Talk:Climate change/Archive 86

Semi-protected edit request on 21 February 2021
Before the sentence "The human cause..." in the introduction, it might be appropriate to insert a short comment on agriculture. The reason is that recent research has shown that most analysts until now have only considered the negative side of agriculture and not the positiv side of it. That means they have more or less neglected the photosynthesis going on at every plant in world agriculture. So I sugest this comment to be inserted here: "Regarding agriculture recent research has shown that it is not only a negative contributor to negative greenhouse gases. Through the photosynthesis CO2 is captured by crops and bound in both what is later harvested and in the part being left in the fields and slowly bound into the soil. Improving soil organic carbon capturing can be an option for coping with climate change." Source: Frankelius, Per (2020). A proposal to rethink agriculture in the climate calculations, Agronomy Journal, vol 112, issue 4, pp. 3216-3221. doi.org/10.1002/agj2.20286 Per Frankelius (talk) 13:28, 21 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: The lead section of a Wikipedia article is meant to summarise it's most important contents, see MOS:LEAD. Agriculture is talked about in the article, but only briefly, that whole sentence would not be appropriate for the lead. Feel free to re-open this request (change 'answered=yes' to 'answered=no') if you think additional content regarding agriculture should be added elsewhere in the article though, for instance the section on "changes on land surface" or "agriculture and industry". Volteer1 (talk) 13:53, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

"Heat emission" listed at Redirects for discussion
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Heat emission. The discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 February 21 until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Hog Farm Talk 22:03, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

"Heat emissions" listed at Redirects for discussion
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Heat emissions. The discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 February 21 until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Hog Farm Talk 22:04, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Maybe worth discussing industrial/manufacturing more in mitigation
I came across a great article in Vox. I attached my favorite line from it, which may have some relevance to the mitigation section:

"About 10 percent of global emissions — comes from combustion to produce large amounts of high-temperature heat for industrial products like cement, steel, and petrochemicals.

To put that in perspective, industrial heat’s 10 percent is greater than the CO2 emissions of all the world’s cars (6 percent) and planes (2 percent) combined. Yet, consider how much you hear about electric vehicles. Consider how much you hear about flying shame. Now consider how much you hear about ... industrial heat."MurrayScience (talk) 17:01, 20 February 2021 (UTC)


 * We have half a sentence about electric vehicles (encompassing more than only cars), so having another half sentence about industrial heat wouldn't be amiss. The sentence with the OECD may be rephrased slightly more condensed to make space. FemkeMilene (talk) 19:23, 20 February 2021 (UTC)


 * - I think this information is a good addition (as was your edit of the sentence on energy storage and transmission issues). I suggest we refocus the last part to more strongly emphasize the difficulties in decarbonizing steel and cement and the need for research, rather than the fact that OECD is proposing certain research (others are doing the same - it’s a major theme in Bill Gates’ book). Let me know what you think of this proposed edit.Dtetta (talk) 16:35, 22 February 2021 (UTC)


 * I like it. FemkeMilene (talk) 17:08, 22 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Yeah I think that's better. Maybe we can have a sentence on nuclear power also.MurrayScience (talk) 18:08, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
 * By the way, I should add that I'm happy the mitigation section finally mirrors the physical drivers/greenhouse gasses section in terms of cement and steel lol.MurrayScience (talk) 18:11, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Featured picture: Warming stripes
FYI: I've just learned that this image was chosen as a Featured picture. It's one of the earlier Warming stripes graphics generated by their developer, Ed Hawkins (climatologist). See:
 * Featured picture candidates/Warming stripes
 * https://web.archive.org/web/20210118015423/https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Featured_pictures#Sciences
 * https://web.archive.org/web/20210119171614/https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Featured_pictures_thumbs/69
 * — RCraig09 (talk) 17:27, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
 * All he did was take the temperature graph and change it to color bands. Not accessible, says nothing about how much warming has happened or where. I'm not a fan, but oh well. Efbrazil (talk) 17:56, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
 * These graphics are purposefully not designed to precisely portray "how much warming has happened". They're designed to immediately convey to non-technical viewers the trend. They are immediately "accessible". — RCraig09 (talk) 18:00, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Accessible means works for people with disabilities- these graphics don't work for people that are color blind. I also doubt they convey information better or have more impact than a graph where X is time and Y is temperature. Efbrazil (talk) 22:10, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
 * What you say is true about total color-blindness, but incidentally the designer of these graphics is actually involved in initiatives (e.g., 2014) to make graphics more accessible to those with at least limited (e.g., esp blue-green) colorblindness. Stripe diagrams aim to convey different information in a simpler and striking way to a non-techy audience that yawns at conventional graphs they may not have paid attention to since they were forced to junior high school. — RCraig09 (talk) 22:30, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Yeah, well, you know I agree with making this information as accessible and clear as possible, but I disagree that color bar charts are an improvement over a graph. What's next, just making drawings of an angry face cloud and calling him "mr climate change yuck"? Efbrazil (talk) 01:14, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Accurately representing data in ranges defined by colors, is no less valid than representing them as vertical positions on a graph, especially considering an audience that with one sentence of explanation, instantly and intuitively appreciates change from blue to red as being change from cool to warm. Stripe graphics do not even move in the direction of an angry face cloud. "What's next" is shown in examples in the Warming stripes article. Applications are cool, actually.
 * On this talk page, I've seen some bodaciously impressive discussions on subtle technical details that will pass unnoticed, or at least unappreciated, by probably 90-95% of the article's audience—details that are great for a thesis review but misplaced for communicating with that insurance agent or restaurant manager. Part of the reason for poor public understanding of science in general, and slow acceptance of the reality of climate change in particular, has been poor communication by scientists who know how to communicate with each other... but not so much with the public. — RCraig09 (talk) 04:41, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
 * That's why I've worked so hard to make the graphics better. I think our value at wikipedia is to clearly convey basic information to ground public discussion on this issue. What I disagree with is that the color bars are effective at that. Whether the temperature difference was 1 degree or 100 degrees they'd look the same. Whether climate change took place in 6 months or 600 years they'd look the same. All they say is "blue changes to red if you read left to right". That's obviously ineffective at grounding climate change understanding in facts. They seem to be more about trying to generate an emotional reaction from the audience, and that's not what wikipedia should be for. If someone is coming to wikipedia, it's because they want facts. Consider how we reach people that read this article. Efbrazil (talk) 19:01, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Stripes do not evoke "emotional reaction". They merely make use of the part of the human cognitive (not emotional) apparatus that's deeper than the school-taught analysis needed to puzzle through conventional graphs that are far from intuitive to vast swaths of the population, open-minded and closed-minded alike.
 * Stripe diagrams are usually accompanied by a suitable text caption in the same manner that conventional graphs have tick mark labels, and, with progressive shades of blue and red, probably convey scale with more cognitive efficiency than stark line graphs.
 * I'm "fixated" on clear, distraction-free, instantly intuitive communication for the greatest number of people when trends are more important than quantitative detail. Stripe diagrams are arguably a subset of heat maps. — RCraig09 (talk) 19:29, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Sorry about the fixated comment- I deleted it shortly after writing it- I was trying to understand where you are coming from but it came off wrong. I'm very not sorry about hating color bars where all the actual information is buried in the caption :) Efbrazil (talk) 03:26, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
 * No problemo. The information is in the color bars; the explanation (probably needed only the first time a person sees a stripe graphic) is in the caption. — RCraig09 (talk) 04:30, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
 * No doubt that the color bars are more instantly accessible than the NASA plot. They'd require a legend if they stood alone. But the existing graph should not be skipped with its valuable distinction of human/natural impacts. I wonder if we could combine bars & graph placing the color bar under the years. Saying this and starting to draft, I realize that the color bar file raises some questions: In theory, one year should have 3780/169=22.4 pixels. But the bars have an irregular width: sometimes only 10 or 12px. And the color palette is small. Annoying details. But I could offer to process the original NASA data and compose a solution.Hedgehoque (talk) 07:54, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Though I like the concept of warming stripes for some purposes (I drafted almost all of the Warming stripes article), they have been discussed here previously and never passed consensus. I think that was partly because they're simply "new", and not "standard". I'm not sure how you'd "combine bars and graph" (something like this or the bottom part of this?) but to avoid consuming too much of your time, you should probably get consensus here first to see whether your idea would fly. — RCraig09 (talk) 08:19, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

So here we go. Self-explaining... Hedgehoque (talk) 09:46, 30 January 2021 (UTC) This is just a draft. If we could agree on this, you could upload the new version for continuity of the file and keep the copyright of course. I know it's a different size - but it would only take a few minutes to adjust the script. The palette here is continous. Each year has its own calculated RGB value. Hedgehoque (talk) 22:46, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I actually like the visual appearance, though it might require a sentence of explanation in the caption of any article in which it is used (currently 10 around the world in various languages). Since the stripes don't add any quantitative information to the existing line graph, I can picture some editors being opposed.
 * Did you generate the colors manually (as I did, through Excel --> Powerpoint --> Photoshop) or is there a snazzy automated shortcut? FYI: In general it's best (especially in this neighborhood) to generate an SVG. :-) — RCraig09 (talk) 23:16, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the advice. Just learning about SVG. Right now it's a PHP script processing the NASA text file and including it into the existing image, probably not the right approach here. But some additional lines for the SVG could be processed, too. Hedgehoque (talk) 23:53, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm opposed to this change. The bars make the graph more busy and confusing rather than improving it. There's a basic design principal that less is more, and I think the warming stripes are simply "more". They add no information, but instead add more visual information you need to decode as a user, creating a color cacophony that clashes with the color coding already on the graph. So, please, no. Efbrazil (talk) 21:39, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Now I have exchanged the file on the right with an SVG (only on this talk page as a proposal). Please have a look at 0.2 °C in your file. It  shows 0 in some languages. I have fixed it here. Height is extended to 1150px, years start at y=915, class "w" added for rect without strokes. For full transparency my RGB calculation from averages ($av) in 1/100 °C from the NASA data

$r=round(max(0,($av>0?255-sqrt($av*30):240+$av*2.4))); $g=round(max(0,255-$av*2.5*($av>0?1:-1))); $b=round(max(0,($av<0?255-sqrt(-$av*30):240-$av*2.4)));
 * The stripe emphasizes instant understanding of the most important part: the observed temperature. Without it, unexperienced users see lines diverging into two directions. I think it is a benefit. Hedgehoque (talk) 22:00, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Aside: Hedgehoque: It's impressive you've come up with a continuous-color representation of temperature. The developer of Warming stripes (Ed Hawkins (climatologist)) might be interested in your approach. I've been using crude general-purpose tools (Excel --> Powerpoint --> Photoshop) to generate the graphs (took me 60-90 minutes each), and I understand there are tools that can convert automatically using a discrete set of colors (but they are too expensive for me!). You may want to share your technique with Hawkins at his Climate Lab Book website or to @ed_hawkins directly. — RCraig09 (talk) 02:50, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

When I first saw the Hawkins stripes I thought it was too obscure for the layman to understand, and not useful here for that reason. In Hedgehoque's File:Global Temperature And Forces 1.svg with diverging lines making the pattern clear, I like how the Hawkins lines are incorporated. Binksternet (talk) 07:07, 1 February 2021 (UTC)


 * I like how the warming lines have been incorporated, but my motto remains "less is more", so I'm weakly opposed to this change. ~ Femke Nijsse (talk) 17:47, 1 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Another idea: Maybe have the warming stripes extend from the horizontal axis up to the "observed temperature" trace (leave the other two traces unchanged). This suggestion is vaguely similar to the right side of this graph. This approach would visually separate the conceptually different "drivers" (theory) versus "observed" (reality), which does add to the presentation even if it doesn't add "data" per se. — RCraig09 (talk) 00:24, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
 * No problem to code. But I am afraid that the red and green line would interfere with the coloured stripes if they'd lead all the way up. I will wait anyway until we find some more voices in favour of the idea. Hedgehoque (talk) 11:48, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
 * New! I've developed an MS Excel spreadsheet that semi-automates generation of warming stripes in SVG format. See Talk:Warming stripes. — RCraig09 (talk) 19:45, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Attn graphics people, esp User:Hedgehoque and User:Efbrazil and User:Femkemilene: Feel free to download and use, and provide feedback. — RCraig09 (talk) 07:44, 25 February 2021 (UTC)


 * On the merits, I think this graphic is worse than what's there now, for the reasons I mentioned above. What's there now is also semi-auto-generated. Efbrazil (talk) 18:59, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I like this elegant bar diagram a lot and I would be in favor of including it in the article. Mottezen (talk) 05:57, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Human cause of climate change undisputed?
It is disingenuous to suggest that human caused climate change is an undisputed scientific fact. For example, we all agree that there was an actual ice age. We all agree that the ice age came to an end with a corresponding rise in temperature. I think that we would all also agree that such a rise in temperature at that time was NOT caused by human industrialization.

Not to mention the fact that an ice age itself can only occur in an environment of warmer oceans and cooler continents.....both conditions also caused in the past by non human influence. As a scientist, one would have to acknowledge that we cannot attribute past climate change to natural processes and then completely ignore the impact of those same continuing natural processes at work today.

As a result, the statement "The human cause of climate change is not disputed by any scientific body of national or international standing.[5"

is statement that should actually be read as "the human cause of climate change is not disputed by those scientific bodies which only acknowledge data suggesting the support of human caused climate change" Donavan Reef (talk) 08:35, 28 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Did you read the article? Or the FAQ at the top of the talk page? Scientists definitely do take natural causes into consideration, and they still overwhelmingly agree that humans are the main cause of climate change. Saucy[talk – contribs] 09:07, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

It would be helpful to acknowledge that we are talking here about recent climate change, not climate change in general. --Bduke (talk) 09:26, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
 * We do so in the hat note and the first paragraphs, pointing towards the general article. FemkeMilene (talk) 12:18, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Major decline in our page views?
I’m not sure how much it has to do with changing the title of the article last year from “Global warming” to “Climate change”, but it looks to me like there has been a major drop in the number of page views we were getting at the end of last year compared to 2019. When I use the pageviews.toolforge.org site that WP recommends, and use the term global warming I get about 4.5+ million views in 2019, or about 380k views a month, although this started dropping in early 2020. Using the term climate change for 2020 looks like it shows around 140k views per month for Sep-Dec. Could someone please double check my math on this?

At one point I had suggested that we look at adjusting the title tag in the source code of the page so that both “Climate Change” and “Global Warming” are included in it. This is what NASA does, and their site regularly rank above ours in the recent searches that I’ve done for those two terms. Is there anyone who would want to try to figure out a way of doing this for this article? I believe had stated that there were problems with doing this, but given what appears to be a significant drop in page views, I think it’s worth looking at again. Dtetta (talk) 04:32, 26 February 2021 (UTC)


 * From |Global_warming this view, I don't see a big problem, at least as far as the move/rename is concerned. When GW was discontinued, it looks like CC picked up the slack. — RCraig09 (talk) 06:20, 26 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Thanks, that’s a better way of seeing the 2020 numbers. But when I look at that same view |Global_warming for 2019, it still shows a significant y/y drop when you compare the two. My sense from the media coverage is that this issue is only getting more media attention, not less, although I don’t have any hard statistics to back this up. Either way, it’s a significant y/y decrease for an article that we all spend a lot of time on, so it seems like it’s worth trying to understand why. But I agree it’s probably not the name change. Dtetta (talk) 17:05, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
 * True—the move/rename was made on 24 August 2020. The spike in interest in late 2019 roughly corresponds to increases in Google searches for "climate crisis" and "climate emergency" (see this graph), which may have coincided with media coverage of Greta Thunberg's September 2019 speech at the U.N. The effort to correct re-directs occurred in December 2019, and only resulted in about 10% of the internal links go to the then-new --> Climate_variability_and_change. So I'm still not sure why there was a drop-off in November 2019. — RCraig09 (talk) 17:50, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

There is less attention to climate change in general, so I'm not sure how this drop (which RCraig09 pointed out is less when you add the redirect views), compares to an overall decline. Anyway, the naming criteria don't give page views maximalisation as a criteria, whereas brevity is. I see very little reason to add redundancy to the title. FemkeMilene (talk) 07:22, 26 February 2021 (UTC)


 * The drop seems less pronounced in Google searches. FemkeMilene (talk) 17:20, 26 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Not sure how relevant the Google search data is for this particular issue, but I don’t have a sense at all that there is less attention to climate change in general now than in 2019. Recent Gallup polls seem to indicate that concern about Climate change continues to rise in the US.
 * What I am suggesting is not a change to the article title itself, but to work with WP technical staff to develop a change to the way WP generates the page’s source code based on the article title (at least for certain articles that have this kind of dual naming issue, such as Climate change/Global warming).


 * For example, NASA’s site uses both terms in their source code title tag, and they are currently getting about 467 thousand visitors a day, according to hypestat, or about 100 times the number of views we get. It makes me questions hypestat’s numbers, but it’s hard to imagine they are off by anywhere near that 100 fold difference. NASA’s title tag in their page source code is “NASA: Climate Change and Global Warming”, while Wikipedia’s is “Climate change - Wikipedia”. I do believe that having both terms in our html title tag would both raise our relative position in common web searches, and raise our number of page views per day. I think it’s worth trying to pursue with the tech folks at WP, but the details of how WP generates it’s page source are beyond my skill set. So if someone with more web programming savvy than me would be willing to raise this issue with WP technical staff, I would really appreciate it. Dtetta (talk) 19:18, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
 * What if Atlantic meridional overturning circulation (AMOC) were to be listed here? AMOC is not mentioned on this page yet. Might this increase the page views? The prediction of abrupt change in Europe's weather, as well as other surprises might get more attention. --Ancheta Wis    (talk  &#124; contribs) 02:33, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't think Google works like that; if people search the AMOC they will arrive there instead of here. (Both AMOC and Gulf stream are mentioned on the page btw). FemkeMilene (talk) 13:20, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
 * There's some recent news that can be added Bogazicili (talk) 19:39, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I think these ideas for additional topics are useful in terms of the overall quality the article, but I have a hard time imagining they will significantly increase the average number of page views. I am going to try and take this up with the WP help desk, and then branch out from there. Dtetta (talk) 02:14, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Recommended browsing - open source model of the electricity grid (US Case Study)
Hi everyone. I highly recommend this website for some very interesting (but a bit technical) browsing. https://science.breakthroughenergy.org/. They have some really incredible publications and reports that are long overdue, considering that electricity grid models are so heterogeneous, propriety, low-quality, etc. MurrayScience (talk) 13:34, 5 March 2021 (UTC) For those programming-people interested in getting really into the weeds with their open source model, check out their GitHub: https://github.com/Breakthrough-Energy. Or if you want to read their report, you can see it here: https://bescienceswebsite.blob.core.windows.net/publications/MacroGridReport.pdf. :) MurrayScience (talk) 13:37, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Intro cleanup for readability
I would like to reorganize the third and fourth paragraphs of the lede so they have "flow" again. If you look at the current version, it is just a set of disconnected sentences that is very hard to digest as a whole. Note I am not proposing adding or removing content, just cleaning it up for readability.

Here is the proposed rewrite, with moved and reorganized sentences highlighted:


 * Temperature rise on land is about twice the global average increase, leading to desert expansion and more common heat waves and wildfires. Temperature rise is also amplified in the Arctic, where it has contributed to melting permafrost, glacial retreat and sea ice loss. Warmer temperatures are also increasing rates of evaporation, causing more intense storms and weather extremes. Impacts on ecosystems include the relocation or extinction of many species as their environment changes, most immediately in coral reefs, mountains, and the Arctic. Climate change threatens people with food insecurity, lost fresh water access, flooding, infectious diseases, extreme heat, economic losses, and displacement. The World Health Organization calls climate change the greatest threat to global health in the 21st century. Even if efforts to minimize future warming are successful, some effects will continue for centuries, including rising sea levels, rising ocean temperatures, and ocean acidification.


 * Many of these impacts are already felt at the current level of warming, which is about 1.1 °C (2.0 °F). The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has issued a series of reports that project significant increases in these impacts as warming continues to 1.5 C-change and beyond. Additional warming also increases the risk of triggering critical thresholds called tipping points. Responding to climate change involves mitigation and adaptation. Mitigation – limiting climate change – consists of reducing greenhouse gas emissions, and removing them from the atmosphere; methods include the development and deployment of low-carbon energy sources such as wind and solar, a phase-out of coal, enhanced energy efficiency, reforestation, and forest preservation. Adaptation consists of adjusting to actual or expected climate, such as through improved coastline protection, better disaster management, assisted colonization and the development of more resistant crops. Adaptation alone cannot avert the risk of "severe, widespread and irreversible" impacts.

Bogazicili complained about moving the tipping points into the second paragraph as they are an effect, but I believe the move is an improvement, so would like feedback from others. Tipping points are risk factors that increase as temperatures rise above 2 degrees, so they naturally fit in with concerns about uncontained warming. Additionally, some tipping points are not about effects on ecosystems and people, but are about feedbacks impacting warming itself. I think it is better to present them in the second paragraph, where they can be used to emphasize the risks of exceeding 2 degrees celcius. Lastly, the effects paragraph is already overstuffed, and shoving in tipping points in there as well pushed the whole paragraph into the category of unreadable I think. Efbrazil (talk) 18:40, 3 March 2021 (UTC)


 * I think these are well done edits and improve the readability of those two paragraphs. Dtetta (talk) 18:54, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I'd say I have a weak preference for the current version
 * I think moving the temperature sentences together is an improvement
 * The third sentence now has a useless 'also'
 * The new sentences in impacts is more awkward than before (biased, I wrote it) with phrases like lost fresh water access
 * The WHO statement should be linked to its corresponding ideas, not be a stand-alone sentence
 * I'm neutral on the idea with tipping points. My knee-jerk reaction is to agree with Bogazicili, but upon second though I think both options are possible. FemkeMilene (talk) 18:55, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks Dtetta!

Femke- Thanks for the careful review.

Striking the also from the third paragraph makes good sense.

I also agree about the awkwardness of lost fresh water access, I was trying to preserve the old wording, but water scarcity is better, and wikipedia even has a nice article on the topic that includes a section talking about climate change that we can link to. Does that work for you?

Regarding impacts, the old wording awkwardly splits human health effects into 2 sentences, semi-attaching the WHO statement to just the effects of the second sentence without being explicit, and then cutting off the impacts in the second sentence from the first. I mean, doesn't the WHO care about food insecurity and water scarcity? Won't flooding and extreme heat lead to displacement and economic losses? The whole thing is just confusing to read because it is unclear why it is split into 2 sentences, other than to avoid a run on sentence. The second sentence in particular is weirdly constructed and hard to digest. Here is the old (current) wording:


 * Climate change threatens food security and access to water, leads to economic losses, and is projected to increase displacement of people. It further magnifies risks of flooding, infectious diseases and extreme heat, with the World Health Organization calling climate change the greatest threat to global health in the 21st century.[11]

Regarding connecting the WHO statement to human impacts, I'm OK adding a bridge into the WHO statement, beginning it with "These impacts have led the World Health Organization to call...". It draws things out and is maybe too restrictive, but arguably improves the flow.

Regarding tipping points, I'm glad you're OK with the new location. I tried keeping it in the current paragraph, but to have it make sense really requires adding a lot of words, and the paragraph is already overstuffed. It works better in its new placement.

So that leaves us with this. Anyone have specific concerns with this change?


 * Temperature rise on land is about twice the global average increase, leading to desert expansion and more common heat waves and wildfires. Temperature rise is also amplified in the Arctic, where it has contributed to melting permafrost, glacial retreat and sea ice loss. Warmer temperatures are increasing rates of evaporation, causing more intense storms and weather extremes. Impacts on ecosystems include the relocation or extinction of many species as their environment changes, most immediately in coral reefs, mountains, and the Arctic. Climate change threatens people with food insecurity, water scarcity, flooding, infectious diseases, extreme heat, economic losses, and displacement. These impacts have led the World Health Organization to call climate change the greatest threat to global health in the 21st century. Even if efforts to minimize future warming are successful, some effects will continue for centuries, including rising sea levels, rising ocean temperatures, and ocean acidification.


 * Many of these impacts are already felt at the current level of warming, which is about 1.1 °C (2.0 °F). The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has issued a series of reports that project significant increases in these impacts as warming continues to 1.5 C-change and beyond. Additional warming also increases the risk of triggering critical thresholds called tipping points. Responding to climate change involves mitigation and adaptation. Mitigation – limiting climate change – consists of reducing greenhouse gas emissions, and removing them from the atmosphere; methods include the development and deployment of low-carbon energy sources such as wind and solar, a phase-out of coal, enhanced energy efficiency, reforestation, and forest preservation. Adaptation consists of adjusting to actual or expected climate, such as through improved coastline protection, better disaster management, assisted colonization and the development of more resistant crops. Adaptation alone cannot avert the risk of "severe, widespread and irreversible" impacts.

Efbrazil (talk) 18:38, 4 March 2021 (UTC)


 * My main complaint was the part about tipping points. The way you positioned it in 4th paragraph implies it's only an issue beyond 1.5 warming, but it's an issue now:


 * "Information summarized in the two most recent IPCC Special Reports (published in 2018 and in September this year)2,3 suggests that tipping points could be exceeded even between 1 and 2 °C of warming (see ‘Too close for comfort’)."


 * It's better positioned in third paragraph, where effects and impacts are discussed, rather than responses, which 4th paragraph talks about. Bogazicili (talk) 19:10, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Various tipping points are passed all the time, but the concept of tipping points is typically raised as an issue in terms of setting limits on temperature change and risks associated with higher temperatures, which is why putting them in the 4th paragraph works better I believe. Additionally, the third paragraph is already overstuffed with specific impacts, and layering on a conceptual risk model confuses things. dtetta and I liked the change, you are opposed, femke is on the fence. Femke or anyone else want to declare a position on the move? Efbrazil (talk) 19:48, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
 * "Various tipping points are passed all the time"? Are we talking about same tipping points? The tipping points in terms of climate change discussion? Bogazicili (talk) 15:57, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Small regional tipping points are indeed crossed regularly, forest-> savannah, mountian glacier -> no glacier; In terms of global tippings points, we may have already passed the Greenland ice sheet tipping point. I'll answer your questions later Efbrazil, about the new proposal. FemkeMilene (talk) 17:23, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
 * In looking at this again, I’m noticing that the second, third and fourth sentences of the second paragraph involves somewhat distinct ideas. One way of helping establish a stronger connection between them might be to replace “Additional warming also increases the risk of triggering critical thresholds called tipping points. Responding to climate change...” with “The risk of triggering additional climate thresholds, or tipping points, is also greater as global temperatures increase. Responding to these anticipated changes...”. I also think Bogazicili and Femke do have a point that we may be crossing some of these thresholds now, so the wording I am proposing is an attempt to implicitly recognize that point, by using the word “additional”. Just a suggestion. Dtetta (talk) 19:20, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
 * These regional changes are not always recognized as  climate  tipping points, so I'm not confident about that wording (on top, we can't say anything in the lead that we don' t say in the article). FemkeMilene (talk) 19:24, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Are you good with the above text then? I'd like to get this change rolled out as it fixes a number of problems. Efbrazil (talk) 18:02, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Please do go ahead. FemkeMilene (talk) 19:33, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Slideshow not working
It say in the first section that the images are in a slideshow, however every image is displaying at one time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.237.51.103 (talk) 15:49, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Things look good to me on smartphone and PC. Can anyone reproduce this problem and specify where the images are displayed one at a time, the operating system, and the browser or app you are using? Efbrazil (talk) 16:59, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Fifth paragraph in lead
I know there are several issues, but since we are debating lead...The last paragraph could use addition of few things such as (maybe a sentence): uncertainty in carbon budget/two-thirds chance in limiting warming to 1.5, negative emissions, uncertainties in such tech, etc.

And, after that, maybe another sentence about if we are on track with Paris goals, after this section is expanded a bit Climate_change. I'd consider the lead pretty much complete after then. Bogazicili (talk) 16:35, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I think that will be the most difficult sentence to add to the lead, judging from discussions we've had about all these issues, and the fact that paragraph is already quite heavy on numbers (I really wish the US would stop using their own units). I'm open to suggestions. Maybe weight on the featured article review for more guidance on length? I suspect it's fine to add one sentence. Femke Nijsse (talk) 17:27, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Will get back to this. After a large amount of recent changes into the article, I'm good with a slower pace. :) Bogazicili (talk) 18:35, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Bump (I'll get back to this) Bogazicili (talk) 15:26, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

So this paragraph is quite deficient as it omits several key concepts, such as Carbon dioxide removal and consequences of delaying CO2 reductions. SR15 p. 96:

"All analysed pathways limiting warming to 1.5°C with no or limited overshoot use CDR to some extent to neutralize emissions from sources for which no mitigation measures have been identified and, in most cases, also to achieve net negative emissions to return global warming to 1.5°C following a peak (high confidence). The longer the delay in reducing CO2 emissions towards zero, the larger the likelihood of exceeding 1.5°C, and the heavier the implied reliance on net negative emissions after mid-century to return warming to 1.5°C (high confidence)."

"CDR deployed at scale is unproven, and reliance on such technology is a major risk in the ability to limit warming to 1.5°C. CDR is needed less in pathways with particularly strong emphasis on energy efficiency and low demand. The scale and type of CDR deployment varies widely across 1.5°C pathways, with different consequences for achieving sustainable development objectives (high confidence)."

Here's my suggestion:

Bogazicili (talk) 16:02, 18 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Although the point I think you’re making here may be important, and maybe warrants a brief mention in the lede, I don’t think the fifth paragraph is the appropriate place for it. The fifth paragraph is largely about comparing current efforts at mitigation with what will be needed to limit warming to 1.5C. Adding your suggested text at the end of that paragraph seems to muddy what is already a fairly clear set of sentences, from my perspective, and I think the clause about the likelihood of exceeding 1.5 C doesn’t add much value to the current last sentence, which is saying what it will take to achieve the 1.5 C goal. So, as it currently reads, the second sentence you propose seems like it is a bit of a tangent to the theme of the paragraph, as well as a little too technical (and a bit confusing) for a lede in the way it’s currently worded. The text and citations in the carbon sequestration subsection of the article make it clear that carbon dioxide removal is currently envisioned under some, but not all, 2050 scenarios, and that it is currently limited in scale, but that it may be a more feasible option by 2050. So I think carbon dioxide removal is worth mentioning in the lede, and it currently is, but perhaps could use a bit more detail.


 * It seems like the point you are trying to make is that the longer we wait to reduce emissions, the more carbon dioxide removal becomes necessary, do I have that right? If so, I would suggest that it fits better, in a more condensed form, as part of an expansion of the sentence in the fourth paragraph dealing with mitigation methods, particularly the current clause about removing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. You might want to look at ways of dividing that sentence up into two separate sentences, and then emphasizing carbon dioxide removal in a slightly more detailed way, including adding your wiki link to the carbon dioxide removal article. Since the sentence does already talk about removing carbon from the atmosphere, I would suggest you focus on what value you would be adding with your edit, above and beyond what’s already in that sentence. Is it the point I think you are trying to make in your second sentence, or something else? Either way, I think any reference to carbon dioxide removal fits better as part of the mitigation text in the fourth paragraph, rather than as an add-on at the end of the fifth paragraph.Dtetta (talk) 16:21, 19 February 2021 (UTC)


 * , please read the quotes before answering, because you seem to make suggestions or respond to suggestions based on incorrect knowledge. You said: "that carbon dioxide removal is currently envisioned under some, but not all, 2050 scenarios". Read the IPCC quote: "All analysed pathways limiting warming to 1.5°C with no or limited overshoot use CDR to some extent." The sentence I'm suggesting we add more information into talks about "Limiting warming to 1.5 °C". In its current form, it's deficient. Fourth paragraph talks about definitions. Limiting climate change to 3C as opposed to not doing anything is also a form of mitigation to a degree (but it's not enough). Fifth paragraph talks about specific goals (1.5C or 2C). Bogazicili (talk) 19:20, 19 February 2021 (UTC)


 * I think we are talking at cross purposes here. I started my post by saying that I think the point you’re making may be important and might warrant a brief mention in the lede.  When I described 2050 scenarios, and the fact that not all of them envision carbon dioxide removal, that's because some of them are working off of a 2C target rather than a 1.5 C target. Apologies for the confusion by this reference. I don’t disagree with your read of the IPCC report; I agree that 1.5 C scenarios envision some level of CDR. But that doesn’t change the gist of what I’m suggesting, which is that the idea doesn’t belong in the fifth paragraph, but would be better as a bit of additional detail in the fourth paragraph, where it is already mentioned. I think you would also be contributing to the article by adding that citation (and a short bit of text reflecting the essence of it) to supplement the last sentence in the first paragraph of the carbon sequestration subsection, since that specifically focuses on the net negative emissions concepts that the IPCC language you’re referring to is relevant for. Hope that clarifies my comments a bit.Dtetta (talk) 20:40, 19 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Another option, if you are determined that the idea be in the fifth paragraph, would be to simply add a clause along the lines of "and incorporating large scale carbon dioxide removal" to the end of the last sentence in the paragraph, along with the IPCC cite. This would be more in line with the general tone of the paragraph.Dtetta (talk) 20:50, 19 February 2021 (UTC)


 * There's no space in 4th paragraph, and it explains concepts (what are responses to climate change? what is mitigation? what is adaptation?). 5th paragraph talks about specific goals (1.5 and 2C). That's why it's better for the logical flow to put this info into 5th paragraph.
 * Looks like we have agreement on "and incorporating large scale carbon dioxide removal" (or similar wording, I'll finalize at the end). Can you explain succinctly why you are against this part: "At scale deployment of carbon dioxide removal is "unproven", and likelihood of exceeding 1.5 °C (2.7 °F) increases with delays in reducing CO2 emissions towards zero."? Bogazicili (talk) 02:00, 21 February 2021 (UTC)


 * The clause about CO2 removal being unproven seems too detailed for the lede, and it doesn’t fit in with the general theme of that paragraph, which as you pointed out focuses on goals. The clause about the likelihood of exceeding 1.5C is a more detailed way of stating the obvious...I don’t think it adds any understanding to the ideas already in the paragraph, and just takes up more text space. I think it’s worth thinking about how those might be incorporated into the carbon sequestration subsection, but I don’t think they belong in the lede.Dtetta (talk) 05:19, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Per IPCC: "CDR deployed at scale is unproven, and reliance on such technology is a major risk in the ability to limit warming to 1.5°C." Mentioning this sounds too detailed for the lead to you? 5th paragraph is about goals, so a major risk to that goal is very relevant and fits with its "theme".

As for the earlier part, I suggest simplifying wording before adding large scale CO2 removal:

" Limiting warming to 1.5 °C (2.7 °F) would require halving emissions by 2030, then reaching near-zero emissions by 2050 Limiting warming to 1.5 °C (2.7 °F) would require halving emissions by 2030 and near-zero emissions by 2050, along with large scale carbon dioxide removal " Bogazicili (talk) 06:18, 22 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Made the above change., do you still maintain the position that a "major" risk to 1.5 C goal is too detailed for the lead, even with a short sentence? Bogazicili (talk) 17:23, 22 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Yes I still think that it is an inappropriate bit of detail that get’s in the way of clearly communicating the main ideas of the paragraph, particularly since we don’t even mention this idea in the main part of the article. I generally like the sentence you have constructed, but I think eliminating “then reaching” makes it a bit more awkward. Putting “reaching” or “achieving” before “near-zero” would seem helpful to me. I think or  originally wrote this sentence, so maybe they have some thoughts on this.Dtetta (talk) 19:42, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Sorry for keeping quiet in the discussion so far.
 * That large-scale carbon dioxide removal bit may be outdated; other options to reach net-zero have become feasible over the last 3 years, with prices of hydrogen, batteries, wind and solar dropping. Also, the IPCC didn't assess a group of models (evolutionary models) that reach different conclusions in this assessment cycle. These models will be back in AR6!
 * 'and - in most cases - include reaching "net negative emissions to return global warming to 1.5°C following a peak.' feels like undue given this may be outdated, is vastly controversial (many of these simulations have unphysical amounts of BECCS). I prefer out treatment of this in the carbon sequestration section. (and contains too many formatting/prose errors (wrong dashes, missing space before degree, unnecessary quote) FemkeMilene (talk) 08:16, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I was going to copy edit wording in mitigation section, but am running out of time. SR 15 is not outdated though.


 * "For aiming to keep global warming well-below 2 °C and pursue efforts to limit it to 1.5 °C, as set out in the Paris Agreement, a full-fledged assessment of negative emission technologies (NETs) that remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere is crucial to inform science-based policy making.....In line with previous research, we find that keeping warming below 1.5 °C requires a rapid large-scale deployment of NETs, while for 2 °C, we can still limit NET deployment substantially by ratcheting up near-term mitigation ambition." 2019 review article
 * Bogazicili (talk) 09:01, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

I adopted Dtetta's suggestion of adding "achieving", and adjusted the wording a bit. Also added "over the 21st century" to make the scope of CO2 removal clearer. Bogazicili (talk) 17:59, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I reverted this edit and have gone back and forth with Bogazicili a few times on it. The basic issue is that I do not believe negative carbon emissions has a place in the intro, particularly as the concluding idea in the entire summary section. The sources say that negative emissions are only a part of getting to net zero, for the purpose of offsetting emissions that may not be able to be be brought to zero. Featuring the issue on its own without context gives it outsized importance, particularly as the concluding thought of the section. If this content were further down in the article and included other information related to net zero pathways I would not be complaining. I'm hoping    can chime in here as well on whether they support Bogazicili's edit. If nobody else opposes this edit then I'll allow it to go forward, but otherwise this will need to go through a contested edit request. Here is the relevant edit (the addition of ", along with use of large scale carbon dioxide removal over the 21st century"): https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Climate_change&type=revision&diff=1008716819&oldid=1008716667 Efbrazil (talk) 18:57, 24 February 2021 (UTC)


 * I basically agree with on this. Especially because earlier in the lead, we have the following sentence: "Mitigation – limiting climate change – consists of reducing greenhouse gas emissions, and removing them from the atmosphere; methods include the development and deployment of low-carbon energy sources such as wind and solar, a phase-out of coal, enhanced energy efficiency, reforestation, and forest preservation." If you want to add carbon dioxide removal to that sentence, I'm happy with that. But we shouldn't get overly detailed in the lead on something which I guess we could think of largely unproven in the present state, just like we don't talk about a generation_IV_reactor or green cement and steel in the lead. —


 * I think Efbrazil's response illustrates why we need it though. The sources do NOT say negative emissions are only part of getting to net zero. You need to get to net zero, and then need negative emissions in addition to that "to return global warming to 1.5°C following a peak" (from IPCC). If this is confusing to even the long-term editors of this article, that means the lead does not do a good job of explaining this concept. Net zero by 2050 is not enough for limiting warming to 1.5C. As such the lead at its current form misrepresents IPCC and sources., the fact that it is largely unproven is one of the reasons why I had wanted to add in the first place. See my earlier proposal for what I think should be added:


 * ",as well as use of carbon dioxide removal. At scale deployment of carbon dioxide removal is "unproven", and likelihood of exceeding 1.5 °C (2.7 °F) increases with delays in reducing CO2 emissions towards zero."


 * Bogazicili (talk) 19:20, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Behavior of warming after net zero is an interesting topic, but of marginal importance compared with warming that happens before we get to net zero. My understanding is that after net zero global surface temperatures will not be changing much relative to how things will change leading up to that point, because the effects of continued heat absorption from radiative imbalance will be offset by methane absorption and oceans absorbing heat and CO2. Behavior on the time scale of hundreds or thousands of years is really entering the realm of conjecture, as we don't know how the natural world is going to react as a CO2 sponge and because humans will likely continue to have major planetary impacts. For the purpose of a summary, the way I think of things is that emissions are raising the planetary temperature to a new set point that will be difficult to get away from, and that acidification and ocean warming and sea level rise are going to continue long after net zero is achieved. Efbrazil (talk) 21:33, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
 * On balance, I agree with MurrayScience's reasoning, and I would favor adding CDR to the list earlier in the intro rather than granting it a special position as the climax of the intro. Bogazicili's interpretation of the IPCC, as I understand it—that negative emissions "follow" a "peak"—doesn't reflect the recognition that negative emissions can occur in sectors concurrently with conventional mitigation as we progress toward net zero. The intro is for summaries and conclusions, rather than detailed explanations of conditions and implications. — RCraig09 (talk) 20:00, 24 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Thanks for that post ...given the concerns you,, and express, some of which I share, I would suggest that we focus efforts on improving the carbon sequestration subsection, and then revisit how to incorporate the concept of carbon dioxide removal/CCS into the lede. That way we can best ensure that the lede is an accurate summary of the main article. From my reading of the sources that  has cited, I do think carbon dioxide removal merits a mention in the lede, but I’m not sure where is best.
 * I notice now that there have been a few NET related sentences added recently to the second paragraph of the Mitigation introductory section, rather than in the carbon sequestration subsection. Two of those sentences - starting with “Net negative emissions...” and “However, carbon dioxide...” should probably be deleted and incorporated into the carbon sequestration subsection, as part of updating it. I can take a shot at that, or if someone else wants to give it a go, that’s fine with me as well. I would also suggest creating a new thread on the Talk page along the lines of “Carbon sequestration update”, and proposing a complete revised new language entry there. We might even want to change the title of the subsection to “Carbon dioxide removal” Dtetta (talk) 21:43, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Lol, I thought there was no disagreement to this, but it seems like everyone so far disagrees. For those that are new to lengthy discussions, like and, I basically think the lead doesn't do a good job of explaining why immediate action is required; I think 2050 goal would seem far away enough for those that do not know built in assumptions. Instead of negative emissions, and that they are unproven, perhaps we can talk about carbon budget then? Bogazicili (talk) 17:35, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I appreciate the urge to "explain why immediate action is needed" though we have to be aware it can be interpreted as contrary to the acceptable tone of encyclopedia articles. I think the placement of predictions in the final paragraph—which may be considered the "climax" of the intro—imparts a fairly strong impact on the reader. My opposition was to an overly detailed, technical, conditions-and-implications, story-telling in the intro—not (obviously) to the well-sourced predictions themselves. In fact, I actually think a brief, broad statement of well-sourced predictions would even be appropriate at the end of the first paragraph (!), to complement the past "unprecedented impact..." phraseology that's already there, though I predict many editors would object that such would give predictions too much prominence. — RCraig09 (talk) 18:48, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
 * If wants to put direct air capture in the mitigation sentence in the lead. By all means, propose an edit. MurrayScience (talk) 19:48, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
 * , it doesn't actually make sense by itself, I wanted to tie it to the overall point that immediate action is required/delays will lead to missing goals, by explaining one limitation of pathways that rely on technologies currently unproven at scale.
 * , it's actually in the executive summary of SR 15. SR 15 is already a top line source, so it's executive summary is "double top line" lol:

"If overshoot is to be minimized, the remaining equivalent CO2 budget available for emissions is very small, which implies that large, immediate and unprecedented global efforts to mitigate greenhouse gases are required (high confidence).SR 15 p. 177"
 * Is there a consensus for a sentence mentioning remaining carbon budgets are low? Eg: 6 and 24 years for 1.5C and 2C Bogazicili (talk) 08:26, 27 February 2021 (UTC)


 * I get the sense that carbon budgets are confusing. The idea that you're converting a total amount of carbon into a period of time based on the rate of additions to the atmosphere every year. I feel like the explanatory model that the world has switched to is emphasizing zero emissions/carbon neutral/net-zero by a certain year. Keep in mind that we don't have ways of making cement, steel, fertilizer, plastic, or even flying, or cargo shipping that don't emit greenhouse gases. The zero emissions by 2050 implies that we have 30 years to innovate and bring down the price of carbon capture or biofuels, etc. I feel like that's clearer than saying we have 6 years and then we're at 1.5C or something like that. MurrayScience (talk) 12:47, 27 February 2021 (UTC)


 * , I wasn't exactly thinking about mentioning 6 years, but just that remaining budget is low and immediate action is needed. If the emissions remained constant until 2050, and then went to 0 overnight (not that this is possible but just giving an example for the sake of argument), we'd still not be able to stop 2C warming, let alone 1.5. I'm just trying to make the idea that emission reductions need to start now more clear (and then halve by 2030 and go to net 0 by 2050). Bogazicili (talk) 19:20, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Now that recent edits on this topic in the main body of the article are complete, I would vote for including ’s proposal for incorporating text from IPCC 2018 p 34 as an additional clause at the end of the fifth paragraph. I’m referring to text on page 34 that states: “All analysed pathways limiting warming to 1.5°C with no or limited overshoot use CDR to some extent.” So I wold suggest something along the lines of: “Limiting warming to 1.5 °C (2.7 °F) would require halving emissions by 2030 and achieving near-zero emissions by 2050; along with the use of carbon dioxide removal technologies .”

If there is concern about ending the lede with a CDR reference, one option would be to revert these last two paragraph to an earlier version, where the fifth paragraph originally followed the second sentence of the fourth paragraph. As I recall, this format was a team edit that, and I worked on a while back for that fourth paragraph. The mitigation and adaptation text then constituted the fifth paragraph. I generally like the way it looks now, but that would be an option.

But I do think additional that text that briefly refers to that particular IPCC wording on CDR is a more accurate way to depict the current reports and papers on what 2050 will look like. My 2 cents on this.Dtetta (talk) 20:47, 10 March 2021 (UTC)


 * I'm opposed to this change. When it comes to CDR there are two options- "technologies", which are largely speculative approaches that currently account for zero percent of mitigation, and the natural carbon cycle, which absorbs more than half the we emit each year. I added a graphic yesterday (and updated it today) to highlight this fact. Which way the natural carbon cycle goes in the future is hugely important and poorly understood. The IPCC ignores it in their RPC based projections (by only looking at concentrations), and we also don't have a section on it in this article. So if anything should be mentioned in the intro, it's the importance of and uncertainty around the future of the carbon cycle. If we mention CDR technologies in the intro it should be in the context of mitigation strategies, and even there I think it is too speculative to make the cut. Isolating it as a concluding thought like this is way off base IMHO. The current text works well, so I recommend no changes. Efbrazil (talk) 23:42, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
 * That is indeed a very helpful graphic to have in the carbon sequestration subsection...nice work! I don’t see these two concepts as mutually exclusive, so it will be interesting to see if there are any other opinions on this. Dtetta (talk) 00:58, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Variability (split from above)
Split from the above discussion as topic has changed by Femke
 * Glad you all think that works...just made the changes. - what kind of sentence on nuclear power were you thinking about?Dtetta (talk) 19:56, 22 February 2021 (UTC)


 * At . I think this qualitative sentence is very accurate, and holds over a wide range of possible future costs (encompassing current trends): "Intermittency can also be solved cost-effectively by supplementing a solar and wind-dominated electricity grid with on-demand low-carbon technologies such as nuclear or combined cycle with carbon capture, or renewables like geothermal or hydro dams." There are plenty of peer reviewed studies that reach this conclusion which could be used for the citation. It would go after this currently-included sentence: "The primary obstacle for solar and wind is their intermittency and seasonal variability, which can be mitigated by energy storage (such as pumped-storage hydropower and battery storage), demand flexibility, and expanding long-distance transmission to smooth variability of renewable output across wider geographic areas." MurrayScience (talk) 21:21, 22 February 2021 (UTC)


 * , I like the general idea of this sentence, but I have a couple of concerns. One is that it seems written for a reading level above the typical Wikipedia audience. I would suggest something a little simpler, such as the following:

I left out the reference to combined cycle, mainly because that seems like a bit of jargon for what is essentially a slightly higher efficiency fossil fuel system with CCS. And if the issue is just to address intermittency, I don’t think it is really necessary to include this item; the reality is that some level of fossil fuel/CCS will probably be included in the electricity mix by 2050, and we discuss that elsewhere in the article.

I am also a little concerned that the idea in that second sentence reads like a somewhat biased, pro RE talking point. I think and  have been involved in previous incarnations of this paragraph, so they might have some ideas here as well, along with. Dtetta (talk) 02:34, 23 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Could you guys give me a week to figure out how controversial the nuclear and geothermal mentions are in this context? Energy system literature I'm familiar with typically says baseload energy is unsuited for flexibility. Most current nuclear is designed as baseload instead of as dispatchable energy, and running nuclear as dispatchable energy would give it a lower capacity factor, which would ramp up the costs as costs from nuclear mainly come from construction instead of fuel. I don't know enough about geothermal energy to evaluate whether this is a sentence we can say in wiki voice, or whether it needs to be attributed.
 * What source were you thinking of? Hopefully, we can get a 2020/2021 source, as statements like these (what are feasible future options), still depend on price trajectories), but I appreciate we might need to got back as far as 2019.. (FemkeMilene (talk) 08:00, 23 February 2021 (UTC)


 * I like Dtetta’s re-edit. I’ll find a good source and come back with it. MurrayScience (talk) 08:51, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Here's a |fine paper. Quote from it "Wind and solar energy can produce decarbonized electricity, but to reliably meet demand these intermittent resources require other technologies such as energy storage, supplemental generation, demand management, and transmission expansion. Many studies estimate the costs of supplying electricity with renewables for particular storage cost assumptions... We estimate that cost-competitively meeting baseload demand 100% of the time requires storage energy capacity costs below $20/kWh" Here's a simple google search if you want a sense of the various trends/projections.


 * {| style="background:silver; color: black"



There are obstacles to the continued rapid development of renewable energy in electrical grids. For solar and wind power, a key challenge is their intermittency and seasonal variability. Ways to reduce this limitation include expanding grid energy storage (such as pumped-storage hydropower and battery storage), demand flexibility, and expanding long-distance transmission to smooth variability of renewable output across wider geographic areas. As the grid evolves to include higher percentages of renewable energy, on-demand, low-carbon power sources such as nuclear, geothermal, and hydro dams can also be used to cost-effectively address intermittency and variability, while still maintaining progress towards net zero electricity production.
 * }
 * I think it's important to clarify that we're talking about the electrical grid. This is obvious to us but may not be clear to an unfamiliar reader. I also think it's important to briefly explain why transmission needs to be expanded, storage is probably a bit more obvious and doesn't need explaining. Also the cost-effective part is where the paper I showed comes in. We also need to emphasize that these sources are on-demand. MurrayScience (talk) 15:27, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Not sure why the link didn't work but here's the doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joule.2019.06.012 MurrayScience (talk) 15:29, 23 February 2021 (UTC)


 * The source is primary, so not ideal, but we may be able to use its introduction as a secondary source. It described nuclear as baseload, not as on-demand. (I like on-demand as lay term for dispatchable, was looking for a simple synonym here). It doesn't seem to mention geothermal. FemkeMilene (talk) 17:04, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
 * For reasons laid out soemwhere else, I think going into the discussion of costs is outside the scope of this article, as work on it is contradicoty. Ideally you want to use a review paper that only reviews 2020 estimates, which is too high a bar. FemkeMilene (talk) 17:07, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm not yet convinced, but I will read some more literature so that you don't have to waste your time in the case my current opinion isn't quite supported by science. Fortunately, my current job involves me reading this literature :). FemkeMilene (talk) 17:03, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I've read more :). The old text in the article is As the grid evolves to include higher percentages of renewable energy, reliable low-carbon power sources such as nuclear, geothermal, and hydro dams can address intermittency and variability, while maintaining progress towards net zero electricity production
 * It implies that temporally 'reliable' low-carbon techniques are used at the end of the transition, whereas the literature is arguing about to what extent dispatchable energy can be decreased.
 * The source cited doesn't talk about geothermal
 * The source is a primary source on a sub-country scale, and I'm still under the impression it's not generally accepted that baseload can play a major role in compensating . As such, higher-quality sourcing is necessary if we want to keep this is. The primary source by Jenkins cited in the previous sentence only talks about nuclear adjusted for flexibility.
 * Whether geothermal / nuclear / hydro is reliable depends on the local circumstances; that word can be left out. (f.i. in Belgium, nuclear has proved quite unreliable over the last couple of years)
 * I have based the rewrite more on a secondary source now (the 2019 emission gap report). I hope my rewrite works for you too :). FemkeMilene (talk) 17:28, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
 * The edit looks good. I agree with leaving out the last sentence because the matter is complex. A closer look at the German energy production reveals that nuclear plants show no signs of flexibility even now, when market prices drop due to stormy weather at the end of this week. As long as this kind of nuclear baseload is maintained, investments into storage systems - which could well fill the gaps - remain less profitable. And scaling up would probably lower the prices. So it's a question of political courage with many players involved.Hedgehoque (talk) 10:47, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Proposed changes in how carbon dioxide removal is described
I would suggest deleting two of the sentences in the Mitigation introduction as follows:

The information removed would be included in the first carbon sequestration paragraph:

I am not proposing changing any of the citations, just reorganizing and modifying some of the text in these two paragraphs. So the numbered citations are the same as the corresponding footnotes that currently exist in the article. Dtetta (talk) 03:00, 26 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Sounds good to me at first reading, haven't checked text-source integrity. Can we reflect that beccs is more uncertain than CCS? What does the source say? FemkeMilene (talk) 07:24, 26 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the quick response . The relevant text from the p.34 of the IPCC citation that I was restating here (which Bogazicili has also cited), says that “CDR deployed at scale is unproven, and reliance on such technology is a major risk in the ability to limit warming to 1.5°C.” Are you thinking we would revise that to specifically say that BECCS is more uncertain? Not sure if I draw that specific conclusion from reading the IPCC report, at least from the summary page that is referred to in the citation. We do talk about bioenergy’s potential negative consequences for food security in the clean energy subsection, which in and of itself seems like an additional uncertainty. Dtetta (talk) 15:23, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Okay, I've had time to look at the source now. I propose we change your latter sentence to It remains highly uncertain whether carbon dioxide removal techniques such as BECCS will be able to play a large role in limiting warming to 1.5 °C. I think that stays a tiny bit closer to the source, drops CCS (which is not as uncertain and its use is more an (expensive) policy choice as I read in IPCC than a fundamental uncertainty), and drops the word actually (not needed).
 * Overall, tone and prose are an improvement to the former.
 * I'm very much looking forward to having a general report as opposed to the 1.5 report to make sure we don't give undue weight the the most ambitious climate goal. FemkeMilene (talk) 18:30, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Sounds good. I will wait another day, and if no other comments I will make the edit, incorporating your suggested wording. Dtetta (talk) 06:54, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I think the wording misrepresents the sources. You are changing something that explains a limitation of mitigation assumptions to something that reads like carbon removal is largely irrelevant. Also specific ones such as beccs and CCS might not be in the page numbers given. Bogazicili (talk) 08:32, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
 * BECCS is mentioned in the the second paragraph of CDR. Overall, I believe it does represent the source well, considering that the rather outdated details about how BECCS plays a vital role in all model scenarios reaching 1.5 isn't supported by new modelling. As a compromise, we can attribute the model outcomes and put them in the past tense. While carbon dioxide removal played a major role in 1.5 C-consistent model scenarios asssessed by the IPCC in 2018, it remains highly uncertain whether they can play such a role.


 * FemkeMilene (talk) 16:18, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

- I understand your interest in including text about the limitations of mitigation assumptions, but I think that particular point would be better covered in the Climate change mitigation article, which has room to go into that kind of nuance (which may also need to be updated, as has pointed out). In this paragraph (and article), I think the goal should be to give the reader a more general sense of the feasibility of CCS and BECCS. Femke and I seem to be in agreement on the general wording. So I will wait another day to see if there are any other editors who share your concerns. Otherwise, I plan to make the changes along the lines Femke and I have discussed. Dtetta (talk) 17:34, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
 * , I was talking more about removal of this part: "Net negative emissions happen when the amount of greenhouse gasses that are released into atmosphere are smaller than the sequestered or stored amount.[212] However, carbon dioxide removal technologies deployed at scale are unproven, which presents a major risk in being able to limit warming to 1.5 °C.[213]", not for BECSS specifically. The fact that at scale CDR is unproven and presents a major risk to mitigation goals is not outdated.


 * , have we moved from building consensus to 2/3 majority voting (with only 3 editors) with one day deadlines? I think we should be able to work something out with latest research . Bogazicili (talk) 19:28, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm just noticing some close paraphrasing in the old wording: IPCC says:  CDR deployed at scale is unproven,  and  reliance  on  such  technology  is  a  major  risk  in  the  ability  to  limit  warming  to  1.5°C. . We say  However, carbon dioxide removal technologies deployed at scale are unproven, which presents a major risk in being able to limit warming to 1.5 °C . This means that my previous comment about tone having improved should be discarded, but that we do have a copyright issue here and should seek a new text. I' m a bit low in inspiration.  FemkeMilene (talk) 16:15, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, I agree it's not a good idea, for a variety of reasons, to take text pretty much verbatim from an IPCC report, which is why I phrased the last sentence in my proposal the way I did. I thought your proposed Feb 26 revision was also a good way of phrasing the general idea that footnote 213 is referring to. and, do either of you have thoughts on how this paragraph should be worded? Are you ok with the proposal + Femke's Feb 26 revision to the last sentence? Again, one of the goals of this revision is to try and build some consensus for how carbon dioxide removal should be handled in the lede, the idea being that is should be consistent with how we describe it in this subsection. Dtetta (talk) 06:21, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
 * - I am confused by your Feb 28 comment - why exactly are you taking back your 26 Feb comment about the tone of the proposed edit being an improvement? Is it that you want specific text about the unproven nature of CDR being a risk in reaching 1.5C...beyond the way you stated it in your 26 Feb proposed wording? As I mentioned to Bogazicili, I think this is more detail than belongs in the text itself, although I think we could include it as an in-citation quote. Dtetta (talk) 01:14, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
 * In general, this change looks fine to me. Regarding the lede, I guess this idea could be wedged into the list of methods in the mitigation sentence, although that sentence is already overstuffed. Efbrazil (talk) 17:59, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I actually hadn't looked at the IPCC wording before my last copy edit, so that was a mistake. I copy edited again so it doesn't look too close to the source, while discussion here takes place. I still think it's DUE to mention this presents a major risk for mitigation if emission cuts are delayed. I might be busy over the next few weeks by the way. Hopefully the current wording is fine. Bogazicili (talk) 23:45, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

So, just to summarize again, I would suggest deleting two of the sentences in the Mitigation introduction and moving rephrased versions of them to the Carbon sequestration subsection. The revised paragraph from the introduction would read as:

I think the ideas in the two sentences I proposed to move are generally useful ones to have in the article, but I propose both of these fit better as part of the carbon sequestration subsection. The net negative emissions sentence is an expanded explanation of the last clause of the previous sentence, and doesn’t really fit the rest of the tone of the paragraph - we don’t define carbon sequestration or carbon dioxide removal, for instance. The next sentence then gets into some nuances regarding the risks of CO2 removal - again, this is out of character with the basic themes of the paragraph, which is to give an introduction to the key features of mitigation strategies designed to limit GW. Starting the CO2 removal sentence with “However” also doesn’t make sense given the preceding sentence, and illustrates the difficulty with having the sentence in this paragraph.

The information removed would be included in the first carbon sequestration paragraph. I have modified this from m earlier proposal by including Femke’s 26 Feb suggested sentence.

I am not proposing changing any of the citations, just reorganizing and rephrasing some of the text in these two paragraphs. From reading the earlier comments, I believe is ok with these edits, but that  has some concerns about “changing something that explains a limitation of mitigation assumptions to something that reads like carbon removal is largely irrelevant”, and also states a belief that the current sentence, taken from the IPCC report (slightly rephrased) regarding risks associated with depending on CO2 removal, is DUE. My view is that DUE or not DUE is not really the issue... it’s that this idea is more detailed than appropriate for this article, and would be better suited for the Climate change mitigation article. I think Bogazicili’s concern about keeping it in this article could also be accommodated with an in-line citation, with the article text being the simpler last sentence that Femke proposed, but with the IPCC report quote included as part of the citation. Although I recognize that there is some discrepancy between calling something uncertain and saying there is a risk associated with depending on it, I think going with the simpler uncertainty sentence is a better choice for the target reading level of this article, and I don’t think that the sentence is saying that carbon removal is irrelevant, as Bogazicili contends, just that it’s feasibility is uncertain.

I am unclear as to what ’s current thoughts are. But I would still propose to make these edits as an improvement to the text that is there, in particular to reposition those two sentences that really don’t belong in an introductory paragraph.Dtetta (talk) 03:55, 4 March 2021 (UTC)


 * I don't have a strong opinion. I think the placement and prose of dtetta's proposal is marginally better. FemkeMilene (talk) 07:00, 4 March 2021 (UTC)


 * , the fact that emission cuts delays would increase dependence on unproven tech and risk mitigation goals is a core issue. It's not too detailed for where it is now. Your edits deletes explanation of that entire core concept. I'd consider your addition about BECCS more detailed than the core concept of consequences of emission cuts delays. Bogazicili (talk) 14:56, 4 March 2021 (UTC)


 * I agree with you about the importance of including the idea that emission cut delays will increase dependence on unproven tech. I disagree completely that what’s written ”deletes explanation of that entire core concept”. I think the last sentence of the proposed text for the first carbon sequestration paragraph generally gets at that point in a way that’s more appropriate for the reading level of our target audience. I also don’t understand your last statement. BECCS is just an example of the unproven tech that you’re referring to. How does providing an example make something more detailed? In your post, you also don’t directly address the points I made about why the two sentences I am moving need to be switched from the introductory paragraph and placed in the carbon sequestration paragraph. But to address your first point, and put additional emphasis on the risks of relying on unproven tech, I would propose that we add a clause at the end of the last sentence  of the carbon sequestration paragraph (beginning with “It remains highly uncertain”) along the lines of, “and reliance on them increases the risk of global warming increasing beyond 1.5 C”, which is also consistent with page 34 of the IPCC report that is cited. What are your thoughts on that attempt at compromise.Dtetta (talk) 15:45, 4 March 2021 (UTC)


 * , removing general statement about CDR and giving an example of CDR like BECCS is more detailed IMO. I'm not against your proposed addition by the way, just against the proposed deletion. I think consequences of emission cuts delays is suited for intro paragraphs, as it's a core concept; that's why I wanted to keep them there. Bogazicili (talk) 19:14, 4 March 2021 (UTC)


 * , re: your first point, I guess we agree to disagree on what makes something more detailed. Re: your second point, you’ve made it very clear you consider your paraphrasing of the IPCC p.34 statement to be a core concept. But that doesn’t mean it needs to be in a paragraph that’s designed to provide an introduction to the major features of mitigation, and not specifically to evaluate their strengths/weaknesses. In addition, we have lots of core concepts scattered throughout this article; not all of them are in the intro sections. We talk about the risks associated with land based CDR in the following sequestration paragraph, but that edit did not lead to including that idea in the intro as well. And you still haven’t addressed my concerns that the two sentences at issue, as they exist in the intro paragraph, are disjointed and interrupt the main flow of ideas; they work better as part of the sequestration subsection. Dtetta (talk) 20:53, 4 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Another problem with having the IPCC based sentence in that intro paragraph is that it makes me, as a reader, question whether or not the earlier sentence in the paragraph, starting with: “Scenarios that limit..” is in fact correct, or at least whether the scenarios are. Another reason why I think a simpler, paraphrased version, like the compromise sentence I suggested in my 4 March post for the sequestration subsection (which was an effort to develop consensus), would be more appropriate. Dtetta (talk) 02:16, 5 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Re: "disjointed and interrupt the main flow of ideas". That's why I had tried to reorganize several months ago, when you reverted it and gave a strongly-worded response: Talk:Climate_change/Archive_85. The concept of carbon budget is sorely missing in mitigation section. Going to net zero by 2050 is not enough; emission declines should start now for 1.5 mitigation. We should not be giving incorrect or massively incomplete information just to try to maintain the existing organization of those two paragraphs. Bogazicili (talk) 15:54, 5 March 2021 (UTC)


 * I think your point about strengthening the discussion of carbon budgets is definitely worth thinking about. And that can be done independent of this proposed edit. When it comes to carbon budget related ideas, I do think there are issues around level of detail, and what’s appropriate for this article vs. what is better suited for in the climate change mitigation article. But again, you’re not addressing my main reasons for proposing to move those two sentence. As I have tried to explain in a variety of ways, they are simply not well suited, as they are written, to the paragraph they are placed in. I’ve tried to explain why they’re not, but your responses consistently don’t seem to be addressing the concerns I’m raising, and I’m led to think that it’s not productive, nor a good use of our collective time, to have additional exchanges with you on this particular proposal. and  are ok with this proposed edit. So at this point I’m going to go ahead with the edit, and include the additional text I proposed in my 4 March post, which was my attempt to reach a compromise with you. I’m sorry to be using critical wording to describe your earlier edit, but my efforts to describe things in more neutral terms don’t seem to go anywhere. Dtetta (talk) 16:55, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

After taking a bit of break from this issue, I'm still not satisfied how Carbon Dioxide removal is portrayed in this section. Mentioning that large scale deployment is unproven would only add few words and would make the portrayal of this topic more comprehensive and neutral. I also think it is indeed suited to the paragraph. So I started an RFC, hoping we can get more community input. Bogazicili (talk) 20:34, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Additional subsection on Energy efficiency in Mitigation section
I am proposing an additional (perhaps one or two paragraphs) subsection in the mitigation portion of the article that covers energy efficiency. The AR5 Synthesis Report, Fig 4.4, page 110, clearly shows that future investments in energy efficiency are expected to be significantly greater than those in renewable/clean energy, which we cover extensively. Within the Clean energy and Agriculture and industry subsections we briefly touch on these ideas, but I believe this an inadequate treatment, given the overall significance energy efficiency investments are expected to have in overall mitigation efforts.

Interested in others thoughts on this, in particular any references that you think would be most useful. In addition to AR5, I think the 2019 UNEP Emissions Gap report and Achieving the Paris Climate Agreement Goals provide good background material. - Dtetta (talk) 15:42, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I like this addition, but it would be good to also include low impact lifestyle choices, particularly as the current problem is the developing world adopting the bad habits of the United States (flying more, driving more, consuming more, eating more meat, bigger houses, etc). Those things aren't discussed much in UN reports, but there are many studies on the impacts of lifestyle choices. One start point: https://www.nytimes.com/guides/year-of-living-better/how-to-reduce-your-carbon-footprint Efbrazil (talk) 16:54, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
 * You make a good point - there were a couple of sentences on individual’s carbon footprints, including a reference to the NY times article you cite, in an earlier version of this section, but it seems that was deleted when during a recent reorganization of the section. That should probably be reinstated.-Dtetta (talk) 06:50, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
 * That 'individual footprint' sentence was deleted for a couple of reasons: redundancy, neutrality and not fitting in any section. It is redundant with the other text, as we already say public transport is better and show how much energy is used where. I'm worried about neutrality considering 'individual footprints' are the oil industry's framing of the problem. It got disproportiate attention if you compare it to our high quality reliable sources such as the IPCC. Thirdly, it doesn't fit in any section and led to a very small paragraph which breached the manual of style. FemkeMilene (talk) 08:05, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
 * We're quite a bit above the ideal 8000 words (almost 9000), so with any big addition I'd like some evidence that other sources spend proportially way more text on this. I believe not, as efficiency is quite straightforward. If I'm wrong and we need to include it, what would we delete? FemkeMilene (talk) 17:53, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I would say that the additional text would not be more than a paragraph or two, as the sentences on buildings and transport could be moved from their current locations to this proposed subsection. As to making up for any additional wording, I think there are some opportunities for editing sections such as “Observed temperature rise” and “Future warming and the carbon budget” and provide simpler language that would both reduce word count and bring the complexity of the text more in line with WP’s target audience.-Dtetta (talk) 06:50, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I found some redundancy in the mitigation section! (I already removed an instance of redundancy + False precision) Ideally, we should not expand mitigation wrt adaptation, but I'm also open to further reduce other sections. Forestry is now mentioned in two different subsections: agriculture and industry and carbon sequestration.
 * I'm worried about making a seperate section on efficiency, as efficiency is already very prominent in industry, and having overlapping subsections increases the risk we talk about things twice.
 * The observed temperature rise section informs a lot of the lede, and it's difficult to further decrease it. I've removed another half a sentence. I can't find any obvious candidate in the 'future warming and the carbon budget' section. FemkeMilene (talk) 08:42, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
 * We currently mention efficiency in the context of transport, building and industry, which I believe to be sufficient. The only information that might be relevant from the above is investment costs, and I'm open to adding something like that. Does the 2020 UNEP report mention it? With costs of renewables being so different from 2013, that source can't be used for anything but the most crude estimation. FemkeMilene (talk) 17:53, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Relative investment is indeed an important concept, and should be included. I can look for more recent sources on that. Another important point is the role of energy efficiency in making the transition to RE easier - by reducing demand, some of the issues associated with more RE on the grid become less problematic, so it’s an important short term consideration as well. Another is relative cost effectiveness - many energy efficiency projects still have a shorter payback time than renewable energy investments. All of this is important to briefly mention. Efbrazil’s comment brings up the fact that the short paragraph on individual carbon footprints seems to have been removed during the recent reorganization of this section, and I think that needs to be reinstated. So a few things besides just the transport, buildings and industry sentences.-Dtetta (talk) 06:50, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
 * With this article, I feel we should wait for the AR6 to come out (first report in August!) and focus on other top articles in disrepair with similar amount of readership: WikiProject_Climate_change/Popular_articles. FemkeMilene (talk) 17:53, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
 * When I look at the AR6 Mitigation group schedule it looks to me like it will be closer to the end of the year. Regardless of the AR6 timeline, I don’t expect there to be a lot of new information on energy efficiency research such that it would affect the basic statements I am thinking would be in this subsection. And what is the value of waiting? This is not a huge time commitment to write.
 * I do like the idea of encouraging people to improve other climate change related articles. But the challenge with this is to figure out how to decide which ones to focus on - based on number of hits? Based on the extent of improvement needed? The list on your link is interesting, but I’m not sure it really captures the manner in which wikipedia as a whole is covering climate change and its causes/effects/solutions. As an example, I just spent the earlier part of this week rewriting the Carbon emissions section of the the Non-fungible token article to provide a more objective description, with better context, re: the carbon footprint of NFT transactions. That page is currently receiving 50-60,000 page views a day...several times that of the Climate change or Greta Thunberg articles, but it’s not on the list you link to. So figuring out where to focus time along the lines of what you are proposing is challenging. Personally, I can’t get very excited about working on the Mitigation of climate change, Effects of Climate change, or Climate change adaptation pages based on the number of views they receive...it makes me more convinced that the best use of my time and energy is to keep making the Climate change page as good as possible.
 * Be good to get a couple of other viewpoints on this...maybe from or ?-Dtetta (talk) 06:50, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm hoping somebody will step up to bring Keystone pipeline and David Attenborough to GA, as these tell a more personal story of climate change, and have had more views than climate change. Working on CC in articles like Non-fungible token is equally important :), and is what I've been doing (in Antarctica f.i.). FemkeMilene (talk) 09:22, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Glad you’re improving those articles as well (on top of all the work you do for this page)....it is important work! It sounds like some people (including Alex Lubben at Columbia) are working on ways of identifying helpful patterns that could be used to prioritize our collective energies. Hopefully those efforts will bring some additional insights. I also like the Small to medium tasks page related to this topic as a way of focusing energy.-Dtetta (talk) 13:33, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Underlying this discussion is a desire to keep this top-level article as concise as possible. I see that, to the community's credit, its byte length has increased only slightly since summer 2019, and with improved quality and timeliness. Especially based on the foregoing exposition, I agree that energy efficiency deserves mention by subject matter experts, but I hope the word count addition will be modest—the article's narrative now occupies 15 desktop-screenfuls, and references/notes occupy 18 desktop-screenfuls. — RCraig09 (talk) 16:11, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
 * My 2 cents: I would add a section under mitigation called "Limiting energy demand" and include energy efficiency as one paragraph and lifestyle choices as another paragraph. Efbrazil (talk) 18:20, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Agree - that’s a good choice for the title, and the only other paragraph I might add is one on framing - describing the role that limiting energy demand plays in not just lowering GHG emissions, but also in reducing risks and disruptions as the percent of RE in the energy supply increases. Dtetta (talk) 16:09, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I really would like some evidence that this (three full paragraphs...) is due from overview sources. I don't quite think it is. What percentage of space do sources about CC broadly dedicate to clean energy vs efficiency?
 * I think we should stay away of delving into the hypothesis that RE would lead to more disruptions. That's a difficult discussion more appropriate for variable renewable energy. FemkeMilene (talk) 17:07, 26 March 2021 (UTC)


 * From AR5 WGIII p 20 : “Efficiency enhancements and behavioural changes, in order to reduce energy demand compared to base- line scenarios without compromising development, are a key mitigation strategy in scenarios reaching atmospheric CO2eq concentrations of about 450 to about 500 ppm by 2100 (robust evidence, high agreement). Near-term reductions in energy demand are an important element of cost-effective mitigation strategies, provide more flexibility for reducing carbon intensity in the energy supply sector, hedge against related supply-side risks, avoid lock-in to carbon-intensive infrastructures, and are associated with important co-benefit.” I doubt very much that this idea will change significantly in terms of how it is expressed in AR6.


 * More recently, IEA’s Energy Outlook 2020 has a similar message on p 20 of that report: “A greater share of variable renewables connected to grids requires new technologies, policies and regulatory approaches to manage electricity security and minimise overall investment requirements. In this context, the demand side of energy systems is becoming increasingly important, in terms of overall efficiency and as a provider of demand flexibility. Efficient end-use technologies lower overall system size requirements and hence grid investment needs.”


 * From my perspective it’s very important to briefly summarize these kinds of statements in the article. I really don’t understand what the concern is. I think the issue is valid, supported by reliable sources, consistent over time, and worth briefly mentioning along the lines that it’s characterized in these two sources. Dtetta (talk) 18:30, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
 * We differ in opinion about how much information should be added. You would like to add 3 paragraphs, which means this topic would be half the size of clean energy. If I look at the index of SYR (p149), I see 3 pages where energy efficiency is mentioned versus 25 pages where energy production is mentioned. This amounts to one small paragraph on efficiency, if we keep energy production the same. Therefore I support the addition of one or two sentences.
 * Adding a subsection with strong overlap with other sections will also deteriorate the structure that we worked so hard to achieve. FemkeMilene (talk) 19:32, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Understand. I will propose something, and show a count of added words (excluding the sentences that are removed from the current mitigation section), and then we can do a rough comparison. Given the relative level of Energy Efficiency investment (SPM Fig 9), it’s intricate linkage with supporting the RE transition, and the level of anticipated GHG reduction currently associated with it, I don’t think that 3/25 ratio is necessarily the most the appropriate one. But let’s see once I have something to post. I would suggest you reread the SPM and just get a general sense of the relative importance that RE and Energy Efficiency are given in getting to net zero. Dtetta (talk) 21:18, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

So, for this proposed edit, I would modify the existing text in paragraph three of the "Clean energy" subsection:

There would then be a new subsection titled: “Demand reduction" or perhaps "Demand reduction and energy efficiency” with the following text:

Looks like around 400 words, with 25 or so words deleted from the Clean energy subsection. I thought additional detail on transport, building and industry measures would be helpful, but those portions could be shortened. Comments on this proposal would be much appreciated. -Dtetta (talk) 02:22, 27 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Thank you for working so hard on this!
 * I maintain we shouldn't be talking about the oil companies framing of the problem (carbon footprints). It's skewed talk about life choices, when individuals have been shown to have way more effect if they organise. Plant-based diets is an important topic, which should be added to the agriculture section. To avoid using this framing, I support adding maximum two words on behavioural change (those two).
 * In terms of length: there is a reason overview sources spent less time on efficiency; it's a relatively easy thing to do, so spending more text on it would lead to including details.
 * COVID-19 is mentioned a lot. This gets outdated within half a year maybe, and is therefore unsuitable for this article, that maybe one statement for mitigation and adaptation overall.
 * The text overlaps with the paragraph on industry. Could you instead simply strengthen that paragraph?
 * WP:RECENT
 * To avoid putting in too many details, it's smart to work with broad overview sources (f.i. SYR; maybe a broad overview source on mitigation, but stay away from any source specific to efficiency, however excellent)
 * In terms of text-source integrety (only checking things that I am willing to compromise on in terms of inclusion)
 * SPM p 20 does not mention global living standards, GDP, does not mention net-zero by 2050, does not mention grid stability (supply-side risks in the 2014 context would most likely be oil and gas shocks)
 * As figure 9 talks about changes in investment, it technically doesn't support your statement without page 26. Furthermore, the page says nothing about the most likely future, only about scenarios that aim to give the "optimal pathway"
 * Switching travel mode is not a demand reduction per your source. Also close paraphrasing
 * Specific measures include increasing energy efficiency of heating systems and motors, designing less energy intensive products, increasing product lifetimes, and otherwise reducing waste -> Could you give a smaller page range; 5 IPCC pages are difficult to verify. The executive summary is a better place
 * Tiny comments: spelling, consistent use of UK English, don't repeat citation when used for two sentences, the link to WGIII leads me to SR15. FemkeMilene (talk) 08:12, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for those thoughtful comments - I’ll provide some responses once I’ve had a chance to think about them a bit. It would also be helpful to hear from, , , or  (since you all have been involved in previous comments/edits to the mitigation section), if any of you have thoughts on either the proposed text or Femke’s comments. -Dtetta (talk) 18:30, 27 March 2021 (UTC)


 * My main feedback is that this seems pretty wordy, I think all the substance here could be said in less than half the number of words. Here is a cut at that (references removed for readability, but all the content is from the initial text, so the references could be brought in):

Efbrazil (talk) 18:20, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi. So the goal is zero right? If energy efficiency is about reducing the amount of energy waste (like installing triple glaze windows in buildings or raising standards for fuel efficiency in cars) that reduces emissions by some percentage, sure, but the goal is zero! As long as the home is heated by gas and the car runs on gasoline, we haven’t reached it. So energy efficiency can help in the short term, and may reduce the need for solar panels, etc when we finally can electrify everything, but the only way to get to zero is if you are actually multiplying by zero (not using fossil fuels at all to make the car go, the house warm, the limestone decompose for cement, the iron reduce for steel, and on). Also, industrial processes, cargo shipping, and passenger jets, are already very efficient, after decades of innovation to reduce energy costs. So it’s not like there’s a whole lot of room to go. So energy efficiency, it helps, but alone it will not get us to zero, only eliminating the green premium on the non-emitting (green) ways to make the physical economy, will get us to zero. MurrayScience (talk) 19:15, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
 * This misguided focus on efficiency instead of multiplying zero is really disappointing. Why is there not a single mention of research and development in this entire article? Getting to zero means you can't just skip or ignore sources of emissions you don't like. I don't mean to be harsh, but a lot of times I read this talk page/article and I lose hope because I realize how much we're not taking the problem of getting to zero seriously. MurrayScience (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 19:32, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
 * It's not binary like that. If energy demand continues to rise with abandon then it's much harder to shut down fossil fuel power plants and much harder to meet demand with renewables. I think the suggested intro paragraph above makes that clear, and the IPCC sources back it up. Efbrazil (talk) 22:22, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Amending my proposal above to make that point more clear. Added first sentence "Growth in energy demand makes it harder to shut down fossil fuel power plants and harder to meet demand only with renewable power sources." Thoughts on going forward with that overall wording? Efbrazil (talk) 18:08, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
 * , I like the general way you have made the text briefer. I think I prefer some of the original wording in the first paragraph, particularly the first two sentences. Let me try another cut at it based on some of the proposed revisions you’ve made. Probably on Monday or Tuesday.-Dtetta (talk) 02:46, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I like it too (noting that text-source integrety issues have not yet been addressed). I would still like to see these ideas hit two birds with one stone: agriculture and industry both have very short paragraphs, and that section can be made more FA-compliant if these ideas are incorporated instead of pushed in another section with overlapping content.
 * Efbrazil's rewrite of the 'put the responsibility to individuals' paragraph comes over are less US-centric now (only rich people fly worldwide, most people worldwide don't own a car), with shifts me from 'hard oppose' to 'lean oppose'. FemkeMilene (talk) 07:21, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

I don't see any source backing up this claim for Efbrazil's proposal: "Growth in energy demand makes it harder to shut down fossil fuel power plants and harder to meet demand only with renewable power sources". It seems to be WP:original research. As for Dtetta's proposals, it doesn't seem to be consistent with WP:Neutrality. For example, some scientist like Michael E. Mann think individual action is not enough:

"Many readers will be surprised to learn that one of Mann’s chief complaints concerns flight-shaming, vegan diets and other types of individual behaviour widely thought to be central to tackling climate change. Personal actions can help, and often set a sensible example. But, as Mann writes, they cannot rival broad, systemic measures such as carbon pricing or ending fossil fuel subsidies. For all the scrutiny of flying, it currently accounts for about 3 per cent of global carbon emissions." Bogazicili (talk) 16:17, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Saying people need to gravitate towards sustainable lifestyles is not the same as saying "individual behavior" is "central to tackling climate change". Lifestyle choices are set in a range of ways- by cultural norms, by legislation, by poverty, or by people making better choices. You may reject one of those methods like individual choice, but people adopting more sustainable lifestyles is still important to meeting IPCC goals. Even Mann says that in his book (which is frankly written to shock people and sell book copies, like saying "we can't end slavery with individual choice, so go ahead and have as many slaves as you want, it doesn't matter"). There's also speeches from business sites like national review saying we can't legislate a solution because it'll put us at a competitive disadvantage so nothing should be done legislatively (they argue fixing climate change is a matter of consumer choice).
 * Regardless of the method for getting people to adopt sustainable lifestyles, people do need to do that according to the IPCC. Don't confuse the method with the goal. What I wrote was a synopsis of what dtetta said based on the IPCC sources. Efbrazil (talk) 17:31, 29 March 2021 (UTC)


 * , nope. What you did was WP:original research. This was Dtetta's proposal sentence:
 * "Energy efficiency investments to reduce demand are expected to be the dominant form of investment in climate change mitigation through 2050. p. 110"
 * You somehow turned it into:
 * "Growth in energy demand makes it harder to shut down fossil fuel power plants and harder to meet demand only with renewable power sources."
 * I don't see the justification for the above sentence in Dtetta's sources. Where does that sentence come from, since you didn't put your sources? Even Dtetta's wording was problematic as the p. 110 graph doesn't justify the word "dominant" (something like "majority" is more appropriate). Bogazicili (talk) 17:59, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Looking at the graph dtetta summarized, "Total electricity generation" annual investment is about 120 billion per year, whereas the energy efficiency investment is about 330 billion per year. Having said that, I don't think the graph itself is fully inclusive, as it only accounts for energy production and consumption, ignoring costs like switching transportation power sources.

It's fair to say that we should stick to strict IPCC wording here. I was trying to clear up confusion before- a lot of people think talk of lifestyles = saying it is up to individual choice, plus you raised the issue of "times zero" in opposition to adding this section.

Anyhow, I rewrote the first paragraph to use almost verbatim text from the IPCC plus I tried to make a more clear summary of the graph. The second and third paragraphs I thought were accurate to the sources, so no rewrite there: Efbrazil (talk) 21:52, 29 March 2021 (UTC)


 * I'm ok with first 2 paragraphs.
 * For last paragraph, there's a paywall for IEA article, so will need to verify it. Last sentence is problematic. NYT article was written by Livia Albeck-Ripka, "a graduate of Columbia Journalism School". Not sure if we can consider her an expert on this issue, so this is not a reliable source. Please provide quotes and page numbers from the Druckman source. For example, I did a keyword search for "air" for air travel, and there wasn't anything relevant. Even then such a sentence will need to be balanced per WP:Neutrality, eg: a secondary source or someone like Michael E. Mann. Bogazicili (talk) 01:46, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

I think Bogazicili makes a good point in his comment about shaming, and it’s similar to a comment Femke made on 27 March. In fact Mark Hoffman, our Wikipedia friend from Mashable, wrote an interesting article on some of the disreputable history of this. But I don’t think it changes the significance of foot print reduction methods in terms of either their current societal significance, or their demonstrated results. There’s still lots of good work in this area being done by reputable organizations such as UC Berkeley‘s Cool Climate, WWF, Global footprint network, and many others. So I think the correct thing to do would be to acknowledge this aspect in our sentences on footprints. Another option would be to put this paragraph within the policies and politics section, and to not have it be part of the demand reduction edit being discussed here. I think Efbrazil has generally done a nice job characterizing it in his last paragraph, but that would be an option.

IMO, I don’t think we need to be overly focused on hewing to specific IPCC language, in fact, I think that often leads to confusing and somewhat technocratic prose, and I think it should generally be avoided - good paraphrasing seems a much better choice.

I still have some concerns with the wording of the above proposal:
 * First paragraph - Demand side measures are also key elements of 2C pathways as well, and IMO the second sentence doesn’t seem to fit well. The last sentence of the first paragraph, seem redundant to me in combination with the second paragraph.
 * Third paragraph - The second sentence seems out of sync with the first and third sentences - those shifts can lead to either increases or decreases in demand, so I'm unclear as to how it complements the first sentence.
 * The first paragraph still doesn't capture some of the items of my original proposal that I think are very important, such as the multifaceted benefits of demand reduction, and the uncertainty with demand projections for the next few years.

Other items of note: had noted that text in my original proposal overlaps with the paragraph on industry - not sure if that is still an issue. I think the COVID related language is important - although Femke cited WP:RECENT and noted that the COVID language gets outdated in a year and a half, the IEA energy outlook and efficiency reports discuss impacts and uncertainties that will cary on for several years.

Arbitrary break 1
Here is my new proposal, based in part on the revisions made by. Did not address Bogazicili's comment about neutrality for the Druckman source, so that may still need to be dealt with. Re: his comment on the IEA paywall, this might be an acceptable alternative. Re: his comment on The NY Times reporter not being an expert, I don't think that's a requirement for a news source, and The NY Times seems like a reputable source with a pretty good record on editorial control.

Dtetta (talk) 02:51, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

also had some comments on text-source consistency that may still need to be addressed with the citations used in this revision. Dtetta (talk) 04:54, 30 March 2021 (UTC)


 * I'll comment again after my three main concerns have been addressed: WP:close paraphrasing, WP:V, and redundancy with the industry paragraph. FemkeMilene (talk) 06:46, 30 March 2021 (UTC)


 * - I agree with your concerns about close paraphrasing and verifiability, but need more information to address this. I have reviewed the proposed text I posted, and I could not figure out which sentences you are now referring to. Could you briefly list the sentences (i.e. first paragraph, second sentence) that you think still present problems from the perspectives of these two WP documents? Each of these policies cover a lot of ground, and given how the text has changed with Efbrazil’s revisions, addressing this has become a bit of a moving target. Once those two concerns are resolved, I can start working on the redundancy issue. Dtetta (talk) 13:55, 30 March 2021 (UTC)


 * No to Dtetta's proposal per above. I'm surprised they completely ignored (reading Dtetta's comments now in addition to the proposal) the proposal ignored poor/non-existent sourcing in the last sentence (NYT comment article by a non-expert is not a reliable source). Comment articles and news articles are not the same. If NYT was reporting recommendations of experts as news, it would have been a reliable source. Per Reliable sources:


 * "Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces, whether written by the editors of the publication (editorials) or outside authors (op-eds) are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact."


 * I suggest piece by piece approach and adding things that are not contested rather than trying to get an agreement on all 3 paragraphs at once. I'm ok with first 2 paragraphs if there are no other issues.


 * We can also add something like trying to shift onus to individual action is not a substitute for systemic action. Again there is more here Bogazicili (talk) 14:54, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
 * From a quick glance FemkeMilene (talk) 16:07, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
 * please see my individual responses below in italics.-Dtetta (talk) 15:22, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
 * AR5 SYR p29 doesn't mention 'by 2050', nor anything about helping limit potential electricity grid disruptions
 * Hmmm, the sentence ending in “by 2050” doesn’t refer to AR5 p29...if you followed the link, it goes to SR15 p97. On p97 the text states states “Demand-side measures are key elements of 1.5°C pathways. Lifestyle choices lowering energy demand and the land- and GHG-intensity of food consumption can further support achievement of 1.5°C pathways (high confidence). By 2030 and 2050, all end-use sectors (including building, transport, and industry) show marked energy demand reductions in modeled 1.5°C pathways, comparable and beyond those projected in 2°C pathways. Sectoral models support the scale of these reductions.” I chose that reference to be supportive of the research Efbrazil did, but I’m pretty sure there are other parts of AR5 that would also support that first sentence in the first paragraph. Probably other reliable sources as well.
 * In your last proposal SR15 p97 is not mentioned. AR5 SYR p29 is the first source cited after that statement, hence me checking if it covered all text before. If you add that cite, and remove the phrase of disruptions, I'm happy. FemkeMilene (talk) 16:33, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Sorry for the confusion - you’re correct, I thought I had included the citation Efbrazil used in his first sentence in that first sentence as well, but I see I did not - thanks for pointing that out. -Dtetta (talk) 15:53, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't think the NYT is an opinion piece, but it's definitely a weak source. It doesn't fall into the category of 'high-quality reliable sources' expected of controversial parts of featured articles.
 * How exactly do you come to that conclusion? To me it reads like a well written piece covering fairly non-controversial information by one of the most reputable news organizations in the world. We would do well to emulate that style of writing. I recall including that reference in response to a concern you made last May to my original rewrite of this section, where you stated that there were too many references for the footprint reduction sentence that existed then (i.e. one for each category), and that you preferred one citation that covered all the categories. At the time you seemed fine with the NY Times sourcing. I think Efbrazil's suggested Guardian reference is also fine, but it's not as directly supportive of the sentence for which it would be a citation.
 * We're trying to determine whether this paragraph is due in the overall topic of climate change. As all subtopics of climate change have millions of newspaper articles about them, they won't be much help here. The type of source suitable for that is an overview source. Per Identifying reliable sources (science), Cite reviews, don't write them. In other contexts, this source could be a high-quality reliable source (HQRS). The information may not be controversial, the framing is highly so, and as Bogazicili showed, is done different in the IPCC, where it is put in the same sentence as other framings. FemkeMilene (talk) 16:33, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree an overview source for this is important - IMO that’s what Druckman is intended to be. From the Popular press section of the policy you reference “the high-quality popular press can be a good resource for presenting science to a non-technical audience, and often as a source in its own right to supplement (but not supplant) the peer-reviewed literature” - I think the NYT/Druckman combination does just that. But I don’t have a strong opinion that the discussion of footprints/lifestyle choices needs to be in this subsection, given the framing concerns you and Bogazicili have raised, along with the fact that it is not entirely demand reduction focused. I will do a rewrite that provides additional language to address the framing issue. But IMO putting this paragraph in the Policies and politics section would also be a good option.-Dtetta (talk) 16:39, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
 * NYT / Druckman does not mention global living standards or GDP. So OR as it stands
 * Again, don’t understand this comment, are you saying that if these pieces mentioned global living standards or GDP they would not be OR? Druckman is just a background piece providing a reader with more detail on how carbon footprints are calculated. What do global living standards or GDP have to do with it specifically? I’m not wed to using Druckman, but it’s what was in the CC article before this language was removed in December. The idea that the NY Times reporting on this is original research also seems off base.
 * I'm assuming too much knowledge of the labyrinth of Wikipedia jargon here. There is no source supporting the sentence "As world GDP and global living standards increase, a concern is that carbon intensive lifestyle choices are similarly increasing". The placement of the NYT and Druckman sources give the impression that they are supporting that sentence, but I think you've just written it as an introductory sentence without backing it up (hence WP:Original research). While such writing leads to good prose, it conflicts with WP:V. The pieces themselves are not OR. Does that clear it up? FemkeMilene (talk) 16:33, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Agree that the first sentence, third paragraph suffers from that problem.-Dtetta (talk) 16:39, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Druckman page number needed
 * We could specify Fig 9.3, p190
 * Carbon footprint is not a neutral term, as the terminology implies that individuals are the sole people responsible. Better is lifestyle choices or behavioural changes
 * I’m fine with using lifestyle choices
 * Yay :). FemkeMilene (talk) 16:33, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
 * mass transit is US English
 * What is the problem with US english being used on this page? Is there a WP policy on what US vs British english we should be using?
 * Indeed, should have linked to the policy. Per WP:RETAIN, we should stick to the language variant in use, and be consistent. As the article was started in European English, that's the one to use. FemkeMilene (talk) 15:57, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Good to know - thanks:)-Dtetta (talk) 16:47, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Switching travel mode is not a demand reduction per your source.
 * P 142 “it is primarily the switching of passengers and freight from less- to more-efficient travel modes (e.g., cars, trucks and airplanes to buses and trains) that is the main strategy” I would probably have chosen an IEA source for the statement in the text itself, but again, I was deferring to Efbrazil’s choice on this.
 * While I don't understand you here, I now see the sentence is ambiguous. I was objecting to saying that travel mode switching reduces the demand for transport, but the sentence is trying to convey a demand for energy. The ambiguity can be solved by simply removing the words demand reduction. FemkeMilene (talk) 16:39, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Don't use the word recent, especially not when talking about outdated modelling
 * Rather than just say what not to do, could you provide a suggested substitute? I don’t think “recent”, in and of itself, is an objectionable word, although I see we did remove it from the first paragraph in the lede.
 * Remove 'In recent IPCC modelling'. This phrase implies IPCC does modelling, which is incorrect (rather, they assess modelling). Their assessment can be taken as a consensus of modelling, so stated as fact. FemkeMilene (talk) 16:33, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Industrial strategies to reduce demand include increasing energy efficiency of heating systems and motors, designing less energy intensive products, and increasing product lifetimes repetitive. Still believe you should strenghten that section instead of having an overlapping topic as new subsection.
 * To me this gets back to the fact that the reorganization of this section last December, while accomplishing some good things, also had some problems. When the overall section was reorganized to have a specific subsections titled “Clean energy” and “Agriculture and industry” this paragraph was lumped together with the paragraph on agriculture to create a separate subsection with two paragraphs having relatively unrelated themes. I agree there is redundancy, but I don’t think the solution is that second paragraph in that subsection should be strengthened. I would suggest the first sentence of that paragraph be moved into this section, that the “Agriculture and industry” subsection be positioned so it follows this “Demand reduction” section (since it functions as something of a catch all subsection), and that the first sentence of the second paragraph in the "Agriculture and industry" subsection start with something like “Some industrial process present challenges that go beyond the types of demand reduction techniques mentioned above”. Then go into more detail about why the steel and cement processes are hard to address in terms of how intricate carbon (and therefore CO2) is in the manufacturing process. Those two paragraphs will still be unrelated, unfortunately, but that could be addressed in a future effort.

FemkeMilene (talk) 16:07, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for those specifics. Dtetta (talk) 05:42, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I poked around a bit for a better source on low carbon lifestyles. This BBC source seems decent- it says similar stuff to the NYT report, but is framed in terms of national response, and is a good stand in for change necessary in the developed world: https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-49997755
 * Hopefully dtetta can assimilate all this feedback? If not let me know and I'll take another crack. Efbrazil (talk) 16:42, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
 * - I will take a shot at addressing these various comments. Thanks for your help. -Dtetta (talk) 05:42, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Also, mention of individual action should be presented in a balanced manner per Core content policies. Eg:
 * "Limiting the risks from global warming of 1.5°C in the context of sustainable development and poverty eradication implies system transitions that can be enabled by an increase of adaptation and mitigation investments, policy instruments, the acceleration of technological innovation and behaviour changes" SR 15 p.21 Bogazicili (talk) 16:47, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Bogazicili, that's an interesting piece of text from SR 15, but I don't see how what is being proposed is inconsistent with that. Dtetta (talk) 15:22, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
 * It's not inconsistent, but puts behavioral change in the context of overall change, and thereby puts way less attention on it. That is what I would like to see as well, unless you convince me with overview sources it merits its own subsection. Efbrazil's rewrite has improved the context already, but maybe we can do more. FemkeMilene (talk) 16:47, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Arbitrary break 2
I’m getting the sense from these 30 March comments that this discussion is not moving toward a resolution as to what this new subsection should say. So I would like to take a different tack as a way to try and move toward some consensus on this proposal. I think the major ideas that should be included in this section include, at a minimum, the following:
 * Reducing energy demand is a major feature of scenarios and plans that limit GHG emissions
 * In addition to reducing GHG emissions, demand reduction measures provide more flexibility for low carbon energy development, help limit potential electricity grid disruptions, and minimize carbon-intensive infrastructure development
 * Scenarios that lead to significant GHG reductions project a level of investment in energy efficiency that is greater than that for renewable energy - another indication of the importance of this aspect of mitigation.
 * The pandemic has lead to several large scale changes that make projections of demand reduction over the next several years more uncertain (note:this effect does not appear to be the case for renewable energy trends)
 * Include a brief discussion of demand reduction/energy efficiencies for the transport, industrial, and buildings sectors
 * Possibly mention lifestyle choices that can also reduce demand (although this is somewhat problematic in that there are other GHG drivers associated with these choices, such as fertilizer use and methane from agriculture) - given the other concerns expressed regarding "footprint reduction"/lifestyle choices, to me this indicates that this proposed subsection isn’t necessarily the best spot for the concept.

Are there concerns with these ideas as the basis for the new subsection?-Dtetta (talk) 15:22, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
 * My reading is that there is consensus about including lifestyle information, just to be careful to say that those changes are well sourced and must be society-wide and not simply be a matter of individuals making "personal choices" (avoiding talk of carbon footprint for instance). Also, my reading of the comments above is that we are getting close, there's just details that need to be fixed, so I'd go ahead and propose new text that attempts to address the concerns. Efbrazil (talk) 16:26, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm the only one objecting to having this subsection instead of strengthening other sections, so you can assume rough consensus in your favour, and simply address my comments. I don't own the article :). FemkeMilene (talk) 16:43, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Any mention of "lifestyle choices" should be presented in a neutral and comprehensive manner (SR 15 quote I provided). Another quote:
 * "Adaptation and mitigation responses are underpinned by common enabling factors. These include effective institutions and governance, innovation and investments in environmentally sound technologies and infrastructure, sustainable livelihoods and behavioural and lifestyle choices" (SYR AR5 SPM 4.1 p.26)
 * We can integrate proposed section into existing sections or it could be a stand-alone section, I have no preference., do you also mind not putting your later comments between previous responses ; I think it breaks their coherence and it makes the responses harder to read to me. Bogazicili (talk) 19:00, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't mind having answers interspersed, but with the new reply button (discussion tools in beta functions, works like a bullet), it would be convenient for me (and probs also for ease of reading) if you sign each response individually. FemkeMilene (talk) 19:38, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Sure - I can sign sign each response, and limit those interspersed responses. I will also put revised text up this weekend.-Dtetta (talk) 04:14, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Here is the revised proposal:

I tried to address Femke's concerns about close paraphrasing, and Bocazicili's point about putting lifestyle changes in context with other mitigation strategies. Still think that a slightly modified version of the footprint/lifestye choice paragraph might fit better in the Policies and politics section, but included it here for review. Will also work on revising the second paragraph of the Agriculture and industry subsection along the lines of what I was suggesting in my 2 April response to Femke's concern about redundancy, but probably won't get to that until Monday.-Dtetta (talk) 17:33, 3 April 2021 (UTC)


 * I believe only one of my issues isn't resolved yet: help limit potential electricity grid disruptions isn't verified by the source, which talks about 'supply-side risks'. In this context, I think it's way more likely that refers to supply side risks of oil and gas. Delving further into the report didn't reveal more specifics. FemkeMilene (talk) 18:09, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Tweaking prose, typos and US English:
 * scenarios and plans that limit GHG emissions by 2050 -> decarbonisation scenarios and plans (avoids the ugly abbreviation and avoids putting emphasis on an arbitrary year
 * Between now and 2050 -> same (cant think of good prose, you're better than me at that)
 * COVID-19 (hyphen)
 * Don't use the future tense (will). F.i. In transport, gains can be made by (...). It's possible the transition fails
 * As world GDP and global living standards increase, recent research has focused on the implications for future energy demand -> Can't quite put my finger on it, but I think grammar is off. Try: "As global living standards rise, future energy demand may follow". No need to repeat GDP and global living standands, and the latter isn't an abbreviation.
 * energy-intensive (hyphen)
 * energy-efficient
 * Pet peeve: miles is a medieval unit. reducing vehicles miles by using mas transit -> Reducing car use by public transport or cycling FemkeMilene (talk) 18:25, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
 * - I believe I've addressed your comments in the underline/strikeout revisions above.-Dtetta (talk) 14:21, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
 * 1) NYT is a low quality source or not an acceptable source (commentary article) per above.
 * 2) Druckman doesn't mention foregoing air travel. In fact, there's a graph in p.190. This is original research
 * 3) Druckman says this with respect to diet: " In general,  vegetarians  and  consumers  who  eat  locally harvested seasonal food tend to have lower per capita environmental impacts from food consumption than individuals who rely on more traditional diets ". So you might want to adjust wording.
 * 4) Last sentence needs to be strengthened given the massive attention you gave to personal choices. Currently, it's under DUE, ie: UNDUE weight to personal choices. I suggest rewriting the last paragraph to something like:


 * Bogazicili (talk) 20:30, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Re:#1 - not sure what “above” you are specifically referring to, but I disagree completely with your characterization of the NY Times source, and believe I addressed this in my 2 April response to Femke’s comment re Identifying reliable sources (science). But in the interest of compromise, l substituted Efbrazil’s suggested Guardian article for the NY Times piece. If you think there is a different news source that more accurately supports the statement in the text, please provide it. Re:#2 - in Fig 9.3 on p 190, Druckman clearly identifies air travel as part of the transportation component, and is citing another source (Kamen), so definitely not OR. Re:#3-Although Druckman does make this statement, I chose not to include the local/seasonal aspect based on Ritchie 2020 Re:#4 - I think your earlier points about the need for putting this in context are well taken, but the “massive attention”statement is hyperbole; I am just restating what’s in numerous news articles, footprint calculators, and in Fig 9.3 of Druckman. Also, the propose quote from the IPCC report leads to an overly complicated, technocratic sounding sentence. But what I will do to strengthen this point by adding the quote to the citation, so a reader can see the complete statement if they like. -Dtetta (talk) 14:34, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Correction: The source is the BBC, not the guardian (corrected in the proposed text above as well). Efbrazil (talk) 15:54, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
 * @Bogazicili: in terms of the FA criteria for engaging prose, there is consensus that quotations should be maintained to a minimum, and used to reflect an opinion or creative expression that cannot be put in Wikivoice or paraphrased. I think you'll find more success in getting your proposals accepted if you take that advice on board (see also comments on your RfC). I don't quite see the logic of the quoted text in the paragraph, where I would expect something about demand reduction on multiple level instead of generic adaptation/mitigation on multiple levels.
 * @all: I agree this is not OR, but my worries about US/Eu-centrism have not been fully addressed (not sure if others agree), and I would ideally like to see a global source on a higher level for statements around lifestyle choices, which would allow us to start assessing DUE weight. Newspaper articles, while they may be factually of high quality, are not suitable for that. The IEA may be more accessbible than the IPCC as a source here; their executive summary can be used as a source?
 * I know that "The IPCC has highlighted the importance of making these changes within the context of broader mitigation and adaptation strategies" was added as part of a compromise, but I don't understand what this says, and why we need to highlight anything the IPCC says in not-wikivoice. Is this meant to say: the IPCC doesn't want to put full responsibility on citizens? Or something else?


 * Yes indeed, this compromise language was my attempt at addressing the concerns Bogazicili and you had expressed re: framing. I am happy for someone else to try and come up with another way of sayin this, I would just ask that it be relatively plain-spoken English. I also think it works best as the last sentence in the paragraph, whatever wording is decided on. I think the reference page Bogazicili provided is a good one, in terms of puting lifestyle choices in a broader context.Dtetta (talk) 20:05, 5 April 2021 (UTC)


 * @Dtetta: I'll (re)-repeat my unaddressed comments:
 * help limit potential electricity grid disruptions isn't verified by the source, which talks about 'supply-side risks'. In this context, I think it's way more likely that refers to supply side risks of oil and gas. Delving further into the report didn't reveal more specifics
 * Don't use the future tense (will)
 * energy-intensive (hyphen) FemkeMilene (talk) 17:59, 5 April 2021 (UTC)


 * @Femkemilene, re#1, I had assumed the supply side risks the IPCC refers to are in the context of the electric grid, but you’re correct in that they could be more general, such as fossil fuels for transportation. Even the full report doesn’t do much to clarify this. I think the term “supply side risk” is way to vague and jargony, so I just eliminated the grid disruption clause until I can find a better source for it.
 * Took care of comments 2 and 3. Sorry to overlook those. Dtetta (talk) 20:05, 5 April 2021 (UTC)


 * , I didn't have the time to make a more detailed proposal, hence the quote and unfinished last sentence. I agree about US/Eu-centrism and DUE weight. Do you have something more on demand reduction on a systemic level as apposed to personal level? I have also suggested "generic adaptation/mitigation on multiple levels" because Dtetta is suggesting an entirely new section, and I think each section should be able to stand on its own to a certain degree, since we can't expect readers to have read the entire article.


 * , putting lifestyle blog style NYT commentary articles in Wiki voice and IPCC as non-Wiki voice suggests a certain bias. I'm glad that NYT source was dropped. BBC source cites a report, I think we should directly look at that report instead of a news article. As for Druckman, he does include air travel as part of the transportation component in his graph, but he doesn't say air travel should be completely stopped or everything in that graph should be completely stopped. That's the OR you added. He actually says this: "Aviation emissions are, in particular, growing rapidly, and, due to political diffi culties in introducing policies to restrict aviation demand,  it  is  considered  unlikely  that  this  trend  will  be  reversed  (Macintosh  and  Wallace  2009 )." (p. 192) Bogazicili (talk) 20:09, 5 April 2021 (UTC)


 * I would be happy to use the report that the BBC article is referring to (if you can provide a url), but I tried looking for it without success. I’m fine with substituting that for Druckman if that ends up making more sense. I do think a news story is easier for most readers as a web link to read, so my preference would be to keep both the news article and the underlying report, which is consistent with WP policy as I understand it. Don’t understand your statement about NYT as Wikivoice and IPCC as non-Wikivoice; in fact I still don’t understand what you and Femke mean by Wikivoice (as opposed to just plain-spoken English). -Dtetta (talk) 21:43, 5 April 2021 (UTC)


 * I looked into the BBC source some more. Here is a BBC article written as the report was released (the other article is pre-release): https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-55237821
 * In particular, see the section of the article that begins "It sets out the following conditions for success:"
 * Here is the report itself, released 12/2020: https://www.theccc.org.uk/publication/sixth-carbon-budget/
 * A few key bits from the report:
 * p38: over half the emissions reductions we identified to reach Net Zero actively involve people, whether by choosing to purchase low-carbon technologies like electric cars, or by making different choices, for example on their travel and diets.
 * p50: Table 1.2 details all the personal behavior changes required to meet net zero under various pathways Efbrazil (talk) 22:54, 5 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Excellent find :) I think the combination of that report, along with the original BBC news article you found, are a great combination. I substituted the Carbon Budget report for Druckman in the proposed revision above.-Dtetta (talk) 00:33, 6 April 2021 (UTC)


 * I found an IEA site that supports a statement on how demand reduction helps in the management of the electricity grid, so I added that to the text. -Dtetta (talk) 13:43, 6 April 2021 (UTC)


 * - Re: your comment about the clarity of the last sentence of the Demand reduction text - I found another part of the SR 15 report that discusses the idea of lifestyle changes working in concert with other mitigation measures, so I included that in the proposed text and modified the last sentence accordingly.-Dtetta (talk) 14:42, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
 * There are still some problems with prose and redundancy in the proposal. I'm not a prose genius, so hope others may follow with more suggestions.
 * demand reduction measures provide -> it provides (and the rest can be third person too) Done. Dtetta (talk) 15:30, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
 * We're not talking about forecasts and specific model outcomes, so I don't think the sentence about COVID is relevant, it is a technical detail. It also has improper use of the word "However". The word however is used to indicate contrast between two sentences, but is often used as a redundant fluff without meaning. Revised slightly, but It’s a major feature of the IEA energy efficiency 2020 report, so I think it’s relevant. Dtetta (talk) 15:30, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Drop the word future (introduced by me, redundant with follow) Done. Dtetta (talk) 15:30, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
 * driving an electric or other energy-efficient car, reducing car use vehicles miles by switching to public transport -> redundant with the previous paragraph. Given the US-focus on driving and the length of the enumeration (not good prose), best to drop. I made some adjustments here. But given the importance that the UK report and BBC article place on individual choice the minor remaining redundancy seems fairly trivial. The previous paragraph is talking about policies and strategies, this paragraph refers to individual choice, which is an important concept. Dtetta (talk) 15:30, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
 * More instances of failed verification
 * I don't see anything about community in the Table 1.2, nor in the BBC source. The Table 1.2 is not written in the context of behavioural change, but about mitigation in general. Eliminated “community” from the text.The report talks about engaging with the business community on p 53, but I'm fine with deleting it. Re your point about table 1.2, I think that’s a distinction without a difference. That table shows how lifestyle changes are an integral part of the UK’s overall net zero strategy. Dtetta (talk) 15:30, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
 * limiting consumption of goods and services not in sources. It’s on page 19 - also see my more detailed comments below. Dtetta (talk) 15:30, 9 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Please check a basic adherence to WP:V before having me review this.
 * I think the implication that I am not adhering to WP:V is way off base. Also, this reference covers a lot of ground - if you are going to ask me to review a link you give, it would be helpful to have more specifics as to what your complaint is. I provide more specifics in my comment following Bogazicili’s remarks as to how the UK report supports the sentence in the text (to be provided right after I am finished with these responses). And although I always appreciate your perspective on things, let’s be clear. When I ping you as part of a post I’m making, it’s in the interest of keeping you informed, or to alert you to the fact that I have addressed a specific comment you made. it’s not a request that you review anything. I can refrain from doing that pinging if you prefer, since you are obviously very diligent in following posts to this page. Dtetta (talk) 15:30, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I should have phrased that more tactfully. I was a bit annoyed that on the 3rd(?) round of the proposal, I was still discovering discrepancies between the sources and the text. I know you're not making the information up :). I'd much rather give positive feedback. FemkeMilene (talk) 16:12, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
 * WP:Wikivoice means unattributed. It's important to understand it in terms of neutrality. Look at the following sentences:
 * The IPCC says humans cause climate change
 * Humans cause climate change.
 * The first one is attributed, or said in the IPCC's voice, the second one is a plain statement, in "our" voice, or wikivoice. As every well-informed scientific body agrees with the fact humans cause climate change, attributing it to one gives a cloud of uncertainty which is considered not neutral. FemkeMilene (talk) 16:31, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
 * ''I don’t see anything in this link that directly supports the example you provide. although you do get to the “not neutral” issue at the end of your example. And I don’t see how attributing a statement to a renowned scientific institution, in a scientific WP article, leads to uncertainty - we attribute statements to the IPCC numerous times throughout the article. Furthermore, the lead sentence in the link you’re referring to talks about Neutral Point of View, not the issue of attribution. It begins with:”Achieving what the Wikipedia community understands as neutrality means carefully and critically analyzing a variety of reliable sources and then attempting to convey to the reader the information contained in them fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without editorial bias.” This leads me to think that you yourself may be misunderstanding/misusing the term wikivoice, and if that’s the case for you, with your extensive, detailed knowledge of the various WP policies, I would imagine it’s even more problematic when others use that term. So again I would ask that we all stop using that term wikivoice and just refer specifically to what we are saying in plain English, like “unattributed” and “neutral point of view.” Dtetta (talk) 15:30, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
 * It specifically refers to "Avoid stating facts as opinions", which you risk when you attribute. Not everybody knows that the IPCC is a renowned scientific institution. FemkeMilene (talk) 15:54, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
 * OK - I do see that particular section of the linked document. Thanks for clarifying. -Dtetta (talk) 01:47, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

'' I mentioned Core content policies so many times. I can't make a more detailed suggestion myself because I'm short on time. How does this quote "over half the emissions reductions we identified to reach Net Zero actively involve people, whether by choosing to purchase low-carbon technologies like electric cars, or by making different choices, for example on their travel and diets" become "foregoing air travel" in the suggested text??? Even BBC article doesn't say that, it says this: "It calls for an "Air Miles Levy" to discourage what it calls "excessive flying", something the Committee on Climate Change has already proposed." 

excessive flying != all flying

The report actually says this p 50:

"Assembly members  would like to  see  a solution  to air travel emissions  that allows people  to continue  to fly.•But not without limits,  promoting  an acceptable balance between achieving the net zero  target, impacts  on lifestyles,  reliance  on  new technologies, and investment  in alternatives"

"Flying ranges  between a 15%  fall  and 50% increase  on pre-COVID-19 levels, matching  popular Climate  Assembly scenarios.•Low-carbon fuels  in  all scenarios, providing 20-95%  of  fuel  by 2050"

Please do not make up stuff that the sources do not say. Please make sure everything else is properly backed up by the high quality sources. You can also add an additional newspaper article as a source for readers, but everything should still be backed up by the high quality sources. Bogazicili (talk) 17:51, 6 April 2021 (UTC)


 * }, please refrain from using derogatory, hyperbolic language that falsely assumes behavior on my part, per the guidance on this page “Assume good faith; Be polite and avoid personal attacks.” Re: your claim that I am "making stuff up" on air travel, the BBC article says:“Researchers from Imperial College London say we must eat less meat and dairy, swap cars for bikes, take fewer flights, and ditch gas boilers at home.” So I think the current proposed text is partly supported by that news article, which is a summary of the UK report from a reputable news organization with strong editorial controls. Re the rest of the sentence, see the following, addressed to both you and Femke.


 * @Bogazizili and @Femkemilene - In addition to the text from The BBC article, I think the following text from the 6th Carbon Budget report support all of the statements made in the sentence about lifestyle choice. That sentence says: "These include driving an electric or other energy-efficient car, switching to public transport or cycling, adopting a plant-based diet, reducing energy use in the home, limiting consumption of goods and services, and foregoing air travel."


 * The supporting statements in the UK report include:
 * p17: “full switchover to electric vehicle sales”
 * p19: “the UK must also reduce its consumption emissions (i.e. the broader impact of UK consumption including emissions embedded in imported goods and services)”
 * p25: “Particularly important in our scenarios are an accelerated shift in diets away from meat and dairy products, reductions in waste, slower growth in flights and reductions in travel demand”…..”improving efficiency, in use of energy and resources, especially by better insulation of buildings,”
 * p50: “Energy efficiency in over half of homes by2035.” ”20-50% reduction in all meat and dairy consumption by 2050” “Up to 5-11% of car-km switch to alternative modes of transport.” “2030-2035 switchover date for EVs.”
 * p70 Box 2 “Over 40% of the abatement in our scenarios to 2035 involves at least some degree of change from consumers”

Dtetta (talk) 15:52, 9 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Quick note: I agree with Dtetta that there is no need for hyperbolic language, which doesn't help us get closer to a good text. FemkeMilene (talk) 15:55, 9 April 2021 (UTC)


 * 1) can you explain how "take fewer flights" becomes "foregoing air travel"? Reducing and eliminating is not the same thing. And you have still not amended this part of the proposal, even though it has been shown to you multiple times it is an incorrect claim.
 * 2) The report does not suggest adopting fully plant-based diets, ie: vegan. p25:
 * "Reduced demand. Around 10% of the emissions saving in our Balanced Pathway in 2035 comes from changes that reduce demand for carbon-intensive activity. Particularly important in our scenarios are an accelerated shift in diets away from meat and dairy products, reductions in waste, slower growth in flights and reductions in travel demand. While changes are needed, these can happen over timeand overall can be positive for health and well-being"
 * 3) The report talks about consumption emissions on p.19, which is not the same thing with "limiting consumption of goods and services". p25 also suggests several things which is way more limited than this general statement: "limiting consumption of goods and services". Do you have another page number for that claim?
 * 3) The report talks about consumption emissions on p.19, which is not the same thing with "limiting consumption of goods and services". p25 also suggests several things which is way more limited than this general statement: "limiting consumption of goods and services". Do you have another page number for that claim?


 * Based on what is quoted above and my previous quote, I suggest the something like the following sentence for the last paragraph:


 * Bogazicili (talk) 21:02, 9 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Modified the text in the actual edit to reflect some of the wording above. -Dtetta (talk) 23:59, 12 April 2021 (UTC)


 * , the latest wording is in your drafts right ? As I mentioned I don't see the justification for an overly general statement such as "limiting consumption of goods and services" without any qualification. Maybe you can paraphrase "reduce demand for carbon-intensive activity" from the report. The report also talks about either reducing air travel or limiting air travel increase. We should rely on the report itself, rather than looking at the BBC article which is based on the report. Bogazicili (talk) 10:08, 13 April 2021 (UTC)


 * I just realized you had edited the article, I reverted these changes based on above and I wasn't sure if anyone else had no other objections. Bogazicili (talk) 10:15, 13 April 2021 (UTC)


 * I just reverted your revert, which I believe was inappropriate and a violation of Etiquette, given the amount of effort I put into developing compromise language and changing references to accommodate the concerns you’ve expressed. You also reverted text text edits that did not relate to the concerns you've mentioned. I have deleted the last paragraph, dealing with lifestyle choices/foorprints as an effort in temporary compromise. or, would one of you be willing to make the edits to this last paragraph? I don’t want to get into an editing war with Bogazicili. Efbrazil-I mention you specifically because you had originally proposed adding text on low impact lifestyle choices.-Dtetta (talk) 12:18, 13 April 2021 (UTC)


 * , thank you for the effort, I actually think it really does improve the article. But please do not make unfounded accusations. You have done these kind of unfounded accusations before . I reverted your edit because the discussions were not complete and it broke WP:Verifiability per above. That has nothing to do with Etiquette. You also sometimes seem prone to not working for a Consensus before making changes, which also happened before . This is my suggestion for the last paragraph:


 * Although the report talks about "Flying ranges  between a 15%  fall  and 50% increase  on pre-COVID-19 levels, matching  popular Climate  Assembly scenarios", "limiting air travel increase" did not fit into that sentence. I think, given BBC article, "reducing air travel" should be ok, or feel free to reword. However, "limiting consumption of goods and services" without any qualification in the previous text broke WP:Verifiability given the page numbers and BBC article.   Bogazicili (talk) 13:16, 13 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Note that I also qualified "demand" with "energy demand" per sources. Demand is a very encompassing term.Bogazicili (talk) 13:54, 13 April 2021 (UTC)


 * I don’t think it’s an unfounded accusation. I cited Wikipedia etiquette, as It clearly suggests to “avoid reverts whenever possible”. You’re revert of the first two paragraphs had nothing to do with the comment you made explaining why you did the revert; the first two paragraphs you reverted were unrelated to the discussion we were having on the lifestyle choice paragraph. And they work fine without it. And based on your proposed language above, you could have easily just reedited my edit to reflect that language. That is why I described the revert as a violation of WP Etiquette. Regarding the text "limiting consumption of goods and services", I see that as clearly described in the Committee on Climate Change report, even if it is not in the BBC article itself. Going back, I think The NY Times article was the better news source for this, but you and Femke had concerns (unfounded in my opinion), so the BBC article is a compromise in the interest of consensus from my perspective. And regarding census, I believe I work hard to develop consensus with almost all of the editors on this article, both by clearly explaining my reasons for my proposals, recognizing in a positive way suggested contributions of others to the text of an edit, and by giving detailed responses that directly address the concerns that others state. I rarely reach agreement with you, even after extensive efforts at explanation and compromise on my part, but I don't think that in itself is a consensus issue.-Dtetta (talk) 14:08, 13 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Indeed, you and I rarely reach agreement. That's why I wasn't sure if you'd be ok with my suggestions for the third paragraph. And I wasn't sure if there were no more objections to the rest. Those are why I had reverted your edits.


 * Your claim about the report about consumption of goods and services is also false. It specifically says this:


 * "The result indicates the extra spend required each year to provide the same goods and services but in a low-carbon way" p.254 Bogazicili (talk) 14:17, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Agriculture and industry
To address Femke’s redundancy concerns, for the second paragraph in the Agriculture and industry subsection I would suggest the following revisions:

Dtetta (talk) 18:26, 5 April 2021 (UTC)


 * I think I can live with this. A few prose / citation issues
 * The first sentence has five clauses, and is difficult to read. Split? Done. -Dtetta (talk) 21:33, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
 * The second sentence contains a legacy will, which should be rephrased. Done. -Dtetta (talk) 21:33, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Hyphens again: carbon-containing Done. -Dtetta (talk) 21:33, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
 * What pages are you referring to? If 13 and 20 and 38, use commas instead of hyphens. Hyphens seem to indicate ranges. The source is again very specific. Do we have an overview source for mitigation in general which deals with industry? Or one about industry in general? The 13% doesn't seem to be present in the source. FemkeMilene (talk) 19:57, 5 April 2021 (UTC) Revised page citation. -Dtetta (talk) 21:33, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I now see that page 13 has the percentage for steel (6%). I can't find the percentage for cement in the other pages, which may have to do with my level of tiredness. What page can I find that? FemkeMilene (talk) 16:19, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I kept the text and reference the same as it originally was in the article. On page 5 of the source it states:"Iron & steel represents 6-8% and cement & concrete 6% of global energy system combustion and industrial process CO2 emissions" I am guessing that whoever wrote this just used the average of the iron and steel amount. But I'm fine with changing that particular piece of text. -Dtetta (talk) 03:24, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Just made some minor adjustments, but feel free to edit further if you think necessary. -Dtetta (talk) 03:31, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Climate map
The world climate map shows India as "green" meaning good. This is from the India wiki itself: "Greenhouse gas emissions by India are the third largest in the world and the main source is coal.[8] India emits about 3 gigatonnes (Gt) CO2eq of greenhouse gases each year; about two and a half tons per person, which is half the world average.[2] The country emits 7% of global emissions.[3]" Am i missing something here? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:810D:B0BF:F114:8588:B80A:BF91:1841 (talk) 15:46, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Here is the detailed report on India from CCPI, explaining their ranking: https://ccpi.org/country/ind/
 * Remember Wikipedia is not an original source, so if you disagree with a ranking you should try to take it up with CCPI directly. Efbrazil (talk) 17:23, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Probably missing the fact that Indian has a bazillion people so the per-capita emissions are lower than for a lot of other countries, and it's doing some great work in reducing them further (e.g. electric autorickshaws in Bangalore, which took me by surprise when I was there). Guy (help! - typo?) 14:02, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Question about the section on "climate change adaptation"
I am embarking on some work on the sub-article Climate change adaptation together with some experts from WeAdapt (I hope). Therefore, I would like to know if the content that is in this article here in the sub-heading "climate change adaptation" is likely to be better than the equivalent content over at at Climate change adaptation? I am just asking because I know that this article recently passed its Featured Article Review so every paragraph should be nearly perfect ;-) . Whereas the sub-article Climate change adaptation is only at C level and less up to date. Should I perhaps even copy the content from the sub-heading "climate change adaptation" across to the sub-article and weave it into there? And is anyone who is watching this page particularly interested in adaptation and would have an interest to work together on this? EMsmile (talk) 12:03, 23 March 2021 (UTC)


 * In preperation of writing section I did some major changes to climate change adaptation, bringing it from a Start/low C to a clear C. I believe all sources used in this article are also used in climate change adaptation. Would be great if you guys can bring it to a B-class (or even GA if we want to achieve a good topic at some point). FemkeMilene (talk) 16:51, 23 March 2021 (UTC)


 * glad you are interested in improving this part of the article:) Archive 85 Section 12 is worth looking at prior to digging in to this. I tried to build on Femke’s revision, but ended up abandoning the effort. Would be interested in looking at your thoughts on what an outline for this section would look like, and working with you on making improvements.Dtetta (talk) 05:36, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for pointing me to that earlier long discussion. Wow. A lot of brain power has already gone into it! My initial question here on the talk page was to find out if the sub-article climate change adaptation is currently "in sync" with the section about this topic in the main article on climate change. Sounds like they are in sync but the sub-article is only at C level. The way forward might be to first improve the sub-article to a B level. Possibly changing its structure a bit or even a lot. Then afterwards we could come back to the main article and see if some reworking / expanding / condensing of the section on adaptation is needed. Do you think this is the right approach? If so, then shall we continue the discussion on the talk page of climate change adaptation for now? Could you perhaps repost your proposal there and outline what the main changes or restructuring are required in your opinion? EMsmile (talk) 14:17, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
 * - sure, I will work on that over the next couple of days. Dtetta (talk) 21:17, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Claim in the beginning not supported by given source
Hey, I just wanted to quickly mention that the statement in the summarizing paragraph "The human cause of climate change is not disputed by any scientific body of national or international standing." independently of being true or not is not supported by the given source [5]. On the Nasa page it merely says "most of the leading scientific organizations worldwide have issued public statements endorsing this position." and that's all I can find on the page regarding the claim.

I am not a regular editor of the Wikipedia and not that well versed in the usual procedures so forgive me if this is not the right place or insignificant, I just wanted to point out the error so someone who is a more regular editor can fix it.

Kind regards --Laggkind (talk) 10:25, 24 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your scrutiny! The sentence is supported more by the second source given, which says: "Not a single major scientific organization or national academy of science on earth denies that the climate is changing, that humans are responsible, and that some form of action should be taken to address the risks to people and the planet." FemkeMilene (talk) 07:12, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Cleaning up old sources
A reminder that it would be nice if sourcing is cleaned after editing. Often only the short-cite is removed from the text, but the unused full cite is kept in the reference section. There is a script that helps by highlighting unused sources: User:Trappist the monk/HarvErrors.js. Everybody here, please install it (by simply clicking install on the top right of that page), so that the cleaning duty gets more fairly distributed. Thanks :). I'll start by cleaning up the redundant IPCC sources. FemkeMilene (talk) 07:16, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
 * That's a good idea. However, I couldn't find an 'Install' link on the HarvErrors.js page. (Is that because I've never started my 'common.js' page?) I'm a newby to scripts. — RCraig09 (talk) 18:35, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Hmm.. try following the instructions at User:Trappist the monk/HarvErrors. Those should work for your first script.. FemkeMilene (talk) 20:02, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Economic cost
Today I added the following section [here]. I think the projected economic impact is an important aspect of climate change. It was reverted with the comment "not neutral." I don't see how it wasn't. Here is my contribution at length: The ravages of disease, rising seas, and reduced crop yields, all driven by climate change, will likely have a major deleterious impact on the economy by 2050, unless the world sharply reduces greenhouse gas emissions in the near term, according to a study by insurance giant Swiss Re. The study, which will impact how the insurance industry prices a variety of risks, finds that the cost to the world economy will be $23 trillion annually, with poorer countries bearing a disproportionate portion of the economic loss. A third of the economy of Southwest Asian nations will likely be wiped out, unless the rapid sharp global reduction in greenhouse gas emissions is implemented. --NYCJosh (talk) 21:34, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Hello NYCJosh and thanks for trying to improve the article :). There were a couple of reasons I removed it:
 * Economic loss is already discribed in a more appropriate location, under impacts on humans. It's not a physical impact.
 * You used various non-neutral words: ravages, wiped out
 * It's based on a single study. We try to not give undue weight to single studies, and preview overview sources / general sources.
 * It repeats information ('all driven by climate change')
 * The sentence 'a third of the economy will be wiped out' implies the economies will become smaller, instead of growing slower as the source indicates.
 * Also make sure you include all standard information in your citations, including authors. As a FA, we've got high standards for citations. FemkeMilene (talk) 07:24, 2 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Here, FemkeMilene, is a re-written version that addresses each of your objections, as will be self-evident when reading it. I propose adding it to the "Livelihoods" subsection of the "Humans" portion of the "Impacts" section, which currently contains no estimate of the quantity of the likely economic damage.
 * Disease, rising seas, reduced crop yields, and other harms will likely have a major deleterious impact on the economy by 2050, unless the world sharply reduces greenhouse gas emissions in the near term, according to a number of studies, including a study by the Carbon Disclosure Project (CDP) and a study by insurance giant Swiss Re. The CDP study found that 215 of the world's 500 largest companies could lose $1 trillion annually due to climate change beginning in a few years, while the Swiss Re study found that climate change will impact how the insurance industry prices a variety of risks and found that reduced annual output by the world economy will be $23 trillion annually, with poorer countries bearing a disproportionate portion of the economic loss. Southwest Asian nations will likely have an economy that is a third smaller than it would be otherwise, unless the rapid sharp global reduction in greenhouse gas emissions is implemented, according to the Swiss Re study. --NYCJosh (talk) 22:04, 3 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Thanks for that. Definitely an improvement, but not yet there. I think this paragraph is almost ready to be added to effects of climate change, but gives too much space to these ideas here. The article as it stands is a bit longer than most FA reviewers would like, and I'm constantly thinking about how to shorten it. I wouldn't mind adding a single sentence to this article.
 * I would very much like to delete these words, now in the article, to make space for this newer info: Economic damages due to climate change have been underestimated, as it doesn't make sense to talk about costs being underestimated when you don't talk about the history of the estimation of costs. What do you think?
 * We already say that economic impact may be severe
 * When I said it was just one study, I meant I would like to see it replaced with a review source (we need to cite reviews, not write them). I'm not convinced the CDP is a high-quality reliable source, but Swiss Re probably is..
 * If you use citation templates, the citations will be formatted correctly automatically. FemkeMilene (talk) 16:27, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
 * We said "underestimated" because previous studies had given lower numbers. Latest literature seems to agree on this point, so I have a preference for this to stay. What we mean by severe could be explained further or quantified in a short and summary style as well. Bogazicili (talk) 16:49, 5 May 2021 (UTC)