Talk:Low-carbon economy

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

Please support a paragraph on the debate on the term Low Carbon Economy itself[edit]

From many of the lower mentioned, it is imho clear there should be a mention on the debate around the use of this term. That mention should - please comment and propose improvements:

Debate on the term low carbon economy: Debate arises on the word carbon. Alternatives often mentioned are greenhouse gas and CO2e. The low carbon economy is supposed to contrast a high carbon economy, which is a term hardly nor ever used to point towards the economy based upon the abundant use of fossil and non-sustainable based fuels, such as coal, petrol or nuclear power apt minerals. More appropriate wordings are available, e.g.

a Low Greenhouse Gas Economy
a Low CO2e-gas Economy
a Low CO2e Economy
a Sustainable Economy.

The last one seems to try to describe one of the most preferrable forms of economy, but it is clear that a merely Low Carbon Economy only envisages the reduction of an excess of Greenhouse Gasses. Especially when one takes into account that the politicians in power in 2005 explicitely prohibited the scientists in the IPCC to interprete their observings and facts on the Global Climate Destabilisation/Climate Change. When it became clear that humanity had gone beyond the point of no-return, i.e. bringing the average overheating back down to 0°C, the politicians asked the IPCC to come up with an alternative, second best scenario where Climate Change would still be mangeable. It is there that the 2°C came was higlighted as certain models showed that when managing to keeping the average overheating below 2°C, only 1 out of 6 humans would likely to perish due to climate destabilisation effects, which is considered manageable when scientists talk about rat-experiments. --SvenAERTS (talk) 13:34, 22 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Low-carbon economy, or Low carbon economy?[edit]

A wile ago I started an article preparation on the low carbon economy, with a request for collaboration. Now I see it is written not low carbon economy but low-carbon economy. Is that the official or a better way of writing ? --SvenAERTS (talk) 12:38, 22 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Request for collaboration: still quite some related terms that are not mentioned and need to be developed in the wikipedia[edit]

Have a look at the number of terms that remain red in the article: low carbon economy and please feel free to start preparing a page on them.--SvenAERTS (talk) 12:38, 22 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Low Carbon, or Low Carbon Dioxide?[edit]

I see many references here, and in popular media, to reducing CARBON. What is wrong with diamonds, graphite, and fullerene? Isn't CARBON DIOXIDE the problem, not carbon? Don't we mean we want to limit the burning of carbon-containing compounds, rather than "reduce carbon emissions" ? Saying "too much carbon is bad" (when we mean to say "too much carbon dioxide is bad") is like saying "my basement was flooded by a wave of oxygen" (when I meant to say, "...a wave of water"). I wish the media would stop talking about carbon this and carbon that. At least talk of carbon COMPOUNDS. Stop misrepresenting carbon. What has it ever done wrong (other than team up with oxygen, I suppose)? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.142.66.132 (talk) 16:37, 19 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Boo 70.117.147.27 (talk) 05:06, 11 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Really, a Low Greenhouse Gases Economy . Carbon dioxide equivalent gases are greenhouse gases. --Mac (talk) 12:00, 21 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
We don't really produce any diamond emissions. That I know of at least. If you've seen them I'd like to know where the crystals land. Calling it a low carbon economy makes sense given the terminology of laypeople. It's quite prevelent in the chemical engineering field as well, when your talking about emissions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.130.138.140 (talk) 10:52, 14 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

As a "Kyoto Protocol" Consultant/Low Carbon Economy leadership developer, I understand the frustration... we're bull-dozered by CO2 and "carbon", I always use CO2e and encourage all during my workshops to respect the people that were/are in the CO2 gas business, a business that existed well before the 2005 "Kyoto Protocol". I hope the linguist society will continue to give as it has given certain directives. Also the term "Low Carbon Economy" has been fought over on a long series of international conferences however, as is the fact we call it global warming iso the more accurate Global Climate Destabilization. Global Warming is more enjoyable and less alarming than Global Climate Destabilisation, especially to the first world groups that that are in power there. Why not using the Low Greenhouse Gas Economy ? Clearly because the fossile fuel based economic-military complex wanted to use also the name to stir-up as much and many people against ringing the alarm bells. A low carbon economy, CO2 ridiculous naming of course, better would be a Low Greenhouse Gas Economy imho, well ... less and less humble taking into account the money I earn and power I start having... every day a lot more.--SvenAERTS (talk) 12:50, 22 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Removing NPOV[edit]

Thanks for adding links, citations and references. I am removing the NPOV maintenance tag which I had added. Jerry lavoie 22:14, 16 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Low carbon economies and economic efficiency[edit]

The statement "A low-carbon economy is not as economically efficient (cost-effective) as a high-carbon economy." in the introduction seems contentious. Is it not referring to a cost-effective evaluation which may not take full account of environmental costs (to both present and future generations) and benefits in terms of wellbeing or happinness? Would it be a fair comparison anyway? Is it being suggested that there is somewhere an actual low carbon economy that has progressed beyond the emergent stage which can be assessed? Philralph 08:25, 8 August 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A low carbon economy is efficient. Nuclear power gives France the cheapest electricity in all of Europe. [1] Grundle2600 (talk) 16:21, 26 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Heavily contested by "only" the highest in the EU chain of command today: Jos Delbeke, supported by the vast majority of all scientific federations, the European Space Agency with only a couple of satellites in space, most Nobel Price Winners. Who's supporting your claim Grundle2600? The military-economic fossile based economy and some struggling institutes grappling to attempt to in spite of all facts flusing all real world costs under the carpet? The cbs article is of course completely scattered by all the articles and peer reviewed publications on which the EU's Jos Delbeke is basing himself and with it the EU's standpoint upon. When I am asked to form an opinion, I always look who's putting forward the claim, is it a professor, a group of professors, supported by a federation of scientists, several federations and finally I look at some dissidents. The balance has tilted towards: nuclear power is not cost-effective. Who am I to say it's not true if the majority of federations and scientists and nobel price winners and organizations with satellites and measuring equipment and staff to measure it all say it is NOT cost effective? Cost effectiveness was a myth and held upright by some quasi secret arrangements on Iran-France/EU/Western/first world agreements and understandings and power-balance agreements. France upgrades all of Iran's uranium in exchange for Iran not having that facility and getting heavily paid. Once the diplomats gets involved... I certainly do my homework before believing. Fortunately there is less and less hypocrisy on the side of the Military, who benefit most of the time of honesty: a bullet makes no difference, politics and diplomacy often are more lethal to a soldier. If we need nuclear bombs, let's just come clear with it, if not anymore, let's get rid of them in a swift way. For me, I prefer to get rid of them now rather than in some near future when the Global Climate Destabilisation is decimating populations by the hundreds of millions (not my words but just the IPCC saying, again supported by all federations of scientists and nobel price winners and nasa and esa) and increasing the risk that dirty bombs fall in the hands of criminals taking over in failed regime-states.--SvenAERTS (talk) 13:01, 22 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Low-Carbon (Dioxide) Economy is Hypothetical[edit]

Throughout this entire article, it is said that the "Low Carbon Economy" WILL do or be things rather than "would" do or be things. This betrays an unneeded and unwanted opinion on the part of the writers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tybalt1212 (talkcontribs) 01:19, 6 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Actually, it's real. France gets 80% of its electricity from nuclear power. This is good for its economy, as the country has the cheapest electricity in all of Europe. [2] Grundle2600 (talk) 16:20, 26 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Perhaps the previous commenter was referring to sentences like: "In the low-carbon economy, such operations will use more water conservation methods such as rainwater collection, water cisterns, etc and they will also pump/distribute that water with on-site renewable energy sources (most likely wind and solar)." The writer presents this as an inevitable shift in the way that the world is going to work. It might be more fitting to explain how water conservation methods could reduce carbon emissions (if someone can find suitable sources to back that up).Robert impey (talk) 23:45, 28 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Low carbon economy[edit]

the definition presented in the article reads "A low-carbon economy is an economy in which the growth of carbon dioxide emissions from the use of carbon based fuels (coal, oil and gas) is halted and then significantly reduced.[1]"

Without being critical, I would just like to point out that the reference [1] does not support this definition. The reference page does not define the term explicitly or implicitly.

Secondly, the wording of the defintion could be structured better. By definition, "halting" the growth of carbon dioxide emissions means reducing the growth to zero. How does one "significantly reduce" growth beyond that point? Lmclarty (talk) 20:33, 11 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Huh? Halting the growth can mean keeping it stable to the level - too high level - of greenhouse gasses?--SvenAERTS (talk) 13:09, 22 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Defense of Nuclear Power Unjustified[edit]

"A low-carbon economy might be brought about through the use of energy efficiency measures...and the substitution of renewable energy sources for fossil fuels and nuclear power (Note: nuclear power does not emit any greenhouse gases. [1], [2], [3]), including transport electrification. Also proposed - as a method for mitigating global warming - is a direct quota on global fossil fuel production.[5]

Whilst many in the traditional "environmentalist" movement are skeptical of the use of nuclear power, citing concerns over issues such as the long-term disposal of radioactive waste, the majority of scientific opinion is that the use of nuclear energy is one important option which must be kept on the table, given its large potential to displace highly greenhouse-gas intensive fossil fuel based energy generation systems, given the potential for grave consequences as a result of anthropogenic forcing of climate change."''

The second and third paragraphs in my view are taking on a defense of the feasibility of nuclear power, and in my view this is UNACCEPTABLE due to the fact that the first section is a description of what a LOW-CARBON economy is...

Furthermore the sentence which states: "A low-carbon economy might be brought about through...the substitution of renewable energy sources for fossil fuels and nuclear power"... clearly does not make any reasonable sense. How can a low-carbon economy be brought about, by substituting renewable energy FOR fossil fuels.

As well, Nuclear Power is NOT a zero-carbon emitting energy producer. The mining, production and transport of un-used and used nuclear fuel produces greenhouse gas emissions. Furthermore, the long-term disposal of nuclear waste is a SERIOUS problem now. Currently there is no long-term(10,000+years) High-level nuclear waste repository in use anywhere in the world. The chances of Nuclear Meltdown is improbable, but real as evidenced by the Swedish Forsmark incident in 2006 (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/5241780.stm )

The merits and negatives of Nuclear Power are broad and have NO place in the first section, this clearly damages the neutrality of the article.

Krishyaanis (talk) 14:27, 25 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I agree and the EU's top fonctionaire on the topic Jos Delbeke contests the economic feasibility of nuclear power plants.--SvenAERTS (talk) 13:12, 22 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Low-carbon energy[edit]

What about low-carbon energy and technologies ?. --Nopetro (talk) 14:18, 6 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Regarding Nuclear Energy[edit]

One interesting point is that the weapons grade component of the waste increases over the first few centuries. The waste can be made into nuclear weapons or into dirty bombs. I have no reason to believe that people one hundred or more years from now will have any more political stability than we currently do. Perhaps things could be worse at some points in future history. Future generations may not be pleased to have large amounts of weapons grade waste all over the earth.

Cheers Tushar Mehta MD —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.227.173.78 (talk) 17:47, 1 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Alternative Energy and Overconsumption[edit]

I believe that the fundamental of a low carbon economy must be a decrease in consumption, and alternative energy plays a complimentary role to this. There are many other grave problems that face the earth and biodiversity besides climate change. Hypothetically, if we had unlimited "clean" energy, people's current apatite for more and more material goods, including the largest homes and vehicles possible, people would dig up, pave, and deforest most of the earth. This in itself would be devastating.

A low carbon economy should begin with changing the fundamental way that we live. High density, mixed use, transit oriented development of societies is the fundamental. There must be an alternative to the new world standard of having massive and lavish living spaces which ultimately leads to sprawl, and the paving on green earth.

Cheers Tushar Mehta MD —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.227.173.78 (talk) 17:55, 1 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Animal agriculture and the low carbon economy[edit]

The article on low carbon economy scarcely contains information about animal agriculture and it's massive impact on climate change. The United Nations report titled Livestock's Long Shadow - Environmental Issues and Options is one of the most important documents related to carbon emissions, deforestation, land use etc. The main impact of animal agriculture on GHG emissions is via deforestation. 18% of world GHGs are from animal agriculture, more than the share of transportation. Consumption of animal flesh, eggs and dairy are increasing rapidly, and so does the devastation it causes.

The article on low carbon economy should mention the role of animal agriculture and meat/dairy consumption on carbon emissions and deforestation. The LLS report should also be mentioned.

Cheers Tushar Mehta MD


Livestocks Long Shadow - Report http://www.virtualcentre.org/en/library/key_pub/longshad/A0701E00.htm

Executive Summary http://www.virtualcentre.org/en/library/key_pub/longshad/A0701E00.htm

Wikipedia page on LLS report http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Livestock%27s_Long_Shadow

99.227.173.78 (talk) 18:11, 1 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You have my support to insert this info in the article.--SvenAERTS (talk) 13:15, 22 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Australia doesn't have highest emissions[edit]

I agree, that wasn't a true statement. That entire section is unsourced, which is a shame. Here are some items I found discussing Australia's place in per capita emissions: 8 gigatons carbon emission in 2006 [3]

There are 2 lists on wikipedia, one for GHG and one for Carbon Dioxide

Others [4] [5]

Here is a cache of a page that does make that claim, but it's no longer up: [6] It's a commercial site and the info doesn't look particularly reliable. Mishlai (talk) 14:34, 7 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Concept[edit]

This article seems to describe a concept that may or may not be implemented more or less anywhere. If so, it ought to be mentioned in the very first sentence. A few sectors up someone asked about "official" - is LCE anything "official", or just a figure of speech? --G-41614 (talk) 12:19, 21 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Decarbonisation[edit]

"A low carbon economy can be an economy that is in the process of decarbonisation."

Revision as of 12:22, 27 February 2011 (Reverted by Arthur Rubin at 16:16)

The article did not contain any reference of decarbonisation, which can be a long-term process of a low carbon economy to a non-carbon economy or to a clean technology economy.

I would have thought that this is relative to the article?

RW Marloe (talk) 10:43, 28 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It might be relevant if we had an article on decarbonisation. We do not, and the self-link (as well as the [[clean technology|decarbonisation]] easter egg) are inappropriate. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:14, 1 March 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Wiktionary: wikt:decarbonization and to wikt:decarbonize, is not a in-joke or buzzword, the definition is; An industrial process of technological adaptation or evolution.
There is no necessity to require a whole article on decarbonisation. It is a subject that has little explanation and can adequately be mentioned briefly on the low carbon economy article. — RW Marloe (talk) 14:47, 3 March 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thinking it over, the statement is false, rather than meaningless. In any case, it requires a source, probably one that uses the term "decarbonization". And it does appear to be a buzzword; Wiktionary has many of those. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:32, 3 March 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The statement I wrote is true. Reference: Environment, Energy and Economy Strategies - Chapter 13. Decarbonization as a long-term energy strategy, from the United Nations University, 1997. Decarbonisation is not a recent hype or cultural buzzword. Wiktionary is a dictionary, it is personal opinion whether a word is an approbative or pejorative. A buzzword or not decarbonisation exists and it has already been done, it is utilising any alternatives to non-renewable fossil fuels, which has most certainly been done, in many instances around the world.
I further suggest that you have come across the topic before and have some previous knowledge of the subject, before arbitrarily removing content from Wikipedia, a fact based encyclopedia. — RW Marloe (talk) 13:58, 5 March 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Perhaps decarbonisation could link to this article, but the reverse seems inappropriate. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:23, 5 March 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Revision as of 19:36, 9 March 2011 (Reverted by Arthur Rubin at 10:59, 10 March 2011)

Reverted Summary: (possibly should be in the body, but not in the lede, even if it were sourced. The UNU article doesn't actually support the statement.)

Reverted: "A low carbon economy can be an economy that is in the process of decarbonisation with clean technology."

Please divulge your argument and logic which discounts this statement.

The statement is a summery of the referance. I recommend that you read the document in full, before you arrive at a conclusion.

The short sentence is adequate to remain in the introduction at the top. If you permit the statement in the article, why remove it and not contribute a constructive contribution and place it in a section more suitable.

It may become apparent that Arthur Rubin may fundamentally oppose any inclusion or mention of the word decarbonisation in the article on a undivulged rationale.

RW Marloe (talk) 14:31, 10 March 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The connection between "decarbonisation" and a "low-carbon economy" is not supported in the UNU paper. It's possible that "decarbonisation" is a word meaning (after a change of parts of speech) "transitioning to a low-carbon economy". That, if supported, could be stated somewhere. Per WP:LEDE, it should not be in the lede, even with a source, unless in the body.
Furthermore, you have been re-adding the same statement, without an attempt at actually providing a source for it, about 5 times, now. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:24, 10 March 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I see I said that already. You have not provided a reason to disregard my argument that the statement is not supported by the UNU paper. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:27, 10 March 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Added a redirect: Low Carbon Economy now redirects to Low-Carbon Economy[edit]

Happy continuation of your Wikipedia-day ! --SvenAERTS (talk) 10:06, 4 March 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment[edit]

This article is confussing to "what is an economy" mearly a buzz-word but the content is nice can this article be salvaged by renaming it... and may I make a few suggestions along the way? — Preceding unsigned comment added by ScrollRaider (talkcontribs) 16:41, 23 July 2011 (UTC) thank you just returned to do that ScrollRaider (talk) 17:06, 23 July 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

My suggestion[edit]

Perhaps the article could be broken into appropriate sections and some put Energy Portal and some in the Environmental Portal while some content could be deleted as proprietary argument. My stance - for example in an economy there are exchange rules - no place of business can refuse an economic systems currency (bill of exchange). Where is the bill of exchange? Who is demanding its negotiability? Is it harnessed where ownership may be placed in reserve as a valued depository? It would be a goal of a knowledge-based economy whereas a "Knowledge Society" would engineer the climate correction through energy efficiency and application of technologies & sale the engineering as a product of knowledge. I hope this is helpful in some way. Wikis are challenging and thank you kind folks in your assistance...ScrollRaider (talk) 17:31, 23 July 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

biased section[edit]

"Foodstuffs should be produced as close as possible to the final consumers (preferably within walking/cycling distance). This will reduce the amount of carbon-based energy necessary to transport the foodstuffs. Consumers can also buy fresh food rather than processed food, since carbon-based energy might be used to process the food. Cooking presents another opportunity to conserve energy. Energy could be saved if farmers produced more foods that people would eat raw."

this part of the article is quite simply too biased to be in a neutral enclypedia, i'm gonna have to delete that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.167.104.112 (talk) 14:14, 6 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Low-carbon economy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:00, 1 January 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

=Gender equality[edit]

I removed the following as nothing but made-up wishful-thinking fluff.

Countries can tap into hidden potential and make their transition to low carbon societies truly sustainable by actively engaging both women and men in all segments of society. Women often play a central role in sectors where emissions can be substantially reduced in tandem with development benefits. This includes efficient household energy use, supporting activities that generate income, and shaping consumption patterns towards low emission products. In addition, identifying women as active members of society and promoting their participation in new/nontraditional climate related job opportunities, for example as renewable energy technicians and entrepreneurs, will contribute to poverty reduction and economic growth.[1]

While this is written in a slick manner, like a well oiled marketing campaign. Even admitting to wielding such marketing skill as "shaping consumption patterns towards low emission products". If you put actual thought into the claim and see past the illusion, you might find the exact opposite of gender-equality is likely. Under a world were the specifically named "renewable energy" once again becomes the dominant low-carbon-power source, just like in caveman times, then expect more men to be needed for energy, not less.

Even with our newer renewable contraptions, wind turbine maintenance and solar panel roofing construction, are labor intensive tasks that I highly doubt very many women will want to be part of. Hell, I'm a man and I don't want to be part of that dangerous pursuit, working on a roof is one of the most dangerous occupations in terms of fatalities per hour worked. Women are smart not to be part of either now and this trend shows no sign of changing. Unless someone starts enforcing gender quotas for such occupations? Though something tells me, that won't exactly catch-on very fast.

Moreover it raises the possibility that if the fossil fuel industry employed similar marketing techniques and actually put the rubber on the road, suddenly employing legions of more women, would that event take some of the wind-out-of-the-sails for the need of a low-carbon economy? I hope not, thought this should give one, food for thought.

Boundarylayer (talk) 17:48, 19 January 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

References

  1. ^ "Promote gender equality to realize the benefits of low emission development". Low Emission Development Strategies Global Partnership (LEDS GP). Retrieved 8 July 2016.

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Low-carbon economy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:24, 26 May 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:14, 20 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:03, 7 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

External links modified (January 2018)[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:43, 26 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Requested move 26 January 2020[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: No consensus  — Amakuru (talk) 10:05, 11 February 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]



Low-carbon economyZero-carbon economy – Currently "Zero-carbon economy" redirects to this but I suggest nowadays the other way around would be better. Since this article was created many countries have set zero-carbon targets. The 100% renewable energy article is not called "high renewable energy". Chidgk1 (talk) 19:27, 26 January 2020 (UTC) Relisting.  — Amakuru (talk) 22:14, 2 February 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Oppose. Low carbon economy is a wide, commonly used and accepted term, the vast majority of the references are about low-carbon economy and the article covers all the efforts on lowering carbon emissions. Citing the article: "Globally implemented low-carbon economies are therefore proposed by those having drawn this conclusion, as a means to avoid catastrophic climate change, and as a precursor to the more advanced, zero-carbon economy." I'm not an expert on the topic, however this seems like two very similar yet different subjects with zero-carbon being an option not a substitute. Also being a target of many countries doesn't make it real, are there any cases of zero-carbon economies? Less Unless (talk) 11:56, 29 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

A suggestion to remove the section "education"[edit]

I am suggesting to remove the section "education" as it seems an arbitrary collection of links to universities that offer degree courses. EMsmile (talk) 02:52, 9 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I removed it, as it clearly does not belong here. --Ita140188 (talk) 07:05, 9 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Interlink better with sustainable energy[edit]

If someone has time please take a look at how this article interlinks with sustainable energy. So far, it's not done very well and I see overlap and repetition. Both articles talk about energy sources that have lower emissions. Could be streamlined. EMsmile (talk) 03:33, 29 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The question that I asked here in April is still open in my mind. I have also written about it on the talk page of sustainable energy here now. Perhaps continue the discussion there if you like. EMsmile (talk) 23:59, 12 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

How and where is this like an essay?[edit]

Ita140188 If the problem has not been fixed please could you explain. Chidgk1 (talk) 15:16, 15 July 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

See talk page of Low-carbon power re compare total electricity from fossil fuels with low-carbon[edit]

DecarbonizationEngineer wrote on my talk page about a change I made to this article but I accidentally replied on the talk page of Low-carbon power. But actually thinking about it that may be the right article. Chidgk1 (talk) 06:46, 23 July 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Inaccurate, misleading wording[edit]

"Continued emission of greenhouse gases ??*may*?? cause long-lasting changes around the world, increasing the likelihood of severe, pervasive, and irreversible effects for people and ecosystems". Observational science and existing observed effects demonstrate that the continued emission of greenhouse gases already is, and will continue to, cause long-lasting changes around the world, radically increasing the likelihood of severe, pervasive, and irreversible effects for people and ecosystems. U.S. Department of Defense internal documents also articulate that climate change is increasing the likelihood of nuclear war. It's not a matter of "may". It is, and will, if greenhouse gas emissions are not drastically reduced. An accurate "Encyclopedia" has to stick to the facts as they are, and keep ambiguity and vagaries to a bare minimum.

You're right, I have removed "may" and replaced it with "will" in the lead. EMsmile (talk) 23:14, 31 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Suggestions for improvement[edit]

I came to this project as part of this project but have currently run out of time to make these improvements myself:

  • Some of the structure seems a bit non-conforming (not using standard headings) and might require a rethink;
  • The example section overlaps with renewable energy content. There is also overlap with the article on sustainable energy.
  • The country examples section also needs a rethink (just seems to repeat info from renewable energy in that country).
  • The lead is missing a good image (or image collage?). EMsmile (talk) 23:21, 31 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]