Talk:History of climate change policy and politics

Merge Global warming controversy into here?
I propose merging Global warming controversy into here in the hope that future editors will be more likely to slim it down. Chidgk1 (talk) 17:42, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Support. There is no reason for a "...controversy" article since we have a Climate change denial article. The "controversy" is an illusion manufactured by denialists. — RCraig09 (talk) 22:21, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Definitely too many pages here. The "denial" page might be a better page to merge this content into? &#123;{u&#124;  Gtoffoletto  &#125;}  talk 22:51, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Mild support and thank you for starting this! The merger won't be easy. Bits of it might be mergeable to History of climate change policy and politics and bits to Climate change denial and bits to somewhere else (politics of climate change?) but a load of it is probably in need of deletion anyhow. The article is 63 kB large and most of it was written in 2007. Most likely hopelessly out of date. Mind you the pageviews are quite high, around 300 currently. And I see there is some content there that provides a good balance. I haven't reviewed it in depth. But I know we have too many similar, overlapping climate change articles... EMsmile (talk) 18:30, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
 * P.S. after having looked at it a bit more, I still support some merging activities but not necessarily to merge Global warming controversy into here. I don't think we should frame it (the controversy/denial activities) as just a historical issue. A better merge could be with climate change denial. EMsmile (talk) 11:49, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree, movie parts of this to those two and merge to one of them. Newystats (talk) 21:08, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
 * @Newystats Err - so do you support or oppose my proposal? After this discussion is closed I will be happy to hear your proposal. Chidgk1 (talk) 16:48, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
 * @EMsmile If this merge is agreed I have no objection to you moving as much as you like from this article to climate change denial. If this merge is not agreed I expect a subsequent proposal by you to merge global warming controversy into climate change denial would succeed. I know these binary merge discussions can be a bit limiting, but on the other hand for very free-ranging discussions like the ones about climate apocalypse we likely have to wait for ages for a non-involved editor to close the discussion. Chidgk1 (talk) 17:09, 10 November 2023 (UTC)


 * There is also this article: Climate change conspiracy theory, another candidate for merging? EMsmile (talk) 09:40, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose If you want to encourage others to slim down the controversy article, the collegial thing to do is request that on the appropriate talk. WP:RSs contain abundant material on History of CC politics that could be added to this article.   Id already started updating  a few months back and was thinking of doing a through job of making this article reflect the best available WP:RS like I did with the main Politics of CC article back in 2021. That sort of undertaking takes hundreds of hours of research - can't see why anyone would make that sort of effort if the article's value to readers is going to be reduced by such sub optimal merges. FeydHuxtable (talk) 18:04, 10 November 2023 (UTC)


 * I don't know why you closed this discussion so hastily, Chidgk1? You started it on on 7 Nov and closed it on 10 Nov, saying "no consensus"? Or is it because you opened a new discussion to merge Global warming controversy into Climate change denial? As multiple pages are concerned, perhaps it's better to have this discussion on the talk page of WikiProject Climate Change? I am not sure what is best. I just know this needs further discussion. EMsmile (talk) 11:19, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
 * You are right I should have let it run a little longer, which would have then included the reply from Newystats. I just thought that with one "oppose" and 2 unclear I should not close it myself as "merge" and did not want to add more work for the uninvolved closers as I have already asked them to close the discussion about "climate apocalypse". If I had waited for Newystats "support" I could then have asked you to clarify "support" or "oppose" for this narrow proposal and if you had said "support" I could have sent it to the uninvolved closers with only one "oppose" so they would likely have closed it "merge" without having to spend much time on it. It was you who proposed https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Global_warming_controversy&diff=next&oldid=1184278549 (I just corrected the discussion link) and I agree with you that Climate change denial is a better target Chidgk1 (talk) 09:07, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Will be happy to hear more of your views at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Climate_change Chidgk1 (talk) 09:23, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I think we are close to reaching a conclusion on this now, see here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Global_warming_controversy#Requested_move_8_December_2023 EMsmile (talk) 15:59, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

Problems with this article
This article is actually quite new and was mainly written by User:Jbeutum. It contains a lot of content that is not specific to the "history of climate change policy and politics", like the section on "controversies". I am not sure if we really need this article or what its scope should be. When does the "history" start and end? It would need to integrate better with Politics of climate change. EMsmile (talk) 10:06, 9 November 2023 (UTC)


 * I have found it too difficult to delete sourced articles I think we don't need such as List of countries by coal reserves (aha I just thought as a German speaker perhaps you can see how BGR figure out the economics of coal reserves). Rather than starting Articles for deletion/Peak copper I probably should have just renamed it to Copper production or Copper supply and rewrote it as maybe no-one would have cared about that.
 * Although it can be tedious you might have more success just gradually deleting or moving the duplicate or out of scope stuff. Chidgk1 (talk) 17:40, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

Section on domestic action doesn't fit
I have removed the section on "domestic action" because it's just about the US making this article - once again - US centric. We have several other climate change in the US articles already. And if you plan to list dozens of countries here then where do you start and where stop? (there was content about Australia here as well but I moved that yesterday to climate change in Australia. Again, I don't think it makes sense to repeat the info for particular countries here that is in other Wikipedia articles already. EMsmile (talk) 19:03, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

Domestic action
Domestic policy regarding climate change has historically combined the incorporation of international guidelines and the creation of state-specific goals, legislation and programs to address global warming and environmental anomalies at a state level.

Climate change policy in the USA
From the mid-1980s, the United States attempted to promote climate action at an international level. The USA ratified the Montreal Protocol of 1987 in a 1990 amendment to the Clean Air Act. In 1993, the Clinton Administration commissioned the Climate Change Action Plan, which lacked both funding and parliamentary support and relied on voluntary compliance. The Kyoto Protocol was never submitted for ratification in the US. This was because a previous Senate resolution suggested that it would not be ratified. In 2001, President George W. Bush cited economic concerns as a reason for his withdrawal from the Kyoto Protocol. Instead, the administration set an 18% reduction target over the next 10 years.

In 2013, the Obama Administration created the Climate Action Plan, which aimed to cut 32% of carbon emissions from electrical power plants.

In December 2015, the USA became party to the Paris Agreement. President Trump announced his intention to withdraw from the agreement in 2017. This was formalised in 2019, when Trump officially notified the United Nations of the impending US withdrawal. As of 2017, 20 states have pledged to abide with the terms of the Paris Agreement regardless of federal withdrawal. In 2022, the Biden Administration signed the Inflation Reduction Act, This legislation invests approximately $400 billion to climate-related projects, primarily in the form of tax credits for consumers and private businesses. The majority of these investments is intended to increase the amount of wind and solar energy in the United States grid by providing tax incentives to renewable energy producers, as well as companies that manufacture batteries and wind and solar power components. EMsmile (talk) 19:03, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

Removed section on controversy
I've removed the section on controversy as this doesn't fit at all within an article called "History of climate change policy and politics". Firstly, "controversy" has a very negative connotation. Secondly, there are loads and loads of areas within climate change that are being discussed and grappled with. Why single out "gender" for example? You could have a long list of issues here. But each of the Wikipedia articles on those issues would have their own history sections (or could have). So any "history" stuff would belong there, not here. But how can discussions that are perhaps 10 or maybe 20 years old by now be regarded as "history"? It would lead to a very inefficient doubling up of content across several Wikipedia articles. EMsmile (talk) 19:15, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

Controversy:

Disproportionate impact on developing nations
Developing nations have commented that climate change and climate change policy disproportionately impact vulnerable states. Ford mentions that international climate policy does not adequately address the different needs and capacities of Annex 1 and Annex 2 states. The New Delhi Declaration of Principles of International Law Relating to Sustainable Development (2002) suggests that developing countries are both more impacted by and less equipped to address climate change. The Declaration also restates the concept of common but differentiated responsibilities. Gupta suggests that these disproportionate impacts justify lowering emission reduction targets for developing nations. Critics of equity-based policy have argued that it is "unfair" to create differentiated emission targets.

Gender
There is debate over whether policy has addressed the gendered impacts of climate change. Röhr and Hemmati suggest that climate policy does not consider how mechanisms and instruments for change impact women. This inequality is prominent in the global south. A UNEP report suggests that women are more impacted by climate change and climate policy because they have less access to resources and because environmental disasters amplify preexisting 'power imbalances' in the global south. This report also recommends that climate policy should include adaptation programs aimed at improving women's mobility and access to resources during environmental disasters. Gender sensitive climate innovations have also been recommended to address the needs and concerns of women in developing nations.

Röhr and Hemmati also state that women have been underrepresented in climate discourses. A UNEP report states that 'a lack of meaningful participation by women' in local and regional climate movements is having a negative impact on the mobilisation of communities. In a similar study, Buckingham and Külcürl conclude that climate action groups and coalitions do not mirror mainstream gender diversity.

EMsmile (talk) 19:15, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

The section on "trends"
I also disagree with the section on "trends". A trend is something that looks at the recent past, then the present and predicts the future. It doesn't fit in an article on "history of". The content that is under "climate change adaptation" under "trends" would be better off to be moved to climate change adaptation if it's not already there. EMsmile (talk) 19:20, 10 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Surprisingly given the WP obsession with history climate change adaptation does not have a history section. Perhaps you would like to excerpt it one way or the other? Chidgk1 (talk) 19:27, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, we could move the content that is currently under "trends" to climate change adaptation and then bring it back with an excerpt. But I think this whole article will end up as just a collection of excerpts, as the history bits are - or should be - in the relevant articles. E.g. The Paris Agreement has a section on development (equals history), climate movement has a section on history and so forth. I am questioning the whole purpose of this article and think it should probably be merged into politics of climate change. EMsmile (talk) 11:22, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Personally a whole article of excerpts would be fine by me - but I know many others would disagree Chidgk1 (talk) 12:56, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

Removed section on Vulnerability based policy
Again, this section does not fit in a "history of" article. We have a better article for this content called climate change vulnerability. Some of the text could be moved to there although the refs used here seem rather old and inaccessible: EMsmile (talk) 19:24, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

Vulnerability based policy
Vulnerability based policy is regionally or socioeconomically specific policy aimed at reducing the disproportionate impacts of climate change on certain groups. This policy is emerging in developing countries in the global south, where communities are more impacted by climate change and environmental disasters. In the Kyoto Protocol, the Least Developed Country fund and Special Climate Change fund were established to improve development and adaptation in regions least equipped to manage the consequences of climate change. This form of policy has also been linked to sustainable development in developing countries.

In vulnerable arctic regions, climate policy has increasingly focused on addressing changing weather patterns, animal demography and sea ice levels. EMsmile (talk) 19:24, 10 November 2023 (UTC)