Jump to content

Talk:Environmental impact of the energy industry

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


Article name

[edit]

A discussion of the article name started at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Environmental issues with energy. I created the article to document the negative aspects of energy generation and consumption. I realise now that there may (eventually) be an article hierarchy as follows:

Energy -> Energy (society) -> Energy and the environment -> Environmental issues with energy -> Environmental issues with energy by country 

                                                         -> Sustainable energy -> Sustainable energy by country

Energy is the overview article, Energy and the environment covers sustainable and unsustainable aspects of energy (ie. effects on the biophysical environment, Environmental issues with energy is the negative effects and sustainable energy is how to avoid the negative effects. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 10:38, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Global fossil carbon emission by fuel type, 1800-2004 AD.
I added some information of energy and economic aspects connected to environmental issues to the lead area of the article. Also this graph picture that seemed good for the fossil fuel burning area, as to giving an idea of the amounts being converted. Also expanded the lead section. skip sievert (talk) 16:00, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Energy and the environment

[edit]

These two articles discuss the same topic. As such, Energy and the environment should be merged here. Neelix (talk) 16:11, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am glad you are interested in improving these articles. In the future, it is good practice to notify the merging editor if you revert a merger that has already taken place. I have concerns about the hierarchy you outline above. Firstly, "Energy and the environment" is an ambiguous title; such a title could refer to the environment's dependence on energy, the environmental impact of energy harvesting and consumption, etc. It is not a useful stage in the hierarchy. That is why I recommend a merger here. Secondly, "Environmental issues with energy" and "Sustainable energy" should not be subcategories of the same topic because they are not comparable topics; there are environmental issues with sustainable energy. It makes more sense to me to make Environmental issues with energy a subcategory of Human impact on the environment and to make Sustainable energy a direct subcategory of Energy and society. The combination of Environmental issues with energy and Sustainable energy to make another article (Energy and the environment) is arbitrary; the two do not make up a unified whole because they pertain to disparate topics. Neelix (talk) 22:58, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am failing to see the point of the Energy and the environment article; it seems to be a cross-categorization of energy and the environment that lists out anything that relates to both. Neelix (talk) 16:38, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

several changes

[edit]

"Although there is a highly publicized denial of climate change," 1. 'Highly publicised' is pejorative and does not reflect a NPOV, and should be deleted. 2. As far as I am aware, most people differing from the view that climate change is man-made believe that climate change is due to natural causes. To describe the position of those who differ as 'denial of climate change' is propagandist.

"Consumption of fossil fuel resources lead to global warming and climate change"

according to the latest report is 95% certain. That's not a fact, sunshine, it's a probability or a widely-held opinion or it is generally accepted. Pick another phrase if you like, but don't represent it as a fact.

Gravuritas (talk) 13:19, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Gravuritas, first of all I've restored the stable version as per WP:BRD. In a nutshell: if you make changes and those are reverted, you go to the talk page to discuss them (which you did) but you do not revert back (which you also did).
Now, as for the edits: 1- I disagree that Highly publicised is pejorative, it is factual. Have you read Forbes or Fox News (two major medias) just to name a few? 2- The article is named Climate change denial for a reason, it is not propagandistic in any way. 3- 95% certainty is a fact in empirical science, otherwise you could say half of science is a widely-held opinion (also, you'll notice the word fact is not actually used). Hope I've answered your concerns. Regards. Gaba (talk) 13:34, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In a nutshell WP:BRD says that if _you_ revert them, _you_ go to the talk page. Read it more closely.
1. If 'highly publicised' is not pejorative, then let's stick 'highly publicised' in front of various other statements in this article. The 'highly publicised' scientific consensus..? The 'highly publicised' research study? Let's select a couple of suitable places. If the test for 'highly publicised' is simply 'appearance in mass media' then I can insert 'highly publicized' pretty much anywhere I feel like.
2. The article is indeed named climate change denial, and you believe there is a reason for this, but fail to tell me what that reason is, so I have no explanation other than propaganda. Let's run through this again slowly. There are those who believe that climate change is happening, due primarily to man-made causes, and this is the consensus at present. There are those who believe that climate change is happening, due primarily to natural causes. Describing their position as climate change denial is propagandist, because they do not deny climate change. And finally there are presumably or possibly those who deny climate change is happening, though I haven't encountered them. This final group (if they exist) may fairly be called climate change deniers.
3. The body of the text says "The scientific consensus on global warming and climate change is that it is caused by anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions.." but in the lede this has become "Consumption of fossil fuel resources lead to global warming and climate change.." which is a much harder statement. If you'd had any involvement in empirical science, you would know that anyone writing about a 95% probability as a certainty (a 'fact' according to your edit description) would be laughed at. Do you want this article to be laughed at?
Gravuritas (talk) 14:10, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"WP:BRD says that if _you_ revert them, _you_ go to the talk page". Nope. WP:BRD: "if your edit gets reverted, do not revert again. Instead, use the opportunity to begin a discussion". Read again.
1- See WP:POINT.
2- "There are those who believe that climate change is happening, due primarily to man-made causes". Nope. No belief involved or needed in scientific consensus. It's called climate change denial because it is a scientific fact that it's man made and it's a fact that there are (small but highly publicized) groups who deny this.
3- "The scientific consensus on global warming and climate change is that it is caused by anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions the majority of which comes from burning fossil fuels..." and "Consumption of fossil fuel resources lead to global warming and climate change.." are equivalent statements.
Finally: I am a physicist, so I have a clear involvement in empirical science. We can disagree about the meaning of the 95% figure (which borders a philosophical discussion) but I don't see how that has anything to do with the sourced statement above where this is not even mentioned. Regards. Gaba (talk) 15:04, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi again. I misread WP:BRD. Having read it more carefully then, for clarity, it was not my intention to start a BRD cycle and so your reference to it is misplaced. See WP:ROWN
1. red herring. I am not disrupting WP. Try answering the point instead of slithering.
2. Once again, in common English, climate change denial = denial of climate change, which nobody does. Painting those who dispute that global warming is primarily anthropogenic as climate change deniers is a misnomer. The situation is complicated by imprecision in your sentence as to what 'it' is, that is a fact. Raised CO2 levels in the atmosphere anthropogenic? yes, fact. Global warming anthropogenic- no, not a fact according to the IPCC, just 95% probable.
3. The two statements are not equivalent. From AR5 "It is extremely likely that human influence has been the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-20th century." Is NOT the same as "It is a fact that..." Is English your 5th language?
If you wish to engage in a discussion about the meaning of 95% certainty, venture into statistics instead of physics. Try understanding the huge difference between 95% certain and 99% certain for a start, then try to grasp 99.9% certainty. You'll then begin to understand the difference between 95% and a fact.
Gravuritas (talk) 17:49, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Your intentions are irrelevant. If you make a bold edit (B) and you are reverted (R) you are in a WP:BRD cycle whether you like it or not. About WP:ROWN, please see WP:EDITWAR, the one who shouldn't have reverted (a second time) is you.
1- You are not disrupting now but your proposal to "insert 'highly publicized' pretty much anywhere I feel like" certainly was.
2- Yes, lots of people do, that's why we have a whole article about it which I suggest you read. As per WP:EGG we should use the article's name or something very close to it in a piped link. You seem to have a problem with the name of that other article so I suggest you take that issue over there.
3- Your uncalled for WP:PA tells me this discussion is pretty much over.
I suggest you do not revert back unless other editors step in and agree with you or you'll risk being sanctioned under WP:EDITWAR. If you wish to engage in a discussion about other topics of the article in a respectful way, let me know. Regards. Gaba (talk) 19:19, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
So where are we now?
1.My substantive point is unanswered: you just want to misinterpret a rhetorical illustration as a proposal to disrupt. Look over the thread and see if you can detect an answer to my original point 1. Please make a serious answer or the point goes by default.
2. I accept that my point regarding the use of climate change denial needs to be made with reference to the main article of that name, so at least for the present, I withdraw it.
3. Repeated assertions on your part that something described by the IPCC as 95% certainty is the same as a 'fact' do not make your point any more convincing. Let me go back to: The body of the text says "The scientific consensus on global warming and climate change is that it is caused by anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions.." but in the lede this has become "Consumption of fossil fuel resources lead to global warming and climate change.." and just say that, in this respect, the lede is not a fair summary of the body text, so it needs to be changed.
Gravuritas (talk) 21:18, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Assertion of edit warring by Gaba

[edit]

Gaba- Your edit has just accused me of edit warring, which accusation I suggest you withdraw. My edit deleted "The energy consumed to manufacture and transport the materials used to build a wind power plant is equal to the new energy produced by the plant within a few months.[citation needed] " as this was incorrect. You reverted, and I re-reverted giving a source to show that the statement was incorrect. For clarity- the version that you have now inserted "The energy consumed to manufacture and transport the materials used to build a wind power plant is less than the energy produced by the plant in its lifetime, which means there is a net energy gain." is true, though it's not much of a claim for a power plant. Gravuritas (talk) 21:57, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No. You removed a whole sentence when all that was needed was a [citation needed] tag so I restored it adding said tag. You then removed the sentence a second time (along with the cn tag), adding no source whatsoever. As my last edit shows the removal was absolutely unjustified since all that was needed was a slight change. Your second reversion is edit warring since I had explained to you earlier that if you are reverted you need to go to the talk page (which you failed to do, for the second time today), not revert back (which you did, for the second time today). I'd advise you to: 1- read the policies on how to edit properly in WP and to engage with other editors and 2- drop the WP:BATTLEFIELD attitude (need I remind you of your WP:PA above?) I'll see about getting more editors here to comment in these edits you've proposed. Regards. Gaba (talk) 23:11, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I removed a whole sentence because it was clearly incorrect- if wind power gave an energy payback in a few months it would have covered the world before now. As an alternative to the original 'few months' energy payback, there is a supplier's claim of 8.6 months available on Environmental impact of wind power, which I considered using but rejected as I'm not convinced that's a reliable source, or, even if reliable, a sufficiently general comment. If you make the 'slight change' in words as you have now done, the meaning moves a very long way- to state, as you have done in the current wording, that a power installation makes a net energy gain is such a tepid claim that I wouldn't give it houseroom in the article. However, the claim as it stands is true, so I won't challenge it. If you can offer any options, other than deletion of the sentence, change to an unreliable source, or change to a blabla statement, I'd be happy to participate.
In the light of this explanation, please review your claim of edit warring and withdraw it. Happy to see what other eds think.
Gravuritas (talk) 07:40, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Again no. As I've explained you removed the same sentence twice, the second time makes it edit warring (which you did twice yesterday). You are free to take the matter to WP:ANI but watch out for the WP:BOOMERANG. To get outside opinion I recommend you open a ticket at WP:RFC. I would have been much more willing to help you if it wasn't for your combative attitude. Regards. Gaba (talk) 11:24, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
So, no engagement with the substantive issue of the actual text that appears in the article, which I suggest is the major issue that ought to concern us. I prefer to think of the removal of clearly incorrect statements as litter-picking rather than edit warring, and, as with litter, it's more unpleasant when you have to do it twice.
Gravuritas (talk) 11:44, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Actually wind turbines payback the energy within about 6 months; see: http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2012/feb/29/turbines-energy GliderMaven (talk) 15:06, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've just had a look at the Guardian reference, which in its turn refers to a source which is not accessible. Assuming that the output of a wind turbine is roughly level through its lifetime, the figures in the guardian article seem to be wrong. The article says that the average energy payback of a turbine was 3-6 months, [fwiw the supplier's claim for new equipment is 8.6 months], and that "the average windfarm produces 20-25 times more energy during its operational life than was used to construct and install its turbines". [the other source suggests 19.8 times more energy] That suggests that the lifetime of a turbine ranges between 5 and 12.5 years. That seems rather short to me. I thought that the design lifetime of a wind turbine would be more like 20 years, but if that's the case then at least one of the Guardian's figures is wrong. Any suggestions as to where the truth is?
Gravuritas (talk) 16:12, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The truth is that wind power repays the energy debt in just a few months. The exact time will depend on where the wind turbine is located and details of the type of wind turbine, how it's made, how much power it generates, the climate etc. etc. It's not like solar panels; solar panels can take 10 years to repay the energy debt.GliderMaven (talk) 16:28, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
So you say. So where in all this information in the article is the declaration that wind turbines last about 8 years?
Gravuritas (talk) 16:55, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't say anything, the reference does.GliderMaven (talk) 16:59, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
So given that The Guardian in this article seems to be relating innumerate twaddle, let's have another source. The assertion of 3-6 months is already contradicted by the supplier's 8.6 months.
Gravuritas (talk) 18:00, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Gravuritas, you must be new here. This is Wikipedia. In Wikipedia the information contained in articles is intended to reflect WP:RELIABLE sources rather than editors opinions, such as your own. Reliable sources are sources that have editorial control and a reputation for fact checking. Secondary and (to a lesser extent) tertiary sources are preferred. The Guardian broadly meets the definition of a reliable source for Wikipedia. A manufacturer would be a primary source. Hope you enjoy contributing to Wikipedia.GliderMaven (talk) 19:04, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
http://www.academia.edu/1121738/Meta-Analysis_of_Net_Energy_Return_for_Wind_Power_Systems shows lifetimes of mainly 20 years and an average operational eroi of 19.8. Dividing one by the other gives an energy payback time of 1 year, not 3-6 months. The source is clearly more authoritative than the innumerate Grauniad wally, so you can't persist with the 3-6 months nonsense. I would suggest just substituting the figure of 1 year. [Even that has possible objections as the calculation seems to refer to turbine energy cost, not total system energy cost, but let's leave that aside for now] However, new though I am, I'm aware that dividing one figure by another could be subject to an objection of WP:OR, so I don't know whether to do so. You choose- put a reasonable figure of 1 year in, or put nothing in.
Gravuritas (talk) 20:13, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
EROI and energy payback are not necessarily measuring the same thing. In that source note that there's a column for that in table 1 that is empty, and also note that EROI is expressed as gCO2/kWh not kWh/kWh. In other words, yes, that's your OR.GliderMaven (talk) 20:42, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If you look closely at the table in the source, you will find two entries where both EROI and energy payback are present. For those entries, EOI x energy payback = lifetime (20 years in these cases), which was my point. The column is not completely empty. You've misread it again to believe that EROI is expressed as gCO2/kWh- that's another partly empty column. EROI is a dimensionless number. And yes, I've admitted it may be called my OR, but WP policies are that OR does not appear in the articles. There is no ban on the use of OR to challenge or destroy an incorrect number in an article, which is how I'm using it now.
The point is now made- the 3-6 months figure is wrong.
Gravuritas (talk) 07:21, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
On closer inspection while the things you say about the EROI the column and the CO2/kWh column may be so, the actual column for payback in years is not completely empty and contains values between 0.26 and 0.53 on the second and third pages of the table, and are consistently far below the 1 year number that you've apparently pulled out of your ass, and they are completely consistent with the Guardian which claims 3-6 months.GliderMaven (talk) 14:27, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Some progress then. Right, let us take, for instance, the first entry which has a payback in years of 0.26- roughly 3 months. If you look across horizontally, you will find that it had an EROI of 76.9. If you multiply one by t'other, you will find the answer is 20 years, which is the value in the lifetime(yrs) column for that entry. Is it beginning to dawn yet that the relationship between EROI, payback, and lifetime is simple arithmetic, which may be as obscure a place to you as my ass?
Now you have, I hope, got the relationship between these 3 values clear, you can now compare the value of EROI for this particular example (76.9) with the average operational EROI quoted (19.8). As the values are so far apart, this particular installation gave a very good (i.e. very high) EROI and hence a very good payback period. BUT WE CAN'T SELECT THE BEST INSTANCES AND PUT THEM IN THE ARTICLE. We need to reflect the article fairly, and the article says 19.8 EROI, which is by simple arithmetic, equivalent to about 1 year for a 20-year life.
Gravuritas (talk) 14:48, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've restored GliderMaven's version as per WP:OR. The Guardian source states the energy payback quite clearly so unless another source is presented to contradict this claim, we use what we have. And no, the article in Renewable Energy can't be used because it requires us to perform some fomr ob calculation to come up with a number and this is WP:OR. Regards. Gaba (talk) 21:12, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
which word of "Wikipedia _articles_ must not contain original research" do you not understand? there's no OR in my edit. The 19.8 is in the source, which is a lot more authoritative than the Guardian source.
Gravuritas (talk) 21:37, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The two numbers are related but don't measure quite the same thing. And I don't think people are as interested in EROI as energy payback time, I don't recall EROI coming up much before, but I have seen energy payback time.
I wouldn't be opposed to adding both BTW. And note they are both only estimates, using them to derive something like average equipment life is simply not on.GliderMaven (talk) 22:24, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As I've shown above, the two numbers are linked by the anticipated lifetime. They aren't used to derive the av. equipment life, the equipment life is used to calculate the EROI. Energy payback and EROI are both legitimate terms, but an energy payback number of 3-6 months is plain wrong. The Guardian has got it wrong, as I've shown, and the source I've quoted only includes entries in the payback column for a few unrepresentative installations.
Gravuritas (talk) 06:14, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Gravuritas you trying to demonstrate by your own calculations based on a scientific article that the Guardian "has got it wrong" is definitely WP:OR. If you want to add the EROI number you can do so, but stop removing the properly sourced statement in place or provide a source that directly contradicts it without needing us to crunch numbers and make assumptions in the middle. Furthermore I advise you once again to stop going against WP:BRD. When reverted go to the talk page first, do not revert with the summary "see talk" because that is considered edit warring. Regards. Gaba (talk) 11:42, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This is getting decidedly tedious.
I've reviewed WP:OR and all of it refers to article content. I am not inserting any OR in an article: I am using it to cast major doubt on the figure quoted in the Guardian source. So my use of a calculated figure in this TALK page is not OR. And I have explained this a couple of times above, so your blanket re-assertion of this position without the courtesy of referring to a line in OR that supports your position is either an indication that you are discourteous, or that you're wrong, so I suggest that you try to support your assertion of OR or withdraw it.
Gravuritas (talk) 18:36, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
At least we can agree that this back and forth has become tedious. I've explained clearly above why WP:OR applies, but here it goes again, step by step:
  1. We have a reliable source that says A (the Guardian article).
  2. You grab another source which says B (the paper).
  3. You take B, perform some calculations and you come up with Not A.
  4. You assign Not A to the second source and use it to discard the first one because it contradicts A.
The problem is in step number 3 because it necessarily involves you making calculus and interpreting the results to come up with Not A which is not the same as B (what the second source actually says) therefore constituting original research.
If you have a source that says Not A then present it and we can work from there. You can not discard a reliable source (the Guardian article) because you came up with numbers based on another source that supposedly contradicts it, you need another reliable source to contradict the first one. Finally (and I do hope this is the last time I need to write here) you are more than welcome to take your concerns with either the source or its use by other editors to RFC, ANI or whatever venue you feel is appropriate. Please do not engage in edit warring again and always stick to WP:BRD. Regards. Gaba (talk) 19:26, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate that you have taken the time to try to explain your view in detail- thank you. However, for the nth time you've missed my point. WP:OR constitutes a ban on OR appearing in an ARTICLE, but I can't see anywhere that WP:OR bans "OR"-like calculations from appearing in a TALK PAGE to- in this case- destroy the credibility of a reference. To repeat, I am not proposing that the calculation or its result appears in the article. I am simply saying that a bit of arithmetic (not calculus) shows that, in this case, as the figure in the Guardian source is clearly wrong, we should not quote an incorrect figure in this or any other article. The Guardian source is thereby discredited, the WP article looks like b*ll*x, and you and Glidermaven wish to keep it looking that way. So be it.
Gravuritas (talk) 21:57, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've changed my mind, the source that's associated with the Guardian article very clearly says that the average EROI was 19.8 +- 13.7; and no OR is required. Not only that, but it's a secondary source, and under Wikipedia's rules trumps the Guardian article, which would be tertiary.
And I agree that the table of data, overall, is not entirely consistent with a 3-6 month average energy payback period, whereas calculating the EROI is the primary purpose of the paper. The payback period seems to have been only calculated for the best candidates with the highest EROI, and so the paper does not seem to be a reliable source for payback period, and this casts doubt on the Guardian article's use of this table in that way.GliderMaven (talk) 02:27, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It does actually look like wind farms have an energy payback of about a year; which is still actually really good; solar panels tend to be more like 10 years, and other power stations would be rather longer payback than wind farms as well. GliderMaven (talk) 02:27, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned references in Environmental impact of the energy industry

[edit]

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Environmental impact of the energy industry's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "livestock_ignore":

  • From Environmental impact of wind power: Buller, Erin (2008-07-11). "Capturing the wind". Uinta County Herald. Retrieved 2008-12-04. The animals don't care at all. We find cows and antelope napping in the shade of the turbines. – Mike Cadieux, site manager, Wyoming Wind Farm
  • From Wind power: Buller, Erin (11 July 2008). "Capturing the wind". Uinta County Herald. Retrieved 4 December 2008."The animals don't care at all. We find cows and antelope napping in the shade of the turbines." – Mike Cadieux, site manager, Wyoming Wind Farm

Reference named "blanketpeat":

Reference named "Eilperin":

Reference named "CanWEA09":

Reference named "rspb":

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 11:51, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Environmental effects of spills, crashes, and explosions?

[edit]

Environmental effects seem to focus on the consumption end, but almost every single day somewhere in the US (and elsewhere in the world) there occurs some disaster wherein a fuel-laden tanker truck or fuel-carrying train crashes and spills its toxic load, or explodes into a fireball on the highway, or where some fuel-carrying oceangoing vessel dumps or spills some of its contents, or where a fuel pipeline leaks or bursts, poisoning people's groundwater. What is the collective effect of these thousands of disasters over time? I asked this on the fossil fuel talk page and was suggested to ask here. Pandeist (talk) 23:20, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Environmental impact of the energy industry. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:57, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Environmental impact of the energy industry. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:29, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Animal Agriculture = No. 1 cause of climate change

[edit]

51% of climate change causing greenhouse gases are from the animal agriculture - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZlTBC91L-x0 . Animal agriculture produces a lot of methane, which is 88 times as climate change causing as CO2, and a lot of N2O, which is 293 times as climate change causing as CO2. All transportation just accounts for 13% of climate change causing greenhouse gases, not 67% like the article is stating. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.153.137.150 (talk) 21:16, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct that methane is more potent than CO2 in the short term but I understand the IPCC measures the effect over 100 years, in which case energy related emissions are more potent than those from agriculture. Chidgk1 (talk) 16:42, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Environmental_impact_of_the_energy_industry&oldid=1207121881"