Talk:2019 UN Climate Action Summit

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 4 September 2019 and 10 January 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Qianqianrong.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 16:38, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Actual summary of event?
Greta Thunberg can’t be the only content worth noting. Well, I hope not! Arided (talk) 19:44, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I just added to External links one article with summary of the event - the other one I use for cswiki is this New York’s failing climate summit. I hope somebody English speaking will be able to use it.Jirka Dl (talk) 20:23, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Results
Is it really correct to write so positive about the results of the summit? Most of the articles write about the summit in very negative way. "Despite fiery words from U.N. Secretary-General António Guterres and climate campaigner Greta Thunberg, the pledges made in New York didn't amount to any kind of a climate revolution." "But it shows how little was actually achieved that it is her speech that will be remembered." "The promises made by major economies at the UN Climate Action Summit fell "woefully short" of what is needed to address the climate crisis, The New York Times reported Monday." Jirka Dl (talk) 18:41, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Exactly because of this articles it is important to write the positive results (and the negative also of course). I heard a lot about the bad tradition of "the looser left" what mean always crying and saying that all is bad and did not loock at all about positive results. I am afraid that this tradition is try to enter into the environmental organizations also. Of course we need to write about what is steel need to be done! But even before we should write about what have already been done. Because if we did not do it, it is firstly cause a moral depression to the activists - it loock like their work did not make a difference and secondly it is very un just to all those in the UNFCCC who worked very very hurd to achieve it. It is not their fault that the 1.5 target is steel not achieved, it is the fault of trump ant his company. But at least as sign of respect to those who make what they can and to make people understand that they can influence we should firstly write about what was achieved - and then write about what was not, and should be achieved later.

Therefore I think we should write in the section result what was achieved, after it what was not, and after this section write a section "reactions" in wich explain what was the reaction of different organizations and mass media including the negative.

As I said, I think that when the mass media write only about the bad things they make a mistake. There is anothers like this:

--אלכסנדר סעודה (talk) 18:15, 26 September 2019 (UTC)


 * I fully support to have list of positive achievements (is already there - but without correct references) - for me most important UK and Germany zero carbon, finances for Green Climate Fund, many active cities and also small countries. But we need also list of what was expected and was not promised at summit - EU carbon neutrality, much more expected from China, and other biggest coal countries - Turkey etc. But if we want to be positive in introduction, we have to use references which support this opinion - we cannot say "it was perfect" and use reference which says "it was fail".Jirka Dl (talk) 18:28, 26 September 2019 (UTC)