Talk:Climate change mitigation/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


Change Title?

I think we should change the title to either "Mitigation of climate change (global warming)" or "Mitigation of climate change". I think 'climate change' better captures the complexity of the issue (i.e. some areas are expected to cool not warm, weather and precipitation patterns will change, etc.). In other words global warming is misleading because increased greenhouse gases in the atmosphere cause more than just increased temperature. Jjjbell (talk) 19:29, 15 January 2008 (UTC).

I agree. We should change the title to 'Mitigation of climate change'. 'Global warming' is a specific aspect of climate change and is not as accurate or neutral a term. Climate change is the term used most widely too. As I am relatively new to Wikipedia I'm unsure how we go about this. The title change was proposed over a year ago. Alanadexter (talk) 23:17, 16 April 2009 (UTC) (PS. I also changed the phrase 'climate surprise' to 'abrupt climate change'. Climate surprise sounds like a party. Or an exotic dessert.)
The name "Climate change adaptation" is more appropriate to naming conventions, without the unnecessary word " of " preposition. I agree that climate change is the most common definition of global warming and the alternative to mitigation could be the word adaptation, as it is the evolutionary process whereby a population becomes better suited to its habitat, whether that would be human actions to: artificially process, filter and improve the atmosphere, pollution reduction, reforestation, an increase of biodiversity and wildlife with ecological protection, habitat conservation and expansion or infrastructure that is durable and adequate to safeguard populations that encounter natural disasters. - RW Marloe (talk) 18:44, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
Adaptation and mitigation are two different things. Mitigation in this case is taking action to counter current or future climate change/global warming, while adaptation is the act of adjusting ourselves to climate change. Both are important aspects in climate change policy. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 19:31, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
Then I propose to merge both subjects of mitigation and adaptation in "Climate change mitigation" as the title, with a section covering adaptation as their isn't an article that has adaptation details. They are different approaches but are also both a human reaction to the changing climate and some adaptations are also methods that can mitigate climate change, as our social attitudes and habits must adapt on a community and government level (energy saving, investment), to be able to take significant measures for adequate mitigation. I would also state that mitigation is prevention and adaptation is survival, which in my opinion survival is the consequence and seriousness of climate change. - RW Marloe (talk) 12:57, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Paul Crutzen

I put in a reference to Paul Crutzen. He is a Nobel Prize winner so he is notable and he was already referenced in the footnotes. I am not related to him so I don't understand how WP:Vanity would apply. Paul Studier 20:37, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

A-Class article?

Using a bot, I saw that this is an A-Class article. However, there's no template listing it an A-Class article in this talk page. Can someone confirm its quality? OhanaUnited 15:10, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Nuclear power redux

The nuclear discussion here is horribly out of date. A 1997 study will neither account for the greatly improved capacity factors, the new simplified and less-expensive plant designs, nor the imminent switchover of enrichment from gaseous diffusion to the much lower power requirements of gas centrifuges. Right now, the newest studies are summarized in Economics of new nuclear power plants, although we intend to move them to a more-general article. I will try to find a more recent comparison. Simesa 00:56, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

After only a smidgen of looking, I found [1] which has a very nice table showing the results of 5 comparative studies. I'll try to incorporate it into the article. Simesa 01:09, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
Found [2] which offers many Life Cycle Analysis calculations of energy invested as a % of energy generated. But though this is a March, 2006 summary the usual problems apply -- an 80% lifetime capacity factor is far too low, and today's plant offering last a minimum of 60 years not 40. Simesa 01:42, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

I've done a little work on the section, but it's still a bit of a mess frankly.

It previously stated:

  • That gas centrifuge technology would lead to energy saving in the future. In fact the only gaseous diffusion still in use is in the USA and possibly Russia, Western Europe went all-centrifuge decades ago, and even the USA now has significant centrifuge capacity. The USA still has some of the enormous enrichment infrastructure built for the Manhattan Project, but there have been no new G-D plants built for a long while, and the remainder won't be long in closing.
  • That nuclear power could in the future be used to eliminate the greenhouse emissions associated with enrichment... actually, the French centrifuge plants have never used any other power source.
  • That if the same principle were to be applied to renewables, i.e. that they were held responsible for the greenhouse gas emissions produced in manufacturing and erecting the power plants, then as a result these sources would generally cease to be greenhouse-neutral as well. This is dangerously close to WP:OR I think, but it's an excellent point and in the interests of WP:NPOV it needs to be there... surely we can source the statement somewhere, and rephrase it to be a bit clearer than it is at present?

It's a rapidly changing scene... Andrewa 07:05, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

US Gov't Action

I added a section as follows to the section on Government Response, but it was removed recently. Given that the US produces approx. 25% of the world's greenhouse gasses, and given that the US gov't has taken a leadership position in opposing or undermining efforts by most other industrialized countries to take concrete steps to reduce such emissions, the sections I added, which discuss US gov't efforts to suppress American scientists attempting to publish their findings, and actively to mislead the public, are quite significant to the issue covered by this article, the mitigation of global warming, and in particular, are quite pertinent to this section about government responses. Here is the section, comments as to its relevance are welcome. I apologize for the long post:

U.S. government attempts to mislead the public - The U.S. government has pressured American scientists to suppress discussion of global warming, according to the testimony of the Union of Concerned Scientists to the Oversight and Government Reform Committee of the U.S. House of Representatives.[1][2] "High-quality science" was "struggling to get out," as the Bush administration pressured scientists to tailor their writings on global warming to fit the Bush administration's skepticism, in some cases at the behest of an ex-oil industry lobbyist. "Nearly half of all respondents perceived or personally experienced pressure to eliminate the words 'climate change,' 'global warming' or other similar terms from a variety of communications." Similarly, according to the testimony of senior officers of the Government Accountability Project, the White House attempted to bury the report "National Assessment of the Potential Consequences of Climate Variablity and Change," produced by U.S. scientists pursuant to U.S. law.[3] Some U.S. scientists resigned their jobs rather than give in to White House pressure to underreport global warming.[4]

- The United States government has implemented an industry-formulated disinformation campaign designed to actively mislead the American public on global warming and to forestall limits on climate polluters.[5]."'They've got a political clientele that does not want to be regulated,' says Rick Piltz, a former Bush climate official who blew the whistle on White House censorship of global-warming documents in 2005. 'Any honest discussion of the science would stimulate public pressure for a stronger policy. They're not stupid.' - - "Bush's do-nothing policy on global warming began almost as soon as he took office. By pursuing a carefully orchestrated policy of delay, the White House has blocked even the most modest reforms and replaced them with token investments in futuristic solutions like hydrogen cars. 'It's a charade,' says Jeremy Symons, who represented the EPA on Cheney's energy task force, the industry-studded group that met in secret to craft the administration's energy policy. 'They have a single-minded determination to do nothing -- while making it look like they are doing something.' . . . - - "The CEQ became Cheney's shadow EPA, with industry calling the shots. To head up the council, Cheney installed James Connaughton, a former lobbyist for industrial polluters, who once worked to help General Electric and ARCO skirt responsibility for their Superfund waste sites. - "two weeks after Bush took office - ExxonMobil's top lobbyist, Randy Randol, demanded a housecleaning of the scientists in charge of studying global warming. . . .Exxon's wish was the CEQ's command. [6] --NYCJosh 17:22, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

As after three months the deleter has not stepped forward to defend the deletion, I have restored. I must ask editors to desist from deleting serious contributions unless they are prepared to defend their edits. In fact, when deleting sentences or entire paragraphs, editors should provide specific WP rules-based reasons. --NYCJosh 18:14, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Undue weight?

Does the Mitigation_of_global_warming#Pacala_and_Socolow section lend them undue weight? The vast majority of those points are hit on elsewhere in the article. If they are only given their due here, can we get some third party, reliably sourced analysis to back 'em up? MrZaiustalk 06:28, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Kangaroo stomach bacteria

Should this study be mentioned in the article? [3] --Childhood's End (talk) 15:13, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Briefly, the thing is that it is just a research idea. Its like that anti-conceptive for men that they have been developing since I was 12 and are still testing. Brusegadi (talk) 22:44, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Arrow Should we place it? Brusegadi (talk) 07:43, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

POV Issues...

I have flagged the following subsection for POV problems: US efforts to undermine global warming mitigation. In the following quote, I have highlighted the section which I find to be biased:

The U.S. has also attempted to mislead the public about global warming. The United States government has implemented an industry-formulated disinformation campaign designed to actively mislead the American public on global warming and to forestall limits on climate polluters.[68]."'They've got a political clientele that does not want to be regulated,' says Rick Piltz, a former Bush climate official who blew the whistle on White House censorship of global-warming documents in 2005. 'Any honest discussion of the science would stimulate public pressure for a stronger policy. They're not stupid.'

I recommend replacing the name "U.S.", with "the Bush administration." I feel that making a clear distinction between the United States and the Bush administration will preserve the NPOV of this article. If, by tomorrow, there are no objections, then I will perform the edit I have recommended.
Gravinos ("Politics" is the stench that rises from human conflict.) 03:40, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

P.S.—I also recommend changing the term "United States government" with the term "Bush administration". –Gravinos ("Politics" is the stench that rises from human conflict.) 03:59, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

P.P.S.—There are other POV problems with this subsection which I have yet to address. Unfortunately, I'm a little under the weather at the moment (I've got a chest-cold, and my doctor prescribed a Z-pack, which has kind of knocked me out), so I'm a bit too tired to go into greater detail. However, I do plan on addressing them in greater detail after I've recovered a bit.
Gravinos ("Politics" is the stench that rises from human conflict.) 03:59, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

We the people

I would like to add information about simple ways we the people can prevent global warming. Would this be relevent to this topic?--Sandiehara (talk) 18:57, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikiproject Earth

Hello i have recently proposed the Wikiproject Earth. This Wikiproject`s scope includes this article. This wikiproject will overview the continents, oceans, atsmophere and global warming Please Voice your opinion by clicking anywhere on this comment except for my name. --IwilledituTalk :)Contributions —Preceding comment was added at 15:32, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Discussion of possible merge with Low Carbon Economy

Let's not merge

I don't know who put the merge tag on this article, but I see no discussion regarding this suggestion. As I look over the two articles, I suggest that we NOT merge the two articles. --Kukini háblame aquí 15:25, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree, no merge should be done. The Low Carbon Economy deals specifically with non-carbon technologies, and this mitigation article includes other topics - such as efficiency improvements, dealing with waste methane, population, geoengineering, etc. that have zero to do with Low Carbon. This article is already long, and I wouldn't want to see Low Carbon merged into it, even though there is obviously some overlap. Low Carbon might be able to serve as a sort of sub-article though, allowing some information to be generalized here and treated in detail there. Mishlai (talk) 13:21, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
I agree with the above, absolutely do not merge. And this has been put almost a year ago, could anyone please delete the merge proposition?Zisimos (talk) 15:12, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
Further agreement. There is no justification to merge these two articles. There is some overlap but they are entirely different subjects - you might as well merge 'football' and 'rugby' because they are both games that use balls. MonoApe (talk) 00:08, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Usefulness of Efficiency/Conservation

I'd like to see more discussion about the usefulness of efficiency or conservation here. "Improved efficiency lowers cost, which in turn increases demand. To ensure that increases in efficiency actually reduces energy use, a tax must be imposed to remove any cost savings from improved efficiency." But even if fossil fuel use was successfully reduced, then that just means we'll use it later - ie, we'll run out later. This has nothing to do with mitigating global warming, it merely delays it by a few years. Or is that the idea? Or is the point that a tax on fossil fuel use will make a certain amount of fossil fuel non-feasibly extractable? Don't get me wrong, there are tons of reasons to conserve, I'm just wondering what this has to do with "mitigation of global warming." ErikHaugen (talk) 23:35, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

It would be worthy to point out that the article talks about how urban planning and neighborhood design can decrease energy demand (I'd like to point out that many other "old" technologies become quite useful and more profitable at higher densities (recycling, district heating and cooling, symbiotic waste practices (waste-to-energy, heat reclamation, industrial I/O exchange). I think there's something in common with your point-- if density solves curbing energy consumption and provides alternatives that further cut energy overhead... what would be the point in also investing in a bunch of technocratic fixes that cause more consumption and leverage higher building costs?

Article Protection

This article is under 100% full protection. Where is explanation given for this protection and why do I not even see a lock or a notice on either the article or the talk page. I will double post this to the help desk as action is needed. -Theanphibian (talkcontribs) 04:07, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Seems to be semi-protected at the moment. Someone who can edit it please add a link to Geritol solution. Tympanum (talk) 21:38, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
Just made that unref'd stub a redirect to Iron fertilization. Vsmith (talk) 00:06, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Burying charcoal

James Lovelock recommends burying charcoal in a non-biodegradable fashion. What are the advantages and disadvantages of this form of mitigation? (talk) 02:34, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

As this is more of a question then anything to do with improving the article, I suggest people answer Wikipedia:Reference desk/Science#Burying charcoal to mitigate global warming Nil Einne (talk) 06:23, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
Google biochar and check the top 10 links dinghy (talk) 09:33, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
Biochar has a great deal of pertinent information. (talk) 16:52, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
I've briefly mentioned it in the article - CCS section. It's also mentioned at various linked pages, such as carbon sequestration. Andrewjlockley (talk) 08:43, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Responses to global warming

In the Mitigation to global warming, the degree of efforts made by different countries should be shown. A good map herefore is the Climate Cooperation Index by Michèle Battig. See —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:20, 29 March 2009 (UTC)


Pls can this be put on protection due to IP vandalism? Andrewjlockley (talk) 00:41, 1 April 2009 (UTC) PS I've requested prot but it's urgent due to profile Andrewjlockley (talk) 00:47, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Rate of installing new renewable capacity

Given recently stated goals of trying to get back to levels of about 350 ppm CO2, the diagrams on page 45-51 of this document seem considerably short of the mark. How much fossil fuel, as a proportion of the entire amount of installed capacity, would need to be replaced by renewable energy, and how much biochar and other forms of carbon capture and storage would be needed to get back to 350 ppm CO2 by 2020? (talk) 14:23, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Avoiding edit war about nuclear

nuclear power isn't carbon free. even if all the rock-crushing and enrichment was done with wind energy, the transport fuel in the mine and on the road to the consumer would be carbon-releasing. power stations are made out of concrete, which also creates carbon dioxide. Unless you're suggesting that in some future period we'll have battery-powered earthmovers that use wind-generated energy, and we build all our nuclear power stations out of timber-frame (in a mock-tudor style), then there's going to be a large carbon impact. The article should not reflect the fanciful notion that nuclear is carbon free. It isn't, and won't be for the foreseeable future. Andrewjlockley (talk) 00:31, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Those glowing accounts of nuclear are industry reports. Objective reports show the opposite. Saying extremely low is, well, extremely POV. You can say "low", but in fact, when you add in the CO2 emissions involved in mining Uranium and making concrete, you are about as bad as burning coal - which is pure carbon. The only reason that nuclear even needs to be mentioned is that M. King Hubbert suggested replacing oil with nuclear when oil ran out, but here we are in 2009 and all nuclear has caused is problems. It currently provides less than 2% of all energy, and at that rate of consumption will run out in 70 years. Let's do the math, up it to 20% and you run out in 7 years - unless you make U-238 into plutonium, and no one wants that - it's bad enough to have enriched Uranium around. So lose the glowing accounts and be objective. (talk) 00:34, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

"Carbon free"? no, but please cite some reliable sources to support your allegations. For one, yes - mining and transporting uranium produces CO2 exhaust, but, so does mining and transporting coal - so that bit is rather irrelevant. And building any type of plant uses concrete and produces CO2, another one down. So I'm removing that pov tag - when you have sources to back up your gripes come back and discuss and or edit. Vsmith (talk) 01:31, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
Done Andrewjlockley (talk) 08:37, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
Undo weight: It is ok to mention nuclear, but only last, and no more than one very short paragraph. It has been 50 years now since nuclear was taken seriously as a possible replacement for fossil fuels. Right now what the experts say about nuclear power is that the gig is up when the next major accident occurs. Not if, but when. No investors are willing to fund nuclear power, and for good reason. (talk) 01:34, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
Here is a table of several dozen reactors under construction: [4] Not much happening in the US, but a lot in other countries. Paul Studier (talk) 01:40, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
Your description of nuclear and how serious people are taking it, might have been correct a decade ago. But that is not the case anymore. Its a serious part in the discussions in the EU, quite a few countries have reversed their stand on it (Sweden, Britain). And it is wedge 9 in Pacala and Socolow. As for the economics - well nuclear is only economic with a high price on fossil fuels (which is what is happening). Fuel supply depends on the types of reactors, and how much reprocessing will be done. All in all your arguments are not very good. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 20:41, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

A dozen? Do you have any clue how many would be needed to make a 10% reduction in CO2 emissions? About 1,000. A dozen is nothing. And if you built 1,000, there would be no way to fuel them. And that is only a 10% mitigation... Do the math. (talk) 01:58, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

We currently get about 2% of energy from nuclear. P&S suggests building 800 gigawatts of nuclear, which would triple our total from nuclear. 800 GW/17 TW = about 4.7%, just as a check. We currently have 70 years of Uranium, at current consumption, so tripling the number of reactors would reduce that from a 70 year supply to a 23 year supply. Does that sound very wise? To me it sounds like out of the frying pan and into the fire. On the other hand, replace all nuclear with wind and solar, and you have a source that lasts as long as there is life on Earth. Many people also say that 90% of energy we use is wasted, too, so the question begs just how much do we really need? (talk) 06:53, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

We currently get >15% of electricity from nuclear (add: WGIII says 5.3% of total energy in 2005), which makes it a major player. And the current plans for expansion is to increase the installed capacity by 27% or more[5]. Its completely irrelevant what you consider "wise" or not - WP goes by what reliable sources tell us, not what we personally think. As said above, your "70 years" supply is based on incomplete figures and current economy. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 11:45, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
Only 16% of our total energy comes in the form of electricity, so it is a misnomer to say that nuclear provides 5.3% of total - 15%x16%=2.4%, so no, nuclear is not a "major player", it only provides 2.4% of our energy. Most of our energy comes from coal, oil, and natural gas, all of which create greenhouse gases. Increasing 2.4% by 27% brings it up to a whopping 3% of our total energy. And what pray tell were you planning on doing with the 80% that comes from coal, oil, and natural gas? Making a huge increase in nuclear (27%), only drops it from 80% to 79%, which is only a 1.2% change, which is much, much more easily obtained by increasing fuel economy and other energy saving methods, which reduce lighting costs, and heating and cooling costs. (talk) 14:13, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
No its not a "misnomer". Its what reliable sources tell us (WGIII: 5.3% of world wide energy), your personal original research is rather irrelevant. Things are not either/or - it most certainly will be a combination of factors. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 15:56, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

I thought electricity was about 1/2 of energy. Do you have a source for 16%? Paul Studier (talk) 20:22, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Page 28 of Key Energy Stats 2008 gives 16.7% for 2006. Pages 48 to 57 gives each country, although TPES is in Mtoe and electricity in TWh, but page 58 gives the conversion of 11630 GWh per Mtoe, so, for example UK at 231.13 Mtoe and 374.85 TWh is 13.9%, the US at 2320.7 Mtoe and 4052.24 TWh is 15.0% and the world at 11740 Mtoe and 17377 TWh is 12.7%. TPES is Total Primary Energy Source, 16.7% is percent of consumption by fuel type. (talk) 04:37, 17 May 2009 (UTC)


Hope you like the pretty pictures. Andrewjlockley (talk) 08:37, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Pacala and Socolow

This is given undue prominence. Other authors such as George Monbiot have given other suggestions which deserve a mention. WP:WEIGHT Andrewjlockley (talk) 08:37, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Monbiot is an Op-Ed writer/commentator - where as P&S is a peer reviewed paper, that has been widely cited both in other papers (422 per Google Scholar), in the policy arena[6][7] as well as in the general debate. Can you see the difference in weight? --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 09:06, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
Yes, but I still think a balance of sources is needed when so much weight has been given to once source in this article. Andrewjlockley (talk) 10:57, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
Then find some equivalently prominent and influention papers to present. I'd guess that the WGIII and similar works would cover the same, but probably with different takes. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 11:51, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Greenhouse emissions by electricity source.PNG

Greenhouse emissions by electricity source.PNG

This graph, featured in this article among several others, shows data from a now-defunct organisation that was called 'The Uranium Information Centre'. They are related to the Australian Uranium Association and the World Nuclear Association. Does anyone here think this is likely to be unbiased data? How can solar and wind energy generation produce so much more CO2 than nuclear? Especially when you consider building the station, decommissioning it, decontaminating the site, processing all the nuclear waste and then concreting it up and storing it secure caverns for 20,000 years? The website cited no longer exists, so we can't verify the data in any way. I suggest that this graph be deleted until some more up-to-date and reliable secondary source can be found and something a little more realistic can be created. --Nigelj (talk) 14:48, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Here is a summary of several studies [8]. One is from the IAEA. Wind and solar are very diffuse sources, so it takes a lot of material to capture the energy. Nuclear is concentrated. Paul Studier (talk) 21:42, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
Yes, but you have to begin to grasp that that is yet another self-published source, commissioned and published by and on behalf of the global nuclear industry (the 'World Nuclear Association'), in this case over the tag-line, 'Promoting the peaceful worldwide use of nuclear power as a sustainable energy resource' - it's a self-published promotional website. Then, the data has been hidden in a formal-looking graph and presented without comment in the margin of this article, as if it represents facts. In clear contravention of WP:V policy, it is 'self-serving' and it does 'involve claims about third parties', viz the solar and wind industries. Here are three examples of news reports that point to various more realistic and recent scientific publications that all put forward the very different view: [9] [10] [11]. One references the work of a Stanford professor, the next is by a Member of of the Indian Parliament and the third is by a Research Fellow in the Energy Governance Program at the National University of Singapore. So, I ask again, does anybody here have the time or expertise, and access to the referenced journals, as well as the ability to distinguish a primary from a secondary source, to be able to create a more realistic graph, or shall we just drop this one until someone does? --Nigelj (talk) 09:39, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
As long as the source is a recognized authority on the subject, there is no problems with self publishing. Climateprogress is definitively not a WP:RS and the 2 others are opinions of individuals - not even remotely close to reaching the same level of notability or reliability of the WNA. There is no doubt that the WNA has some bias though. How about finding some studies on the subject? Btw. the 2 references the WNA and the ClimProg ones do not really contradict each other - since its very likely that solar PV and wind have gotten a better footprint between 1999 and 2008. (the CCS seems to me to be very much speculation though, since no such plants exist). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 12:02, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
Of course, I wasn't suggesting the articles listed as scientific sources - I clearly said that they point to and reference such articles. There seems to be some serious confusion around here about citable sources! --Nigelj (talk) 14:39, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
Then find those scientific sources instead.... I've given 3 rather solid references here, that confirm the information: IPCC, UK PoST, WEC. What do you find problematic about them? (as you state below?) --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 06:16, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
Add: This reference from the UK paliamentary office of science and technology, tells much the same story as the Vattenfal study. Hydro <5gCO2eq/KWh (goes to 10-30 if you backup power in them), Nuclear at 5gCO2eq/kWh, Wind at 4.64gCO2eq/kWh (onshore), 5.25gCO2eq/kWh (offshore) and Solar PV between 38-58 gCO2eq/kWh. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 12:10, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
World Energy Council tells us much the same. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 12:13, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
The IPCC WGIII Chapter 4 page 269[12] says (emphasis mine): "Total life-cycle GHG emissions per unit of electricity produced from nuclear power are below 40 gCO2-eq/kWh (10 gC-eq/kWh), similar to those for renewable energy sources (Figure 4.18). (WEC, 2004a; Vattenfall, 2005)." (see also the figure there) --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 12:23, 19 April 2009 (UTC) Hmmm the figure is 4.19. Which btw. places both Solar PV and Hydro higher than nuclear in lifetime emissions. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 12:32, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
Support axing of this and replacing with peer-reviewed source. Andrewjlockley (talk) 11:00, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
Be our guest and convert WGIII Figure 4.189 into something nice. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 12:25, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
'Be our guest'? Ho ho. --Nigelj (talk) 14:39, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
Support the use of the UK parliamentary figures and graphs. Andrewjlockley (talk) 00:38, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, I've been busy with some 'real life' stuff, but I got back to this today and tracked down one of the peer-reviewed studies referenced from [13], as I suggested above. It is freely available at and it a meta-analysis of 103 other lifecycle studies. It was published in the journal Energy Policy in August 2008. It concludes that "lifecycle studies of greenhouse gas emissions associated with the nuclear fuel cycle need to become more accurate, transparent, accountable, and comprehensive" and goes on to criticise many such studies for being "more than 10 years old" (like all the data that Vattenfall 1999 is based on) or for being unscientific in various ways (i.e. "methodological shortcomings").

It estimates nuclear effective lifecycle emissions at 66 g CO2e/kWh, compared to 32 for solar PV, 10-13 for hydroelectric and 9-10 for wind. These figures are not only intuitively much more realistic than the bias of the nuclear industry sources we quote (and of the current UK government), but are not quoted anywhere that I can see. I propose that they should be reflected in this article as soon as possible. --Nigelj (talk) 16:40, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

The paper has a total of 3 citations - and when comparing it to the others it raises some rather large red flags. Using it would be extreme undue weight, since it has been basically ignored in the literature. Sorry. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 19:34, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
So, let me get this right: The official Wikipedia position is that, in the "Mitigation of global warming", the No 1 "Alternative energy source" is nuclear (No 2 being renewable energy in article order). There is no worldwide or scientific debate about this 'fact' that is worth reporting (apart from one "isolated study" from the Netherlands, which is an "unreliable source?"). Adding another published, peer-reviewed and cited source would represent "extreme undue weight". This article and its graphs are yours, and those who alter them do so as your "guest". We are accused of edit warring and instantly reverted if we do so directly, and all other citations are dismissed in any debate here. Great. Good luck in your work, my friends. --Nigelj (talk) 08:30, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
Thats a rather strange comment. WP (or the article) does not make any comments on what alternative energy source is the 1st,2nd or nth. What WP does take a stand on, is the reliability and relative weight/impact of various sources/references to specific information. And that is all that i've commented on. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 11:19, 19 May 2009 (UTC)


The axe just fell, from an IP edit. Does this merit discussion? Andrewjlockley (talk) 10:58, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. That looks like a lot better starting point for a balanced article. I just reinstated this edit as the edit comment accompanying its reversion re WP:RS was inappropriate - you do not need reliable sources to remove material from an article. The dubious nature and excess emphasis of the material removed and reshuffled is gaining increasing consensus here in Talk. When we have such doubts about the authenticity and up-to-dateness of views that are presented at such length in an article, it seems merely prudent to trim the discussion back until more reliable sources are found and new graphs etc prepared (see topic above). --Nigelj (talk) 14:58, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
The section with the anon discussion is a couple of topics up (Avoiding edit war about nuclear). I'm rather interested in how you can consider the UK Parliament, the IPCC and the WEC "dubious" sources or not uptodate considering that they are all rather new. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 06:13, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
I believe that an independent, peer-reviewed, 2008 meta-analysis of over a hundred such studies trumps cherry-picking any handful of them - see topic above. WP:RS says, "Avoid undue weight when using single studies in such fields. Meta-analyses, textbooks, and scholarly review articles are preferred to provide proper context, where available." --Nigelj (talk) 16:45, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
Your independent study - is by a single scientist - its only cited 3 times. Sorry - but this is extremely undue weight to a single study. Compare this to the above mentioned sources - which are independent, multidiscipline, and highly profiled studies - with an extreme number of citations. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 19:30, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Kuznets curve

The stuff that I added about the Kuznets curve is form The New York Times, and I summarized the article very well. Why do you claim that it is "unbalanced"?

Here's is what I wrote:

"Like emissions of many other pollutants, carbon dioxide appears to follow a Kuznets curve. In the case of carbon dioxide, emissions appear to peak at a per capita GDP of approximately $30,000. It has been estimated that as the overall world economy continues to grow, most manmade carbon dioxide emissions will cease by around 2060 or 2070. [7]"

You can read the article here.

What's wrong with including that in the article?

Grundle2600 (talk) 16:03, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

First of all it doesn't belong here - this is an article about mitigation. It might belong on the Kuznets curve article though. Its completely unbalanced because you are citing one news-article on a speculative subject (hypothesis), which in it self (the article) is rather clear in stating that its speculation, and one sided... Finally try not to use popular press articles for science subjects. To summarize: Its a random factoid, inserted without context or discussion on pro/contra, sourced to a single article => unbalanced. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 16:30, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
But if you are really interested in getting this into the article, then the IPCC mentions Kuznet in "Integrating sustainable development and climate change in the IPCC fourth assessment report" [14], i would suspect that other assessment reports, or economic analysis' have touched upon the subject. Have fun :) --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 16:35, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

The article cites the Los Angeles Times, the BBC, and the Guardian - why is it OK to cite those sources, but not OK to cite the New York Times?

The article also cites the Sierra Club as a single, unbalanced source. Why is it OK to have a single, unbalanced claim with the Sierra Club, but not OK with The New York Times?

Grundle2600 (talk) 15:24, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Did you actually read my comment - or are you going into a fit based upon some perception of what i might have written? (hint: It has _never_ been the reliability of the source that was questioned) --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 15:35, 4 May 2009 (UTC)


have accidentally deleted the portals flags - could someone put them back please??Engineman (talk) 01:35, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Pacala and Socolow: comment or query moved from article

I've moved the content of this edit from the article because it appears to be a comment or query on the content.

Editor was

In the section Pacala and Socolow, the opening sentence is:

Pacala and Socolow of Princeton have proposed a program to reduce CO2 emissions by 1 billion metric tons per year − or 25 billion tons over the 50-year period. The proposed 15 different programs, any seven of which could achieve the goal, are:

The editor had apparently queried the "any seven of which could achieve the goal" by adding:

(** Is this really the case? I believe that the specific 'programs' apply to one of the seven corresponding wedges. Thus, it is a smaller group of seven programs that would address all seven wedges.**)

--TS 22:42, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

CO2 from nukes

Re [15]. I agree, I think. But I think the existing 3.3 g for nukes vs 400-odd for gas is probably too low. See the table at which is sourced William M. Connolley (talk) 18:32, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Generally when i see the Storm van Leeuven name in connection with nuclear, i doubt it automatically. I'm still uncertain as to the reliability of it.--Kim D. Petersen (talk) 18:47, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

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.[8]" 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)

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). "" 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. 

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)


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? (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 [16]. Then there's the macroeconomic estimates, which are also in AR4 [17]. 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)

Add Living On a New Earth: Humankind has fundamentally altered the planet. thinking and actions can prevent us from destroying ourselves?

"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 (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. (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? (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? (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 :

"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 (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)

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 (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. (talk) 21:00, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

I completely agree. I will try to fix it. I also think the graphic from Sovacool's study should be replaced with something else, that study has been criticized for lopsided data selection and inappropriate use of statistics.[9]Eledille (talk) 13:12, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
Hi Eledille and, of course these are very contested claims. There are a number of studies that argue the opposite, that we could have 100% renewable energy systems (or close to it) quite soon, including one by the National Academies of Science and another massive 4 volume set by the US NREL. Those studies are available and The US NREL even concludes that "Renewable electricity generation from technologies that are commercially available today, in combination with a more flexible electric system, is more than adequate to supply 80% of total U.S. electricity generation in 2050 while meeting electricity demand on an hourly basis in every region of the country." Then you have the peer-reviewed studies like these two arguing the same thing here, here, and here So the thinking on the matter is starting to change!Bksovacool (talk) 03:52, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Add Analysis: Gas Is Killing Green Energy in Price War

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. (talk) 20:46, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

See current Foreign Affairs article ... (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... (talk) 19:24, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Add Climate of Denial: Can science and the truth withstand the merchants of poison?

Add Climate of Denial: Can science and the truth withstand the merchants of poison? by Al Gore on (Rolling Stone issue 1134/1135) 22.June.2011. (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. (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. (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. (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. (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. (talk) 19:40, 25 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. (talk) 23:04, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
What is different? 20:50, 28 June 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk)
There is this (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 DOI: 10.1002/wcc.81 (talk) 21:54, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
Drought under global warming: a review by Aiguo Dai, article first published online: 19.October.2010 (talk) 06:43, 8 July 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.[10] 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.[10] Emissions of some of these actors are considered by the Kyoto Protocol. (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)

Why is an image from Skeptical Science included references from The Guardian and International Energy Agency?

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

Why is an image from Skeptical Science included references from The Guardian and International Energy Agency by User:NewsAndEventsGuy per (Special:Contributions/NewsAndEventsGuy) (talk) 01:24, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Huh? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 03:07, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
Have you seen the comment about the legend that I made on the Commons page? -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 06:23, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
no thanks for calling attention I'll go lookNewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 10:47, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
UPDATE, ok I think I addressed Alan's concern about abbreviations in the legend at wiki commons. still don't know what the IP's text means at the start of this threadNewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 11:19, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Avoiding Dangerous Climate Change

I propose merging Avoiding Dangerous Climate Change into this article (Climate change mitigation), as

  1. In neither article, is there anything distinguishing them, and
  2. ADCC should never be capitalized.

Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:34, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

  • Oppose - "Avoiding dangerous climate change" is the title of a book and a conference. The article is specifically about the conference. Rklawton (talk) 19:42, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

In response to Arthur Rubin, I believe the term "avoiding dangerous climate change" is common and distinctive in the literature and popular press and deserves its own article. Cross referencing the two articles is an adequate means of conveying their relatedness. If the articles were to be merged, I believe that "avoiding dangerous climate change" is the dominant theme, and that the title of article should be changed accordingly. My reasoning is that the need for that avoidance is the cause for action, and the mitigating is about how that could be done. Mitigation is under consideration only because of the dangers that need to be avoided. Best regards, Coastwise (talk) 22:13, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

In response to Rklawton, my recent expansion of the other article was just modified by someone else to again be more particular to the conference than the general topic. So you may not have seen the expansion. "Avoiding dangerous climate change" is a substantial topic in the climate change field, and the conference about which the original article was written is a subordinate part of that topic. Therefore, I believe the other article needs to be more comprehensive than just the conference. That said, I now notice that the title of the other article should be changed so that only the first word is capitalized. Conversely, if that article were to be reverted to be an article only about the ADCC conference, "Conference" or "conference" should be added to the title. This is because the article title is otherwise the same as the common term, and this is confusing and misleading to readers, and it is best to have one landing spot for both. The topic and the conference are about the same thing. Best regards, Coastwise (talk) 22:13, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

I see. Well, the "concept" should be merged with Climate change mitigation, with appropriate hatnotes. I see that doesn't require anything other than removing Coastwise's edits to the article as irrelevant. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:01, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
I disagree (if this were to be done at all) that it is appropriate to do this in the simple fashion you suggest. "Avoiding dangerous climate change" is the over-arching topic regarding mitigation. So, if the move were to be made, the "Climate change mitigation" article needs to be retitled and restructured as shown below. Otherwise, the other article should remain as-is (but with the capitalization of its title corrected).
O Avoiding dangerous climate change (Title changed from "Climate change mitigation")
  • (Add a see also to "Avoiding Dangerous Climate Change conference" here.) (note name change)
  • (New content from the other article goes here.)
1 Greenhouse gas concentrations and stabilization
  • (Current content. This describes the physics involved in avoiding dangerous climate change.)
2 Methods and means of mitigating climate change (Note text added to heading)
  • (Current content. This describes the various means for avoiding dangerous climate change.)
3 Costs and benefits of mitigating climate change (Note text added to heading)
  • (Current content.)
4 Governmental and intergovernmental action (Current content)
  • (Current content.)
5 Non-governmental approaches (Current content)
  • (Current content.)
6 See also (Current content)
  • (Current content.)
7 References
  • (Current content + the new section's refs.)
8 External links
  • (Current content.)
Coastwise (talk) 00:49, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
Another point. If you wish to merge something, I think merging the "Climate change mitigation" article with the "Climate change mitigation scenarios" article seems the more urgent matter. (Not that I am recommending doing so.) If it is not necessary to merge those, it is not necessary to merge "Avoiding dangerous climate change" either. Coastwise (talk) 00:58, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
On the contrary, I see no difference at all between avoiding dangerous climate change and climate change mitigation. Can you describe any difference between the articles, not related to the book or the conference which might be in the first article. There is a difference in ... scenarios, although they could easily be merged in, if the article isn't too long. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:10, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
Arthur, (1) What is your view concerning the retitling and restructuring of this article, that I suggested above? (2) There is a difference. The other article is about scientific and political recognition of a problem and the setting of policy. This one is about action.Coastwise (talk) 02:11, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

As far as common use goes, check out the winner. Rklawton (talk) 01:18, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

I would say that both terms are in common use and deserve their own articles. Mitigation may be the more popular term with the public; however, avoiding dangerous climate change is very common in the scientific and politcal realms. (Interesting website -- hadn't seen such a tool before.)Coastwise (talk) 02:11, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
I'd say 30 to 1 is pretty clearly in favor of Climate change mitigation. Also consider Wikipedia is for the common reader. I doubt it means much to the scientific community except as a vehicle to communicate to the common reader in terms he or she will understand. Rklawton (talk) 02:20, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
I note however that there are around a hundred WP articles that include the phrase "avoiding dangerous climate change" or a close grammatical permutation of it (sometimes using the alternative word in the literature, "preventing"). If the material is moved to this article I think article is best restructured as problem:solution. There is no point in mitigating if there is no problem to solve, and the objective for which there is mitigation is to avoid harm. The primary topic is the need and policy to avoid the harm, and mitigation follows from that.Coastwise (talk) 03:49, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
You just added at least 50 of them, so I have doubts about the rest of your comment. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 05:43, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
I added only a few, and those fit the preexisting context. By and large I turned preexisting text into links. And there was already a large number of articles with links from that phrase or its close equivalent.Coastwise (talk) 06:15, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Folks interested in this discussion may be interested in [survey results of Eng wiki pages with exact phrase "avoiding dangerous climate change"] NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 00:40, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

The way we typically solve this problem is to go with popular usage. As far as popular usage goes, the case is blatantly obvious. It's also clear we've got a single editor attempting to push his own point of view by making mass edits to Wikipedia and then pointing to Wikipedia as evidence for popular usage. I take a rather dim view of this attempt to manipulate the process, and I suspect others will too if we escalate the issue. I'd prefer, however, that we simply put an end to the debate, go with popular usage as we have done time and again with other articles, and quit wasting effort on a futile debate. Rklawton (talk) 02:09, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

The phrase or its close equivalent preexisted in nearly all of the articles I added links to. Many articles that included such phrases already had links, many didn't. There were a few that expressed the concept but without a succinct phrase, and to those I added a see also. The above survey does not include the close equivalents (e.g. avoid, avoidance, prevent, or preventing instead of avoiding; various equivalents for dangerous; and various reordering of words), so the survey isn't a full indication of the presence of the concept on WP. The concept was already common in climate-related articles on WP, apart from my work here, and the concept's origin and evolution is what is in the other article. It is a discrete concept, and a phrase referring to it has a specific meaning and heritage. WP users should be able to look that up conveniently, in my view. Coastwise (talk) 04:58, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
Also, keeping the pages separate is not just the opinion of a single editor. There is support for keeping them separate on the other talk page. Coastwise (talk) 04:58, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
Just for the record, I am the editor who did the survey, in an honest bit of thinking for this discussion. I dont believe I added any of the links myself and do not know who did. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 02:16, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Reliable Source

NewsAndEventsGuy and I are hoping to clarify that the Overseas Development Institute is a reliable source. Input from other editors would be much appreciated.

Many thanks,

Hannah Polly Williams (talk) 14:57, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

from Portal:Current events/2012 June 12 ... Location?

Repetitive citations

I'm thinking of changing the IPCC citations in this article. I would change the citations so that they use Template:Harvard citation no brackets as is done in effects of global warming. The change would remove a lot of repetitive information contained in the existing IPCC citations. The change could also be applied to any other citations which contain repetitive information. I'd probably make the changes gradually, perhaps revising a few citations in each edit. Enescot (talk) 05:33, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

What? Not done yet?? :-)
I certainly don't object. Though I would suggest sweeping through the entire article. Want some help? ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 18:43, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Removed section: Making the emitting of CO2 illegal

Following section was removed:

One of the biggest problem seems to revolve around the fact that the countries decide on an average "allowed emission amount" per capita (which many believe should actually actually not exist at all). Many people, including prominent ones such as Ken Caldeira believe that an acceptable GHG emission per capita would be 0 tonnes (or -alternatively, very close to that, say 0,001 tonnes or so [11] The current protocol however has huge allowed amounts of emissions (between 3 and 10 tonnes) per capita and is as such extremely negligent.[12]

Although 0,001 tonnes per capita would be acceptable, it can be expected that most people won't accept this and a better approach might be to just get rid entirely of this emission reduction-positive approach with the successor and replace it with an emitted GHG-negative approach. Some prominent people like Ken Caldeira have opted for this approach as well.[13] Obviously, it should be possible to still emit CO2, yet when emitting more than 0 tonnes of GHG, a sort of "fine" needs to be payed (carbon credits).[14][15][16] This is much similar as what it is now, except for the method we employ.

Please reintroduce it, if needed in a modified form. The person that removed it stated that there were "no sources", but Ken Caldeira did really propose making the emitting of CO2 illegal. You can find other sources with some simple google searches, ie see here

KVDP (talk) 10:40, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

I deleted that section in this diff for reasons stated in the edit summary.... and elaborated at KVDP's talk page. REF tags are particularly problematic, and its unclear how these proposal(s?) overlap(s?) the illegality of exceeding a cap under cap and trade. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 18:38, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
There are a wide range of policy proposals for addressing climate change [18]. In my view, this article should provide a balanced summary of all of these policy proposals. I think that Caldeira's comment needs to be viewed in this context.
In my opinion, Caldeira's comment is rather vague. He hasn't proposed a specific policy to make emissions illegal. However, I don't have a problem with reinstating a revised version of Caldeira's comment to the article. It could go in the "legal action" section, e.g., "Scientist Ken Caldeira has suggested that devices which emit CO2 should be made illegal" [19].
I agree with NewsAndEventsGuy's comments about other aspects of your edit. In my opinion, the commentary on the ineffectiveness of the Kyoto Protocol is original research. I also think it's worth mentioning that this article is already rather long (around 60 KB). The main UNFCCC article has a section which contains commentaries on the treaty. A number of other articles also contain commentaries on climate change policy, including Kyoto Protocol, views on the Kyoto Protocol, Kyoto Protocol and government action, and Copenhagen Accord.
As you've said, the UNFCCC and Kyoto Protocol have been extensively criticized. Since there are already sub-articles which deal with the UNFCCC processes, I think that this article should only provide a brief summary of the issues involved. These criticisms also need to be balanced against favourable commentaries on the UNFCCC (e.g., Stern, 2006, p.478). :As NewsAndEventsGuy says, any criticisms of the UNFCCC need to be properly sourced, e.g., [20][21]. Enescot (talk) 06:54, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
I updated the text, and cut off the top section (as Enescot had a problem with it, and it also wasn't essential -it was just added to explain why this approach was different and perhaps better than the approach of the Kyoto protocol-). I then reintegrated to the text (see Climate_change_mitigation#Making_the_emitting_of_CO2_illegal ) I mentioned the top section at the talk page of Views_on_the_Kyoto_Protocol. See Talk:Views_on_the_Kyoto_Protocol#Describing_some_problems_of_the_Kyoto_protocol. Enescot: please note btw that by this entry I didn't wish to criticise the Kyoto protocol (I actually support it), but I just wanted to explain some problems with it and why an alternative approach would be even better (hereby allowing us to provide a greater positive effect to the environment).
I btw agree with NewsAndEventsGuy comment that Caldeira has not really proposed a specific policy to make emissions illegal, it was too vague for this (no laws mentioned). I however disagree that the mention of Caldeira should go in the legal action section. This section deals around lawsuits against organisations/countries in regards to climate change. Earthcharter and other organisations and the approach I describe deals around implementing juridical changes (in the law), it doesn't describe lawsuits. The fact that we describe the implementation of changes to the law btw makes it different from "cap and trade", ...

KVDP (talk) 08:36, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Problems with lede

The existing revision of the lede presents a good overview of the subject, but I am concerned about some of its content. In my opinion, the tone of the lede implies a bias against nuclear power. I do not think that this is justified. The IPCC Fourth Assessment Report does note some of the difficulties associated with nuclear power [22], but also, for example, discusses problems which affect renewable energy.

Another problem is the emphasis on the EU's energy policy. In my opinion, it makes more sense to concentrate on the UNFCCC. The UNFCCC is the main international treaty on climate change.

Finally, I do not see why the precautionary principle and abrupt climate change are listed as reasons to mitigate climate change. The UNFCCC lists three criteria for achieving its ultimate objective (stabilizing atmospheric GHG concentrations at a level that would prevent dangerous interference of the climate system): allowing ecosystems to adapt naturally to climate change, ensuring that food production is not threatened, and ensuring that economic development can proceed in a sustainable manner. The precautionary principle is included in the UNFCCC, but so are other considerations - equity (i.e., fairness), cost-effectiveness, sustainable development, and support for an open international economic system [23]. Enescot (talk) 05:31, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

I've prepared a draft revision of the lede:
Climate change mitigation involves actions to limit the magnitude and/or rate of long-term climate change. Climate change mitigation generally involves reductions in human (anthropogenic) emissions of greenhouse gases (GHGs). Mitigation may also be achieved by increasing the capacity of carbon "sinks," e.g., through reforestation. By contrast, adaptation to global warming involves actions to manage the impacts of global warming, e.g., by building dikes in response to sea level rise.
Examples of mitigation include switching to "low-carbon" energy sources, such as renewable and nuclear energy and expanding forests and other "sinks" to remove greater amounts of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. Energy efficiency can also play a major role, for example, through improving the insulation of buildings.
Another approach to climate change mitigation is geoengineering. Geoengineering aims to mitigate climate change by directly altering the Earth's energy balance ("radiative forcing"). Geoengineering techniques can be broken down into two categories. The first category involves reducing incoming sunlight (e.g., by injecting aerosols into the atmosphere), while the second category involves reducing atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations (e.g., by increasing the capacity of the oceans to absorb carbon from the atmosphere). Scientific understanding of geoengineering is limited, and there is the risk of unknown side-effects (UK Royal Society, Summary).
The main international treaty on climate change is the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). In 2010, Parties to the UNFCCC agreed that future global warming should be limited to below 2.0 °C (3.6 °F) relative to the pre-industrial level. Analysis suggests that meeting the 2 °C would require annual global emissions of greenhouse gases to peak before the year 2020, and decline thereafter, with emissions in 2050 reduced by 50% compared to 1990 levels (UNEP, pp.3, 23). Analyses by the United Nations Environment Programme and International Energy Agency [24] suggest that current policies (as of 2012) are too weak to achieve the 2 °C target.
Enescot (talk) 05:22, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
I completely agree with you about the anti-nuclear bias in the article, I have removed this bias to the best of my ability. However in doing so I have had to remove reference to the UNFCCC. Let me know what you think? I look forward to hearing your feedback, and possibly working together with you in the future. It is reassuring to find another soul that has also noticed the endemic anti-nuclear bias on wikipedia, bias that sadly continues to go unchallenged and even defended by many editors here.
Boundarylayer (talk) 06:44, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for making those changes. As you say, previous revisions of this article did appear to be rather anti-nuclear.
I'm concerned about how long this article is, and I think that it could reduced in length. In my opinion, the section on nuclear power could be trimmed down. The more detailed information on nuclear power could be moved to Nuclear renaissance. I'd be happy to discuss this with you and other editors. Enescot (talk) 07:43, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Allegations of 'advertisement' POV

An editor recently removed information related to the many ways a particularly power source mitigates climate change. This strikes me as odd, as after all, this article is about climate change mitigation. So all the ways a power source replaces fossil fuel use, should naturally be included in the article, if it results in the off-setting of emissions.

Here are a few of the major areas were fossil fuels are used - (1) In electricity generation, (2) In transportation, (3) In industry, (4) In home heating.

So obviously it follows that information about how each climate change mitigation technology can, or cannot, achieve the off-setting of fossil fuel use in each of these areas should be included.

It is not 'advertising' 'POV' it is just the reality of climate change mitigation efforts, and the edit includes well referenced material at that.

Boundarylayer (talk) 14:54, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Regardless of whether your view has merit, you should not re-insert the reverted material prior to seeking consensus on talk. You are edit-warring. Please undo your last edit in the article and engage in dialogue with other editors. It serves no purpose simply to declare that your view is correct. SPECIFICO talk 15:29, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
Just checked one of your cited sources, "Euroheat" is an industry trade organization. That one's not WP:RS. Please be more careful. SPECIFICO talk 15:37, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
None of your sentences are about climate change mitigation (CCM)(you know the topic area of this article), but are instead about how great nuclear power is, and where it is efficiently used as a combined energy and heat source. This is text-book WP:SYN/WP:OR. Find references that address CCM in combination with nuclear, if you want to expand the nuclear aspects of this article.
At the same time you removed the text about the public barrier to nuclear, tables on the public support of energy sources, as well as the fact that nuclear has a high economic cost when fossil costs aren't internalized. Which is simply whitewashing/POV editing.
Why are you adding stuff about desalination to this article? Desalination is not a major climate change mitigation issue?? This is why i call it PR, since you seem to add every positive stuff about nuclear that you can find - so that nuclear is seen in a positive light. Again POV.
I am (as i said before) pro-nuclear, but this is simply not the way forward - you need to look at the area in a broad encyclopedic eye, and not write stuff because it supports your personal preferences. There is a lot of good to be said for nuclear in the future energy spread, this is not the way. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 00:25, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
Note please: I'm not even starting on addressing the reliability of sources, nor whether they actually support the text that they are used as references for. (the guardian article for instance doesn't support your claim about chinese nukes being on budget etc) - the reason that i do not, is that the text simply doesn't belong. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 00:30, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
You are entirely mistaken, I never removed any material, I simply reordered the section to have tech info on top and public info on the bottom.
Check the edit history, you will see you are mistaken.
Boundarylayer (talk) 08:50, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

POV tag

I've added a POV tag, as there is a strong slant towards nuclear power and away from renewable energy in this article, which surprises me, given that authoritative sources have said:

In 2011, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the world's leading climate scientists convened by the United Nations, said "as infrastructure and energy systems develop, in spite of the complexities, there are few, if any, fundamental technological limits to integrating a portfolio of renewable energy technologies to meet a majority share of total energy demand in locations where suitable renewable resources exist or can be supplied".[17] IPCC scenarios "generally indicate that growth in renewable energy will be widespread around the world".[18] The IPCC said that if governments were supportive, and the full range of renewable technologies were deployed, renewable energy could account for almost 80% of the world's energy supply within four decades.[19] Rajendra Pachauri, chairman of the IPCC, said the necessary investment in renewables would cost only about 1% of global GDP annually. This approach could keep greenhouse gas concentrations to less than 450 parts per million, the safe level beyond which climate change becomes catastrophic and irreversible.[19]

In November 2011, an International Energy Agency report entitled Deploying Renewables 2011 said "renewable energy technology is becoming increasingly cost competitive and growth rates are in line to meet levels required of a sustainable energy future". The report also said "subsidies in green energy technologies that were not yet competitive are justified in order to give an incentive to investing into technologies with clear environmental and energy security benefits". The renewable electricity sector has "grown rapidly in the past five years and now provides nearly 20 percent of the world's power generation", the IEA said.[20] The IEA's report disagreed with claims that renewable energy technologies are only viable through costly subsidies and not able to produce energy reliably to meet demand. "A portfolio of renewable energy technologies is becoming cost-competitive in an increasingly broad range of circumstances, in some cases providing investment opportunities without the need for specific economic support," the IEA said, and added that "cost reductions in critical technologies, such as wind and solar, are set to continue."[20]

-- Johnfos (talk) 10:39, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

I've also added an advertisement tag to the long, strongly promotional nuclear power section, see nuclear power debate for a more balanced view. -- Johnfos (talk) 07:49, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Added text based on New Scientist - dubious RS

this good faith edit, which seems fairly accurate based on my outside knowledge, is largely based on material from "New Scientist". Their terms and conditions states "We take no responsibility for any views, omissions or errors found on our site, and assume no responsibility for its contents." For that reason, I question whether New Scientist is really an WP:RS as we have defined that concept in the policy/guidelines? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 23:18, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

New Scientist is one of the better popular science magazines. It's not perfect, but its coverage of science is certainly better than that in the mainstream press. A legal disclaimer does not change this - and you'll probably find similar language on many websites, in particular in the UK with its unreasonable libel laws, if you dig around a bit. That said, it might be better to go to the original source, which may or may not be this. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:07, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
Stephan, do you happen to know whether NS exerts editorial control over their content? If yes, then I agree its RS. If not, then I still question. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 05:50, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
NS certainly exerts a reasonable level of editorial control. Its a professional publication, similar to Scientific American in nature. Also see this comment on its editor in chief. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 07:37, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
Thanks, I'm convinced it's RS after all.NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 12:26, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Pacala and Socolow's undue weight

Having an exhaustive list of every proposed climate change mitigation method would run longer than it should but right now the subsections for mitigation "methods and means" are categorized efficiently to cover each specific method; alternative energy, energy efficiency & conservation, sinks & negative emissions, geoengineering, and societal controls. The one exception is a whole subsection to Pacala and Socolow's program (between geoengineering and societal controls for some reason). What is the reasoning to give this particular proposal an entire subsection? Even if it would not be removed, I think it should atleast be summarized and in a different place. JustBeCool (talk) 21:27, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

The climate is warming

I'm not sure if is part of the range of the notorious 99... link creator, so I don't want to be guilty of enabling and abetting a banned user, or whatever the Wikipedia offence is called, but equally, I'm not happy with people reverting an edit for a spurious reason. In this reversion, Arthur Rubin says "Climate change is NOT global warming", but, despite whatever nonsense they may be broadcasting in the US media at the moment, I say, "Yes it is". The global climate is warming due to CO2 emissions, deforestation etc. This is causing all kinds of knock-on effects from flooding to drought, and from unusual snowfalls and storms to heatwaves and desertification, but the direction of change in the global climate is one of warming, without a doubt. --Nigelj (talk) 11:51, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Agree with Nigelj, though I'd be happy to be convinced with RSs, Arthur. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 12:05, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
PS and about the IP, I agree with Arthur. WP:DUCK NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 12:08, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
There have been IPs in the 141.* range previously found to be equal to others in User:Arthur Rubin/IP list. And my statement that "climate change is NOT global warming" was meant to indicate that the terms are not identical, and that sources which say one should not be wikilinked to an article about the other without evidence that the source meant the same thing. That being said, if a non-sock wants to restore the material, and willing to state that the wikilink is not an WP:EGG and meets the "principle of least surprise", I wouldn't object, although I think it mistaken. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 13:06, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
But of course, in referring to the current warming of earth's overall climate system, there are abundant RSs that call it "climate change", others that call it "global warming", and others that call it both interchangeably. Different operatives have tried to change the favored expression among their constituents due to perceived impact on public sentiment at different times. In such circumstances, the edit you reverted, Arthur, was not an WP:EGG at all. That said, I like adding the link to Effects of global warming but I don't care which phrase is displayed, unless it was part of a direct quote. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 13:51, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
Again, direct link, not "egg". (talk) 21:15, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
Going against the popular consensus here, but they actually may have a point, only insofar as the name of the article. It should be titled "Global warming mitigation" and not "Climate change mitigation". As people in the future may encounter another Krakatoa or Maunder minimum upon which time "Climate change mitigation" would have a whole different meaning to them, as they would want the planet to heat up, not cool down.
This is not to take away from the severity of AGW, but in the interests of preventing confusion.
Boundarylayer (talk) 18:54, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
When the majority of RSs define these terms to accomodate potential future needs, then I might agree. But today is not that day. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:29, 29 May 2013 (UTC)