Talk:Individual and political action on climate change/Archive 1

Archive 1

External links - Lifestyle action

The last link - What is your carbon budget? - leads to something irrelevant. --Peggy Brennan (talk) 12:13, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Graph by Nrcprm2026

The cost of extreme weather is rising rapidly and could reach 4 trillion 2001 U.S. dollars per year by 2030. source data: IPCC, 2001. Some of the cost increase is due to added exposure such as building on the coast, and some is from increased atmospheric energy from radiative forcing by greenhouse gases.

on the discussion page for Global warming, Nrcprm2026 stated yesterday: "Hey, and thanks for everyone's patience with the graphs. I felt very strongly that they were the best way to convey the information, but after finding the British Insurers' report, I've come to the opinion that text is really the way to go, at least until we get the 1999-2004 data.". contrary to this claim however, he continues to post, repost, repost again, his fatally flawed graphs. on the Global warming discussion page, the consensus has found essentially a dozen or more people pointing out the manifold flaws in his graphs, and Nrcprm2026 still relentlessly trying to defend them. except for the comment above. I maintain that the comment above should be considered canonical, and on that basis, all repostings of this graph should be reverted. Neither, at the same time, do i by that statement maintain that i think his graphs will have any probative value *after* adding the 1994-2004 data. the extrapolations accomplish nothing - besides huge amounts of wasted time 'discussing' all the problems with them. The *existing data is cautionary enough*. leave it at that. use the graph recently found at IPCC showing the trend. interesting that IPCC felt that showing current data alone was all that was necessary, without extrapolating out into wild fiction. Nrcprm2026 always cuts off the graph at some arbitrary date in the future, to tailor it to the legend he provides. how about this - extrapolate your graph out to 2100. show us what the costs will be then (likely several orders of magnitude higher than the GDP worldwide could ever possibly cover). enough of this nonsense. no more self-made graphs. use IPCC graphs and data, or other sourced, non-original-research data. Anastrophe 18:02, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

I continue to maintain that the graphs have value here. I'm sorry that Anastrophe feels it necessary to assert that "essentially a dozen or more" people have opposed the graphs on the main Global Warming article. In truth it has been less than a dozen, and none of them have had very convincing arguments. When there have been convincing suggestions, I have incorporated them into the graphs. I've asked that the graphs remain in place pending acqusition of more current data. —James S. 19:45, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

'none of them have had very convincing arguments'??? good god. you are the *only person* who believes this graph has probative value. the arguments put forth clearly show that your graph is pointless. the increases in cost are due to increases in development, and the cost/value of coastal real estate. your graph cannot and does not take that factor into account, which is responsible for the majority of the rise. *leave the graph out*. it serves only one purpose: your lone interest in it. Anastrophe 21:21, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

I am certainly not the only person who recognizes the value of this graph, as various edit histories make clear. Moreover, the claim that the increase is mostly attributable to real estate development is not supported by sources -- it's closer to 20%. From Effects of global warming, "The Association of British Insurers has stated that limiting carbon emissions would avoid 80% of the projected additional annual cost of tropical cyclones by the 2080s.[1]" Therefore, I am replacing the graph. —James S. 19:48, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

do you not understand the difference between past, verifiable, and actual costs, and projected costs 74 years from now? claiming that the ABI's speculations about the future invalidate the verifiable facts regarding wealth and real estate development over the past forty/fifty years borders on the delusional. you seem to put more weight and belief into speculations about the future, than facts in hand now.Anastrophe 22:42, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

This is all a question of the certainty, which is explicitly displayed. Do you agree that the sun will rise 74 years from now? 740? 74,000? Of course. Projections about the future are only speculation apart from precise information on the accuracy of those projections. —James S. 22:53, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

i give up. bad, POV pseudo-science wins; wikipedia loses. Anastrophe 04:12, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

This figure is still nonsensical, and I am removing it from both articles you have placed it in. Dragons flight 08:34, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Whether it is appropriate for Wikipedia is one thing, and I believe it is. There is no question, however, that it is not nonsense. --James S. 08:47, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

By it's own error bars, your plot has essentially zero predictive confidence, and the construction ignores all sorts of limiting factors that would come into play well before the world starts spending 10% of global GDP on extreme weather events. You don't even show any of the actual data from which it is suppose to be based, and yet you make it sound like the IPCC is responsible for this calculation. So yes, I am happy to call it nonsense. Dragons flight 17:16, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

On the contrary, the graph has the correct confidence interval for the most appropriate extrapolation. You are welcome to redraw the data with as much or as little information about the trend as you like. I have made my editorial decision, that trend information is notable. --James S. 18:07, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Better title?

Something that's been bothering me for a while involves the title of this article. I believe that "Action on climate change" is a poor title for the article, and it needs to be changed to something more concrete. What that better title should be, however, has so far eluded me. Thoughts? SchuminWeb (Talk) 00:51, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

My suggestion would be "Climate Change Response" Shaunjason 16:59, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

It is very much overlapping with Politics of global warming as well as Mitigation of global warming. Action is the result of policies. Mitigation is part of the action. The issue is probably too hot for everybody to agree on such distinction. Gabriel Kielland 15:04, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

External links

Sustainable Community Action Wiki is collating similar information - SCA's Climate change portal - (opportunities for some sort of collaboration?) Would 'Civil society action groups' be a more generic (and so inclusive) subtitle than 'Protest and direct action groups'? Philralph 07:55, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Japan

?Andycjp 05:44, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Dispute personal choices

I added the dubious tag to this line: "Making various personal choices can be an effective method of fighting climate change" as I find it very unlikely to be true. One person's emissions are insignificant, calling cutting them an "effective method" is wrong. --Theblog 05:54, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Cumulative reductions in personal choices are significant. What you are saying amounts to the same as: Voting doesn't matter - because a single vote is insignificant and influences nothing. I've supplied a reference for how important it potentially could be btw. As a sidenote: currently in Denmark, the governments, next large Kyoto step is a campaign for personal choices - that has a target of several percent reduction in Denmarks carbon emissions - so its rather important i'd say. (i'll try to find english references to this to incorporate here). Nb: i'm not going to fight over much on this article, as quite alot of it is a mess (imho) --Kim D. Petersen 13:38, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

"Cumulative reductions in personal choices are significant." - thats not what the statement is saying. You found a source that somewhat supports the statement, so its cool. --Theblog 16:39, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

advocacy ?

this article reads like advocacy, not like an encyclopedia. it's filled with loaded phrases, and relative to the number of claims within the article, it has exceedingly few cites. i'm strongly inclined to slap 'fact' tags throughout the article (fact tagging at the top of articles tends to generate a big yawn unfortunately). the opening paragraph makes sweeping claims, with no verifiable references. frankly, i'm appalled. Anastrophe (talk) 16:04, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Bias

I nominated this article to be checked for bias. To me this seems to be very POV. It promotes certain viewpoints and organiations and little encyclopedic coverage is done about the movement as a whole. Also, the external links violated just about everything in WP:EL so I went ahead and removed them. If there's any that really deserve to be here bring it up on this talk page. Thanks. Themfromspace (talk) 20:13, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Campus-level and student action

I added info stating that Power Shift 2007 is a project of the Energy Action Coaltion. However there is no page for the Energy Action Coaltion or any of their other campaigns which they have run in the past such as Road to Detroit, Power Vote, or Campus Climate Challenge. There are numerous other campus and student level actions, organizations, and projects that should also be included such as Step it Up, and regional Power Shift conferences.

(Alevihnc (talk) 23:36, 23 January 2009 (UTC))

Article Organization

The overall organization of this page is very convoluted and definitely not uniform, especially across countries. I would like to organize better by global initiatives, country initiatives, and then sub-country initiatives in a uniform way across countries. Australia has the most comprehensive entry currently, and it's subheadings are largely coherent with subheadings of

4.3 What's being done in Australia
   * 4.3.1 Local and State government in Australia
         o 4.3.1.1 State government of Victoria
         o 4.3.1.2 State government of Western Australia
   * 4.3.2 Youth Climate Movement
         o 4.3.2.1 Australian Youth Climate Coalition (AYCC)
         o 4.3.2.2 Australian Student Environment Network (ASEN)
         o 4.3.2.3 National campaigns [33]
         o 4.3.2.4 Students of Sustainability conference
         o 4.3.2.5 ASEN Training Camp
   * 4.3.3 Community organising
   * 4.3.4 Community engagement
   * 4.3.5 Legal action
   * 4.3.6 Movement building
         o 4.3.6.1 Coalitions and Alliances
         o 4.3.6.2 Key events
   * 4.3.7 Online organising
   * 4.3.8 Direct Action
   * 4.3.9 Policy advocacy
   * 4.3.10 Social justice groups

I think this is on the right track but believe that it should be refined to be formatted this way: 4.3 What is being done in Australia

    4.3.1 Government Initiatives
          4.3.1.1 National 
          4.3.1.2 State
          4.3.1.3 Local
          4.3.1.4 Regional Alliances and Coalitions
    4.3.2 Corporate Initiatives
    4.3.3 College and University Initiatives
    4.3.4 Climate Advocacy 
          4.3.4.1 Climate Advocacy Organizations, Alliances, and Coalitions
                 4.3.4.1.1 National
                 4.3.4.1.2 State
                 4.3.4.1.3 Local
                 4.3.4.1.4 Regional
          4.3.4.2 Organizing philosophies and techniques 
                 4.3.4.2.1 Climate Policy Advocacy
                 4.3.4.2.2 Legal Action
                 4.3.4.2.3 Direct Actions and Protests
     4.3.5 Youth Climate Movement    
          4.3.5.1 Australian Youth Climate Coalition (AYCC)
          4.3.5.2 Australian Student Environment Network (ASEN)
          4.3.5.3 National campaigns [33]
          4.3.5.4 Students of Sustainability conference
          4.3.5.5 ASEN Training Camp
   

I would then recommend using this outline for political action in all other countries. (Alevihnc (talk) 22:52, 24 January 2009 (UTC))

Upon further investigation, I have found that the political action and politics of global warming/climate change articles are much more convoluted than originally thought. The [politics of global warming] article and this entry are significantly redundant, but more importantly, don't provide clearly centered articles that follow any logical theme. I think it would be more clear if there was one page that outlines government and climate change and one that outlines the politics of global warming, and one that outlines individual-lifestyle changes. Some input on the best organization is needed. (Alevihnc (talk) 22:22, 26 January 2009 (UTC))

I've tried to reorganise the headings as best as I can. If anyone disagrees with the new organisation of it, please feel free to make your changes, but please try and keep it as simple as possible. Thanks! Flipper24 (talk) 03:08, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Individual Action move

I believe that Individual Action on Climate Change should be separated from Political Action on Climate Change.

(Alevihnc (talk) 22:53, 24 January 2009 (UTC))

Agreed. It would enable to article to be much tidier and less voluminous, especially seeing how vast the differences are between governments and individuals. Flipper24 (talk) 07:34, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Major split and clean up.

The page was a mess. It did not deserve to be a B class article. I split out info to "Climate change in ... Japan, New Zealand, Australia, United States". I deleted info about Australian Youth Climate Change Council. It is not notable and links went to a blank blog. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 05:09, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Add File:Nested sustainability-v2.gif

Add File:Nested sustainability-v2.gif (below) from Sustainability to illustrate ... environmental, economic and social issues find common ground ...

Environment, Society, and Economy

99.181.146.135 (talk) 02:17, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

<redacted> Thinking about it, it might be an example of political propaganda. Perhaps it should be here, with appropriate commentary. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 03:43, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Any appropriate commentary suggestions? 99.19.46.34 (talk) 04:00, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Caption = "An example of political commentary on 'sustainability'."? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 04:26, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Disingenuous activity on Talk:Sustainability, User:Arthur Rubin? 99.181.135.0 (talk) 04:29, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Nope. I don't see a rational relationship between that image and sustainability or to common sense. A propaganda piece is the best I can believe of the concept creator. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 04:49, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Do you have a reference for the caption suggestion, as wikipedia isn't about your common sense? 99.19.41.143 (talk) 04:57, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

How about Environment, Society, and Economy for a caption? 99.56.123.95 (talk) 05:30, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Venn diagram would be helpful too. 99.181.133.100 (talk) 05:39, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

I can't think of a possible caption which has a credible source. But, whatever it may be, it doesn't belong in this article or in Sustainability without a source for the relationship. The quasi-Venn diagram version at least has "sustainability" as a label in the diagram. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:16, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

When you said "Venn diagram", I thought you were referring to the real Venn diagram also appearing in the article sustainability. This one is not a "Venn diagram". Neither image belongs here, without a source for the connection to this topic. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 09:02, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Isn't the relationship of Economy is a subset of Society is a subset of Environment inherint (intuitive)? 209.255.78.138 (talk) 19:53, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

In a sense, but the relationship of that concept to this article is non-existent. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:24, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

There are more opinions on Talk:Sustainability#File:Nested_sustainability-v2.gif. 108.73.113.97 (talk) 00:36, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Any clear reasons against reverting the revert (to add Nested_sustainability-v2.gif) first? Second is the potential issue of a caption ... 108.73.113.97 (talk) 01:15, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Any clear reasons for reverting the revert? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 05:22, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

See your own comments on Talk:Sustainability. 99.190.80.212 (talk) 06:29, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Exactly. We need a source related the diagram or the concept in the diagram to this topic and to the proposed caption. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 06:46, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Below is the removed sentence and reference:

There is an increased awareness of the importance of global warming (the current climate change) as a factor in a range of issues. Many environmental, economic and social issues find common ground in mitigation of global warming.

Wouldn't the above contextual background sentence facilitate the reader's understanding of this broad-topic article, Individual and political action on climate change, regardless of word-for-word connections within this article to a reference? 209.255.78.138 (talk) 19:02, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, it doesn't actually appear in that document, and it's not clear whether that's an OECD paper or mission statement. If it's a mission statement, it would need to read "according to the OECD." In either case, a more neutral statement would be more appropriate, if it can be sourced.

I actually don't think it helps, but I wouldn't object if it were accurate, unbiased, and sourced. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:23, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

How is the OECD not neutral, or do you intend a more neutral OECD statement? What does more neutral represent, Mr. Rubin? 209.255.78.138 (talk) 20:04, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

How is the OECD potentially neutral? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 05:42, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

How is neutral defined, in this case? 99.181.155.158 (talk) 03:41, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

It doesn't really matter. Even if the statement appears in an OECD document, it's part of the the OECD mission statement, and cannot be treated as a matter of "fact". — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:49, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

"Facts" don't matter here, it is wether we follow the wp process. 99.119.131.205 (talk) 02:06, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Point taken.

1. It's not in that OCED document.
2. The OCED mission statement is not usable in Wikipedia to report a fact, only that it's OCED's mission statement.
3. I don't believe OCED is considered reliable, which I don't think is the case.

If an OCED document (even the mission statement) would support the diagram, we could include it with the caption "The idiotic OCED claims that ....". (Yes, I know WP:CLAIM, but "states" is too srong. "Opines" might be satisfactory.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:17, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

This Opines?

What? 97.87.29.188 (talk) 22:47, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Opines. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:32, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

As in "In the opinion of the OCED ... " 99.35.15.170 (talk) 03:43, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

How about "Per the OCED ..." 99.181.141.126 (talk) 01:30, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

How about not. If it were in the document, I think "OCED states" is as far as I would be willing to consider it, unless some reliable source comments on the subject or the OCED. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:45, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Add File : Nested sustainability-v2.gif w/included reference Ott, K. (2003) ... from Sustainability.

Add image ...

A representation of the relationship between Environment, Society, and Economy suggesting that both economy and society are constrained by environmental limits

ref name = Ott>Ott, K. (2003). http://umwethik.botanik.uni-greifswald.de/booklet/8_strong_sustainability.pdf "The Case for Strong Sustainability." In: Ott, K. & P. Thapa (eds.) (2003).Greifswald’s Environmental Ethics. Greifswald: Steinbecker Verlag Ulrich Rose. ISBN 3931483320. Retrieved on: 2009-02-16. Scott Cato, M. (2009). Green Economics. London: Earthscan, pp. 142–150. ISBN 9781844075713. ref 99.181.152.17 (talk) 03:44, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Still no connection to "individual and political action ..." (and you're repeating yourself.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:06, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

No connection is extreme, since "Many environmental, economic and social issues find common ground in mitigation of global warming." is in the lede (second sentence), isn't it Arthur Rubin? Please be more specific with less hyperbole. 97.87.29.188 (talk) 22:34, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Fixed; that sentence is unsourced and doesn't reflect the body of the article. Still, if there is a source for the diagram which relates the diagram to "individual" or "political" action on climate change, it could be included. Ott appears not to be such a reference. Perhaps Green Economics is. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:13, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Repaired; any measured appropriate comments Mr. Rubin (tweaking), or anyone else? 97.87.29.188 (talk) 22:37, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Moved (shouldn't be in the lede), and tagged with {{verify source}} {{verify credibility}} {{off-topic?}} — Arthur Rubin (talk) 04:42, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

A resource from Talk:Sustainability?

• Scientific opinion on climate change
• Sustainable Development: Linking economy, society, environment; per the link OECD Insights: Sustainable Development provides an essential introduction to the complex relationships between the economy, society and the environment. As global inequality and climate change become mainstream concerns, it asks the questions our generation needs to ask in terms everyone can understand. 97.87.29.188 (talk) 22:27, 5 April 2011 (UTC)