Jump to content

Talk:Climate change mitigation: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Organize and collapse OR
→‎Commnets of June 17 2018: I dont agree with the comments either, but a) its largely not original research, I'm pretty sure there's plenty of journal articles on most of the points, b) I've never heard of hiding comments because ? "original research"? . It's the commenter making his view known, and thats standard, no?
Line 305: Line 305:
Please somebody fix Yoandri Dominguez Garcia 17:04, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
Please somebody fix Yoandri Dominguez Garcia 17:04, 17 June 2018 (UTC)


== Commnets of June 17 2018 ==
== Comments of June 17 2018 ==

{{Collapse top|These are all [[WP:Original research]]. Click show to read anyway}}
=== Efficiency ===
=== Efficiency ===
efficiency is THE number one mitigation. this article completely misrepresented the IPCC & any ecological. i fixed it so delete this, i dont know. knowledge Yoandri Dominguez Garcia 16:12, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
efficiency is THE number one mitigation. this article completely misrepresented the IPCC & any ecological. i fixed it so delete this, i dont know. knowledge Yoandri Dominguez Garcia 16:12, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

Revision as of 10:02, 12 September 2018

Definition

I have reverted a change to the opening sentence. I think it was simpler, truer, more verifiable, and much more direct before. The version I reverted had a number of problems:

  1. Climate change mitigation strategies are presently the actions being taken, and those that have been proposed (Presently? Later, will they be the actions not being taken, or those not proposed? There is no need to add this qualification here)
  2. to limit the magnitude and/or rate of (see MOS:ANDOR)
  3. long-term global warming induced climate change. (again, lots of unnecessary qualifications which are not related to the definition of the article subject, and which obscure the meaning. Climate change is not induced by global warming)
  4. The original sentence was cited to IPCC AR4 which did not support the new version, and no new citation which did was provided.

Therefore, reverted per WP:BRD --Nigelj (talk) 22:52, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I agree that needed doing NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 01:43, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I see Boundarylayer has not commented here, but has put it back again. I don't know which part of BRD they don't get. --Nigelj (talk) 12:57, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the phrase "global warming induced climate change" is unusual. At least, I've not come across it before. For reference, here is the definition in AR4: "Mitigation – actions that reduce net carbon emissions and limit long-term climate change [1]". I would like to restore the old definition: "Climate change mitigation are actions to limit the magnitude and/or rate of long-term climate change [2]". Enescot (talk) 13:28, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Good idea, concur. Lead should be condensed also. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 14:02, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Images in lead

I suggest that the following two images in the lead be replaced:

refer to caption
Fossil fuel related CO2 emissions compared to five of IPCC's emissions scenarios. The dips are related to global recessions. Data from IPCC SRES scenarios; Data spreadsheet included with International Energy Agency's "CO2 Emissions from Fuel Combustion 2010 - Highlights"; and Supplemental IEA data. Image source: Skeptical Science
refer to caption
Global carbon dioxide emissions from human activities 1800–2007.[1]

The first image only considers changes in anthropogenic CO2. In fact, all anthropogenic greenhouse gases contribute to climate change. Additionally, it only shows observations and projections for the early 21st century. Emissions projections beyond 2010 are significant and should be shown. I suggest that the image be replaced with a graph that shows baseline emissions scenarios compared to a 2 degrees C emissions scenario.

The second image only shows CO2 emissions. As I've already stated, other GHGs are important. The image could be replaced with NOAA's annual GHG index, which includes all the major anthropogenic GHGs:

refer to caption and adjacent text
AGGI index

The AGGI index is weighted according to how much a GHG contributes to climate change (radiative forcing). Alternatively, recent anthropogenic emissions could be plotted in CO2-equivalents. Enescot (talk) 11:17, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

One problem is that "CO2 equivalents" only are fixed for a given period of interest - over the longer term, e.g. methane loses much of its potency (because it is reduced to CO2 and water). Some of the artificial CFCs, on the other hand, have extremely long lifetimes (we think) and correspondingly higher effect in the long term. But I'm not sure that we need to go into that level of detail here - maybe a link to global-warming potential is sufficient. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 13:12, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that CO2e are imperfect, but they are widely used in reliable sources, e.g., the IPCC, UNEP. I have actually thought of adding something brief about CO2e to this article. Enescot (talk) 09:26, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Might be a good idea (or at least add a good caption and link to the term). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:10, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The first image could indeed be replaced with the suggested AGGI index photo, but what is the rationale for removing the "1800 to 2007" image? I also second that a brief discussion on CO2e, is worth having.
Boundarylayer (talk) 12:17, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The existing pie charts do convey the information that non-CO2 gases are important. The pie charts could however be updated. Instead of the 1880-2007 graph, I'd prefer to have an image that covers all the major anthropogenic GHGs. These data are available from the EDGAR database, but only from the 1970s onwards.
In addition, I also think that the graph should be revised so that it is suitable for people with color-blindness. This would be easy enough to do.
A brief discussion on CO2e could be added to the section on non-CO2 gases, e.g.,:
"GHG emissions and concentrations are often presented in "carbon dioxide equivalents". With CO2e, each GHG is weighted according to its ability to warm the climate system. The net cooling effect of aerosols can be measured in CO2e. Aerosols are generated by both natural processes (e.g., volcanic eruptions) and human activities (e.g., burning sulfur-rich coal). Because of their net cooling effect, aerosols act to "hide" or offset some of the warming due to increased atmospheric concentrations of GHGs."
It may also be helpful to illustrate the use of CO2e with a few graphs. Enescot (talk) 11:37, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Image titled "Global Warming Observed CO2 Emissions from fossil fuel burning vs IPCC scenarios"

So far I'm opposed to removing the image titled "Global Warming Observed CO2 Emissions from fossil fuel burning vs IPCC scenarios".

refer to caption
Fossil fuel related CO2 emissions compared to five of IPCC's emissions scenarios. The dips are related to global recessions. Data from IPCC SRES scenarios; Data spreadsheet included with International Energy Agency's "CO2 Emissions from Fuel Combustion 2010 - Highlights"; and Supplemental IEA data. Image source: Skeptical Science

Enescot's reasons for removing, and my replies are:

  • "The first image only considers changes in anthropogenic CO2. In fact, all anthropogenic greenhouse gases contribute to climate change."
That's true! And it merits another image which illustrates this point, not a substitute image that removes some of the info in this one.
  • "it only shows observations and projections for the early 21st century. Emissions projections beyond 2010 are significant and should be shown."
Please define "emissions projections beyond 2010", explain why they should be shown, and tell me (again if necessary) which of your proposed replacement images would show that significant information.
  • "I suggest that the image be replaced with a graph that shows baseline emissions scenarios compared to a 2 degrees C emissions scenario."
Please define "baseline emissions scenario"; Do you mean IPCC SRES scenarios and if so, please use familiar terminology. Also, for 2C we do have RSs that say we might have a 50-50 chance of avoiding "dangerous interference with the climate system" at 450 ppm CO2 atmospheric concentrations but I don't know if those numbers include or ignore the effects of the other greenhouse gases. Do you have RSs on point? In addition, there is a lot of uncertainty regarding the rate of take up by natural carbon sinks vs outgassing from carbon sources. Even if we limit the discussion to CO2 and ignore the other GHGs, do we have RSs that bridge the gap between emission rates and atmospheric buildup?

In sum, since CO2 appears to be the biggest culprit (so far), I think it is imperative to maintain the image that compares the IPCC human CO2 emissions scenarios to how much we are actually emitting. That means, this first image is vitally important.

I don't mind - in fact I endorse - the addition of other images to illustrate these various points. But not at the expense of the graphic depiction of actual human CO2 vs IPCC emissions scenarios. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 16:33, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Section on renewable energy

I would like to shorten the section of the article that deals with renewable energy (currently section 2.1.1). In my opinion, the article itself is far too long. Excluding references, it is around 74 KB (see Wikipedia:Article size).

The section contains useful information and cites numerous references. However, I'm concern that it places undue weight on certain topics. For instance:

"Mark Z. Jacobson and colleagues published a plan to power 100% of the world's energy with wind power, hydroelectric, and solar power by the year 2030"

and

"A peer-reviewed study suggested that using wind turbines to meet 10 percent of global energy demand in 2100 could actually have a warming effect"

While these may be reasonable issues for discussion, I do not think that they should be included in this article. In my opinion, detailed topics such as these should be discussed in sub-articles.

In my opinion, this section of the article should provide a brief overview of the most important issues to do with renewable energy. I don't know much about renewable energy, but my impression is that the existing revision could be improved in this area. I've briefly looked at several authoritative reports that discuss renewable energy, including:
- A 2011 report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change: "Renewable Energy Sources and Climate Change Mitigation" [3]
- A 2011 report by UNEP: "Towards a Green Economy: Pathways to Sustainable Development and Poverty Eradication" [4], section on "renewable energy" [5].
- A 2007 report by the InterAcademy Council: "Lighting the Way: Toward a Sustainable Energy Future" [6], section on "non-biomass renewables" [7] and "biomass" [8].

I think that these reports are a useful guide as to how this article should cover renewable energy.

Enescot (talk) 12:22, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Enescot, I don't think article size is a pressing issue yet. These RE sources may be of use:

-- regards, Johnfos (talk) 23:42, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for those links. The Renewables 2013 report looks interesting. I do think that the article's size is important, but as you say, there's no rush to change things. I'll probably post a draft revision of the renewables section here sometime for discussion. Enescot (talk) 13:33, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Direct action?

A news item that I saw complained that a search of wikipedia for "direct action on climate change" produced no result. Is this page a suitable target for redirects from that phrase and variants? The phrase "Direct Action" is being used as a slogan in Australia for a particular government plan, but as a general phrase it seems to need some discussion in wikipedia. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 12:54, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not keen to "cover" this subject by a mere redirect. Seems like we need text that tackles this Aussie phenomena directly. Suggest you boldly add some appropriate text, with RSs, to Climate_change_in_Australia, and include wikilinks to the various related subjects, like this generalized discussion of mitigation NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 14:44, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Carbon offsets for oil exploration and production companies

At present oil exploration and production companies currently don't pay for the carbon offsets of the burning of the total amount of crude oil they sell (about 0.43 metric tons CO2/barrel[2]).

This seems unfair as other companies do pay carbon offsets, and it can be expected that the crude oil they sell will all be burned and its co² released into the atmosphere, so the amount of money needed to eliminate this (ie by planting forests) should be included in the sale price.

The local governments (which add a large tax on the product) should also pay their share, a same percentage as the tax they raise in comparison to the sale price of the crude oil.

KVDP (talk) 09:01, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Marland, G., T.A. Boden, and R. J. Andres. 2007. Global, Regional, and National CO2 Emissions. In Trends: A Compendium of Data on Global Change. Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, United States Department of Energy, Oak Ridge, Tenn., U.S.A.
  2. ^ http://www.epa.gov/cleanenergy/energy-resources/refs.html

Why aren't fossil fuels) linked?

Why aren't fossil fuels) linked? 108.73.115.29 (talk) 07:48, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you mean here, it's because of the spare parentheses. Fossil fuels is a redirect to Fossil fuel. If you mean in the article, its probably a sin of omission. I've added a link from the first occurrence in the main text. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:17, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Neutrality of lead and 2 °C

I've revised the lead text. It previously only gave attention to analysts who argue for policies more stringent than the 2 degrees Celsius limit. It did not mention the studies that support more modest policies than the 2 degrees limit. In the revised article, this is expanded on in climate change mitigation#Temperature targets. Enescot (talk) 07:47, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Related Article hash

Can anyone make sense of the interplay between

and probably a bunch of other similar articles? Seems reasonable to reorganize all that material into some concise sub-articles of this one. Thoughts? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 18:27, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Broken link

The link 

http://cait.wri.org/figures.php?page=World-FlowChart&view=100

does not work. I could not find the right one. --Petermichaelclausen (talk) 15:37, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fuel switching renamed "coal to gas fuel switching", Demand side management subject heading added

Fuel switching can refer both to the supply side and demand side, and the article was reorganized to reflect that. The original fuel switching section referred only to switching from coal to natural gas on the supply side, so the heading was changed to reflect that. There are multiple demand side strategies to mitigate climate change including energy efficiency, demand side fuel switching, and demand response. I added a demand side fuel switching section explaining the potential/benefits/need of switching space and water heating to electricity or decarbonized pipeline gas. The climate mitigation aspects of demand response should be covered in this section, perhaps under a new section under Demand side management. Isheikh (talk) 19:25, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That section says "See also" Power to gas, Gas to liquids, Carbon neutral fuel, Fossil fuel phase-out but those articles are not yet summarized. Here are some sources: [9], [10], [11], [12]. Tim AFS (talk) 05:39, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I started this but I thought it best to wait for input before expanding the sentence to a paragraph, because I won't have time to do that for an hour or two at least. Tim AFS (talk) 23:40, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Effects of the declining costs of solar power

Although I'm primarily interested in its potential to cause rapid economic deflation, what are the expectations regarding the very rapidly decling cost of solar power on the pace of global warming mitigation? EllenCT (talk) 03:08, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In order for deflation to be a concern, people would have to put off spending because they believe prices will fall. I believe your concern is a legitimate one, but on the other hand, it is one of the best problems to have and the easiest to solve -- too easy to solve, is the risk. Tim AFS (talk) 23:15, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Climate change mitigation. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 20:49, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Climate Action Plan

The info. mentioned in Climate Action Plan should be added to this article IMHO. --David Tornheim (talk) 03:04, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Climate action for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Climate action is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Climate action until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. --David Tornheim (talk) 02:44, 14 February 2016 (UTC) (copied from notice posted by Shritwod 02:10, 14 February 2016 (UTC) on Prokaryotes here)[reply]

biofuels are not climate change mitigation

User:Brian Everlasting deleted a section with the comment "Transport: biofuels are not a climate change mitigation solution". I don't follow the rationale, biofuels are mentioned throughout the article?? Dougmcdonell (talk) 20:18, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Climate change mitigation. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 01:06, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

carbon neutral and negative fuels

On July 19 this section was deleted in its entirety by User:Brian Everlasting along with its six references. The deletion is debatable. I do object to the misleading comment given "tidy", nothing was tidied up it was deleted. Dougmcdonell (talk) 21:35, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Concur NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 21:53, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Too much science fiction in that section. Better to get rid of it all. Keep fossil-fuel phase-out though. Brian Everlasting (talk) 00:12, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with deletion in that this section is too speculative, plus it already appears in Sustainable energy, Alternative fuels etc. and so is redundant here. Johnfos (talk) 01:39, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Those are better explanations than the misleading "tidy". The topic of phase out is broader than carbon neutral liquid fuels so the section should be more fully developed NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 12:17, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Related topics are more fully developed in Carbon-neutral fuel and Carbon-neutral. It's all there, so we shouldn't try and reinvent the wheel here and create more repetition and redundancy. As far as I'm aware there are no commercial carbon neutral fuel facilities anywhere in the world, so why are we devoting so much time and energy to WP coverage of it? Johnfos (talk) 22:09, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A well designed tax on food/milk

this thread started at the editor's talk pages, and has been copied here with permission of both eds.NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 22:10, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for your interest in the mitigation article. Friendly questions.... what is a "well-designed" climate tax? Some would say a well-designed price on carbon is an oxymoron but I'm not one of them, personally. This isn't a climate denial challenge but a real question to avoid tags like "clarification needed" or charges of WP:PUFFERY, which I'm sure you didn't intend. So please don't misundestand.... I'm just sayin' the addition you made needs to be clarified or else "well designed" should be deleted. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 15:29, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Hello NewsAndEventsGuy. You make a good point. First up, only The Guardian report and the abstract for the Nature Climate Change article are available free of charge. So I was not able to read the entire paper. But from the information available, the authors of the paper investigated a number of tax rates for different classes of food and a number of options to deal with the social equity issues that would arise from hiking the price of basic foodstuffs. Note that the tax is on food and not on carbon. The Guardian talks of an optimum tax arrangement to give the best combination of emissions reductions and health benefits. Anyway, I take your point that the phrasing is poor and should be improved. So I replaced "well-designed climate taxes" with "carefully designed taxes". Thanks for pointing this out. Best wishes. RobbieIanMorrison (talk) 16:36, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
Isn't the word "carefully" in "carefully designed taxes" just ambiguous and/or PUFFERY as "well-designed climate taxes"? I mean, what's the diff between "carefully designed" and "well designed"? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 22:29, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 11 external links on Climate change mitigation. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:27, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 12 external links on Climate change mitigation. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:51, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 19 external links on Climate change mitigation. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:03, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note 40 is dead link

Please somebody fix Yoandri Dominguez Garcia 17:04, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

Comments of June 17 2018

Efficiency

efficiency is THE number one mitigation. this article completely misrepresented the IPCC & any ecological. i fixed it so delete this, i dont know. knowledge Yoandri Dominguez Garcia 16:12, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

Regarding California Goals

"Energy efficiency alone may not be sufficient to meet these goals, switching fuels used on the demand side will help lower carbon emissions." This is completely wrong not reflective of the source. Deep decarbonization works in the PRESENT. In other words, as the temperature rises & air conditioning is demanded more, solar & wind simply achieve nothing. Yoandri Dominguez Garcia 17:29, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

there is no heating demand in brazil. this is a mistake

"In areas like Norway, Brazil, and Quebec that have abundant hydroelectricity, electric heat and hot water are common." Yoandri Dominguez Garcia 17:32, 17 June 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yoandri Dominguez Garcia (talk • contribs)

Incorrect Cliche

"primarily social and political, not technological or economic". Actually that is wrong. Capitalism is the source of climate change, therefore in the short term, we have to forgo GDP growth whether voluntarily or involuntarily from disasters. Yoandri Dominguez Garcia 17:41, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

Regarding Capitalism

This article is fundamentally wrong because it ignores the non-measurable human indifference to the issue, much created by capitalism & profit margin motivation. For example, many resources are spent to market a product even if it remains unsold & unused. iPhones & electronic waste are examples. At the heart of this is indifference. The article hints at it with the quote about media & textbooks only encouraging small changes in lifestyle not substantial but the FUNDAMENTAL issue is MARKETING of products which WASTED. Another example, PLASTIC CONTAINERS & products, such as COCA COLA ET CETERA.

Textbooks themselves go thru endless versions etc. This needs to be strongly alluded to in the article, which is basics semiotics of overconsumption. Yoandri Dominguez Garcia 17:57, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

You have the wrong article, and perhaps even the wrong project William M. Connolley (talk) 19:57, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

|}

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Climate_change_mitigation&oldid=859188907"