Talk:List of environmental issues

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Environment (Rated Start-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This environment-related article is part of the WikiProject Environment to improve Wikipedia's coverage of the environment. The aim is to write neutral and well-referenced articles on environment-related topics, as well as to ensure that environment articles are properly categorized.
Read Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ and leave any messages at the project talk page.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.


The intro to this page read: "This is a list of environmental issues. These articles relate to the anthropogenic effects on the natural environment and are of concern for environmentalists." I have removed the last section because I believe the issues are of concern (or at least of interest) to a much wider audience. MrsPlum 08:31, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment: What about hunting? that is an environmental issue? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:13, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

The list is really good Ayushhgandhi (talk) 08:10, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Bjorn Lomberg[edit]

I removed Bjørn Lomborg. He is not an environmental issue. He simply has opinions and writes about environmental issues. Alan Liefting 10:27, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Not really issues[edit]

If Lomborg is an issue then neither is the Kyoto Protocol, the WOW or the IPEE. Also, 'global warming' and 'global warming hypothesis' redirect to the same place. (for got to sign Pjc51 20:01, 13 January 2007 (UTC))

This comment is illogical. Lomborg certainly doesnt rate being on this list. Alan Liefting is totally correct. Anlace 21:03, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
Global warming and climate change are environmental issues but Kyoto Protocol, WMO, IPCC are not enviro issues. The latter deal with the issue. Alan Liefting 10:45, 12 May 2007 (UTC)


Removed software from under Climate Change in List of environmental issues, as I cannot see how it relates to the topic. Feel free to correct me if I've made a mistake. Lbishopi 08:50, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

It was vandalism that was not correctly reverted. --Alan Liefting 08:13, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Other similar pages[edit]

What should be done about List of environmental health hazards and List of environmental disasters? I was considering proposing a merge, but perhaps they should just be deleted for being so incomplete and rubbish? Anxietycello (talk) 04:14, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

I would like to see them both deleted. There are difficult to maintain, open to POV accusation and difficult to set limits as to what should be included. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 09:00, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Leave them as they are, they are not hurting anyone, others may find them useful... —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:14, 15 October 2008 (UTC)


Could I encourage editors with an interest to come to this article and give it an inspection and possibly help in making incremental improvements in the article? Sustainability I am hoping more people get an active aspect here as this article needs more scrutiny and a broader group of people involved than it currently has (my opinion). skip sievert (talk) 01:50, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Invasive Species[edit]

What about plants and animals that grow out of control due to humans bringing them to foreign ecosystems or due to their predators being forced out of a region? (talk) 19:25, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Invasive species is listed under the "Conservation" heading. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 00:58, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

List of environmental organizations topics vs this article[edit]

I think I have figured out what exactly makes this article inferior to List of environmental organizations topics, which was turned into a redirect to Environmental organization, against AFD protocol (a no consensus vote, which defaults to Keep), by Liefting. It does not have a single positive issue. Not one. Under Energy alone, the L.o.e.o.t. has

Over 250 articles in all. Twice as many as this article. But what really makes the difference is that environmentalism is about more than pointing out problems, it is also about finding solutions. This article shows no solutions. Anarchangel (talk) 09:00, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Creating the redirect has absolutely nothing to do with the afd "protocol". The article was not deleted and you are quite free to revert my edit if you do not agree with it. As for the content of this article versus List of environmental organizations topics would you not agree that they are quite separate topics? This article is about environmental issues - ie. the effect of humans on the environment. The List of environmental organizations topics is a list of sustainability topics, environmental issues, a small collection of science disciplines and a bunch of other stuff that is far too broad to be of use. Also, note that the number of links is not a criteria to judge an article merit. Usefulness and coherence are a couple of criteria that I can think of as a way of evaluating articles. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 09:52, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Asthma attacks[edit]

I think asthma attacks should be listed under environmental issues as asthma attacks are blamed on things that pollute enviromental air. Nb it may be a cigarette or a cat or a tree or road trafic or a bonfire. ( (talk) 11:36, 26 January 2010 (UTC))

The list is more for generic issues caused by human activity on the natural environment rather than human health issues. I could be argued that humans are part of the natural environment but my preference is not to include environmental health. On 2nd thoughts we probably should include environmental health in the list which would include asthma relating to pollution. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 04:21, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
Agreed and done. Earthdirt (talk) 02:26, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Merge proposal[edit]

A merge is proposed of List of environmental issues and List of conservation issues. I oppose a merge because they are separate and notable topics, but with some overlap. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 00:41, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. I'm for the merger. Convervationism is just one way to approach the environment (vs. preservationism, fair use, etc.), and any problem faced by conservation is one faced by the environment. Conservation is just one slice of the pie and deserves its own list no more than there should be a List of preservation issues, List of fair use issues, or a List of neo-colonial environmental exploitation issues. Karmos (talk) 21:24, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
Conservation is quite a large and fairly clearly defined subset of the environment so it deserves its own list. The other ones that you mention are less clearly defined. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 21:48, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose this merge. To merge would suggest that environmental issues have an inevitable related conservation aspect. Although that may be true in some instances, it is untrue in many more instances. The list of conservation issues is, in part, a sub-set of environmental issues and in part is not encompassed by the List of environmental Issues. The opening sentences of the two articles need significant re-write to clarify the differences, similarities , overlap and areas of divergence to make this clear.  Velella  Velella Talk   22:26, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

formal issues[edit]

Should an issue be mentioned more than once? obviously several issues like environmental impact of the coal industry or environmental impact of hydraulic fracturing fit many topics. I think this would swell up the growing list too much.

I would like to create sections which would facilitate editing- but which ? right now it is one big disorienting blob. --Wuerzele (talk) 17:58, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on List of environmental issues. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

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

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:27, 21 May 2017 (UTC)