Jump to content

Talk:Climate change in Spain

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

Student WikiProject Uppsala University

[edit]

We are a group of students from Uppsala University, we will be working on improving this site over the next two months, as a project of the subject ecological effects of climate change. Spainteam (talk) 18:43, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Great - I think it would look good if you added 4 photos at the top - like in Effects of climate change
Also consider adding a small number of external links like at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_gas_emissions_by_Turkey#External_links and from one of the links you will see the official 2023 national inventory report with 2021 GHG figures some of which you could update in the article. Chidgk1 (talk) 17:03, 21 May 2023 (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The result was: withdrawn by nominator, closed by BorgQueen (talk) 11:32, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(
)

5x expanded by Spainteam (talk). Nominated by Chidgk1 (talk) at 13:48, 22 May 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Climate change in Spain; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.[reply]

@Chidgk1:

General: Article is new enough and long enough
Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems

Hook eligibility:

  • Cited: No - No
  • Interesting: No - Not very interesting

QPQ: No - None
Overall: The article is fine.The hook is boring and generic though. Here are my suggestions

ALT1: ... that climate change in Spain is one of the factors that contribute to it being at the highest risk for desertification in Europe?[1]

ALT2: ... that climate change in Spain made the recent Mediterranean heatwave 100 times more likely and 3.5°C hotter?[2]

ALT3: ... that due to the effects of climate change in Spain, the country has pledged to have 75% of its energy sourced from renewables by 2030?[3]

ALT4: ... that due to the effects of climate change in Spain, any city with over 50,000 people will become a low-emission zone?[4]

ALT5: ... that due to the effects of climate change in Spain, all petrol stations in the country will be required to have electric vehicle chargers?[4]

  1. ^ Valdivia, Ana Garcia. "Desertification: A Serious Threat To Southern Europe". Forbes.
  2. ^ "Extreme April heat in Spain, Portugal, Morocco & Algeria almost impossible without climate change – World Weather Attribution".
  3. ^ "Spain: taking sustainable energy to the next level". Science. April 23, 2020.
  4. ^ a b "Climate change and energy transition law – Policies". IEA.

About the copy editing, you can add it without it being disqualified for DYK. PalauanLibertarian🗣️ 18:44, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@PalauanLibertarian: Thanks for quick reply. I have a procedural question. It may be that none of the students who expanded this are native English speakers, and they are likely new to Wikipedia editing. Can I put this in the copyedit queue at Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors without losing its eligability for DYK? I suspect it would be at least a month before a copyeditor picks it up and meanwhile we could solve any other problems Chidgk1 (talk) 09:17, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have put it in the GOCE queue Chidgk1 (talk) 14:48, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Spainteam I like ALT2 - what do you think? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chidgk1 (talk • contribs)
@Chidgk1: I fixed it a bit, also don't expect Spainteam to respond because he probably isn't very versed in how DYK works and that stuff. You also need to do a QPQ by the 29th if Spainteam doesn't take over — Preceding unsigned comment added by PalauanLibertarian (talk • contribs)
PalauanLibertarian OK have added QPQ aboveChidgk1 (talk) 18:53, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Chidgk1 ALT2 looks good. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PalauanLibertarian (talk • contribs)
@PalauanLibertarian: You proposed that hook yourself so it needs someone else to approve it. I don't find the part about "3.5°C hotter" stated in the article. The article also has an orange update tag which is a DYK disqualifier until the issue is addressed, and Chidgk1 has requested above that the nom be held until the article gets some attention from the GoCE, which it sorely needs. Un-approving this for the time being. Sojourner in the earth (talk) 19:27, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry about that, Sojourner in the earth. Here is the 3.5 C hotter source. I checked the top template to make sure it didn't disqualify it, but missed the update one. PalauanLibertarian🗣️ 20:17, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I plan to update (but probably not copyedit) in next couple of days and will also check re 3.5 degrees - feel free to chase me Chidgk1 (talk) 19:43, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Sojourner in the earth: I have updated and added 3.5 degrees. Am I allowed to approve the hook myself or if not could you take a look at the hook? Chidgk1 (talk) 09:14, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Chidgk1: I don't see that claim in the cited webpage, but the full study linked to from that page says (p. 5) that the "change of intensity" between 2023 and "a past climate that is 1.2 °C cooler than now (i.e. without anthropogenic warming)" is 3.5°C. I'm not certain whether that supports the hook, so I'd like someone more well-versed in climate science to take a look at it. This source, which summarizes the study, says: "They found that a heat wave like the one the Western Mediterranean suffered in April would have been more than two degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit) less severe in a world without coal, oil and gas pollution trapping heat." The 2° figure appear in the summary of findings on p. 1 of the report: "a heatwave with a chance of occurrence of 0.25% in any given year (return period of 1-in-400 years) would have been at least 2C cooler in a 1.2°C colder world." Again, I don't know how to interpret that, so I'll leave the review of this hook to someone with more knowledge. In answer to your question, the nominator can't approve any part of their own nomination, not even hooks proposed by other editors. Sojourner in the earth (talk) 11:27, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@PalauanLibertarian: As the 3.5 degrees is confusing I propose:

ALT6: ... that climate change in Spain made the recent Mediterranean heatwave at least 100 times more likely? Source: "Extreme April heat in Spain, Portugal, Morocco & Algeria almost impossible without climate change". World Weather Attribution. The combined results, giving an increase in the likelihood of such an event to occur of at least a factor of 100, is therefore likely too conservative.

Sounds good, that was the original version before I added the 3.5 part. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PalauanLibertarian (talk • contribs)
ALT6 works for me too. Now just awaiting a copyedit, which as you said may be some time before the GoCE gets round to it. Sojourner in the earth (talk) 19:50, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Sojourner in the earth: Copyeditor has done their stuff - can this go ahead now? Chidgk1 (talk) 06:38, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I hate to hold this up any further, but looking at ALT6 again, I realise it isn't quite right. It isn't climate change in Spain that made the Mediterranean heatwave more likely, just climate change in general. I can't think of any way of rewording this and still retain the article title in the hook, so I think we have to let that one go.
Looking at the other hooks, we already agreed to drop ALT2, while ALTs 3 to 5 are not present in the article, and are not suitable anyway for other reasons (ALT3 sourced to promotional content, ALTs 4 and 5 making predictions about future events). I've just removed the ALT1 fact from the article because I felt the sourcing was insufficient, but I've added some more specific info on desertification which might make a good hook:
  1. ^ Morel, Sandrine (2023-04-29). "Faced with an early heat wave and a major drought, Spain questions its water management". Le Monde.
Unfortunately this means we need a new reviewer to approve this. Sojourner in the earth (talk) 21:45, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Since the source is paywalled, I'll give a fairly lengthy quote:

In reality, after two and a half years of ongoing drought, the soil moisture level does not exceed 10% over more than 90% of the territory. "Rising temperatures dry out vegetation, deplete soil fertility, and dead plants become highly combustible material. We must prepare to face more and more fires," warned Patricio Garcia-Fayos, director of the Desertification Research Center (CIDE) based in Valencia.

The biologist, who has been working for 40 years on soil erosion, is pessimistic. "The degradation of arid and semi-arid lands, which form a large part of the Spanish territory, has both climatic and human causes. When both combine, erosion accelerates, such as when agriculture is practiced on sloping land, or when overexploitation of groundwater is added to evapotranspiration," he explained. "By the end of the century, sooner or later depending on the evolution of temperatures, the severity of fires, and soil management, a large part will become semi-desert and desert zones."

According to the Ministry of Ecological Transition and Demographic Challenge (MITECO), 74% of Spain's land area is already at risk of desertification, with a significant or very high risk for 18% of the country.

You can see from this that the desertification risk is not due entirely to climate change but also to human activity, but I believe the hook is still factually correct because without human-induced climate change it wouldn't be happening. Sojourner in the earth (talk) 21:58, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am the proposer and now available - do I need to do something to get this moving again? Chidgk1 (talk) 14:33, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Just waiting for a new reviewer at this point. This is already listed at WT:DYK as one of the oldest nominations awaiting review, so someone will get round to it eventually. Sojourner in the earth (talk) 16:38, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
On it. — LlywelynII 09:39, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nope. Well long enough [24.7k chars.], timely [5× expanded 16 May & submitted 22 May], QPQ done,
@Spainteam: & @Chidgk1: Things that MUST be fixed
  • Earwig finds repeated instances of copyvio. Everything that shows up should be paraphrased better than it has been.
  • WP:LEADSENTENCE. The first sentence of the article "Climate change in Spain" doesn't need those specific words in that specific order (although it's best) but it can't be entirely off topic and entirely omit Spain either.
  • WP:HONESTY & WP:DONTHOAX: The lead highlights the apparently dishonest/mistaken/misphrased claim that 74% of the country is at risk of desertification. 1st, figure out which claim the article makes about that is accurate and use the same numbers throughout the article from the best/correct sources. 2nd, if that's going into the lead, you'll need to caveat with the fairly large % of Spain that is already desert/arid. 3rd, if the other claims in the article are accurate and ¾ is the tabloid number but 18% is actual number of what Spain's government actually thinks is actually at risk, then use that actual number throughout the article from the best/correct sources or have reliable sources explaining why the Ministry of Environment is mistaken. Obviously any fix involves blowing ALT7 out of the water so another hook is needed.
  • WP:RS: The article seems to be fairly well cited. At least some are unfortunately miscitations. Cite [40] in the current version of the page has absolutely nothing to do with the text it is being used to "verify", which—for what it's worth—should also be rewritten. Having high-speed rail has nothing whatsoever to do with sustainability (cf. German coal dependence), although the Renfe source does detail information that should be used in the article about the major efforts they've made to be more sustainable.
  • WP:RS/WP:DONTLIE: Similarly, the single source used for the lead paragraph on the IDAE is an IDAE press release. That release is undated in our article but clearly from c. 2016 in its own text. It doesn't say Spain met its 2020 obligations or even pretend to. It simply stated what its overly optimistic goals were. In fact, the source says renewables were about 7% in 2016 and Energy in Spain seems to say that "renewables" are over 20% of Spanish energy consumption only if nuclear counts, which presumably it doesn't. Otherwise it's still closer to 10%. In the same way, the source does not remotely support that Spain is close to 40% renewable generation because of Spain's sunniness. What it actually shows is that almost all renewable energy is hydro and wind, with negligible involvement from solar. (It's very true that the IDAE's own article is in much worse shape than this one but this is the one going through a review process.)
  • WP:RS: Similarly, some essential sections like #Temperature and weather changes have a series of essential data points but only a single citation at the end of the paragraph that doesn't actually cover all of the information provided. In the case of T&WC, one sentence goes "According to Aemet..." (meaning AEMET) but then no AEMET source is actually provided.
Things that are better fixed, although they aren't an issue as far as essential policy or for the DYK review
  • WP:LEADCITE: The lead should be an overview with all of its points repeated at greater length in the article below. The cites should be with those sections, rather than in the lead itself.
  • WP:READER: There are repeated places where it's kinda sorta clear what is trying to be said but the actual phrasing makes the statements inaccurate. An obvious example in the lead is "Spanish society as a whole is one of the most climate change conscious societies in the EU.[9] Due to the effects of global warming, Spanish society is demanding stronger measures.[10]" Spanish society isn't demanding stronger measures as another effect of global warming but due to their greater consciousness of problems they face attributed to it. There are similar issues throughout, hopefully improved by the Guild of Copy Editors, but still better handled asap by whomever since they tend to create inaccuracies as written.
  • WP:CLARITY & WP:WEASEL: Similarly, there are some places where "Spain" is used in a vague way that makes it unclear if the government is specifically being discussed or if you really mean Spanish society, industry, &c. For instance, in the lead, "To mitigate the effects of climate change, Spain is promoting an energy transition to renewable energies, such as solar and wind energy.[7] In 2021, to support this process, the government approved a law on climate change and energy transition.[8]" either means the first Spain isn't actually the government or the second sentence is repetitive and should be better integrated into the first.

    In the same way, treating the Spanish government as a single entity instead of something dependent on party is either incomplete or inaccurate. I assume even the Spanish conservatives are to the left of the American left but it's good to know. It's also good to know how much the policy might seesaw between administrations.
  • WP:READER: In the same way, as a reader, I was curious what the position of the Spanish monarchy is. I assume it's generally proactive but within a Spanish context I for one am still curious about what's publically known and well established and where they are (eg) vs King Charles in the UK versus Biden in the US.
  • WP:TOPIC: I can't see the full source for the #Tourism section but, as stated, it suggests that climate change will improve Spanish tourism (?). Surely that isn't what was intended, so some context or discussion is missing there.
  • WP:HONESTY & WP:DONTHOAX: I know the EIB is reliable for what it is, but (1) this article leans really heavily on its numbers, (2) they don't discuss their margin of error at all, and (3) they headline the results of direct questions, creating the extremely high numbers discussed, and quietly leave others unmentioned. Their actual survey data show that only 2/5 of Spaniards think climate change is one of the top three issues right now (vs 85+% who mention the economy; see also the separate stat that <1% of Spanish cars are currently electric which is below US levels) which makes their result that when asked directly if it's the most serious issue rather questionable in context. Similarly, the numbers break down so that self-identified far left wing respondants feel twice as strongly about the issue as anyone else, a finding passed over in the article in favor of wording that makes Spain and particularly its youth seem entirely of one mind on the issue. I get it that you "are free" to repeat a fairly reliable source's topline results and they have those numbers stated; they are very problematic though. At minimum, the margin of error for a 2000 person survey of Spain is 2–3%—even if they don't talk about it—and the one for "Europe" even higher, so the article really should remove the 81% vs 77% distinction as statistically meaningless for the source used.
  • WP:MOS: Several things, but something pretty noticeable on even a quick read through is the way Paris Agreement randomly gains and loses its capitalization. I'm in favor of both capped but just pick one and stick with it. Similarly if the Paris Agreement section is actually covering other previous and upcoming agreements, a broader section name like #International agreements is probably more appropriate. Ditto needless capitalization of "North" and "South" where those terms aren't common Spanish regional names. Ditto hyphens where {{ndash}} is really needed. Many of the cites barely have their titles and a link, when dates and the rest of the info are frequently essential. (See above for a 2016 source being used to "verify" facts in 2020. Another example is how using a 2019 source for heat waves—without saying so in any way—mistakenly makes it look like the problem has gotten less severe recently.)
  • MOS:FOREIGN: I know we should use foreign text sparingly but there are a number of places in the article (official names of Spanish government policies & specific slogans of youth protests) that are unhelpfully only provided in English. The Spanish equivalent should be added sooner or later and formatted correctly. — LlywelynII 16:16, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
My mistake on the inconsistency between the article and the lead on the percentage of the country at risk of desertification (lead says 74% of total landmass, article says 74% of the landmass that is not already desert). Unfortunately I no longer have access to the source; the quote I provided above says "74% of Spain's land area", but I don't recall if this was elaborated on elsewhere in the article. I'll remove both claims until someone is able to clear this up. (To clarify, though, the 18% is the proportion of the country "at high risk" of desertification, as opposed to just "at risk".) Sojourner in the earth (talk) 17:40, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Sojourner in the earth: (a) 100% of all land is at some risk of desertification at some time scale, so the claim is meaningless without context. (b) "High" presumably means on a meaningfully short enough time span that it will be observable... i.e.—in effect—actual risk. Of course, it is dependent on that context and the details of the modeling. Even if it is completely overstated, if the actual government source can be found, it would still be worth recording the official government overstatement. (c) 18% might be "of the country" or it might be of some subsection of the country, as mentioned. (d) I hadn't seen that you're involved in the article but, yeah, thanks for any improvements you can make on the points above, particularly the "gotta fix these" ones like the lead sentence. In any case, we'll need another more plausible and well supported hook. (Even if we were able to fully clarify and source the claim, it would be more WP:NPOV—to say nothing of accurate—to present it as a claim of part of the Spanish government rather than bald certain truth.) — LlywelynII 21:06, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not planning on doing any more work on this, to be honest. I've had enough experience with these student-written articles to know how big a task it is to clean them up. Spainteam has undoubtedly moved on, so it's up to Chidgk1 if they want to commit to fixing the problems you described above in a reasonable timeframe. Sojourner in the earth (talk) 04:27, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough and thanks for the time you did put in. — LlywelynII 16:17, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have asked at the climate change and Spain projects for someone else to take over as nominator as unfortunately I have too much else on. If no one does in next couple of days please cancel this DYK. However I am sure your useful comments above will pay off in longer term improvements to this article. So your time and hard work will not be wasted in the end. Thanks everyone. Chidgk1 (talk) 06:41, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Needs a pic in the lead

[edit]

not a boring graph or diagram Chidgk1 (talk) 07:03, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Climate_change_in_Spain&oldid=1206722719"