Wikipedia:WikiProject Climate change/Climate change articles by country

Some editors do not agree with articles of the form "Climate change in [some country]". This discussion page is to hopefully arrive at a consensus as to how information about anthropogenic climate change is incorporated into existing or new articles. It goes without saying that climate change in pre-history is not of relevance to the discussion on this page. Articles relating to his page can be found at Category:Climate change by country. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 23:40, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Current list of articles
These articles currently exist

Other articles

 * Regional effects of global warming
 * List of countries by greenhouse gas emissions per capita
 * List of countries by ratio of GDP to carbon dioxide emissions
 * Kyoto Protocol
 * List of Kyoto Protocol signatories

Every political entity should have a climate change article
Climate change and global warming are notable topics. It is becoming of increasing interest and if some commentators are to be believed it is the most important issue to ever face humanity. Here at WP we are tasked with recording the "sum of all human knowledge" - a laudable and long term goal. The goal has the constraints of the WP policy of notability and verifiability. Information pertaining to climate change at a national level is both notable and verifiable and is part of human knowledge.

Since WP has no constraints on size there is no reason why every country cannot have its own article on climate change related information. Obviously there are a few cases such as dysfunctional states for which climate change specific information is yet to emerge so an article will not be necessary. At this stage in the growth of WP there are some country article, and some state and regional articles as well as Climate change in the European Union.

The focus of our efforts should be on creating articles on individual countries and to create an overview article at Climate change by country. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 23:40, 1 January 2010 (UTC)


 * It makes some sense, but the articles clearly should be Politics of global warming (country). There is nothing (at least in the first few I checked) about actual climate change in the country, or non-political action to mitigate or adapt to the change.  If there were something about actual (effects of) climate change in the respective countries, there might be an appropriate article.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 06:50, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
 * At least in Australia, Canada, China, Japan, and the United States, the articles have very little (if anything) which should not be in politics of global warming (country). Canada has greenhouse gas emission tables, which might not fit there.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 06:55, 28 August 2010 (UTC)


 * That does not make any sense at all. What is your definition of politics? For the Australian article the following sections are by no means political by any stretch the imagination: Pre-instrumental climate change, Instrumental climate records, and Effects of climate change on Australia. For Canada these sections are not political: Emissions, Statistics, and parts of Climate change by province. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 03:13, 29 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I think I agree with Alan. I've played with the Climate change in the United States article a little, and several sections exist that could easily be used in other articles: Greenhouse gas emissions in the United States, Current and potential effects of climate change in the US, Costs and Consequences, and public response. I could see adding a current emission section, a local danger/projection section, and a public section to most articles. These seem clearly related to climate change on the national level, and none of them fit cleanly in politics.


 * You mention that you feel that greenhouse gas emissions tables might not fit (one of the common sections I suggest). Where else do you think it might fit?
 * Thanks for both of your perspectives. Jlevi (talk) 23:58, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Article hierarchy
An article hierarchy should look like this: At present there is only a random selection of articles. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 03:12, 6 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for this series: Category:Climate change by country. I consider e.g. Climate change in Russia as the main article in the category. One may argue should it be: Category:Global warming by country. It does not make any difference for me. The main article may include many subarticles e.g. Politics of global warming in Russia. The main article includes an overview and links to the more detailed articles. There may be many detailed articles, if relevant. I added in the climate change by country: international agreements, IPCC statements, Effects of climate change, Contribution of the country and the role of sectors like energy and deforestation in the country. Watti Renew (talk) 15:38, 2 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Great! One type of article I notice is "Climate change adaptation in X" (example: Climate change adaptation in Greenland). I'm unsure whether this would be placed under the "politics" section. Jlevi (talk) 00:02, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Relevant Articles
The relevant articles section (which currently contains only articles of the form "Climate change in X') is quite useful. I notice that there are many redirects from 'Climate change in X' to currently-existing articles titled 'Climate of X' or 'Geography of X.' These sub-sections could clearly be split off at some point in the future. Would it be worthwhile to add these redirects to the current links section, or is that just a distraction from the current conversation?

On a similar note, there is a good conversation in the Article Hierarchy conversation. Would it be useful to add the sub-articles? Or, again, is this just a distraction for now. One reason to think about doing this is because there are some climate sub-articles (like Climate change adaptation in Nepal) that do not yet have an upper-level 'Climate change in X' page. Thanks for your thoughts! Jlevi (talk) 00:16, 11 December 2019 (UTC)