|WikiProject Environment||(Rated Start-class, High-importance)|
|WikiProject Sociology||(Rated Start-class)|
|This article is/was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Assigned student editor(s): Hwakefield, ACheRey. Assigned peer reviews: Hrode55555.|
Coal, in particular, is the main cause of global warming. This sounds unlikely. One possibilty is that coal burning in the past has caused most of the greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere, but it seems more likely that 'coal' is here used to mean carbon-based fuels (as I also noticed in another article). DirkvdM 06:15, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
- I reworded the statement in question to be less general. I made it based more on the over-consumption of energy from combustable natural resources instead of specifically "coal causes global climate change". --Howrealisreal 15:40, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
this article reads like a neocon pamphlet, all but stating that "the term is used by freaky lefties to who hate the free world". Since the term does have a valid, well-defined meaning, you should discuss that first, and possible polemic use of the term further down. dab (ᛏ) 12:31, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Tagged NPOV and Wikify. The semantics in the article are incorrect (for example: a word is coined, a "concept" isn't). References to neologisms like "affluenza" as if they were statements of fact are clearly NPOV. "Overconsumption" itself is generally spelled without a hyphen. I think a well-written article on overconsumption would be great, but this article presents no balance of viewpoints, for example, that "overconsumption" is responsible for a high standard of living that, given a choice, most people prefer. Joseph N Hall 04:46, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
Economic Growth Section
In the article, I changed the summary from the Worldwatch Institute report. It said that China and India are "planetary powers that are shaping the global biosphere". It also included the US in the "three planetary powers". I hope the result (of the changes) is OK.
Chimin 07 (talk) 04:21, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
I didn't look at what this article used to be like. But it is incredibly bad right now. Maybe there were some big battles here in the past or something because this is some really nasty backwater of wikipedia now. Seriously this needs to be improved. The references are awful. I might try reverting it because the only other alternative is to basically start from scratch :-( 18.104.22.168 (talk) 23:39, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
One suggestion for improving this article would be to elaborate on the basics of the footprint section by providing a few more resources. I think this is a vital part on the topic of overconsumption and it is underrepresented in this article.
Missing a citation after "The scale of modern life's overconsumption has enabled an overclass to exist, displaying affluenza and obesity" Not sure this subject is relevant to the topic and would suggest taking it out unless article could provide better evidence and supporting arguments. Jhurst13 (talk) 02:44, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
This article could benefit from a couple of improvements. This first is a more diverse set of sources. The first article cited is an opinion article from the New York Times that offered no further references or data. Granted that the author is an academic and well published author, it still seems out of place to cite an opinion piece in an encyclopedia. The statement, "Currently, China is roughly 11 times lower in per capita footprint ... It is estimated that if China developed to the level of the United States that world consumption rates would roughly double" is cited by the opinion article. How was that estimated? More information about how that was calculated could be included to support this claim. In addition, Effects of Over-Consumption and Increasing Populations, the second citation includes a link to report that is unable to be reached through the link provided. It is also cited again Both the article and the report cited are over fifteen years old; more recent and relevant information and studies on this topic are likely available for use and could be used to improve the overall quality of this article.
The Economic Growth section could also be expanded on. I was also unable to find the study that is cited at the end of the section. It is also improperly referenced as "State of the World 2006" when the reference below lists the study as State of the World 2005. If there is not a reachable source for the information in this section, why include it? This should have more extensive work done to improve this section. Mjschrader (talk) 22:51, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
This article was last updated in 2010; have there been any studies that have shown more detrimental effects of overconsumption in the last seven years? Are there any more negative effects overconsumption has on the environment that scientists did not know about in 2010? (LOL190 (talk) 00:46, 3 April 2017 (UTC))
In the economic growth section, it is mentioned that there is no way to fulfill the ambitions of developing countries in a sustainable way. However, this article is not clear about what those ambitions are. Readers are left to wonder, do people in third world countries aspire to have the things people in developed countries take for granted? For example, do many people in Africa want the cars and electronics that require excessive resource use in developed nations? It would help to be more clear when talking about how a country's aspirations can effect our environment. (LOL190 (talk) 00:46, 3 April 2017 (UTC))