Talk:Climate change mitigation

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)

Thanks, I agree that needed doing NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 01:43, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

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)

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)

Good idea, concur. Lead should be condensed also. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 14:02, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Images in lead

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

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

Global carbon dioxide emissions from human activities 1800–2007.

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:

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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".

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)

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)

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

• Renewable Energy Sources and Climate Change Mitigation
• Deploying Renewables 2011
• 100% renewable energy
• Renewable energy commercialization
• P:RE
• Renewables 2013: Global Status Report

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

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)

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)

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)

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).

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)

Mention in article

Why aren't fossil fuels) linked?

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

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)

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)