Jump to content

Talk:Biodiversity Impact Credit

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Neutrality?

[edit]

Hello @UtherSRG

Please could you explain the neutrality dispute - thanks Chidgk1 (talk) 11:53, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is one sided. It does not have any views on downsides to the system. - UtherSRG (talk) 11:57, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ah I see - that seems to be already covered by the other tag you added ‘too few opinions’. However if you or anyone else tries to add the downside and it is reverted then the dispute could be discussed here Chidgk1 (talk) 12:12, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Name of the article?

[edit]

Perhaps “Biodiversity Credit” is the common name? Chidgk1 (talk) 11:55, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is a term "biodiversity credit" for a general concept. It's meant to be similar to carbon credits, but so vaguely defined that I can't give you a precise general definition here. Different kinds of biodiversity credits differ by the way in which biodiversity is measured, amongst others. "Biodiversity Impact Credit" is the name of a particular type of biodiversity credit based on a particular metric. Pinkchiken (talk) 15:48, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
On this note: the following passage in "Controversy" relates to a very different kind of metric of biodiversity:
"In England from 2024 the government is aiming for a net gain in biodiversity, but it is not yet known how successful these rules to make builders compensate for nature loss will be."
It relates to the "Biodiversity Metric" of Defra here.
It has nothing to do with Biodiversity Impact Credits. Can we please delete above passage? Pinkchiken (talk) 16:00, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please do as you think best as you obviously know far more than me - I will not be offended by whatever you edit here Chidgk1 (talk) 18:53, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So do you think Wikipedia should have an article called biodiversity credit? Chidgk1 (talk) 18:56, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, a separate Wikipedia entry would be helpful. Biodiversity credits are mentioned in Target 19 of the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework and there is plenty of international activity around this topic. Pinkchiken (talk) 15:43, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am a bit confused - if UK builders will not be buying Biodiversity Impact Credits then who will? Chidgk1 (talk) 19:00, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
English builders are required by English planning law to offset their negative impacts as quantified by Defra's "Biodiversity Metric", which measures changes in the quality and area of affected habitats amongst others. So Biodiversity Impact Credits, which measure a different aspect of biodiversity (impacts on the mean risk of global species extinction) and are defined in a very different way, are of no immediate use to them. The direct impact of construction work in England on species extinction risk is tiny when compared, e.g., to the impact the same construction project would have in Guatemala.
Large internationally operating businesses, banks or portfolio managers might want to buy Biodiversity Impact Credits (BICs), e.g. because BICs are internationally tradable, are theoretically better supported, or can quantitatively be shown to compensate the diffuse negative impacts they have on species extinction risk. Pinkchiken (talk) 15:55, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Did you know nomination

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by AirshipJungleman29 talk 16:15, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(
)

Created by Pinkchiken (talk). Self-nominated at 11:03, 15 February 2024 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Biodiversity Impact Credit; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.[reply]

  • Comment. @Pinkchiken: Your hook oversimplifies and overpromises. "Designed to reduce risk" is not the same as "all you have to do is buy these Biodiversity Impact Credit to stop species extinction" which is what the hook you originally proposed suggests. Cielquiparle (talk) 08:53, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Response. @Cielquiparle: Good point. I'd like to change the hook to "... that species extinction risk can be reduced by buying Biodiversity Impact Credits?" This version does not over-promise. You can buy the credits only if there is a corresponding project which has generated a reduction in mean species extinction risk. When you buy the credit, you cover the cost of the project (or part of), so you contribute to making it happen. If this logic was not correct we'd not be allowed to say that a donation to Oxfam reduces poverty in the world. Please could you help me revise the proposal such that it does not return to the back of the queue? Pinkchiken 17 March 2024 (UTC)
  • My suggestion would be along the lines of:
@Pinkchiken: I have suggested a better "safer" ALT hook above. Thus I am no longer eligible to review this, but perhaps we can find another reviewer now. Cielquiparle (talk) 06:29, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Cielquiparle: Thank you. What I meant to ask was how to technically revise the proposal. But I think I got it: I just edited the text in this page. Let's see what another reviewer thinks. I'm trying to avoid watering the hook down so much that it might become unattractive to readers.
Needs a full review. Cielquiparle (talk) 06:29, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Article was nominated within a week of being moved to mainspace from AfC, so is new enough. I'm not even going to check the length, it is way more than long enough. The article is properly in-line cited and the copyvio detector finds no issues. The hook topic is kind of the entire topic of the article, so there's multiple sentences I could say are cited in-line for it. So I'm going to count that one as good. Honestly, Cielquiparle, I prefer Pinkchiken's hook. I find it to still be an accurate description and it's a more interesting, quippy way to phrase things. Other than that, they're a new nominator, so no QPQ is required. Looks good to go! SilverserenC 16:27, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Silver seren: Sure, ALT0 may be a quippier hook, but it's possible during a 24-hour run on the main page that another reader like myself will ask where the evidence is that they do in fact reduce species extinction risk...especially if the source cited is so WP:WEASEL in wording. In which case at least you have a backup hook now rather than have to pull the hook entirely. Cielquiparle (talk) 19:26, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Pinkchiken Did you see the comment by Schwede66?4meter4 (talk) 18:01, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@4meter4 Yes, thank you for the alert, keenly aware! Will have time to look at this over the weekend 19:06, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Schwede66 @4meter4 @Cielquiparle Thank you for the critical comments. I added references as suggested and made sure that the lead addresses the main points and all topics mentioned in the lead are taken up further below as per WP:LEAD. I added references in the lead mindful of this. Did I miss anything? Pinkchiken 7 April 2024 19:09 (UTC)
  • Sorry, it doesn't have to be me who checks this again. I'm currently busy with queue admin checks (which is how I came across this nomination, if I remember correctly). Anyone can review this now. Schwede66 19:08, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Where is your reference is the four formulae?--Launchballer 15:37, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Launchballer: Good point. I added references to the work where BICs are originally defined and analysed for the formulae. One for the definition and one for "...a variety of methods is available to estimate BICs." Since the text explains how the remaining three formulae are obtain/derived, and looking at how this is handled, e.g., in this page, I believe it's not necessary to provide a reference for each equation. -- Pinkchiken 15:59, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I'm convinced. (I think this comes under WP:CALC.) There's a few things still in the lede I can't see in the main body, such as 'taxa', and the lede says "developed" by QMUL and the body says "backed" and I'm not sure if these are the same thing.--Launchballer 16:19, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Launchballer:, I admire how thorough you all are look at the articles. `Taxa' is the plural of taxon, which means the same as 'taxonomic group' (please follow the link to taxon). The second paragraphs of "Definition" then starts "For a given taxonomic or functional group...", so this is taken up. But this might be a bit obscure. I have therefore added '(taxonomic groups)' after 'taxa'. To 'develop' a metric includes two things: to have a rationale for defining it and to study its properties. In the present case, both has been done based on theoretical analyses. So, 'developed' is a brief general term which includes 'back by theoretical analyses' as a specific case. Therefore, I think the link between lede and body is there. However, if you feel you can make it clearer, please give it a go. Pinkchiken 19:04, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, I think that should be fine.--Launchballer 13:44, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Biodiversity_Impact_Credit&oldid=1221281365"