I think that will be the most difficult sentence to add to the lead, judging from discussions we've had about all these issues, and the fact that paragraph is already quite heavy on numbers (I really wish the US would stop using their own units). I'm open to suggestions. Maybe weight on the featured article review for more guidance on length? I suspect it's fine to add one sentence. Femke Nijsse (talk) 17:27, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Will get back to this. After a large amount of recent changes into the article, I'm good with a slower pace. :) Bogazicili (talk) 18:35, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Bump (I'll get back to this) Bogazicili (talk) 15:26, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

So this paragraph is quite deficient as it omits several key concepts, such as Carbon dioxide removal and consequences of delaying CO2 reductions. SR15 p. 96:

"All analysed pathways limiting warming to 1.5°C with no or limited overshoot use CDR to some extent to neutralize emissions from sources for which no mitigation measures have been identified and, in most cases, also to achieve net negative emissions to return global warming to 1.5°C following a peak (high confidence). The longer the delay in reducing CO2 emissions towards zero, the larger the likelihood of exceeding 1.5°C, and the heavier the implied reliance on net negative emissions after mid-century to return warming to 1.5°C (high confidence)."

"CDR deployed at scale is unproven, and reliance on such technology is a major risk in the ability to limit warming to 1.5°C. CDR is needed less in pathways with particularly strong emphasis on energy efficiency and low demand. The scale and type of CDR deployment varies widely across 1.5°C pathways, with different consequences for achieving sustainable development objectives (high confidence)."

Here's my suggestion:

Limiting warming to 1.5 °C (2.7 °F) would require halving emissions by 2030, then reaching near-zero emissions by 2050.[21], as well as use of carbon dioxide removal. At scale deployment of carbon dioxide removal is "unproven", and likelihood of exceeding 1.5 °C (2.7 °F) increases with delays in reducing CO2 emissions towards zero.[SR 15 p. 95-96]

Bogazicili (talk) 16:02, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Although the point I think you’re making here may be important, and maybe warrants a brief mention in the lede, I don’t think the fifth paragraph is the appropriate place for it. The fifth paragraph is largely about comparing current efforts at mitigation with what will be needed to limit warming to 1.5C. Adding your suggested text at the end of that paragraph seems to muddy what is already a fairly clear set of sentences, from my perspective, and I think the clause about the likelihood of exceeding 1.5 C doesn’t add much value to the current last sentence, which is saying what it will take to achieve the 1.5 C goal. So, as it currently reads, the second sentence you propose seems like it is a bit of a tangent to the theme of the paragraph, as well as a little too technical (and a bit confusing) for a lede in the way it’s currently worded. The text and citations in the carbon sequestration subsection of the article make it clear that carbon dioxide removal is currently envisioned under some, but not all, 2050 scenarios, and that it is currently limited in scale, but that it may be a more feasible option by 2050. So I think carbon dioxide removal is worth mentioning in the lede, and it currently is, but perhaps could use a bit more detail.

It seems like the point you are trying to make is that the longer we wait to reduce emissions, the more carbon dioxide removal becomes necessary, do I have that right? If so, I would suggest that it fits better, in a more condensed form, as part of an expansion of the sentence in the fourth paragraph dealing with mitigation methods, particularly the current clause about removing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. You might want to look at ways of dividing that sentence up into two separate sentences, and then emphasizing carbon dioxide removal in a slightly more detailed way, including adding your wiki link to the carbon dioxide removal article. Since the sentence does already talk about removing carbon from the atmosphere, I would suggest you focus on what value you would be adding with your edit, above and beyond what’s already in that sentence. Is it the point I think you are trying to make in your second sentence, or something else? Either way, I think any reference to carbon dioxide removal fits better as part of the mitigation text in the fourth paragraph, rather than as an add-on at the end of the fifth paragraph.Dtetta (talk) 16:21, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Dtetta, please read the quotes before answering, because you seem to make suggestions or respond to suggestions based on incorrect knowledge. You said: "that carbon dioxide removal is currently envisioned under some, but not all, 2050 scenarios". Read the IPCC quote: "All analysed pathways limiting warming to 1.5°C with no or limited overshoot use CDR to some extent." The sentence I'm suggesting we add more information into talks about "Limiting warming to 1.5 °C". In its current form, it's deficient. Fourth paragraph talks about definitions. Limiting climate change to 3C as opposed to not doing anything is also a form of mitigation to a degree (but it's not enough). Fifth paragraph talks about specific goals (1.5C or 2C). Bogazicili (talk) 19:20, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

I think we are talking at cross purposes here. I started my post by saying that I think the point you’re making may be important and might warrant a brief mention in the lede. When I described 2050 scenarios, and the fact that not all of them envision carbon dioxide removal, that's because some of them are working off of a 2C target rather than a 1.5 C target. Apologies for the confusion by this reference. I don’t disagree with your read of the IPCC report; I agree that 1.5 C scenarios envision some level of CDR. But that doesn’t change the gist of what I’m suggesting, which is that the idea doesn’t belong in the fifth paragraph, but would be better as a bit of additional detail in the fourth paragraph, where it is already mentioned. I think you would also be contributing to the article by adding that citation (and a short bit of text reflecting the essence of it) to supplement the last sentence in the first paragraph of the carbon sequestration subsection, since that specifically focuses on the net negative emissions concepts that the IPCC language you’re referring to is relevant for. Hope that clarifies my comments a bit.Dtetta (talk) 20:40, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Another option, if you are determined that the idea be in the fifth paragraph, would be to simply add a clause along the lines of "and incorporating large scale carbon dioxide removal" to the end of the last sentence in the paragraph, along with the IPCC cite. This would be more in line with the general tone of the paragraph.Dtetta (talk) 20:50, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

There's no space in 4th paragraph, and it explains concepts (what are responses to climate change? what is mitigation? what is adaptation?). 5th paragraph talks about specific goals (1.5 and 2C). That's why it's better for the logical flow to put this info into 5th paragraph.

Looks like we have agreement on "and incorporating large scale carbon dioxide removal" (or similar wording, I'll finalize at the end). Can you explain succinctly why you are against this part: "At scale deployment of carbon dioxide removal is "unproven", and likelihood of exceeding 1.5 °C (2.7 °F) increases with delays in reducing CO2 emissions towards zero."? Bogazicili (talk) 02:00, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

The clause about CO2 removal being unproven seems too detailed for the lede, and it doesn’t fit in with the general theme of that paragraph, which as you pointed out focuses on goals. The clause about the likelihood of exceeding 1.5C is a more detailed way of stating the obvious...I don’t think it adds any understanding to the ideas already in the paragraph, and just takes up more text space. I think it’s worth thinking about how those might be incorporated into the carbon sequestration subsection, but I don’t think they belong in the lede.Dtetta (talk) 05:19, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Per IPCC: "CDR deployed at scale is unproven, and reliance on such technology is a major risk in the ability to limit warming to 1.5°C." Mentioning this sounds too detailed for the lead to you? 5th paragraph is about goals, so a major risk to that goal is very relevant and fits with its "theme".

As for the earlier part, I suggest simplifying wording before adding large scale CO2 removal:

"Limiting warming to 1.5 °C (2.7 °F) would require halving emissions by 2030, then reaching near-zero emissions by 2050 Limiting warming to 1.5 °C (2.7 °F) would require halving emissions by 2030 and near-zero emissions by 2050, along with large scale carbon dioxide removal" Bogazicili (talk) 06:18, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Made the above change. Dtetta, do you still maintain the position that a "major" risk to 1.5 C goal is too detailed for the lead, even with a short sentence? Bogazicili (talk) 17:23, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Yes I still think that it is an inappropriate bit of detail that get’s in the way of clearly communicating the main ideas of the paragraph, particularly since we don’t even mention this idea in the main part of the article. I generally like the sentence you have constructed, but I think eliminating “then reaching” makes it a bit more awkward. Putting “reaching” or “achieving” before “near-zero” would seem helpful to me. I think MurrayScience or Efbrazil originally wrote this sentence, so maybe they have some thoughts on this.Dtetta (talk) 19:42, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Sorry for keeping quiet in the discussion so far.

That large-scale carbon dioxide removal bit may be outdated; other options to reach net-zero have become feasible over the last 3 years, with prices of hydrogen, batteries, wind and solar dropping. Also, the IPCC didn't assess a group of models (evolutionary models) that reach different conclusions in this assessment cycle. These models will be back in AR6!

'and - in most cases - include reaching "net negative emissions to return global warming to 1.5°C following a peak.' feels like undue given this may be outdated, is vastly controversial (many of these simulations have unphysical amounts of BECCS). I prefer out treatment of this in the carbon sequestration section. (and contains too many formatting/prose errors (wrong dashes, missing space before degree, unnecessary quote) FemkeMilene (talk) 08:16, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

I was going to copy edit wording in mitigation section, but am running out of time. SR 15 is not outdated though.

"For aiming to keep global warming well-below 2 °C and pursue efforts to limit it to 1.5 °C, as set out in the Paris Agreement, a full-fledged assessment of negative emission technologies (NETs) that remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere is crucial to inform science-based policy making.....In line with previous research, we find that keeping warming below 1.5 °C requires a rapid large-scale deployment of NETs, while for 2 °C, we can still limit NET deployment substantially by ratcheting up near-term mitigation ambition." 2019 review article

Bogazicili (talk) 09:01, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

I adopted Dtetta's suggestion of adding "achieving", and adjusted the wording a bit. Also added "over the 21st century" to make the scope of CO2 removal clearer. Bogazicili (talk) 17:59, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

I reverted this edit and have gone back and forth with Bogazicili a few times on it. The basic issue is that I do not believe negative carbon emissions has a place in the intro, particularly as the concluding idea in the entire summary section. The sources say that negative emissions are only a part of getting to net zero, for the purpose of offsetting emissions that may not be able to be be brought to zero. Featuring the issue on its own without context gives it outsized importance, particularly as the concluding thought of the section. If this content were further down in the article and included other information related to net zero pathways I would not be complaining. I'm hoping RCraig09 dtetta MurrayScience Femkemilene can chime in here as well on whether they support Bogazicili's edit. If nobody else opposes this edit then I'll allow it to go forward, but otherwise this will need to go through a contested edit request. Here is the relevant edit (the addition of ", along with use of large scale carbon dioxide removal over the 21st century"): https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Climate_change&type=revision&diff=1008716819&oldid=1008716667 Efbrazil (talk) 18:57, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

I basically agree with Efbrazil on this. Especially because earlier in the lead, we have the following sentence: "Mitigation – limiting climate change – consists of reducing greenhouse gas emissions, and removing them from the atmosphere; methods include the development and deployment of low-carbon energy sources such as wind and solar, a phase-out of coal, enhanced energy efficiency, reforestation, and forest preservation." If you want to add carbon dioxide removal to that sentence, I'm happy with that. But we shouldn't get overly detailed in the lead on something which I guess we could think of largely unproven in the present state, just like we don't talk about a generation_IV_reactor or green cement and steel in the lead. —MurrayScience

I think Efbrazil's response illustrates why we need it though. The sources do NOT say negative emissions are only part of getting to net zero. You need to get to net zero, and then need negative emissions in addition to that "to return global warming to 1.5°C following a peak" (from IPCC). If this is confusing to even the long-term editors of this article, that means the lead does not do a good job of explaining this concept. Net zero by 2050 is not enough for limiting warming to 1.5C. As such the lead at its current form misrepresents IPCC and sources. MurrayScience, the fact that it is largely unproven is one of the reasons why I had wanted to add in the first place. See my earlier proposal for what I think should be added:

",as well as use of carbon dioxide removal. At scale deployment of carbon dioxide removal is "unproven", and likelihood of exceeding 1.5 °C (2.7 °F) increases with delays in reducing CO2 emissions towards zero."

Bogazicili (talk) 19:20, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Behavior of warming after net zero is an interesting topic, but of marginal importance compared with warming that happens before we get to net zero. My understanding is that after net zero global surface temperatures will not be changing much relative to how things will change leading up to that point, because the effects of continued heat absorption from radiative imbalance will be offset by methane absorption and oceans absorbing heat and CO2. Behavior on the time scale of hundreds or thousands of years is really entering the realm of conjecture, as we don't know how the natural world is going to react as a CO2 sponge and because humans will likely continue to have major planetary impacts. For the purpose of a summary, the way I think of things is that emissions are raising the planetary temperature to a new set point that will be difficult to get away from, and that acidification and ocean warming and sea level rise are going to continue long after net zero is achieved. Efbrazil (talk) 21:33, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

On balance, I agree with MurrayScience's reasoning, and I would favor adding CDR to the list earlier in the intro rather than granting it a special position as the climax of the intro. Bogazicili's interpretation of the IPCC, as I understand it—that negative emissions "follow" a "peak"—doesn't reflect the recognition that negative emissions can occur in sectors concurrently with conventional mitigation as we progress toward net zero. The intro is for summaries and conclusions, rather than detailed explanations of conditions and implications. —RCraig09 (talk) 20:00, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for that post Efbrazil...given the concerns you, MurrayScience, and RCraig09 express, some of which I share, I would suggest that we focus efforts on improving the carbon sequestration subsection, and then revisit how to incorporate the concept of carbon dioxide removal/CCS into the lede. That way we can best ensure that the lede is an accurate summary of the main article. From my reading of the sources that Bogazicili has cited, I do think carbon dioxide removal merits a mention in the lede, but I’m not sure where is best.

I notice now that there have been a few NET related sentences added recently to the second paragraph of the Mitigation introductory section, rather than in the carbon sequestration subsection. Two of those sentences - starting with “Net negative emissions...” and “However, carbon dioxide...” should probably be deleted and incorporated into the carbon sequestration subsection, as part of updating it. I can take a shot at that, or if someone else wants to give it a go, that’s fine with me as well. I would also suggest creating a new thread on the Talk page along the lines of “Carbon sequestration update”, and proposing a complete revised new language entry there. We might even want to change the title of the subsection to “Carbon dioxide removal” Dtetta (talk) 21:43, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Lol, I thought there was no disagreement to this, but it seems like everyone so far disagrees. For those that are new to lengthy discussions, like MurrayScience and RCraig09, I basically think the lead doesn't do a good job of explaining why immediate action is required; I think 2050 goal would seem far away enough for those that do not know built in assumptions. Instead of negative emissions, and that they are unproven, perhaps we can talk about carbon budget then? Bogazicili (talk) 17:35, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

I appreciate the urge to "explain why immediate action is needed" though we have to be aware it can be interpreted as contrary to the acceptable tone of encyclopedia articles. I think the placement of predictions in the final paragraph—which may be considered the "climax" of the intro—imparts a fairly strong impact on the reader. My opposition was to an overly detailed, technical, conditions-and-implications, story-telling in the intro—not (obviously) to the well-sourced predictions themselves. In fact, I actually think a brief, broad statement of well-sourced predictions would even be appropriate at the end of the first paragraph (!), to complement the past "unprecedented impact..." phraseology that's already there, though I predict many editors would object that such would give predictions too much prominence. —RCraig09 (talk) 18:48, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

If Bogazicili wants to put direct air capture in the mitigation sentence in the lead. By all means, propose an edit. MurrayScience (talk) 19:48, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

MurrayScience, it doesn't actually make sense by itself, I wanted to tie it to the overall point that immediate action is required/delays will lead to missing goals, by explaining one limitation of pathways that rely on technologies currently unproven at scale.

RCraig09, it's actually in the executive summary of SR 15. SR 15 is already a top line source, so it's executive summary is "double top line" lol:

If overshoot is to be minimized, the remaining equivalent CO2 budget available for emissions is very small, which implies that large, immediate and unprecedented global efforts to mitigate greenhouse gases are required (high confidence).SR 15 p. 177

Is there a consensus for a sentence mentioning remaining carbon budgets are low? Eg: 6 and 24 years for 1.5C and 2C Bogazicili (talk) 08:26, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

I get the sense that carbon budgets are confusing. The idea that you're converting a total amount of carbon into a period of time based on the rate of additions to the atmosphere every year. I feel like the explanatory model that the world has switched to is emphasizing zero emissions/carbon neutral/net-zero by a certain year. Keep in mind that we don't have ways of making cement, steel, fertilizer, plastic, or even flying, or cargo shipping that don't emit greenhouse gases. The zero emissions by 2050 implies that we have 30 years to innovate and bring down the price of carbon capture or biofuels, etc. I feel like that's clearer than saying we have 6 years and then we're at 1.5C or something like that. MurrayScience (talk) 12:47, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

MurrayScience, I wasn't exactly thinking about mentioning 6 years, but just that remaining budget is low and immediate action is needed. If the emissions remained constant until 2050, and then went to 0 overnight (not that this is possible but just giving an example for the sake of argument), we'd still not be able to stop 2C warming, let alone 1.5. I'm just trying to make the idea that emission reductions need to start now more clear (and then halve by 2030 and go to net 0 by 2050). Bogazicili (talk) 19:20, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Now that recent edits on this topic in the main body of the article are complete, I would vote for including Bogazicili’s proposal for incorporating text from IPCC 2018 p 34 as an additional clause at the end of the fifth paragraph. I’m referring to text on page 34 that states: “All analysed pathways limiting warming to 1.5°C with no or limited overshoot use CDR to some extent.” So I wold suggest something along the lines of: “Limiting warming to 1.5 °C (2.7 °F) would require halving emissions by 2030 and achieving near-zero emissions by 2050; along with the use of carbon dioxide removal technologies.”

If there is concern about ending the lede with a CDR reference, one option would be to revert these last two paragraph to an earlier version, where the fifth paragraph originally followed the second sentence of the fourth paragraph. As I recall, this format was a team edit that Efbrazil, MurrayScience and I worked on a while back for that fourth paragraph. The mitigation and adaptation text then constituted the fifth paragraph. I generally like the way it looks now, but that would be an option.

But I do think additional that text that briefly refers to that particular IPCC wording on CDR is a more accurate way to depict the current reports and papers on what 2050 will look like. My 2 cents on this.Dtetta (talk) 20:47, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

I'm opposed to this change. When it comes to CDR there are two options- "technologies", which are largely speculative approaches that currently account for zero percent of mitigation, and the natural carbon cycle, which absorbs more than half the CO₂ we emit each year. I added a graphic yesterday (and updated it today) to highlight this fact. Which way the natural carbon cycle goes in the future is hugely important and poorly understood. The IPCC ignores it in their RPC based projections (by only looking at concentrations), and we also don't have a section on it in this article. So if anything should be mentioned in the intro, it's the importance of and uncertainty around the future of the carbon cycle. If we mention CDR technologies in the intro it should be in the context of mitigation strategies, and even there I think it is too speculative to make the cut. Isolating it as a concluding thought like this is way off base IMHO. The current text works well, so I recommend no changes. Efbrazil (talk) 23:42, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

That is indeed a very helpful graphic to have in the carbon sequestration subsection...nice work! I don’t see these two concepts as mutually exclusive, so it will be interesting to see if there are any other opinions on this. Dtetta (talk) 00:58, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Variability (split from above)

Split from the above discussion as topic has changed by Femke

Glad you all think that works...just made the changes. MurrayScience - what kind of sentence on nuclear power were you thinking about?Dtetta (talk) 19:56, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

At Dtetta. I think this qualitative sentence is very accurate, and holds over a wide range of possible future costs (encompassing current trends): "Intermittency can also be solved cost-effectively by supplementing a solar and wind-dominated electricity grid with on-demand low-carbon technologies such as nuclear or combined cycle with carbon capture, or renewables like geothermal or hydro dams." There are plenty of peer reviewed studies that reach this conclusion which could be used for the citation. It would go after this currently-included sentence: "The primary obstacle for solar and wind is their intermittency and seasonal variability, which can be mitigated by energy storage (such as pumped-storage hydropower and battery storage), demand flexibility, and expanding long-distance transmission to smooth variability of renewable output across wider geographic areas." MurrayScience (talk) 21:21, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

MurrayScience, I like the general idea of this sentence, but I have a couple of concerns. One is that it seems written for a reading level above the typical Wikipedia audience. I would suggest something a little simpler, such as the following:

For solar and wind power a key challenge is their intermittency and seasonal variability. Ways to reduce this limitation include improved energy storage (such as pumped-storage hydropower and battery storage), demand flexibility, and transmission grid improvements. As the grid evolves to include higher percentages of renewable energy, low-carbon power sources such as nuclear, geothermal, and hydro dams can also be used to address intermittency and variability concerns, while still maintaining progress towards net zero electricity production.

I left out the reference to combined cycle, mainly because that seems like a bit of jargon for what is essentially a slightly higher efficiency fossil fuel system with CCS. And if the issue is just to address intermittency, I don’t think it is really necessary to include this item; the reality is that some level of fossil fuel/CCS will probably be included in the electricity mix by 2050, and we discuss that elsewhere in the article.

I am also a little concerned that the idea in that second sentence reads like a somewhat biased, pro RE talking point. I think Hedgehoque and Efbrazil have been involved in previous incarnations of this paragraph, so they might have some ideas here as well, along with Femkemilene. Dtetta (talk) 02:34, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Could you guys give me a week to figure out how controversial the nuclear and geothermal mentions are in this context? Energy system literature I'm familiar with typically says baseload energy is unsuited for flexibility. Most current nuclear is designed as baseload instead of as dispatchable energy, and running nuclear as dispatchable energy would give it a lower capacity factor, which would ramp up the costs as costs from nuclear mainly come from construction instead of fuel. I don't know enough about geothermal energy to evaluate whether this is a sentence we can say in wiki voice, or whether it needs to be attributed.

What source were you thinking of? Hopefully, we can get a 2020/2021 source, as statements like these (what are feasible future options), still depend on price trajectories), but I appreciate we might need to got back as far as 2019.. (FemkeMilene (talk) 08:00, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

I like Dtetta’s re-edit. I’ll find a good source and come back with it. MurrayScience (talk) 08:51, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Here's a paper. Quote from it "Wind and solar energy can produce decarbonized electricity, but to reliably meet demand these intermittent resources require other technologies such as energy storage, supplemental generation, demand management, and transmission expansion. Many studies estimate the costs of supplying electricity with renewables for particular storage cost assumptions... We estimate that cost-competitively meeting baseload demand 100% of the time requires storage energy capacity costs below $20/kWh" Here's a simple google search if you want a sense of the various trends/projections.

There are obstacles to the continued rapid development of renewable energy in electrical grids. For solar and wind power, a key challenge is their intermittency and seasonal variability. Ways to reduce this limitation include expanding grid energy storage (such as pumped-storage hydropower and battery storage), demand flexibility, and expanding long-distance transmission to smooth variability of renewable output across wider geographic areas. As the grid evolves to include higher percentages of renewable energy, on-demand, low-carbon power sources such as nuclear, geothermal, and hydro dams can also be used to cost-effectively address intermittency and variability, while still maintaining progress towards net zero electricity production.

I think it's important to clarify that we're talking about the electrical grid. This is obvious to us but may not be clear to an unfamiliar reader. I also think it's important to briefly explain why transmission needs to be expanded, storage is probably a bit more obvious and doesn't need explaining. Also the cost-effective part is where the paper I showed comes in. We also need to emphasize that these sources are on-demand. MurrayScience (talk) 15:27, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Not sure why the link didn't work but here's the doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joule.2019.06.012 MurrayScience (talk) 15:29, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

The source is primary, so not ideal, but we may be able to use its introduction as a secondary source. It described nuclear as baseload, not as on-demand. (I like on-demand as lay term for dispatchable, was looking for a simple synonym here). It doesn't seem to mention geothermal. FemkeMilene (talk) 17:04, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

For reasons laid out soemwhere else, I think going into the discussion of costs is outside the scope of this article, as work on it is contradicoty. Ideally you want to use a review paper that only reviews 2020 estimates, which is too high a bar. FemkeMilene (talk) 17:07, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

I'm not yet convinced, but I will read some more literature so that you don't have to waste your time in the case my current opinion isn't quite supported by science. Fortunately, my current job involves me reading this literature :). FemkeMilene (talk) 17:03, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

I've read more :). The old text in the article is As the grid evolves to include higher percentages of renewable energy, reliable low-carbon power sources such as nuclear, geothermal, and hydro dams can address intermittency and variability, while maintaining progress towards net zero electricity production

• It implies that temporally 'reliable' low-carbon techniques are used at the end of the transition, whereas the literature is arguing about to what extent dispatchable energy can be decreased.
• The source cited doesn't talk about geothermal
• The source is a primary source on a sub-country scale, and I'm still under the impression it's not generally accepted that baseload can play a major role in compensating . As such, higher-quality sourcing is necessary if we want to keep this is. The primary source by Jenkins cited in the previous sentence only talks about nuclear adjusted for flexibility.
• Whether geothermal / nuclear / hydro is reliable depends on the local circumstances; that word can be left out. (f.i. in Belgium, nuclear has proved quite unreliable over the last couple of years)

I have based the rewrite more on a secondary source now (the 2019 emission gap report). I hope my rewrite works for you too :). FemkeMilene (talk) 17:28, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

The edit looks good. I agree with leaving out the last sentence because the matter is complex. A closer look at the German energy production reveals that nuclear plants show no signs of flexibility even now, when market prices drop due to stormy weather at the end of this week. As long as this kind of nuclear baseload is maintained, investments into storage systems - which could well fill the gaps - remain less profitable. And scaling up would probably lower the prices. So it's a question of political courage with many players involved.Hedgehoque (talk) 10:47, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Proposed changes in how carbon dioxide removal is described

I would suggest deleting two of the sentences in the Mitigation introduction as follows:

Although there is no single pathway to limit global warming to 1.5 or 2.0 °C (2.7 or 3.6 °F),[207] most scenarios and strategies see a major increase in the use of renewable energy in combination with increased energy efficiency measures to generate the needed greenhouse gas reductions.[208] To reduce pressures on ecosystems and enhance their carbon sequestration capabilities, changes would also be necessary in sectors such as forestry and agriculture.[209] Scenarios that limit global warming to 1.5 °C also project the large-scale use of carbon dioxide removal methods over the 21st century,[210] including reaching net negative emissions in most cases.[211] Net negative emissions happen when the amount of greenhouse gasses that are released into atmosphere are smaller than the sequestered or stored amount.[212] However, carbon dioxide removal technologies deployed at scale are unproven, which presents a major risk in being able to limit warming to 1.5 °C.[213] Solar radiation management methods also have been explored as a possible supplement to deep reductions in net emissions. However, SRM would raise significant ethical and legal issues, and its risks of unwanted effects are poorly understood.[214]

The information removed would be included in the first carbon sequestration paragraph:

Where energy production or CO2-intensive heavy industries continue to produce waste CO2, the gas can be captured and stored instead of being released to the atmosphere. Although its current use is limited in scale and expensive,[237] carbon capture and storage (CCS) may be able to play a significant role in limiting CO2 emissions by mid-century.[238] Carbon capture and storage in combination with bio-energy (BECCS) can result in net-negative emissions, where the amount of greenhouse gasses that are released into atmosphere are smaller than the sequestered or stored amount in the bio-energy fuel being grown.[212][239] As with CCS, it remains highly uncertain as to whether BECCS will actually be able to significantly help in limiting warming to 1.5 °C.[213]

I am not proposing changing any of the citations, just reorganizing and modifying some of the text in these two paragraphs. So the numbered citations are the same as the corresponding footnotes that currently exist in the article. Dtetta (talk) 03:00, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Sounds good to me at first reading, haven't checked text-source integrity. Can we reflect that beccs is more uncertain than CCS? What does the source say? FemkeMilene (talk) 07:24, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick response Femke. The relevant text from the p.34 of the IPCC citation that I was restating here (which Bogazicili has also cited), says that “CDR deployed at scale is unproven, and reliance on such technology is a major risk in the ability to limit warming to 1.5°C.” Are you thinking we would revise that to specifically say that BECCS is more uncertain? Not sure if I draw that specific conclusion from reading the IPCC report, at least from the summary page that is referred to in the citation. We do talk about bioenergy’s potential negative consequences for food security in the clean energy subsection, which in and of itself seems like an additional uncertainty. Dtetta (talk) 15:23, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Okay, I've had time to look at the source now. I propose we change your latter sentence to It remains highly uncertain whether carbon dioxide removal techniques such as BECCS will be able to play a large role in limiting warming to 1.5 °C. I think that stays a tiny bit closer to the source, drops CCS (which is not as uncertain and its use is more an (expensive) policy choice as I read in IPCC than a fundamental uncertainty), and drops the word actually (not needed).

Overall, tone and prose are an improvement to the former.

I'm very much looking forward to having a general report as opposed to the 1.5 report to make sure we don't give undue weight the the most ambitious climate goal. FemkeMilene (talk) 18:30, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Sounds good. I will wait another day, and if no other comments I will make the edit, incorporating your suggested wording. Dtetta (talk) 06:54, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

I think the wording misrepresents the sources. You are changing something that explains a limitation of mitigation assumptions to something that reads like carbon removal is largely irrelevant. Also specific ones such as beccs and CCS might not be in the page numbers given. Bogazicili (talk) 08:32, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

BECCS is mentioned in the the second paragraph of CDR. Overall, I believe it does represent the source well, considering that the rather outdated details about how BECCS plays a vital role in all model scenarios reaching 1.5 isn't supported by new modelling. As a compromise, we can attribute the model outcomes and put them in the past tense. While carbon dioxide removal played a major role in 1.5 C-consistent model scenarios asssessed by the IPCC in 2018, it remains highly uncertain whether they can play such a role.

References

FemkeMilene (talk) 16:18, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Bogazicili- I understand your interest in including text about the limitations of mitigation assumptions, but I think that particular point would be better covered in the Climate change mitigation article, which has room to go into that kind of nuance (which may also need to be updated, as Femke has pointed out). In this paragraph (and article), I think the goal should be to give the reader a more general sense of the feasibility of CCS and BECCS. Femke and I seem to be in agreement on the general wording. So I will wait another day to see if there are any other editors who share your concerns. Otherwise, I plan to make the changes along the lines Femke and I have discussed. Dtetta (talk) 17:34, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Femkemilene, I was talking more about removal of this part: "Net negative emissions happen when the amount of greenhouse gasses that are released into atmosphere are smaller than the sequestered or stored amount.[212] However, carbon dioxide removal technologies deployed at scale are unproven, which presents a major risk in being able to limit warming to 1.5 °C.[213]", not for BECSS specifically. The fact that at scale CDR is unproven and presents a major risk to mitigation goals is not outdated.

Dtetta, have we moved from building consensus to 2/3 majority voting (with only 3 editors) with one day deadlines? I think we should be able to work something out with latest research [1]. Bogazicili (talk) 19:28, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

I'm just noticing some close paraphrasing in the old wording: IPCC says: ''CDR deployed at scale is unproven, and reliance on such technology is a major risk in the ability to limit warming to 1.5°C.''. We say ''However, carbon dioxide removal technologies deployed at scale are unproven, which presents a major risk in being able to limit warming to 1.5 °C''. This means that my previous comment about tone having improved should be discarded, but that we do have a copyright issue here and should seek a new text. I'm a bit low in inspiration. FemkeMilene (talk) 16:15, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I agree it's not a good idea, for a variety of reasons, to take text pretty much verbatim from an IPCC report, which is why I phrased the last sentence in my proposal the way I did. I thought your proposed Feb 26 revision was also a good way of phrasing the general idea that footnote 213 is referring to. MurrayScience and Efbrazil, do either of you have thoughts on how this paragraph should be worded? Are you ok with the proposal + Femke's Feb 26 revision to the last sentence? Again, one of the goals of this revision is to try and build some consensus for how carbon dioxide removal should be handled in the lede, the idea being that is should be consistent with how we describe it in this subsection. Dtetta (talk) 06:21, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Femke - I am confused by your Feb 28 comment - why exactly are you taking back your 26 Feb comment about the tone of the proposed edit being an improvement? Is it that you want specific text about the unproven nature of CDR being a risk in reaching 1.5C...beyond the way you stated it in your 26 Feb proposed wording? As I mentioned to Bogazicili, I think this is more detail than belongs in the text itself, although I think we could include it as an in-citation quote. Dtetta (talk) 01:14, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

In general, this change looks fine to me. Regarding the lede, I guess this idea could be wedged into the list of methods in the mitigation sentence, although that sentence is already overstuffed. Efbrazil (talk) 17:59, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

I actually hadn't looked at the IPCC wording before my last copy edit, so that was a mistake. I copy edited again so it doesn't look too close to the source, while discussion here takes place. I still think it's DUE to mention this presents a major risk for mitigation if emission cuts are delayed. I might be busy over the next few weeks by the way. Hopefully the current wording is fine. Bogazicili (talk) 23:45, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

So, just to summarize again, I would suggest deleting two of the sentences in the Mitigation introduction and moving rephrased versions of them to the Carbon sequestration subsection. The revised paragraph from the introduction would read as:

Although there is no single pathway to limit global warming to 1.5 or 2.0 °C (2.7 or 3.6 °F),[207] most scenarios and strategies see a major increase in the use of renewable energy in combination with increased energy efficiency measures to generate the needed greenhouse gas reductions.[208] To reduce pressures on ecosystems and enhance their carbon sequestration capabilities, changes would also be necessary in sectors such as forestry and agriculture.[209] Scenarios that limit global warming to 1.5 °C also project the large-scale use of carbon dioxide removal methods over the 21st century,[210] including reaching net negative emissions in most cases.[211] Net negative emissions would mean that greenhouse gasses are removed from the atmosphere at a faster rate than they are emitted.[212] However, at scale deployment of carbon dioxide removal technologies is "unproven"; delaying progress towards zero CO2 emissions increases reliance on such technology, which is a "major risk" for being able to limit warming to 1.5 °C.[213] Solar radiation management methods also have been explored as a possible supplement to deep reductions in net emissions. However, SRM would raise significant ethical and legal issues, and its risks of unwanted effects are poorly understood.[214]

I think the ideas in the two sentences I proposed to move are generally useful ones to have in the article, but I propose both of these fit better as part of the carbon sequestration subsection. The net negative emissions sentence is an expanded explanation of the last clause of the previous sentence, and doesn’t really fit the rest of the tone of the paragraph - we don’t define carbon sequestration or carbon dioxide removal, for instance. The next sentence then gets into some nuances regarding the risks of CO2 removal - again, this is out of character with the basic themes of the paragraph, which is to give an introduction to the key features of mitigation strategies designed to limit GW. Starting the CO2 removal sentence with “However” also doesn’t make sense given the preceding sentence, and illustrates the difficulty with having the sentence in this paragraph.

The information removed would be included in the first carbon sequestration paragraph. I have modified this from m earlier proposal by including Femke’s 26 Feb suggested sentence.

Where energy production or CO2-intensive heavy industries continue to produce waste CO2, the gas can be captured and stored instead of being released to the atmosphere. Although its current use is limited in scale and expensive,[237] carbon capture and storage (CCS) may be able to play a significant role in limiting CO2 emissions by mid-century.[238] Carbon capture and storage in combination with bio-energy (BECCS) can result in net-negative emissions, where the amount of greenhouse gasses that are released into atmosphere are smaller than the sequestered or stored amount in the bio-energy fuel being grown.[212][239] It remains highly uncertain whether carbon dioxide removal techniques such as BECCS will be able to play a large role in limiting warming to 1.5 °C”.[213]

I am not proposing changing any of the citations, just reorganizing and rephrasing some of the text in these two paragraphs.

From reading the earlier comments, I believe Efbrazil is ok with these edits, but that Bogazicili has some concerns about “changing something that explains a limitation of mitigation assumptions to something that reads like carbon removal is largely irrelevant”, and also states a belief that the current sentence, taken from the IPCC report (slightly rephrased) regarding risks associated with depending on CO2 removal, is DUE. My view is that DUE or not DUE is not really the issue... it’s that this idea is more detailed than appropriate for this article, and would be better suited for the Climate change mitigation article. I think Bogazicili’s concern about keeping it in this article could also be accommodated with an in-line citation, with the article text being the simpler last sentence that Femke proposed, but with the IPCC report quote included as part of the citation. Although I recognize that there is some discrepancy between calling something uncertain and saying there is a risk associated with depending on it, I think going with the simpler uncertainty sentence is a better choice for the target reading level of this article, and I don’t think that the sentence is saying that carbon removal is irrelevant, as Bogazicili contends, just that it’s feasibility is uncertain.

I am unclear as to what Femke’s current thoughts are. But I would still propose to make these edits as an improvement to the text that is there, in particular to reposition those two sentences that really don’t belong in an introductory paragraph.Dtetta (talk) 03:55, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

I don't have a strong opinion. I think the placement and prose of dtetta's proposal is marginally better. FemkeMilene (talk) 07:00, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Dtetta, the fact that emission cuts delays would increase dependence on unproven tech and risk mitigation goals is a core issue. It's not too detailed for where it is now. Your edits deletes explanation of that entire core concept. I'd consider your addition about BECCS more detailed than the core concept of consequences of emission cuts delays. Bogazicili (talk) 14:56, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Bogazicili I agree with you about the importance of including the idea that emission cut delays will increase dependence on unproven tech. I disagree completely that what’s written ”deletes explanation of that entire core concept”. I think the last sentence of the proposed text for the first carbon sequestration paragraph generally gets at that point in a way that’s more appropriate for the reading level of our target audience. I also don’t understand your last statement. BECCS is just an example of the unproven tech that you’re referring to. How does providing an example make something more detailed? In your post, you also don’t directly address the points I made about why the two sentences I am moving need to be switched from the introductory paragraph and placed in the carbon sequestration paragraph. But to address your first point, and put additional emphasis on the risks of relying on unproven tech, I would propose that we add a clause at the end of the last sentence of the carbon sequestration paragraph (beginning with “It remains highly uncertain”) along the lines of, “and reliance on them increases the risk of global warming increasing beyond 1.5 C”, which is also consistent with page 34 of the IPCC report that is cited. What are your thoughts on that attempt at compromise.Dtetta (talk) 15:45, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Dtetta, removing general statement about CDR and giving an example of CDR like BECCS is more detailed IMO. I'm not against your proposed addition by the way, just against the proposed deletion. I think consequences of emission cuts delays is suited for intro paragraphs, as it's a core concept; that's why I wanted to keep them there. Bogazicili (talk) 19:14, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Bogazicili, re: your first point, I guess we agree to disagree on what makes something more detailed. Re: your second point, you’ve made it very clear you consider your paraphrasing of the IPCC p.34 statement to be a core concept. But that doesn’t mean it needs to be in a paragraph that’s designed to provide an introduction to the major features of mitigation, and not specifically to evaluate their strengths/weaknesses. In addition, we have lots of core concepts scattered throughout this article; not all of them are in the intro sections. We talk about the risks associated with land based CDR in the following sequestration paragraph, but that edit did not lead to including that idea in the intro as well. And you still haven’t addressed my concerns that the two sentences at issue, as they exist in the intro paragraph, are disjointed and interrupt the main flow of ideas; they work better as part of the sequestration subsection. Dtetta (talk) 20:53, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Another problem with having the IPCC based sentence in that intro paragraph is that it makes me, as a reader, question whether or not the earlier sentence in the paragraph, starting with: “Scenarios that limit..” is in fact correct, or at least whether the scenarios are. Another reason why I think a simpler, paraphrased version, like the compromise sentence I suggested in my 4 March post for the sequestration subsection (which was an effort to develop consensus), would be more appropriate. Dtetta (talk) 02:16, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Re: "disjointed and interrupt the main flow of ideas". That's why I had tried to reorganize several months ago, when you reverted it and gave a strongly-worded response: Talk:Climate_change/Archive_85#Need_to_reevaluate_recent_edits_to_first_two_mitigation_paragraphs. The concept of carbon budget is sorely missing in mitigation section. Going to net zero by 2050 is not enough; emission declines should start now for 1.5 mitigation. We should not be giving incorrect or massively incomplete information just to try to maintain the existing organization of those two paragraphs. Bogazicili (talk) 15:54, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Bogazicili I think your point about strengthening the discussion of carbon budgets is definitely worth thinking about. And that can be done independent of this proposed edit. When it comes to carbon budget related ideas, I do think there are issues around level of detail, and what’s appropriate for this article vs. what is better suited for in the climate change mitigation article. But again, you’re not addressing my main reasons for proposing to move those two sentence. As I have tried to explain in a variety of ways, they are simply not well suited, as they are written, to the paragraph they are placed in. I’ve tried to explain why they’re not, but your responses consistently don’t seem to be addressing the concerns I’m raising, and I’m led to think that it’s not productive, nor a good use of our collective time, to have additional exchanges with you on this particular proposal. Efbrazil and Femke are ok with this proposed edit. So at this point I’m going to go ahead with the edit, and include the additional text I proposed in my 4 March post, which was my attempt to reach a compromise with you. I’m sorry to be using critical wording to describe your earlier edit, but my efforts to describe things in more neutral terms don’t seem to go anywhere. Dtetta (talk) 16:55, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Intro cleanup for readability

I would like to reorganize the third and fourth paragraphs of the lede so they have "flow" again. If you look at the current version, it is just a set of disconnected sentences that is very hard to digest as a whole. Note I am not proposing adding or removing content, just cleaning it up for readability.

Here is the proposed rewrite, with moved and reorganized sentences highlighted:

Temperature rise on land is about twice the global average increase, leading to desert expansion and more common heat waves and wildfires. Temperature rise is also amplified in the Arctic, where it has contributed to melting permafrost, glacial retreat and sea ice loss. Warmer temperatures are also increasing rates of evaporation, causing more intense storms and weather extremes. Impacts on ecosystems include the relocation or extinction of many species as their environment changes, most immediately in coral reefs, mountains, and the Arctic. Climate change threatens people with food insecurity, lost fresh water access, flooding, infectious diseases, extreme heat, economic losses, and displacement. The World Health Organization calls climate change the greatest threat to global health in the 21st century. Even if efforts to minimize future warming are successful, some effects will continue for centuries, including rising sea levels, rising ocean temperatures, and ocean acidification.

Many of these impacts are already felt at the current level of warming, which is about 1.1 °C (2.0 °F). The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has issued a series of reports that project significant increases in these impacts as warming continues to 1.5 °C (2.7 °F) and beyond. Additional warming also increases the risk of triggering critical thresholds called tipping points. Responding to climate change involves mitigation and adaptation. Mitigation – limiting climate change – consists of reducing greenhouse gas emissions, and removing them from the atmosphere; methods include the development and deployment of low-carbon energy sources such as wind and solar, a phase-out of coal, enhanced energy efficiency, reforestation, and forest preservation. Adaptation consists of adjusting to actual or expected climate, such as through improved coastline protection, better disaster management, assisted colonization and the development of more resistant crops. Adaptation alone cannot avert the risk of "severe, widespread and irreversible" impacts.

Bogazicili complained about moving the tipping points into the second paragraph as they are an effect, but I believe the move is an improvement, so would like feedback from others. Tipping points are risk factors that increase as temperatures rise above 2 degrees, so they naturally fit in with concerns about uncontained warming. Additionally, some tipping points are not about effects on ecosystems and people, but are about feedbacks impacting warming itself. I think it is better to present them in the second paragraph, where they can be used to emphasize the risks of exceeding 2 degrees celcius. Lastly, the effects paragraph is already overstuffed, and shoving in tipping points in there as well pushed the whole paragraph into the category of unreadable I think. Efbrazil (talk) 18:40, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

I think these are well done edits and improve the readability of those two paragraphs. Dtetta (talk) 18:54, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

I'd say I have a weak preference for the current version

• I think moving the temperature sentences together is an improvement
• The third sentence now has a useless 'also'
• The new sentences in impacts is more awkward than before (biased, I wrote it) with phrases like lost fresh water access
• The WHO statement should be linked to its corresponding ideas, not be a stand-alone sentence
• I'm neutral on the idea with tipping points. My knee-jerk reaction is to agree with Bogazicili, but upon second though I think both options are possible. FemkeMilene (talk) 18:55, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks Dtetta!

Femke- Thanks for the careful review.

Striking the also from the third paragraph makes good sense.

I also agree about the awkwardness of lost fresh water access, I was trying to preserve the old wording, but water scarcity is better, and wikipedia even has a nice article on the topic that includes a section talking about climate change that we can link to. Does that work for you?

Regarding impacts, the old wording awkwardly splits human health effects into 2 sentences, semi-attaching the WHO statement to just the effects of the second sentence without being explicit, and then cutting off the impacts in the second sentence from the first. I mean, doesn't the WHO care about food insecurity and water scarcity? Won't flooding and extreme heat lead to displacement and economic losses? The whole thing is just confusing to read because it is unclear why it is split into 2 sentences, other than to avoid a run on sentence. The second sentence in particular is weirdly constructed and hard to digest. Here is the old (current) wording:

Climate change threatens food security and access to water, leads to economic losses, and is projected to increase displacement of people. It further magnifies risks of flooding, infectious diseases and extreme heat, with the World Health Organization calling climate change the greatest threat to global health in the 21st century.[11]

Regarding connecting the WHO statement to human impacts, I'm OK adding a bridge into the WHO statement, beginning it with "These impacts have led the World Health Organization to call...". It draws things out and is maybe too restrictive, but arguably improves the flow.

Regarding tipping points, I'm glad you're OK with the new location. I tried keeping it in the current paragraph, but to have it make sense really requires adding a lot of words, and the paragraph is already overstuffed. It works better in its new placement.

So that leaves us with this. Anyone have specific concerns with this change?

Temperature rise on land is about twice the global average increase, leading to desert expansion and more common heat waves and wildfires. Temperature rise is also amplified in the Arctic, where it has contributed to melting permafrost, glacial retreat and sea ice loss. Warmer temperatures are increasing rates of evaporation, causing more intense storms and weather extremes. Impacts on ecosystems include the relocation or extinction of many species as their environment changes, most immediately in coral reefs, mountains, and the Arctic. Climate change threatens people with food insecurity, water scarcity, flooding, infectious diseases, extreme heat, economic losses, and displacement. These impacts have led the World Health Organization to call climate change the greatest threat to global health in the 21st century. Even if efforts to minimize future warming are successful, some effects will continue for centuries, including rising sea levels, rising ocean temperatures, and ocean acidification.

Many of these impacts are already felt at the current level of warming, which is about 1.1 °C (2.0 °F). The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has issued a series of reports that project significant increases in these impacts as warming continues to 1.5 °C (2.7 °F) and beyond. Additional warming also increases the risk of triggering critical thresholds called tipping points. Responding to climate change involves mitigation and adaptation. Mitigation – limiting climate change – consists of reducing greenhouse gas emissions, and removing them from the atmosphere; methods include the development and deployment of low-carbon energy sources such as wind and solar, a phase-out of coal, enhanced energy efficiency, reforestation, and forest preservation. Adaptation consists of adjusting to actual or expected climate, such as through improved coastline protection, better disaster management, assisted colonization and the development of more resistant crops. Adaptation alone cannot avert the risk of "severe, widespread and irreversible" impacts.

Efbrazil (talk) 18:38, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

My main complaint was the part about tipping points. The way you positioned it in 4th paragraph implies it's only an issue beyond 1.5 warming, but it's an issue now:

"Information summarized in the two most recent IPCC Special Reports (published in 2018 and in September this year)2,3 suggests that tipping points could be exceeded even between 1 and 2 °C of warming (see ‘Too close for comfort’)." [2]

It's better positioned in third paragraph, where effects and impacts are discussed, rather than responses, which 4th paragraph talks about. Bogazicili (talk) 19:10, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Various tipping points are passed all the time, but the concept of tipping points is typically raised as an issue in terms of setting limits on temperature change and risks associated with higher temperatures, which is why putting them in the 4th paragraph works better I believe. Additionally, the third paragraph is already overstuffed with specific impacts, and layering on a conceptual risk model confuses things. dtetta and I liked the change, you are opposed, femke is on the fence. Femke or anyone else want to declare a position on the move? Efbrazil (talk) 19:48, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

"Various tipping points are passed all the time"? Are we talking about same tipping points? The tipping points in terms of climate change discussion? Bogazicili (talk) 15:57, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Small regional tipping points are indeed crossed regularly, forest-> savannah, mountian glacier -> no glacier; In terms of global tippings points, we may have already passed the Greenland ice sheet tipping point. I'll answer your questions later Efbrazil, about the new proposal. FemkeMilene (talk) 17:23, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

In looking at this again, I’m noticing that the second, third and fourth sentences of the second paragraph involves somewhat distinct ideas. One way of helping establish a stronger connection between them might be to replace “Additional warming also increases the risk of triggering critical thresholds called tipping points. Responding to climate change...” with “The risk of triggering additional climate thresholds, or tipping points, is also greater as global temperatures increase. Responding to these anticipated changes...”. I also think Bogazicili and Femke do have a point that we may be crossing some of these thresholds now, so the wording I am proposing is an attempt to implicitly recognize that point, by using the word “additional”. Just a suggestion. Dtetta (talk) 19:20, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

These regional changes are not always recognized as ''climate'' tipping points, so I'm not confident about that wording (on top, we can't say anything in the lead that we don't say in the article). FemkeMilene (talk) 19:24, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Femkemilene Are you good with the above text then? I'd like to get this change rolled out as it fixes a number of problems. Efbrazil (talk) 18:02, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

References

Please do go ahead. FemkeMilene (talk) 19:33, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Recommended browsing - open source model of the electricity grid (US Case Study)

Hi everyone. I highly recommend this website for some very interesting (but a bit technical) browsing. https://science.breakthroughenergy.org/. They have some really incredible publications and reports that are long overdue, considering that electricity grid models are so heterogeneous, propriety, low-quality, etc. MurrayScience (talk) 13:34, 5 March 2021 (UTC) For those programming-people interested in getting really into the weeds with their open source model, check out their GitHub: https://github.com/Breakthrough-Energy. Or if you want to read their report, you can see it here: https://bescienceswebsite.blob.core.windows.net/publications/MacroGridReport.pdf. :) MurrayScience (talk) 13:37, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Slideshow not working

It say in the first section that the images are in a slideshow, however every image is displaying at one time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.237.51.103 (talk) 15:49, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Things look good to me on smartphone and PC. Can anyone reproduce this problem and specify where the images are displayed one at a time, the operating system, and the browser or app you are using? Efbrazil (talk) 16:59, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Additional subsection on Energy efficiency in Mitigation section

I am proposing an additional (perhaps one or two paragraphs) subsection in the mitigation portion of the article that covers energy efficiency. The AR5 Synthesis Report, Fig 4.4, page 110, clearly shows that future investments in energy efficiency are expected to be significantly greater than those in renewable/clean energy, which we cover extensively. Within the Clean energy and Agriculture and industry subsections we briefly touch on these ideas, but I believe this an inadequate treatment, given the overall significance energy efficiency investments are expected to have in overall mitigation efforts.

Interested in others thoughts on this, in particular any references that you think would be most useful. In addition to AR5, I think the 2019 UNEP Emissions Gap report and Achieving the Paris Climate Agreement Goals provide good background material. - Dtetta (talk) 15:42, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

I like this addition, but it would be good to also include low impact lifestyle choices, particularly as the current problem is the developing world adopting the bad habits of the United States (flying more, driving more, consuming more, eating more meat, bigger houses, etc). Those things aren't discussed much in UN reports, but there are many studies on the impacts of lifestyle choices. One start point: https://www.nytimes.com/guides/year-of-living-better/how-to-reduce-your-carbon-footprint Efbrazil (talk) 16:54, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

You make a good point - there were a couple of sentences on individual’s carbon footprints, including a reference to the NY times article you cite, in an earlier version of this section, but it seems that was deleted when during a recent reorganization of the section. That should probably be reinstated.-Dtetta (talk) 06:50, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

That 'individual footprint' sentence was deleted for a couple of reasons: redundancy, neutrality and not fitting in any section. It is redundant with the other text, as we already say public transport is better and show how much energy is used where. I'm worried about neutrality considering 'individual footprints' are the oil industry's framing of the problem. It got disproportiate attention if you compare it to our high quality reliable sources such as the IPCC. Thirdly, it doesn't fit in any section and led to a very small paragraph which breached the manual of style. FemkeMilene (talk) 08:05, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

We're quite a bit above the ideal 8000 words (almost 9000), so with any big addition I'd like some evidence that other sources spend proportially way more text on this. I believe not, as efficiency is quite straightforward. If I'm wrong and we need to include it, what would we delete? FemkeMilene (talk) 17:53, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

I would say that the additional text would not be more than a paragraph or two, as the sentences on buildings and transport could be moved from their current locations to this proposed subsection. As to making up for any additional wording, I think there are some opportunities for editing sections such as “Observed temperature rise” and “Future warming and the carbon budget” and provide simpler language that would both reduce word count and bring the complexity of the text more in line with WP’s target audience.-Dtetta (talk) 06:50, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

I found some redundancy in the mitigation section! (I already removed an instance of redundancy + False precision) Ideally, we should not expand mitigation wrt adaptation, but I'm also open to further reduce other sections. Forestry is now mentioned in two different subsections: agriculture and industry and carbon sequestration.

I'm worried about making a seperate section on efficiency, as efficiency is already very prominent in industry, and having overlapping subsections increases the risk we talk about things twice.

The observed temperature rise section informs a lot of the lede, and it's difficult to further decrease it. I've removed another half a sentence. I can't find any obvious candidate in the 'future warming and the carbon budget' section. FemkeMilene (talk) 08:42, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

We currently mention efficiency in the context of transport, building and industry, which I believe to be sufficient. The only information that might be relevant from the above is investment costs, and I'm open to adding something like that. Does the 2020 UNEP report mention it? With costs of renewables being so different from 2013, that source can't be used for anything but the most crude estimation. FemkeMilene (talk) 17:53, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Relative investment is indeed an important concept, and should be included. I can look for more recent sources on that. Another important point is the role of energy efficiency in making the transition to RE easier - by reducing demand, some of the issues associated with more RE on the grid become less problematic, so it’s an important short term consideration as well. Another is relative cost effectiveness - many energy efficiency projects still have a shorter payback time than renewable energy investments. All of this is important to briefly mention. Efbrazil’s comment brings up the fact that the short paragraph on individual carbon footprints seems to have been removed during the recent reorganization of this section, and I think that needs to be reinstated. So a few things besides just the transport, buildings and industry sentences.-Dtetta (talk) 06:50, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

With this article, I feel we should wait for the AR6 to come out (first report in August!) and focus on other top articles in disrepair with similar amount of readership: Wikipedia:WikiProject_Climate_change/Popular_articles. FemkeMilene (talk) 17:53, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

When I look at the AR6 Mitigation group schedule it looks to me like it will be closer to the end of the year. Regardless of the AR6 timeline, I don’t expect there to be a lot of new information on energy efficiency research such that it would affect the basic statements I am thinking would be in this subsection. And what is the value of waiting? This is not a huge time commitment to write.

I do like the idea of encouraging people to improve other climate change related articles. But the challenge with this is to figure out how to decide which ones to focus on - based on number of hits? Based on the extent of improvement needed? The list on your link is interesting, but I’m not sure it really captures the manner in which wikipedia as a whole is covering climate change and its causes/effects/solutions. As an example, I just spent the earlier part of this week rewriting the Carbon emissions section of the the Non-fungible token article to provide a more objective description, with better context, re: the carbon footprint of NFT transactions. That page is currently receiving 50-60,000 page views a day...several times that of the Climate change or Greta Thunberg articles, but it’s not on the list you link to. So figuring out where to focus time along the lines of what you are proposing is challenging. Personally, I can’t get very excited about working on the Mitigation of climate change, Effects of Climate change, or Climate change adaptation pages based on the number of views they receive...it makes me more convinced that the best use of my time and energy is to keep making the Climate change page as good as possible.

Be good to get a couple of other viewpoints on this...maybe from RCraig09 or MurrayScience?-Dtetta (talk) 06:50, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

I'm hoping somebody will step up to bring Keystone pipeline and David Attenborough to GA, as these tell a more personal story of climate change, and have had more views than climate change. Working on CC in articles like Non-fungible token is equally important :), and is what I've been doing (in Antarctica f.i.). FemkeMilene (talk) 09:22, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Glad you’re improving those articles as well (on top of all the work you do for this page)....it is important work! It sounds like some people (including Alex Lubben at Columbia) are working on ways of identifying helpful patterns that could be used to prioritize our collective energies. Hopefully those efforts will bring some additional insights. I also like the Small to medium tasks page related to this topic as a way of focusing energy.-Dtetta (talk) 13:33, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Underlying this discussion is a desire to keep this top-level article as concise as possible. I see that, to the community's credit, its byte length has increased only slightly since summer 2019, and with improved quality and timeliness. Especially based on the foregoing exposition, I agree that energy efficiency deserves mention by subject matter experts, but I hope the word count addition will be modest—the article's narrative now occupies 15 desktop-screenfuls, and references/notes occupy 18 desktop-screenfuls. —RCraig09 (talk) 16:11, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

My 2 cents: I would add a section under mitigation called "Limiting energy demand" and include energy efficiency as one paragraph and lifestyle choices as another paragraph. Efbrazil (talk) 18:20, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Agree Efbrazil - that’s a good choice for the title, and the only other paragraph I might add is one on framing - describing the role that limiting energy demand plays in not just lowering GHG emissions, but also in reducing risks and disruptions as the percent of RE in the energy supply increases. Dtetta (talk) 16:09, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

I really would like some evidence that this (three full paragraphs...) is due from overview sources. I don't quite think it is. What percentage of space do sources about CC broadly dedicate to clean energy vs efficiency?

I think we should stay away of delving into the hypothesis that RE would lead to more disruptions. That's a difficult discussion more appropriate for variable renewable energy. FemkeMilene (talk) 17:07, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

From AR5 WGIII p 20 : “Efficiency enhancements and behavioural changes, in order to reduce energy demand compared to base- line scenarios without compromising development, are a key mitigation strategy in scenarios reaching atmospheric CO2eq concentrations of about 450 to about 500 ppm by 2100 (robust evidence, high agreement). Near-term reductions in energy demand are an important element of cost-effective mitigation strategies, provide more flexibility for reducing carbon intensity in the energy supply sector, hedge against related supply-side risks, avoid lock-in to carbon-intensive infrastructures, and are associated with important co-benefit.” I doubt very much that this idea will change significantly in terms of how it is expressed in AR6.

More recently, IEA’s Energy Outlook 2020 has a similar message on p 20 of that report: “A greater share of variable renewables connected to grids requires new technologies, policies and regulatory approaches to manage electricity security and minimise overall investment requirements. In this context, the demand side of energy systems is becoming increasingly important, in terms of overall efficiency and as a provider of demand flexibility. Efficient end-use technologies lower overall system size requirements and hence grid investment needs.”

From my perspective it’s very important to briefly summarize these kinds of statements in the article. I really don’t understand what the concern is. I think the issue is valid, supported by reliable sources, consistent over time, and worth briefly mentioning along the lines that it’s characterized in these two sources. Dtetta (talk) 18:30, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

We differ in opinion about how much information should be added. You would like to add 3 paragraphs, which means this topic would be half the size of clean energy. If I look at the index of SYR (p149), I see 3 pages where energy efficiency is mentioned versus 25 pages where energy production is mentioned. This amounts to one small paragraph on efficiency, if we keep energy production the same. Therefore I support the addition of one or two sentences.

Adding a subsection with strong overlap with other sections will also deteriorate the structure that we worked so hard to achieve. FemkeMilene (talk) 19:32, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Understand. I will propose something, and show a count of added words (excluding the sentences that are removed from the current mitigation section), and then we can do a rough comparison. Given the relative level of Energy Efficiency investment (SPM Fig 9), it’s intricate linkage with supporting the RE transition, and the level of anticipated GHG reduction currently associated with it, I don’t think that 3/25 ratio is necessarily the most the appropriate one. But let’s see once I have something to post. I would suggest you reread the SPM and just get a general sense of the relative importance that RE and Energy Efficiency are given in getting to net zero. Dtetta (talk) 21:18, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

So, for this proposed edit, I would modify the existing text in paragraph three of the "Clean energy" subsection:

In transport, scenarios envision sharp increases in the market share of electric vehicles and low carbon fuel substitution for other transportation modes like shipping, and changes in transportation patterns that increase efficiency, for example increased public transport. Buildings would see additional electrification with the use of technologies like heat pumps, as well as continued energy efficiency improvements achieved via low energy building codes.

There would then be a new subsection titled: “Demand reduction" or perhaps "Demand reduction and energy efficiency” with the following text:

As world GDP and global living standards increase over the next few decades, reducing energy demand, using a range of energy efficiency investments, is a major feature of scenarios and plans that achieve zero emissions by 2050. In addition to it’s role in limiting GHG emissions, measures to reduce demand are an important element of cost-effective mitigation strategies. They provide more flexibility for low carbon energy supplies, help limit potential electricity grid disruptions, and minimize carbon-intensive infrastructure development. AR5 WGIII SPM p20. Energy efficiency investments to reduce demand are expected to be the dominant form of investment in climate change mitigation through 2050. AR5 WGIII SPM p27 Fig 9 However, several COVID 19 related changes (such as in transportation patterns and building use), a decrease in energy efficiency investments, along with possible future in energy efficiency stimulus funding, have made energy demand and efficiency forecasts for this decade more difficult and uncertain. IEA Energy Efficiency 2020 pp14-17 The IEA is currently predicting that world energy demand won’t return to 2019 levels until 2023. IEA World Energy Outlook 2020 In transport, demand reduction strategies that switch passengers and freight to more efficient travel modes (e.g., cars, trucks and airplanes to buses and trains) are seen as the most effective option. IPCC SR 15 Ch2 p142 However, recent 2020 shifts in the overall amount of transportation use, along with changing preferences for how to travel, make future transportation reductions more uncertain, particularly for long distance transport and travel. IEA Energy Efficiency 2020 pp55-57 Industrial strategies to reduce demand generally focus on wide scale upgrading and deployment of newer technologies, particularly in less advanced countries. AR5 WGIII SPM pp753-757 Specific measures include increasing energy efficiency of heating systems and motors, designing less energy intensive products, increasing product lifetimes, and otherwise reducing waste. AR5 WGIII SPM pp753-757 Strategies in the building sector focus on better design of new buildings and advanced retrofitting techniques for existing structures. AR5 WGIII SPM p675 As with transport, recent shifts in behavior, such as an increased preference for at home work, are causing shifts in demand and energy intensity for residential and commercial buildings. This has made estimates of future demand reduction for this sector more uncertain. IEA Energy Efficiency 2020p21 Buildings have been a focus for energy efficiency related stimulus funding, which may finance additional efficiency gains and demand reductions. IEA Energy Efficiency 2020 p22 One constant is the potential for individual action to reduce personal carbon footprints and thereby reduce global warming. These include: driving an electric or other energy efficient car, reducing vehicles miles by using mass transit or cycling, adopting a plant-based diet, reducing energy use in the home, limiting consumption of goods and services, and foregoing air travel.NY Times 2020, Druckman 2016

Looks like around 400 words, with 25 or so words deleted from the Clean energy subsection. I thought additional detail on transport, building and industry measures would be helpful, but those portions could be shortened. Comments on this proposal would be much appreciated. -Dtetta (talk) 02:22, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for working so hard on this!

I maintain we shouldn't be talking about the oil companies framing of the problem (carbon footprints). It's skewed talk about life choices, when individuals have been shown to have way more effect if they organise. Plant-based diets is an important topic, which should be added to the agriculture section. To avoid using this framing, I support adding maximum two words on behavioural change (those two).

In terms of length: there is a reason overview sources spent less time on efficiency; it's a relatively easy thing to do, so spending more text on it would lead to including details.

• COVID-19 is mentioned a lot. This gets outdated within half a year maybe, and is therefore unsuitable for this article, that maybe one statement for mitigation and adaptation overall.
• The text overlaps with the paragraph on industry. Could you instead simply strengthen that paragraph?
• WP:RECENT
• To avoid putting in too many details, it's smart to work with broad overview sources (f.i. SYR; maybe a broad overview source on mitigation, but stay away from any source specific to efficiency, however excellent)

In terms of text-source integrety (only checking things that I am willing to compromise on in terms of inclusion)

• SPM p 20 does not mention global living standards, GDP, does not mention net-zero by 2050, does not mention grid stability (supply-side risks in the 2014 context would most likely be oil and gas shocks)
• As figure 9 talks about changes in investment, it technically doesn't support your statement without page 26. Furthermore, the page says nothing about the most likely future, only about scenarios that aim to give the "optimal pathway"
• Switching travel mode is not a demand reduction per your source. Also close paraphrasing
• Specific measures include increasing energy efficiency of heating systems and motors, designing less energy intensive products, increasing product lifetimes, and otherwise reducing waste -> Could you give a smaller page range; 5 IPCC pages are difficult to verify. The executive summary is a better place

Tiny comments: spelling, consistent use of UK English, don't repeat citation when used for two sentences, the link to WGIII leads me to SR15. FemkeMilene (talk) 08:12, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for those thoughtful comments Femke - I’ll provide some responses once I’ve had a chance to think about them a bit. It would also be helpful to hear from RCraig09, Efbrazil, MurrayScience, or Clayoquot (since you all have been involved in previous comments/edits to the mitigation section), if any of you have thoughts on either the proposed text or Femke’s comments. -Dtetta (talk) 18:30, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

My main feedback is that this seems pretty wordy, I think all the substance here could be said in less than half the number of words. Here is a cut at that (references removed for readability, but all the content is from the initial text, so the references could be brought in):

Growth in energy demand makes it harder to shut down fossil fuel power plants and harder to meet demand only with renewable power sources. Reductions in demand limit emissions, provide more flexibility for low carbon energy supplies, help limit potential electricity grid disruptions, and minimize carbon-intensive infrastructure development. Energy efficiency investments to reduce demand are expected to be the dominant form of investment in climate change mitigation through 2050. Efficiency strategies vary by sector. In transport, demand reduction strategies include switching passengers and freight to more efficient travel modes and zero emission vehicles. Industrial strategies to reduce demand include increasing energy efficiency of heating systems and motors, designing less energy intensive products, and increasing product lifetimes. In the building sector focus is on better design of new buildings and advanced retrofitting techniques for existing structures. As world GDP and global living standards increase, a concern is that carbon intensive lifestyle choices are similarly increasing. Shifts in behavior, such as an increased preference for at home work, also cause shifts in demand for transport and buildings. Lifestyles that reduce carbon footprints include driving an electric or other energy efficient car, reducing vehicles miles by using mass transit or cycling, adopting a plant-based diet, reducing energy use in the home, limiting consumption of goods and services, and foregoing air travel.

Efbrazil (talk) 18:20, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi. So the goal is zero right? If energy efficiency is about reducing the amount of energy waste (like installing triple glaze windows in buildings or raising standards for fuel efficiency in cars) that reduces emissions by some percentage, sure, but the goal is zero! As long as the home is heated by gas and the car runs on gasoline, we haven’t reached it. So energy efficiency can help in the short term, and may reduce the need for solar panels, etc when we finally can electrify everything, but the only way to get to zero is if you are actually multiplying by zero (not using fossil fuels at all to make the car go, the house warm, the limestone decompose for cement, the iron reduce for steel, and on). Also, industrial processes, cargo shipping, and passenger jets, are already very efficient, after decades of innovation to reduce energy costs. So it’s not like there’s a whole lot of room to go. So energy efficiency, it helps, but alone it will not get us to zero, only eliminating the green premium on the non-emitting (green) ways to make the physical economy, will get us to zero. MurrayScience (talk) 19:15, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

This misguided focus on efficiency instead of multiplying zero is really disappointing. Why is there not a single mention of research and development in this entire article? Getting to zero means you can't just skip or ignore sources of emissions you don't like. I don't mean to be harsh, but a lot of times I read this talk page/article and I lose hope because I realize how much we're not taking the problem of getting to zero seriously. MurrayScience (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 19:32, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

It's not binary like that. If energy demand continues to rise with abandon then it's much harder to shut down fossil fuel power plants and much harder to meet demand with renewables. I think the suggested intro paragraph above makes that clear, and the IPCC sources back it up. Efbrazil (talk) 22:22, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Amending my proposal above to make that point more clear. Added first sentence "Growth in energy demand makes it harder to shut down fossil fuel power plants and harder to meet demand only with renewable power sources." Thoughts on going forward with that overall wording? Efbrazil (talk) 18:08, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Efbrazil, I like the general way you have made the text briefer. I think I prefer some of the original wording in the first paragraph, particularly the first two sentences. Let me try another cut at it based on some of the proposed revisions you’ve made. Probably on Monday or Tuesday.-Dtetta (talk) 02:46, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

I like it too (noting that text-source integrety issues have not yet been addressed). I would still like to see these ideas hit two birds with one stone: agriculture and industry both have very short paragraphs, and that section can be made more FA-compliant if these ideas are incorporated instead of pushed in another section with overlapping content.

Efbrazil's rewrite of the 'put the responsibility to individuals' paragraph comes over are less US-centric now (only rich people fly worldwide, most people worldwide don't own a car), with shifts me from 'hard oppose' to 'lean oppose'. FemkeMilene (talk) 07:21, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

I don't see any source backing up this claim for Efbrazil's proposal: "Growth in energy demand makes it harder to shut down fossil fuel power plants and harder to meet demand only with renewable power sources". It seems to be WP:original research. As for Dtetta's proposals, it doesn't seem to be consistent with WP:Neutrality. For example, some scientist like Michael E. Mann think individual action is not enough:

"Many readers will be surprised to learn that one of Mann’s chief complaints concerns flight-shaming, vegan diets and other types of individual behaviour widely thought to be central to tackling climate change. Personal actions can help, and often set a sensible example. But, as Mann writes, they cannot rival broad, systemic measures such as carbon pricing or ending fossil fuel subsidies. For all the scrutiny of flying, it currently accounts for about 3 per cent of global carbon emissions." [3] Bogazicili (talk) 16:17, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Saying people need to gravitate towards sustainable lifestyles is not the same as saying "individual behavior" is "central to tackling climate change". Lifestyle choices are set in a range of ways- by cultural norms, by legislation, by poverty, or by people making better choices. You may reject one of those methods like individual choice, but people adopting more sustainable lifestyles is still important to meeting IPCC goals. Even Mann says that in his book (which is frankly written to shock people and sell book copies, like saying "we can't end slavery with individual choice, so go ahead and have as many slaves as you want, it doesn't matter"). There's also speeches from business sites like national review saying we can't legislate a solution because it'll put us at a competitive disadvantage so nothing should be done legislatively (they argue fixing climate change is a matter of consumer choice).

Regardless of the method for getting people to adopt sustainable lifestyles, people do need to do that according to the IPCC. Don't confuse the method with the goal. What I wrote was a synopsis of what dtetta said based on the IPCC sources. Efbrazil (talk) 17:31, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Efbrazil, nope. What you did was WP:original research. This was Dtetta's proposal sentence:

"Energy efficiency investments to reduce demand are expected to be the dominant form of investment in climate change mitigation through 2050. p. 110"

You somehow turned it into:

"Growth in energy demand makes it harder to shut down fossil fuel power plants and harder to meet demand only with renewable power sources."

I don't see the justification for the above sentence in Dtetta's sources. Where does that sentence come from, since you didn't put your sources? Even Dtetta's wording was problematic as the p. 110 graph doesn't justify the word "dominant" (something like "majority" is more appropriate). Bogazicili (talk) 17:59, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Looking at the graph dtetta summarized, "Total electricity generation" annual investment is about 120 billion per year, whereas the energy efficiency investment is about 330 billion per year. Having said that, I don't think the graph itself is fully inclusive, as it only accounts for energy production and consumption, ignoring costs like switching transportation power sources.

It's fair to say that we should stick to strict IPCC wording here. I was trying to clear up confusion before- a lot of people think talk of lifestyles = saying it is up to individual choice, plus you raised the issue of "times zero" in opposition to adding this section.

Anyhow, I rewrote the first paragraph to use almost verbatim text from the IPCC plus I tried to make a more clear summary of the graph. The second and third paragraphs I thought were accurate to the sources, so no rewrite there:

Demand-side measures are key elements of 1.5 °C (2.7 °F) pathways,IPCC SR 15 p97 with investments in energy efficiency projected to be made at over twice the rate of investments made in new electricity generation.AR5 p110. Lifestyle choices also help in lowering energy demand and the land- and greenhouse gas-intensity of food consumption. By 2030 and 2050, all end-use sectors (including building, transport, and industry) must make marked energy demand reductions in order to limit warming to 2.0 °C (3.6 °F) or less. IPCC SR 15 p97 Efficiency strategies vary by sector. In transport, demand reduction strategies include switching passengers and freight to more efficient travel modes and zero emission vehicles IPCC SR 15 p142 2.4.3.3 Transport Industrial strategies to reduce demand include increasing energy efficiency of heating systems and motors, designing less energy intensive products, and increasing product lifetimes. IPCC SR 15 p138, p140 2.4.3.1 Industry In the building sector focus is on better design of new buildings and advanced retrofitting techniques for existing structures.IPCC SR 15 p141, p142 2.4.3.2 Buildings As world GDP and global living standards increase, a concern is that carbon intensive lifestyle choices are similarly increasing. Shifts in behavior, such as an increased preference for at home work, also cause shifts in demand for transport and buildings.IEA Energy Efficiency 2020 p21 Lifestyles that reduce carbon footprints include driving an electric or other energy efficient car, reducing vehicles miles by using mass transit or cycling, adopting a plant-based diet, reducing energy use in the home, limiting consumption of goods and services, and foregoing air travel. NY Times 2020, Druckman 2016

Efbrazil (talk) 21:52, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

I'm ok with first 2 paragraphs.

For last paragraph, there's a paywall for IEA article, so will need to verify it. Last sentence is problematic. NYT article was written by Livia Albeck-Ripka, "a graduate of Columbia Journalism School". Not sure if we can consider her an expert on this issue, so this is not a reliable source. Please provide quotes and page numbers from the Druckman source. For example, I did a keyword search for "air" for air travel, and there wasn't anything relevant. Even then such a sentence will need to be balanced per WP:Neutrality, eg: a secondary source or someone like Michael E. Mann. Bogazicili (talk) 01:46, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

I think Bogazicili makes a good point in his comment about shaming, and it’s similar to a comment Femke made on 27 March. In fact Mark Hoffman, our Wikipedia friend from Mashable, wrote an interesting article on some of the disreputable history of this. But I don’t think it changes the significance of foot print reduction methods in terms of either their current societal significance, or their demonstrated results. There’s still lots of good work in this area being done by reputable organizations such as UC Berkeley‘s Cool Climate, WWF, Global footprint network, and many others. So I think the correct thing to do would be to acknowledge this aspect in our sentences on footprints. Another option would be to put this paragraph within the policies and politics section, and to not have it be part of the demand reduction edit being discussed here. I think Efbrazil has generally done a nice job characterizing it in his last paragraph, but that would be an option.

IMO, I don’t think we need to be overly focused on hewing to specific IPCC language, in fact, I think that often leads to confusing and somewhat technocratic prose, and I think it should generally be avoided - good paraphrasing seems a much better choice.

I still have some concerns with the wording of the above proposal:

• First paragraph - Demand side measures are also key elements of 2C pathways as well, and IMO the second sentence doesn’t seem to fit well. The last sentence of the first paragraph, seem redundant to me in combination with the second paragraph.
• Third paragraph - The second sentence seems out of sync with the first and third sentences - those shifts can lead to either increases or decreases in demand, so I'm unclear as to how it complements the first sentence.
• The first paragraph still doesn't capture some of the items of my original proposal that I think are very important, such as the multifaceted benefits of demand reduction, and the uncertainty with demand projections for the next few years.

Other items of note: Femke had noted that text in my original proposal overlaps with the paragraph on industry - not sure if that is still an issue. I think the COVID related language is important - although Femke cited WP:RECENT and noted that the COVID language gets outdated in a year and a half, the IEA energy outlook and efficiency reports discuss impacts and uncertainties that will cary on for several years.

Here is my new proposal, based in part on the revisions made by Efbrazil. Did not address Bogazicili's comment about neutrality for the Druckman source, so that may still need to be dealt with. Re: his comment on the IEA paywall, this might be an acceptable alternative. Re: his comment on The NY Times reporter not being an expert, I don't think that's a requirement for a news source, and The NY Times seems like a reputable source with a pretty good record on editorial control.

Reducing energy demand is a major feature of scenarios and plans that limit GHG emissions by 2050. In addition to directly reducing GHG emissions, demand reduction measures provide more flexibility for low carbon energy development, help limit potential electricity grid disruptions, and minimize carbon-intensive infrastructure development. AR5 SYR p29 In recent IPCC modeling, energy efficiency investment has been projected at over twice the rate of investments made in new electricity generation. AR5 SYR p110 However, several COVID 19 related changes in demand patterns, investments and funding have made current forecasts for this decade more difficult and uncertain.IEA Energy Efficiency 2020p16 Efficiency strategies vary by sector. In transport, demand reduction strategies include switching passengers and freight to more efficient travel modes and zero emission vehicles IPCC SR 15 p142 2.4.3.3 Transport Industrial strategies to reduce demand include increasing energy efficiency of heating systems and motors, designing less energy intensive products, and increasing product lifetimes. IPCC SR 15 p138, p140 2.4.3.1 Industry In the building sector focus is on better design of new buildings and advanced retrofitting techniques for existing structures.IPCC SR 15 p141, p142 2.4.3.2 Buildings As world GDP and global living standards increase, a concern is that carbon intensive lifestyle choices are similarly increasing. Individual and community efforts that reduce carbon footprints can aid demand reduction objectives. These include driving an electric or other energy efficient car, reducing vehicles miles by using mass transit or cycling, adopting a plant-based diet, reducing energy use in the home, limiting consumption of goods and services, and foregoing air travel.NY Times 2020, Druckman 2016

Dtetta (talk) 02:51, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Femke also had some comments on text-source consistency that may still need to be addressed with the citations used in this revision. Dtetta (talk) 04:54, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

I'll comment again after my three main concerns have been addressed: WP:close paraphrasing, WP:V, and redundancy with the industry paragraph. FemkeMilene (talk) 06:46, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Femkemilene - I agree with your concerns about close paraphrasing and verifiability, but need more information to address this. I have reviewed the proposed text I posted, and I could not figure out which sentences you are now referring to. Could you briefly list the sentences (i.e. first paragraph, second sentence) that you think still present problems from the perspectives of these two WP documents? Each of these policies cover a lot of ground, and given how the text has changed with Efbrazil’s revisions, addressing this has become a bit of a moving target. Once those two concerns are resolved, I can start working on the redundancy issue. Dtetta (talk) 13:55, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

No to Dtetta's proposal per above. I'm surprised they completely ignored (reading Dtetta's comments now in addition to the proposal) the proposal ignored poor/non-existent sourcing in the last sentence (NYT comment article by a non-expert is not a reliable source). Comment articles and news articles are not the same. If NYT was reporting recommendations of experts as news, it would have been a reliable source. Per Wikipedia:Reliable sources:

"Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces, whether written by the editors of the publication (editorials) or outside authors (op-eds) are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact."

I suggest piece by piece approach and adding things that are not contested rather than trying to get an agreement on all 3 paragraphs at once. I'm ok with first 2 paragraphs if there are no other issues.

We can also add something like trying to shift onus to individual action is not a substitute for systemic action. Again there is more here [4] Bogazicili (talk) 14:54, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

From a quick glance FemkeMilene (talk) 16:07, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Femkemilene please see my individual responses below in italics.-Dtetta (talk) 15:22, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

• AR5 SYR p29 doesn't mention 'by 2050', nor anything about helping limit potential electricity grid disruptions

Hmmm, the sentence ending in “by 2050” doesn’t refer to AR5 p29...if you followed the link, it goes to SR15 p97. On p97 the text states states “Demand-side measures are key elements of 1.5°C pathways. Lifestyle choices lowering energy demand and the land- and GHG-intensity of food consumption can further support achievement of 1.5°C pathways (high confidence). By 2030 and 2050, all end-use sectors (including building, transport, and industry) show marked energy demand reductions in modeled 1.5°C pathways, comparable and beyond those projected in 2°C pathways. Sectoral models support the scale of these reductions.” I chose that reference to be supportive of the research Efbrazil did, but I’m pretty sure there are other parts of AR5 that would also support that first sentence in the first paragraph. Probably other reliable sources as well.

• I don't think the NYT is an opinion piece, but it's definitely a weak source. It doesn't fall into the category of 'high-quality reliable sources' expected of controversial parts of featured articles.

How exactly do you come to that conclusion? To me it reads like a well written piece covering fairly non-controversial information by one of the most reputable news organizations in the world. We would do well to emulate that style of writing. I recall including that reference in response to a concern you made last May to my original rewrite of this section, where you stated that there were too many references for the footprint reduction sentence that existed then (i.e. one for each category), and that you preferred one citation that covered all the categories. At the time you seemed fine with the NY Times sourcing. I think Efbrazil's suggested Guardian reference is also fine, but it's not as directly supportive of the sentence for which it would be a citation.

• NYT / Druckman does not mention global living standards or GDP. So OR as it stands

Again, don’t understand this comment, are you saying that if these pieces mentioned global living standards or GDP they would not be OR? Druckman is just a background piece providing a reader with more detail on how carbon footprints are calculated. What do global living standards or GDP have to do with it specifically? I’m not wed to using Druckman, but it’s what was in the CC article before this language was removed in December. The idea that the NY Times reporting on this is original research also seems off base.

• Druckman page number needed

We could specify Fig 9.3, p190

• Carbon footprint is not a neutral term, as the terminology implies that individuals are the sole people responsible. Better is lifestyle choices or behavioural changes

I’m fine with using lifestyle choices

• mass transit is US English

What is the problem with US english being used on this page? Is there a WP policy on what US vs British english we should be using?

• Switching travel mode is not a demand reduction per your source.

P 142 “it is primarily the switching of passengers and freight from less- to more-efficient travel modes (e.g., cars, trucks and airplanes to buses and trains) that is the main strategy” I would probably have chosen an IEA source for the statement in the text itself, but again, I was deferring to Efbrazil’s choice on this.

• Don't use the word recent, especially not when talking about outdated modelling

Rather than just say what not to do, could you provide a suggested substitute? I don’t think “recent”, in and of itself, is an objectionable word, although I see we did remove it from the first paragraph in the lede.

• Industrial strategies to reduce demand include increasing energy efficiency of heating systems and motors, designing less energy intensive products, and increasing product lifetimes repetitive. Still believe you should strenghten that section instead of having an overlapping topic as new subsection.

To me this gets back to the fact that the reorganization of this section last December, while accomplishing some good things, also had some problems. When the overall section was reorganized to have a specific subsections titled “Clean energy” and “Agriculture and industry” this paragraph was lumped together with the paragraph on agriculture to create a separate subsection with two paragraphs having relatively unrelated themes. I agree there is redundancy, but I don’t think the solution is that second paragraph in that subsection should be strengthened. I would suggest the first sentence of that paragraph be moved into this section, that the “Agriculture and industry” subsection be positioned so it follows this “Demand reduction” section (since it functions as something of a catch all subsection), and that the first sentence of the second paragraph in the "Agriculture and industry" subsection start with something like “Some industrial process present challenges that go beyond the types of demand reduction techniques mentioned above”. Then go into more detail about why the steel and cement processes are hard to address in terms of how intricate carbon (and therefore CO2) is in the manufacturing process. Those two paragraphs will still be unrelated, unfortunately, but that could be addressed in a future effort.

FemkeMilene (talk) 16:07, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks Femkemilene for those specifics. Dtetta (talk) 05:42, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

I poked around a bit for a better source on low carbon lifestyles. This BBC source seems decent- it says similar stuff to the NYT report, but is framed in terms of national response, and is a good stand in for change necessary in the developed world: https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-49997755

Hopefully dtetta can assimilate all this feedback? If not let me know and I'll take another crack. Efbrazil (talk) 16:42, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Efbrazil - I will take a shot at addressing these various comments. Thanks for your help. -Dtetta (talk) 05:42, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Also, mention of individual action should be presented in a balanced manner per Wikipedia:Core content policies. Eg:

"Limiting the risks from global warming of 1.5°C in the context of sustainable development and poverty eradication implies system transitions that can be enabled by an increase of adaptation and mitigation investments, policy instruments, the acceleration of technological innovation and behaviour changes" SR 15 p.21 Bogazicili (talk) 16:47, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Bogazicili, that's an interesting piece of text from SR 15, but I don't see how what is being proposed is inconsistent with that. Dtetta (talk) 15:22, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

I’m getting the sense from these 30 March comments that this discussion is not moving toward a resolution as to what this new subsection should say. So I would like to take a different tack as a way to try and move toward some consensus on this proposal. I think the major ideas that should be included in this section include, at a minimum, the following:

• Reducing energy demand is a major feature of scenarios and plans that limit GHG emissions
• In addition to reducing GHG emissions, demand reduction measures provide more flexibility for low carbon energy development, help limit potential electricity grid disruptions, and minimize carbon-intensive infrastructure development
• Scenarios that lead to significant GHG reductions project a level of investment in energy efficiency that is greater than that for renewable energy - another indication of the importance of this aspect of mitigation.
• The pandemic has lead to several large scale changes that make projections of demand reduction over the next several years more uncertain (note:this effect does not appear to be the case for renewable energy trends)
• Include a brief discussion of demand reduction/energy efficiencies for the transport, industrial, and buildings sectors
• Possibly mention lifestyle choices that can also reduce demand (although this is somewhat problematic in that there are other GHG drivers associated with these choices, such as fertilizer use and methane from agriculture) - given the other concerns expressed regarding "footprint reduction"/lifestyle choices, to me this indicates that this proposed subsection isn’t necessarily the best spot for the concept.

Are there concerns with these ideas as the basis for the new subsection?-Dtetta (talk) 15:22, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Question about the section on "climate change adaptation"

I am embarking on some work on the sub-article Climate change adaptation together with some experts from WeAdapt (I hope). Therefore, I would like to know if the content that is in this article here in the sub-heading "climate change adaptation" is likely to be better than the equivalent content over at at Climate change adaptation? I am just asking because I know that this article recently passed its Featured Article Review so every paragraph should be nearly perfect ;-) . Whereas the sub-article Climate change adaptation is only at C level and less up to date. Should I perhaps even copy the content from the sub-heading "climate change adaptation" across to the sub-article and weave it into there? And is anyone who is watching this page particularly interested in adaptation and would have an interest to work together on this? EMsmile (talk) 12:03, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

In preperation of writing section I did some major changes to climate change adaptation, bringing it from a Start/low C to a clear C. I believe all sources used in this article are also used in climate change adaptation. Would be great if you guys can bring it to a B-class (or even GA if we want to achieve a good topic at some point). FemkeMilene (talk) 16:51, 23 March 2021 (UTC)