Talk:Greenhouse gas emissions/Archive 4

Made captions of the two graphs in the lead more precise
Hi User:RCraig09 and all: I've just changed the captions in the two graphs in the lead (see on the right) but please check if it's now correct like this? I felt it's important to:
 * Explain if it's only CO2 or CO2 equivalent (the latter being "all" greenhouse gases); keeping in mind that this article is called "greenhouse gas emissions" not "CO2 emissions". So we need to be clear and not confuse people.
 * Clarify if this is per year or cumulative (I think both were per year).
 * Clarify which countries are shown. The first graph said "top emitter countries" but I don't think this is quite right. It's still a (slightly arbitrary) selection of countries, not all countries in emissions order, otherwise it doesn't make sense that e.g. Germany is shown here but not UK and France in the first graph; but UK is shown in the second graph as the only European country. It might be better to lump the EU countries (plus UK?) together into one bar rather than have lots of bars for the different EU countries? EMsmile (talk) 09:20, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
 * The new text captions appear to be substantively correct, though at least somewhat duplicative of the legends embedded in the graphics themselves. — RCraig09 (talk) 15:45, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
 * That's good. Duplication with the legends is no problem; I'd argue that most laypersons are not overlay familiar with reading graphs and their legends, so it would help them to have an easy to understand caption. How about my question about which countries are shown and whether it would be better to show "EU27 + UK" as one bar instead of arbitrarily showing either UK, Germany or France. Unless there's something particular about Germany or UK, e.g. much higher per capita emissions than other European countries? I don't think so. EMsmile (talk) 21:43, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
 * File:Worldwide CO2 Emissions.svg focuses on the higher-emitting countries, and conveys the relative emissions over time. I think it's a good counterpoint to the first (variwide) graphic which shows the highest-emitting countries (overall and per capita) though for only a single time period. It's not possible to group the EU countries together in a chart that goes back to 1750. :-) I think these two graphics are OK. — RCraig09 (talk) 21:54, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
 * The second graph comes from the Our World in Data website here and you can actually pick out any country you want in their drop down menu. So again my question is: why was the UK picked, perhaps just because the person who set up the graph for Wikimedia Commons lives in the UK but not because UK is one of the top emitter countries? Or because it started emitting earlier than others and has now dropped off whereas others are still rising? It should be technically possible to do up a graph (using the Our World in Data graphs) that either groups European countries together. Or otherwise remove UK. To have China, India, United States and Russia in the graph makes sense, but the fifth one (UK) is just arbitrary, as far as I can see. EMsmile (talk) 22:18, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
 * The UK is a top emitter, historically. See this article. I don't want to conjecture about this uploader's motivation for uploading this graphic, which is meaningful and pertinent. You're always free to find a better one, of course, but I don't see a problem with the current one. — RCraig09 (talk) 22:46, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
 * It puzzles me that you don't see my point. The link that you provided shows UK with 4.4% but Germany with 5.5%. So what logical explanation is there to single out UK in this graph rather than Germany? I think there is none. So the caption should either say "some selected countries" (to indicated that it's arbitrary) or be redone without UK. In general, it is easy for European citizens to point fingers at "top emitter countries" like China or USA but those are very large countries and for a more meaningful comparison one should add up the individual European countries and compare that figure. Or use per capita emissions for a different perspective. Anyhow, I am not as good at creating new graphs as other people are. So I'll leave it at this and perhaps at some point in the future someone who reads this discussion and who can see my point and enjoys working with graphs could do up a better one. EMsmile (talk) 23:01, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

P.S. I just realised that the grapher in Our World in Data does provide the option of selecting EU 28 and EU 27 as a curve (i.e. grouping the EU countries together) so I think that would be better than UK on its own. I haven't yet tried to import such a graph from Our World in Data to Wikimedia Commons; might not be that hard to to but I'll leave it for another day or someone else. EMsmile (talk) 23:10, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

I've updated the chart to "Version Two", including high-emission countries that the original uploaded "skipped over" in order to show the UK. This includes high emitters since 1750, and high emitters in 2020—not exactly the same set of countries. (Because there are different numbers of countries in the EU over time, and because the EU doesn't go back very far in time in this graph going back to 1750, I purposely excluded the EU. Also, it is individual countries that make decisions regarding their own emissions, not he EU as a whole.) — RCraig09 (talk) 19:03, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
 * thank you for creating this new file, see on the right hand side (edit: it's not displaying correctly, what's the right link to the thumbnail file?). The EU might be a political construct but European countries together (or say Western European countries together) is a grouping that makes sense in my opinion. When Europeans look at the emissions by China, one automatically thinks "wow, that's a lot of emissions!" - but that's because we compare a huge country with many small European countries. If China was split up into its main administrative regions then it would different... So therefore, I think more often than not in future we should display graphs with at least the main European countries lumped together. And eventually, the EU countries will hopefully make decisions about CO2 emissions together - the trend and vision for that is already here. - The graph would be easier to read if there weren't so many individual lines. Couldn't we at least sum up Germany and the UK together and call it "Germany and United Kingdom". (or even better: sum up also France, Spain, Italy and call it "5 main emitter countries in Western Europe" or something like that. And I am curious: how come Iran is now included in this chart? Any particular reason or just to show a non-Western country (which would be a good reason)? (if you don't have time to pursue this, no worries; this will be a longer term effort, I think - trying to improve communication on greenhouse gas emissions)

EMsmile (talk) 14:00, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I included countries based on their quantity of emissions, either historically since 1750, or in one recent year. The graphing tool does not allow arbitrary grouping of user-defined elements, so joining Germany and UK is not a practical option. Maybe in the future the EU will make unified energy decisions, but that's speculative. — RCraig09 (talk) 16:00, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
 * True, it would have to be a custom-made graph then to put Germany and OK together into one line. However, like I said above: "I just realised that the grapher in Our World in Data does provide the option of selecting EU 28 and EU 27 as a curve (i.e. grouping the EU countries together) so I think that would be better than UK on its own. I haven't yet tried to import such a graph from Our World in Data to Wikimedia Commons" So what speaks against importing the graph that shows EU 28 in one line from "Our World in Data" to Wikimedia Commons? I would do it myself but haven't figured out how (if you let me know how it's done then I can do it). Also, how about my question about Iran? EMsmile (talk) 17:00, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Re Iran: it was one of the highest-emitting countries. I disfavor EU-nn graph because nn keeps changing, and didn't exist for the full term 1750— . — RCraig09 (talk) 18:02, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I've now figured out how to download the svg file from Our World in Data and upload it to Wikimedia Commons. It's actually very straight forward. If you don't like the EU-nn then OK let's just take the "Europe" line. I've added that to the graph now and removed South Africa and Brazil as those were comparatively low (good idea to have Iran there though). If Our World in Data has decided that a "Europe" graph makes sense then that's good enough for me. In the fine print somewhere on their website it will be explained which country are taken as Europe (i.e. I assume that part of Russia is taken as Europe). I think this graph gives a very good impression now. See on the right hand side.


 * This is the graph that I think we should include in the lead, not the one that singles out Germany and the UK as if those two countries were somehow more important than France, Italy, Spain etc. EMsmile (talk) 08:13, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
 * P.S. pinging User:Chidgk1 to get another opinion about this. EMsmile (talk) 08:13, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Although I voted "remain" in the Brexit referendum, as a Brit I think UK should now be shown separate from EU in charts (because we can decide our own ETS etc) so I am against "UK + EU" but being part of "Europe" is fine.
 * Probably the only chart where UK would show up much nowadays is cumulative emissions but I don't feel anyone is blaming us for the Industrial Revolution.
 * I don't have a strong view so I won't comment on other countries. Chidgk1 (talk) 06:12, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Despite Boris Johnson's promise UK is now "lagging on lagging" - can't blame EU for that Chidgk1 (talk) 06:19, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
 * And again cannot blame EU for UK farming emissions now we are out of the stupid Common Agricultural Policy - maybe the only good outcome of Brexit Chidgk1 (talk) 06:21, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
 * What is needed is a criterion that is objective, such as greatest total emissions (either historically, or in a recent year). Plus, "Europe" is ambiguous as it may or may not include Russia. Obviously, the meaningful purpose of separating datasets on Wikipedia is to attribute each dataset to particular political decision-making authorities, and to avoid subjective (editor) judgment or nonscientific (Our World in Data) judgment of which one is important. — RCraig09 (talk) 11:13, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Our World in Data is a great (open access) source of images for Wikipedia articles. We are not writing an academic paper here, but communicating facts to the public via Wikipedia. I think a graph comparing China, Russia, USA, Europe (and perhaps Iran) is useful to show trends, e.g. that the trend in Europe is going down whereas the trend for China is going up. I can dig into the methodology of the Our World in Data page to check which part of Russia's emissions they have added to the Europe dataset. I am sure it's explained clearly in their methods. Alternatively we could go back to EU 27 or EU 28 but you were against using EU data. You seem to stress decision-making authorities, I am more interested here (for the article greenhouse gas emissions in the emissions coming out of a certain region of the world. We could also pick the lines for Asia, Africa, North America, South America, Europe, World if you prefer. It's all available in the Our World in Data graphing tool - very excellent tool. EMsmile (talk) 15:12, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
 * 1. Look. This another example of your asking other editors to spend their time helping you implement your often-vague, subjective, personal preferences. We are volunteers here. We don't have the time or backing that you apparently have.
 * 2. Here, the issue is which data to communicate to the public. Your latest suggestion—to go continent-by-continent—amounts to trivia. So far, the community has spent time communicating data pertinent to what readers want: for example, which decision makers are responsible for the most GHG emissions. — RCraig09 (talk) 21:06, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm getting so sick and tired of discussing things with you, RCraig09, as pretty much every discussion ends with you accusing me of low quality editing (in this case "your often-vague, subjective, personal preferences"). I can't remember seeing once you saying anything positive about my work. I had asked you about creating such a graph originally because I know you're very good with graphs. But now I am sorry that I even asked at all! Meanwhile I have figured out that the graph in question comes from the grapher in Our World in Data and that's easy to edit and then to upload in Wikimedia Commons. How you know exactly what readers want to see is a mystery to me. Have you ever considered that not all readers have the same background and interests as you (in terms of country of origin, professional background and interest etc.) and therefore have other preferences? Perhaps readers come from the Global South and are interested to see what European countries as a whole are emitting? How is this "trivia"? But don't worry. Let's not waste each other's time any longer. Let's simply agree to disagree and move on. EMsmile (talk) 11:38, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
 * A. Instead of saying "what other readers want" I should have said "what is useful for encyclopedic topics", which is evidenced by the state of stable articles. Here, you change things with a chart that mixes countries with continents (!) and adds a complex caption that makes readers go to an outside source! (the non-tech readers you claim to be interested in communicating with) In contrast to your subjective choices, you delete a decision-maker-by-decision-maker graphic that is critically important to such topics as Climate justice. That fact is not subjective; it is encyclopedic. It has nothing to do with my "background and interests"—a perception that shows your own inclusion criteria to be subjective in the way I have just described ("often-vague, subjective, personal preferences"). Guys who know graphics are here to contribute to Wikipedia based on its standards and practices, not to help you make your mark based on your own personal standards, interests or inclinations.
 * B. Instead of complaining that I haven't been "positive about your work", you should look at what is said about your work, objectively. It stands out. It stands out as often being vague in nature, and invites long discussions that even if resolved often bring about minor changes in the article itself. Stop looking for positive feedback (which is personal). Look at what experienced editors do. Look at the time they spend discussion with you, versus how much the article is actually improved. (continued in my contemporaneous post below) — RCraig09 (talk) 14:00, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Emissions graph now with Europe instead of UK and Germany
I will replace the graph in the lead that currently shows China, US, India, Russia, Japan, Iran, Germany and UK with the one on the right, as there is absolutely no logical explanation for showing exactly two European countries and not others, and also clutters up the bottom part of the graph. As User:Chidgk1 stated above, being part of Europe is fine for UK, so I'll add the graph that shows Europe instead of Germany and UK. Let's collect some additional opinions from other page watchers on this.EMsmile (talk) 11:20, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
 * P.S. you (RCraig09) might be tempted to simply revert my recent change to the graph but please pause a moment and also give others the opportunity to have their say. Yes, the graph now mixes several countries with one region but I think the caption of the graph explains sufficiently well why this was done like this: Annual carbon dioxide emissions from the burning of fossil fuel and cement production since 1750 of selected countries or regions with high historical or current emissions (Europe is included to improve clarity of the graph; precise details of countries included within "Europe" is here). Land use changes and other greenhouse gases are not included. "
 * (continuation of my contemporaneous post above) a. You state "there is absolutely no logical explanation for showing exactly two European countries and not others". Politely put, your statement is false. Decision making entities—which are countries and not continents—were chosen based on their amount of GHG emission, as I have explained. Repeatedly. "Exactly two" European countries is completely irrelevant! I did not set out to include "exactly two" European countries; it's what the data led to, not my persona preference.
 * b. Opposite to what you claim, in fact Chidgk1 wrote "I think UK should now be shown separate from EU in charts". Yet, you pretend he supports your absorbing the UK into an EU trace. Stop. Ask yourself whether that is honest.
 * c. At best, you want to declutter a graph. This is a formal concern, which should not override a substantive concern. In the past, you have specifically instructed me to stop raising the substantive-over-formal issue, showing yet again your attempt to impose your subjective, unencyclopedic values on other editors. Obviously I will not stop raising the substantive-over-formal issue. It's not my "personal preference" in an encyclopedia. — RCraig09 (talk) 14:00, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Actually, User:Chidgk1 had written "so I am against "UK + EU" but being part of "Europe" is fine". - If you chose UK and Germany because they are the top-2 emitting countries in Europe then I think it would be helpful to say so in the graph's caption. By the way, before my intervention, only UK was shown in the graph even though Germany overtook UK in about 1951 with CO2 emissions. So perhaps this is at least one point we can agree on: that having Germany in the graph, not just UK, makes sense. And yes, I think decluttering the graph would be useful, hence my preference to show Europe as a whole, not a bunch of smaller countries on their own. But I can see that this is not going anywhere and that we're going round and round in circles. So let's just say I agree to disagree.
 * I hope that one of the other page watchers might show up with an opinion. Unfortunately, the article only has 66 page watchers so far (I only created it last year by splitting it off from greenhouse gas).
 * And lastly, I'd like to add in addition this chart that is now solely by continent. But according to you this is "trivia", apparently. Let's see if anyone else has an opinion on this?

EMsmile (talk) 09:43, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Question about data from climate watch
Original data about sector is not showing in link: https://www.climatewatchdata.org/ghg-emissions?breakBy=sector&chartType=area&sectors=846%2C849%2C845%2C848%2C847%2C853%2C850%2C855%2C854%2C852%2C851&source=CAIT

Generally this graph seems to be not right, somebody should check or delete it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.143.0.54 (talk) 11:48, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

How to slice the world total by sector?
The alphabetical sector subsections now in "Emissions by sector" are not good I think. For one thing they often overlap (e.g. the coal power I am typing on now is counted both in "Digital sector" and "Electricity generation") and for another the biggest should be top I think.

Maybe we should have one section explaining the UNFCCC slicing as seen in the annual GhG reports (Energy, Industrial Processes and Product Use, Agriculture, Land Use, Land Use Change and Forestry, Waste) and another with some other kind of slicing? Or maybe like the chart where fuel combustion is allocated to energy consumers?

Having said that I am not sure what data is available besides the chart. Chidgk1 (talk) 17:35, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

Similarly "One world in data" focuses on the users of electricity rather than producers in https://ourworldindata.org/ghg-emissions-by-sector. That doesn't seem fair for people like me who cannot choose a "green tariff" yet. Chidgk1 (talk) 19:33, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

I cannot find any IPCC sector breakdown more recent than 2010 GhG. Is there any or do we have to wait for https://www.ipcc.ch/report/sixth-assessment-report-working-group-3/ ? Chidgk1 (talk) 19:44, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Good questions, Chidgk1. I don't have enough expertise to have an opinion yet. Do we need to ping some relevant people to try and reach consensus on this question? EMsmile (talk) 06:49, 28 April 2021 (UTC)


 * I've just re-organised the section "by sector" a bit. Now it's like this:

5.1 Electricity generation 5.2 Agriculture, forestry and land use 5.3 Transport 5.4 Buildings and construction 5.5 Industrial processes 5.6 Various services Note that we have the same discussion at the climate change mitigation article which also has a section on "by sector". Please take a look at the content I have now put at "Various services" - have I done this correctly? Compare with the system they use at OWID: https://ourworldindata.org/ghg-emissions-by-sector. But where would they put digital services, healthcare services, water supply, tourism? I guess tourism could be grouped under transport and energy for housing but it could be useful to show it separately, too. EMsmile (talk) 22:16, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

Where do we put information about GHGE from wetlands?
I am wondering where we should information about greenhouse gas emissions from wetlands? I.e. this is from a natural source but human interference can increase or decrease those amounts; so I think it would be useful to mention it somewhere. I haven't yet understood to what extent humans can influence this - given that wetland restoration is regarded as a climate change mitigation option. I need to educate myself further on this, maybe someone can give me some pointers. EMsmile (talk) 17:24, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

Added links to carbon accounting and carbon footprint
I've just added links to carbon accounting and carbon footprint in the lead and in the main text but I think we need to add a bit more to explain how those two articles fit together with this one:
 * @Dtetta could you check if the wording about carbon accounting in this article makes sense or if it can be done better?
 * The term carbon footprint is pretty much the same as greenhouse gas emissions but more commonplace in every day language maybe? EMsmile (talk) 13:35, 23 March 2023 (UTC)


 * I would suggest that the sentence in the lead be focused more on the totality of what is covered in Section 3 - Measurements and calculations, rather than specifically on carbon accounting. Good to have a sentence on that in Section 3, but not sure it merits a mention in the lead, based on the overall content of the article. From my point of view carbon footprint is sort of a meme that provides a mental image of the relative share of the overall emission problem that an individual, product, company, etc., has. Seems to be related to the metaphor “to tread lightly”. Dtetta (talk) 14:19, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi User:ASRASR (who is currently improving carbon footprint) and User:Dtetta (who has improved carbon accounting), what are your specific suggestions to make those above-mentioned improvements to the lead? The lead is still rather short (269 words) so we have space available to explain to readers the relationship to carbon footprint, carbon accounting and also carbon source (see also below). (you can just make your edits directly in the lead itself, no need to discuss here first, unless it's unclear) EMsmile (talk) 06:29, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

Removed section on Fiscal decentralisation and carbon reductions
I've removed this textblock as it contains too much detail from one primary source for this high-level article. Moved to talk page in case someone wants to rescue something from this:

++++++++ Fiscal decentralisation and carbon reductions

As carbon oxides are one important source of greenhouse gas, having means to reduce it is important. One suggestion, is to consider some means in relation to fiscal decentralisation. Previous research found that the linear term of fiscal decentralization promotes carbon emissions, while the non-linear term mitigates it. It verified the inverted U-shaped curve between fiscal decentralization and carbon emissions. Besides, increasing energy prices for non-renewable energy decrease carbon emission due to a substitution effect. Among other explanatory variables, improvement in the quality of institutions decreases carbon emissions, while the gross domestic product increases it. Strengthening fiscal decentralization, lowering non-renewable energy prices, and improving institutional quality to check the deteriorating environmental quality in the study sample and other worldwide regions can reduce carbon emissions. EMsmile (talk) 12:38, 20 June 2023 (UTC) EMsmile (talk) 12:38, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

How to mention "carbon source" in this article?
I have plans to redirect "carbon source" to this article. See discussion on the talk page of carbon source (which will be renamed) [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Carbon_source&curid=58074481&diff=1154969694&oldid=1154968470#Need_for_a_name_change_or_a_disambiguation_page? here]. Once we have the redirect in place we need to mention the term carbon source at least once in this article. I think possibly even in the lead, or alternatively in a specific section that the redirect can then point to. EMsmile (talk) 06:32, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I've now followed through with my plan: The term carbon source now redirects to here into the section on "human activities". I have mentioned the term like this now: "The main sources of greenhouse gases due to human activity (also called carbon sources) are". Is that good? (note the previous article that was called "carbon source" is now called carbon source (biology)). EMsmile (talk) 12:54, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

Possible type of content for the transport section
I've deleted this info from carbon footprint as it would in principle fit better here; it might provide inspiration for us about what to add to the transport section. These figures are rather outdated so I am not suggesting to add them. But perhaps we could look for more recent figures. Or maybe this would all be too detailed and should rather be in a sub-article?: +++++++++++++++++++++

Transport
This section gives representative figures for the carbon footprint of the fuel burned by different transport types (not including the carbon footprints of the vehicles or related infrastructure themselves). The precise figures vary according to a wide range of factors.

Flight
Some representative figures for CO2 emissions are provided by LIPASTO's survey of average direct emissions (not accounting for high-altitude radiative effects) of airliners expressed as CO2 and CO2 equivalent per passenger kilometre:


 * Domestic, short distance, less than 463 km: 257 g/km CO2 or 259 g/km (14.7 oz/mile) CO2e
 * Long-distance flights: 113 g/km CO2 or 114 g/km (6.5 oz/mile) CO2e

However, emissions per unit distance travelled is not necessarily the best indicator for the carbon footprint of air travel, because the distances covered are commonly longer than by other modes of travel. It is the total emissions for a trip that matters for a carbon footprint, not merely the rate of emissions. For example, because air travel makes rapid long-distance travel feasible, a holiday destination may be chosen that is much more distant than if another mode of travel were used.

Road
CO2 emissions per passenger-kilometre (pkm) for all road travel for 2011 in Europe as provided by the European Environment Agency:


 * 109g/kmCO2 (Figure 2)

For vehicles, average figures for CO2 emissions per kilometer for road travel for 2013 in Europe, normalized to the NEDC test cycle, are provided by the International Council on Clean Transportation:


 * Newly registered passenger cars: 127gCO2/km
 * Hybrid-electric vehicles: 92gCO2/km
 * Light commercial vehicles (LCV): 175gCO2/km

Average figures for the United States are provided by the US Environmental Protection Agency, based on the EPA Federal Test Procedure, for the following categories:


 * Passenger cars: 200gCO2/km (322g/mi)
 * Trucks: 280gCO2/km (450g/mi)
 * Combined: 229gCO2/km (369g/mi)

Shipping
EMsmile (talk) 22:36, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Update: I have now included some of this content about aviation in the article but none of the content about emissions from cars (it seemed to me too detailed and outdated). We probably do still need a few general sentences about emissions for cars; some of that same or similar content is also here: Climate change mitigation. EMsmile (talk) 12:40, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

EMsmile (talk) 22:36, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

Global Carbon Budget 2022 (open access)
This is a useful publication to take info on latest greenhouse gas emissions from: Global Carbon Budget 2022. It's handy because it's under a compatible licence. EMsmile (talk) 22:12, 17 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Fully agree. But also, although this article is about GHG emissions, not about the net annual contribution to the atmosphere, we should add some brief comments on the overall budget. This can help avoid "climate sceptics'" argument that "you forgot about the carbon sinks". The article itself uses GtC rather than GtCO_2 - multiply by (12+2*16)/12 = 11/3 approx 3.67 to convert from C to CO_2. Fig 14 is the key figure IMHO; ~11 GtC emissions annually on average from 2012 to 2021 with 5.2 GtC going annually into the atmosphere gives around 40 GtCO_2 emissions annually and 19 GtCO_2 addition to the atmosphere annually. We already have many articles related to the climate emergency, but given the topic's significance, having a specific article on the annual additions to the atmosphere, or on the annual budget, would be worth it if someone's motivated. Boud (talk) 10:42, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

Overhaul (June 2023)
I've just done a bit of an overhaul on this article and will stop now:
 * I've mainly re-arranged things into a more logical structure (I hope), also removed some outdated or unsourced content.
 * In general I think a high-level article like this one should not go into too much detail and not provide too many numbers, as many of those numbers quickly get outdated and are better off in the respective sub-articles, like greenhouse gas emissions from agriculture.
 * I have included quite a few excerpts in an attempt to reduce doubling up of work, so that we don't have to update the same GHG emissions data in too many separate articles.
 * I have also tried to reduce unnecessary overlap with climate change mitigation, although a little bit of overlap is unavoidable I guess.
 * The lead should still be longer, I think we should aim for maybe 500 words. Currently it's only 273 words long.
 * I am stopping for now. Hoping that other Wikipedians will find time to help with this article further. EMsmile (talk) 13:00, 21 June 2023 (UTC)


 * @EMsmile Found the revised organization logical and functional. Have added a reference where it was requested and updated the statement and reference regarding natural vs human carbon dioxide emissions. Will look at the lead as well to see where it can include more of the article content. ASRASR (talk) 13:45, 14 July 2023 (UTC)