Talk:Climate change mitigation
![]() | This article and its editors are subject to Wikipedia general sanctions. See the description of the sanctions. |
{{WikiProject banner shell}}
to this page and add the quality rating to that template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.![]() | Environment: Climate change B‑class | ||||||||||||
|
Optimum Population Trust study on cost effectiveness of birth control compared to other methods of mitigation
KimDabelsteinPetersen erased the following from the Population Control section of the article:
"In 2009, it was reported that an organization called Optimum Population Trust would allow rich countries to offset their carbon emissions by paying for birth control to prevent the birth of unwanted babies in poor countries. According to a cost-benefit analysis commissioned by the trust, birth control is the cheapest way to reduce carbon emissions - every £4 spent on contraception saves one tonne of CO2 being added to the atmosphere, compared to an £8 investment in tree planting, £15 in wind power, £31 in solar energy, and £56 in hybrid vehicle technology, in order to achieve the same reduction in carbon emissions. The study also showed that the 10 tonnes of carbon emitted by a single flight by one person from London to Sydney, would be offset by preventing the unwanted birth of one person in a country such as Kenya.[1]" Source
In the comment section, he wrote:
"We are not a newsaggregator. And i rather think that Optimum Population Trust is unreliable."
This isn't so much about the reliability of Optimum Population Trust, as it is about the reliability of The Guardian. Also, this is the only info that the article had about comparing the cost effectiveness of birth control to other methods of mitigating global warming. While the source of the study may not be perfect, I think the inclusion of this information does make the article better.
What do other editors think of this?
Grundle2600 (talk) 17:30, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
- I think that the removed text sounds wildly racist. What about the carbon cost of an unwanted birth of a white American, or an unwanted white Australian birth? Shouldn't they be considered and discussed too, if we are going to get into this? Is there something better we can compare unwanted African births to than longhaul holiday trips? --Nigelj (talk) 19:12, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
Article probation
Please note that, by a decision of the Wikipedia community, this article and others relating to climate change (broadly construed) has been placed under article probation. Editors making disruptive edits may be blocked temporarily from editing the encyclopedia, or subject to other administrative remedies, according to standards that may be higher than elsewhere on Wikipedia. Please see Wikipedia:General sanctions/Climate change probation for full information and to review the decision. -- ChrisO (talk) 15:57, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
Mitigation requirements and progress
I have been referred here by editors on the main GW article, which says, 'Mitigation of global warming is accomplished through reductions in the rate of anthropogenic greenhouse gas release'. It does not give any figure for:
1) How much reduction in anthropogenic greenhouse gas (AGG) release is required to achieve the stabilisation levels referred to in the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report. This figure can probably be obtained from report itself.
2) What level of reduction of AGG release has been proposed at international conferences, such as Copenhagen, and how much GW mitigation this would be expected to achieve? It would seem that the only source to address this is Monckton.
3) What level of AGG release reduction has been achieved to date and how much GW mitigation has been achieved by this. Is there a source that gives this figure?
4) How much has been spent on mitigation to date? Martin Hogbin (talk) 10:58, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
These would seem to me to be some of the most important questions regarding the subject of GW mitigation. Should there not be detailed answers to the questions here (with, in my opinion, a summary on the main GW page). Martin Hogbin (talk) 12:05, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
Add link to Economics of climate change mitigation
Add link to Economics of climate change mitigation 209.255.78.138 (talk) 16:05, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
- Done. Thanks. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:56, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
Carbon taxes replaced with emissions taxes
I've renamed this section and replaced the previous text. The previous text did not provide citations for some claims, e.g., the UK Climate Change Levy is an energy tax, not a carbon tax (see the Pearce (2005) reference in the carbon tax article). Also, I don't think the tax schemes previously mentioned are important enough to be included in this top-level article. There're already mentioned in the carbon tax article.
My new revision is based on a literature assessment by Gupta et al (2007):
Gupta, S.; et al. (2007). ""13.2.1.2 Taxes and charges" In (book chapter): "Policies, instruments, and co-operative arrangements." In (book): "Climate Change 2007: Mitigation. Contribution of Working Group III to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (B. Metz et al. Eds.)"". Print version: Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, U.K., and New York, N.Y., U.S.A.. This version: IPCC website. Retrieved 2010-03-18. {{cite web}}
: Explicit use of et al. in: |author=
(help)
I've written about the more general topic of emission taxes, which includes carbon, gas and energy taxes. Enescot (talk) 23:32, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
Costs
I've put an "unbalanced" tag in the costs section. The section is too heavily reliant on the Stern Review. There are other studies on costs that should be mentioned. Enescot (talk) 23:43, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
- Any suggestions? 209.255.78.138 (talk) 20:40, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
I was thinking of the cross-sectoral chapter in AR4 – there are the bottom-up studies where you get predicted carbon prices [1]. Then there's the macroeconomic estimates, which are also in AR4 [2]. So, you could have:
- carbon prices up to 2030 for 650 ppm and 550 ppm (CO2e), as summarized in AR4
- Macroeconomic costs up to 2030/2050 for a wider range of stabilization scenarios.
Obviously it's also essential to provide some brief explanation as to how these estimates are derived. Enescot (talk) 14:17, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
"Living On a New Earth: Living On a New Earth: Humankind has fundamentally altered the planet. But new thinking and new actions can prevent us from destroying ourselves" From the April 2010 Scientific American Magazine. Add? 23:54, 27 March 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.155.152.200 (talk)
- Jacobson, M.Z. and Delucchi, M.A. (November 2009) "A Plan to Power 100 Percent of the Planet with Renewables" (originally published as "A Path to Sustainable Energy by 2030") Scientific American 301(5):58-65 is much better. Why Other (talk) 20:55, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
Yes, both are good, different. 99.155.157.230 (talk) 04:50, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
- And both should not have the summary (masquerading as a subtitle) in the title. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:04, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
Add "Boundaries for a Healthy Planet" April 2010 Scientific American
"Boundaries for a Healthy Planet: Scientists have set thresholds for key environmental processes that, if crossed, could threaten Earth's habitability. Ominously, three have already been exceeded" By Jonathan Foley, Gretchen C. Daily, Robert Howarth, David A. Vaccari, Adele C. Morris, Eric F. Lambin, Scott C. Doney, Peter H. Gleick and David W. Fahey Scientific American April 2010. Add? 99.155.152.200 (talk) 23:58, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
- And should not have the summary (masquerading as a subtitle) in the title. I removed it from the header, as it makes it impossible to edit. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:05, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
Add "Breaking the Growth Habit" by Bill McKibben Scientific American April 2010
"Breaking the Growth Habit: Society can safeguard its future only by switching from reckless economic growth to smart maintenance of wealth and resources" By Bill McKibben, in Scientific American April 2010. Add? 99.155.152.200 (talk) 00:02, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
- And should not have the summary masquerading as a subtitle in the "title" string. I removed it from the header, as it makes it difficult, if not impossible, to add edit summaries to the edit. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:07, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
Is Green IT tangential?
rather than edit war over this 'See also' link, why don't the editors concerned discuss the matter here? FWIW, my opinion is that it is relevant, as I have seen several items in the media recently about the carbon footprint of server centres, the carbon cost of a Google search, how does IT compare to e.g. transport as a carbon emitter, is Google really going to move a server centre offshore and wave-power it, etc. People are talking about IT as a climate cost, and so efforts are being made/discussed to reduce that as a climate change mitigation. --Nigelj (talk) 17:01, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
- I agree. It is similar to other items in the see also list such as low carbon diet, sustainable transport and the like. What's the problem with it? Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 18:06, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
- Sustainable transport had a link from its own section above, so I removed it, but I don't see why green IT shouldn't stay in the see-alsos. Why Other (talk) 18:37, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
Low carbon diet
Should low carbon diet be moved from the see-alsos to under greenhouse gas remediation? How much carbon is it relative to the other methods in that subsection? Why Other (talk) 18:40, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
Carbon-Neutral Transportation Fuels From off-Peak Wind and CO2
I ran across http://aiche.confex.com/aiche/2009/webprogram/Paper159471.html :
- "Use of excess off-peak electrical energy to synthesize standard liquid fuels, such as gasoline and jet fuel, could simultaneously address grid stability, domestic oil limitations, climate change, and economic recovery. Simulations have shown that practical innovations should make it possible to reduce CO2 to CO at over 90% of theoretical efficiency limits (under 1.55 MJ/kg-CO). When combined with our other simulated process advances, it should then be possible to synthesize all hydrocarbons and alcohols from point-source CO2 and off-peak wind energy by using currently available catalysts at system efficiencies in the range of 53-61%. Off-peak grid energy averaged under $15/MWhr in the MISO hub in the first four months of 2009. (For reference, the cost of energy in gasoline at $3.60/gal is $100/MWhr.) At such prices, synthesized standard liquid fuels (dubbed "WindFuels") could compete even when petroleum is only $45/bbl. There are sufficient amounts of domestic wind resources and point-source CO2 to produce more than twice our current total transportation fuel usage...."
I wonder whether people think this is viable. Why Other (talk) 23:43, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
- There's more information at http://dotyenergy.com (I didn't know that existed until a few days ago.) Why Other (talk) 02:05, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
Edit warring over sustainability nav-template
Why are people edit warring over the presence of the sustainability nav-box? This article certainly falls into the climate change subject area, where edit-warring is likely have swift and draconian consequences. Can we argue the issue out here and arrive at a consensus instead?
Personally I think the nav-box should be here - it leads to a lot of clearly-relevant articles (this article is also in the sustainability category) and it takes up only one line of screen real estate at the very bottom of the article. What are the arguments for removing it? Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 22:36, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
- If a bot would frequently (no less than once a day) remove the sustainability nav-box from articles where it does not appear, I wouldn't mind as much. However, as there is not a consensus about what should be in the navbox, that would lead to edit warring there propagating to the articles. (I think that, the last time I checked, there was a clear consensus that there was something wrong with the navbox for at least 2 years, but there being no consensus as to what should be in the navbox or any specific change, it's been allowed to stand.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 10:17, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
- However, unless there is something in {{Global warming}} which is not in {{sustainability}}, the latter template shouldn't appear in most articles which have the former. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 10:19, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
- Furthermore, this article doesn't appear to be in the navbox, unless it's in a transcluded template. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 10:30, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
- About having both GW and S templates on one page: There is some overlap, but not much, between the two templates, and having both gives readers more choice of related topics. Having the 'Global warming' template isn't a good reason to remove the 'sustainability' one.
- About this article not being in the nav-box, that isn't a major problem for people already reading this article. Nor is it an argument against the relevance of many of the topics in the sustainability box to to someone interested in this article. (In fact, this article probably should be added to that box.)
- Your argument about edit-warring there spilling over to here is against the spirit of WP - we don't wait for something to be perfected before using it. Also, more concretely, the sustainability box seems fairly stable as these things go. The last 50 edits take us back to Feb 2009. It's hardly seething with daily changes.
- I think it should be added back - it's helpful to readers, and takes up a tiny amount of space right at the bottom of the article. Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 14:55, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
- I don't think so. The general rule appears to be, that if a navbox appears in an article, that that article should appear in the navbox. There are exceptions, but they need specific justification. Furthermore, the vast majority of the 99. anon's (or anons') edits are clearly not constructive, but violate WP:OVERLINK, WP:REDLINK, or are are solely for the purpose of increasing visibility of a concept they consider important, regardless of any relevance to Wikipedia. I see I'm not the only one who reverts them on sight. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:35, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
- I've added the subject to the navbox, although even without that addition it seems to be rules lawyering (in the absence of a written rule, as far as I can see) to insist that the navbox doesn't go into this article for that reason.
- Everything you've written after 'furthermore', above, is ad hominem (an it is, actually, ad hominem, a much-abused term now coming to mean 'somebody being rude', but I digress). I don't care who first made the edit we're discussing, I'm perfectly willing to make it myself, and the quality of the IP's other edits is irrelevant to this discussion.
- Do you have any counter-points to make when I say "I think it should be added back - it's helpful to readers, and takes up a tiny amount of space right at the bottom of the article."? Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 12:41, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
- I don't think so. The general rule appears to be, that if a navbox appears in an article, that that article should appear in the navbox. There are exceptions, but they need specific justification. Furthermore, the vast majority of the 99. anon's (or anons') edits are clearly not constructive, but violate WP:OVERLINK, WP:REDLINK, or are are solely for the purpose of increasing visibility of a concept they consider important, regardless of any relevance to Wikipedia. I see I'm not the only one who reverts them on sight. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:35, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
Two birds/One stone
I have just read an Underwater Times article about a method developed in 2007 by Harvard and Penn State Universities which essentially accelerates the natural carbon cycle, drawing acid from the ocean and CO2 from the atmosphere and converting it to bicarbonate through reaction with silicate rock. The process counteracts both the buildup of atmospheric greenhouse gases and ocean acidification. We talk about biomass and carbon-capture techniques, but I can't find any mention of this process in our article - has anyone else here heard about this? Have there been further studies regarding feasibility? It might be worthy of mention in our Geoengineering subsection. »S0CO(talk|contribs) 05:12, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
Small question
Why is this 'Climate change mitigation' and not 'Mitigation of climate change', following the wording of similar such articles? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.120.177.8 (talk) 00:30, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
Nuclear energy
The nuclear energy section has a distinct anti-nuclear slant, and requires a more balanced viewpoint. In the sidebar, for instance, renewables are touted as being "two to seven times more effective than nuclear power plants on a per kWh basis at fighting climate change". Looking the real issue, and at the numbers, it's clear there's no way renewables can provide enough energy by themselves. See The Nuclear Imperative: A Critical Look at the Approaching Energy Crisis and also Sustainable Energy – without the hot air. If we try to pretend that we can rely on renewables alone, it will lead to burning more coal, and thus will not help to mitigate climate change. 76.1.37.196 (talk) 21:00, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
Add Analysis: Gas Is Killing Green Energy in Price War: A widening shale gas revolution is killing the economics of renewable energy, even as falling costs allow wind and solar to overtake fossil fuels in niche areas, say energy executives and analysts. by Gerard Wynn in Scientific American June 16, 2011. See Carbon pricing. 97.87.29.188 (talk) 20:46, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
- See current Foreign Affairs article ... 99.181.134.19 (talk) 06:38, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
- This July/August 2001 ... The Crisis in Clean Energy: Stark Realities of the Renewables Craze by David G. Victor and Kassia Yanosek ... "Clean energy was supposed to create jobs while reducing energy insecurity, global warming, and the U.S. trade deficit. But Washington's policies have encouraged quick and easy projects that cannot compete with conventional carbon-based sources." See Talk:TPm #Energy Policy section: Get the All of the Energy Sector off the Dole, Political activities of the Koch family, Merchants of Doubt, Willie Soon, Rick S. Piltz, Philip Cooney, Censoring Science: Inside the Political Attack on Dr. James Hansen and the Truth of Global Warming by Mark Bowen, etc... 97.87.29.188 (talk) 19:24, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
July 2011 Sojourners is another resource: "We have the Technology: Off-the-shelf renewable power can meet 100 percent of world need - if we have the will."
July 2011 Sojourners is another resource: "We have the Technology: Off-the-shelf renewable power can meet 100 percent of world need - if we have the will." by Lyndsay Moseley (a federal policy rep. with Sierra Club's Beyond Coal campaign), page 10 & 11. 108.73.114.77 (talk) 02:04, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
The greatest obstacle is not technological or even economic, but social and political.
108.73.114.77 (talk) 02:23, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
- See WP:RSN#Sojourners. (Also, this one is known to be false. We don't have the energy storage technology to handle natural interruptions to renewable power.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:24, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
- "Known" by whom, Mr. Rubin? This article is by Lyndsay Moseley, and there are certainly others who support this view. It was a cover article in Scientific American. 99.190.81.244 (talk) 04:06, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
- As in Talk:Christianity and environmentalism and Talk:350.org#Add_Why_We.27re_Merging_to_Form_a_Climate_Change_Supergroup_.3F, Why is Sojourners not wp:rs, or is that just your opinion? 99.190.81.244 (talk) 06:13, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
- I'm asking for comment as to whether Sojourners is WP:RS. I don't think it is, but I'm not sufficiently convinced to request a bot mark all uses as unreliable. Yet.
- And, although it's possible my sources are biased, with present technology, renewable energy cannot supply reliable energy where it's needed, even though it can technically supply the world's energy use, on average. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:36, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
- Why not list your "sources"? I am having doubt you have any external sources. 99.190.86.133 (talk) 05:29, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
- So your ommission of any citable references to back your comment, Mr. Rubin, of "my sources" and "with present technology, renewable energy ..." ... And where is reliable energy needed? Just curious. 97.87.29.188 (talk) 19:57, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
- Your "source" is a
religiousenvironmental diatribe, whether or not Sojourners is a reliable source in general. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:31, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
- Your "source" is a
- Yes, what are your "sources", even if biased, Art? 216.250.156.66 (talk) 19:39, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
- I decline to answer; I found them by a google search, but the search parameters were based on confidential information. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:58, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
- Wooo ... *<:-P 64.27.194.74 (talk) 21:02, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
- LOL :-P 99.190.86.162 (talk) 23:37, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
- Wooo ... *<:-P 64.27.194.74 (talk) 21:02, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
- I decline to answer; I found them by a google search, but the search parameters were based on confidential information. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:58, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
Add Climate of Denial: Can science and the truth withstand the merchants of poison? by Al Gore on Rollingstone.com (Rolling Stone issue 1134/1135) 22.June.2011. 99.181.141.190 (talk) 05:18, 24 June 2011 (UTC) Regarding Media coverage of climate change and Climate change controversy ...
... the role now being played by most of the news media in refereeing the current wrestling match over whether global warming is "real," and whether it has any connection to the constant dumping of 90 million tons of heat-trapping emissions into the Earth's thin shell of atmosphere every 24 hours. ... In one corner of the ring are Science and Reason. In the other corner: Poisonous Polluters and Right-wing Ideologues. ... But whatever the cause, the referee appears not to notice that the Polluters and Ideologues are trampling all over the "rules" of democratic discourse. They are financing pseudoscientists whose job is to manufacture doubt about what is true and what is false; buying elected officials wholesale with bribes that the politicians themselves have made "legal" and can now be made in secret; spending hundreds of millions of dollars each year on misleading advertisements in the mass media; hiring four anti-climate lobbyists for every member of the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives.
99.181.141.190 (talk) 05:21, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
Alludes to the Climatic Research Unit email controversy (Climatic Research Unit documents), Merchants of Doubt-related manufactured doubt (Climate change denialism) ...
... scientific consensus is even stronger. It has been endorsed by every National Academy of science of every major country on the planet, every major professional scientific society related to the study of global warming and 98 percent of climate scientists throughout the world. In the latest and most authoritative study by 3,000 of the very best scientific experts in the world, the evidence was judged "unequivocal." ... Part of the script for this show was leaked to The New York Times as early as 1991. In an internal document, a consortium of the largest global-warming polluters spelled out their principal strategy: "Reposition global warming as theory, rather than fact." Ever since, they have been sowing doubt even more effectively than the tobacco companies before them. ... Such slanderous insults are deeply ironic: extremist ideologues — many financed or employed by carbon polluters — accusing scientists of being greedy extremist ideologues.
99.181.141.190 (talk) 05:39, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
- You can report that Al Gore rants that...., although I doubt that's what you had in mind. Anything more than that requires a reliable source. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 05:43, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
- How about so-and-so "states"? "Rants" smacks of Conflict of interest by the editor. 64.27.194.74 (talk) 19:46, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
- Perhaps "opines". "States" implies there is potentially something factual behind it, for which we have no evidence. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:35, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
- Opine (transitive verb): "to hold or express an opinion" ... seems reasonable. 99.181.135.203 (talk) 23:56, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
- More nuanced in wikitionary: From the Latin opīnor (“to hold as an opinion”) < *opinus (“thinking, expecting”), only in negative nec-opinus (“not expecting”) and in-opinus (“not expected”); akin to optare (“to choose, desire”), and to apisci (“to obtain”); see optate and opt. 97.87.29.188 (talk) 19:40, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
- Opine (transitive verb): "to hold or express an opinion" ... seems reasonable. 99.181.135.203 (talk) 23:56, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
- Perhaps "opines". "States" implies there is potentially something factual behind it, for which we have no evidence. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:35, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
- How about so-and-so "states"? "Rants" smacks of Conflict of interest by the editor. 64.27.194.74 (talk) 19:46, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
I can't work out if this is meaningless muttering or a serious discussion about improving the article. Arthur, are you seriously stating that we have no evidence that 90 million tons of greenhouse gases a day going into the atmosphere might have some effect on anything? Or are you saying that we have no evidence that every National Academy of science of every major country on the planet, every major professional scientific society related to the study of global warming, and 98 percent of climate scientists throughout the world all agree about something related? Are you seriously proposing that we should state in the article that these are the rantings of one isolated individual? If you are, please back up your statements. If you're not, please read and digest WP:TPG, and archive this soap-box area forthwith. --Nigelj (talk) 22:20, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
- I was referring to the first quotebox, not the second (unless the anon has refactored his comments again), but even if Rolling Stone were a reliable source, it's still Gore's opinion, and not particularly related to the topic of this article. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:19, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
- The print version (page 76-83, 112 & 113) is expanded from the previous online version. 99.56.123.49 (talk) 23:04, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
- What is different? 20:50, 28 June 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.27.194.74 (talk)
- There is this http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/the-scorched-earth-20110624 (Source: University Corporation for Atmospheric Research / National Center for Atmospheric Research)
Although periodic dry spells have always been normal, the new study suggests that global warming is already causing more serious droughts, which have more than doubled since the 1970s. (Drier areas are indicated in red, wetter areas in blue.) The extra heat in the atmosphere evaporates more water and dries out the land, which in turn fuels devastating fires. Extreme droughts in China and France are currently drying up reservoirs and killing crops, while the fire season in the American West has increased by 78 days over the past 30 years. Using 22 computer models of the climate, the study indicates that the extent and severity of droughts could soon be unprecedented. While some areas of the northern latitudes may grow wetter, much of the U.S. and Latin America – along with central China and most of Europe, Africa and Australia – could be hit by extreme and prolonged drought. “If the projections come even close to being realized,” says climate scientist Aiguo Dai, who conducted the study, “the consequences for society worldwide will be enormous.”
- It links to http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/wcc.81/abstract DOI: 10.1002/wcc.81 97.87.29.188 (talk) 21:54, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
- Drought under global warming: a review by Aiguo Dai, article first published online: 19.October.2010 99.181.134.19 (talk) 06:43, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
- There is this http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/the-scorched-earth-20110624 (Source: University Corporation for Atmospheric Research / National Center for Atmospheric Research)
- What is different? 20:50, 28 June 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.27.194.74 (talk)
- The print version (page 76-83, 112 & 113) is expanded from the previous online version. 99.56.123.49 (talk) 23:04, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
Why was this removed? "Action has been suggested on methane, soot, HFCs, and other climate drivers, in addition to that proposed for CO2.[2] Emissions of some of these actors are considered ... "
Why was this removed?
Action has been suggested on methane, soot, HFCs, and other climate drivers, in addition to that proposed for CO2.[2] Emissions of some of these actors are considered by the Kyoto Protocol.
99.181.135.203 (talk) 00:46, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
- The section was greatly expanded here. The precise wording you're looking for was changed, though. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:27, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
Resource: EPA to Require New Pollution Cuts: Power Plants Will Need to Sharply Curtail Soot and Smog; Rule Draws Fire From GOP, Businesses. in WSJ
Resource: EPA to Require New Pollution Cuts: Power Plants Will Need to Sharply Curtail Soot and Smog; Rule Draws Fire From GOP, Businesses. in WSJ by Ryan Tracy and Tennille Tracy within the past 24 hours. 97.87.29.188 (talk) 20:52, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
Add from Portal:Current events/2011 July 10 ?
- The Prime Minister of Australia Julia Gillard announces the details of a plan to introduce a carbon tax. (Sydney Morning Herald) 99.181.131.237 (talk) 04:56, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
- Aren't the Aussies introducing carbon pricing and a cap with emissions trading? 97.87.29.188 (talk) 20:57, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, both , per Portal:Current events/2011 April 2. 99.119.129.32 (talk) 01:36, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
Why is an image from Skeptical Science included references from The Guardian and International Energy Agency?
![](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/49/Global_Warming_Observed_CO2_Emissions_from_fossil_fuel_burning_vs_IPCC_scenarios.jpg/220px-Global_Warming_Observed_CO2_Emissions_from_fossil_fuel_burning_vs_IPCC_scenarios.jpg)
Why is an image from Skeptical Science included references from The Guardian and International Energy Agency by User:NewsAndEventsGuy per http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Climate_change_mitigation&diff=436913075&oldid=436801494 (Special:Contributions/NewsAndEventsGuy) 99.35.12.88 (talk) 01:24, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
- ^ Rich nations to offset emissions with birth control, The Guardian, December 3, 2009
- ^ a b Cite error: The named reference
ReferenceB
was invoked but never defined (see the help page).