Jump to content

Talk:Politics of climate change/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

An update to add ...

From Portal:Current events/2012 June 6 ...

141.218.35.38 (talk) 22:31, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Probably appropriate in a different global warming article. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:04, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
And your suggestion? 99.181.128.237 (talk) 05:59, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
I said "probably". I would guess mitigation. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 06:03, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
Have you read this wp article? Then read "signs a law", binding targets do not mitigate global warming & climate change. If only it were that easy. 99.181.138.56 (talk) 08:35, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
The first country to introduce binding targets doesn't appear to be in this article. Where is it? Put the second country with the first country, if anywhere. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 13:54, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
Ridiculous comment Special:Contributions/Arthur Rubin, this article is about international politics, such as with the United Nations not individual nations, in spite of lone Politics of global warming (United States) article. 03:10, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
The US doesn't have binding targets.... — Arthur Rubin (talk) 05:33, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

(od) Focus please, the item is about Mexico. 23:33, 10 June 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.181.153.207 (talk)

Why is the second one notable, when the first isn't? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:12, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
A first for the developing world would be one reason. Why not include the first also? This appear to be Wikipedia:Tendentious editing, Special:Contributions/Arthur_Rubin . 99.181.142.87 (talk) 07:08, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
In A First For Developing World, Mexico Enacts Climate Change Law June 6, 2012 99.181.142.87 (talk) 07:12, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
You can do better than that. That quotes President Calderon as saying that it's "the first developing country". It does note in the article's words that the UK was the first, though, so it can be used as a source for that statement. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:47, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
The UK is not a "developing country", but Mexico is. 108.73.113.91 (talk) 08:54, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

(od) See wp article developing country to see Mexico (and not the UK) in the list. 99.112.215.188 (talk) 05:44, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

That's not a credible reason for inclusion. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 06:21, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
It is a first for the developing world. 99.109.125.124 (talk) 07:48, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

(od) What is the status of this? 99.181.132.75 (talk) 06:10, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

It would be nice of someone other than you believed it appropriate. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 09:13, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
What question are do you believe you are answering Special:Contributions/Arthur Rubin? 99.119.131.109 (talk) 00:34, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
It's a comment, rather than a question. You are the only person in favor of inclusion. It seems that I am the only one who has expressed an opinion in opposition. Hence, there's no resolution yet. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:52, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Questionable use of sources

I have some serious concern with the quality of many of the sources used, as well as use to which they are put. I've opened a case at WP:RS/N#Various sources at Politics of global warming. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 00:02, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

The subject is a POV minefield that will be the site of much manipulation and distortion. Humanpublic (talk) 01:23, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
I'll tell you what guys. I was trying to do a good thing here in an NPOv fashion but since there is not much appreciation for creating a high quality article and we want to just degenerate into the standard climate change edit warring dogma that we've been doing for the last four years, I'll just unwatch this page and you guys go do whatever you guys want and good luck to all of you in making a good high quality encyclopedia here. Be warned, POV pushing will just lead to the rest of the world recognizing junk for what it is. If you guys ever get serious about having an encyclopedia, you guys feel free to look me up. I don't have much time or patience for silly POV pushing or warring. I've assumed enough good faith. Trash the article if you want. I won't revert. Go for it. Good day to all of you.-Justanonymous (talk) 02:44, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
I've just reverted it back. Plos article is about medical science. The rest appears to be about special interests not in academia (Koch, Greenpeace etc)... Combined with some non-reliable sources (SPPI etc). How about getting some WP:RS's that actually state what it is that the paragraphs describe? --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 18:37, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Cut from special interests.

I've cut this bullet point from the Special interests section:

  • United Nations - organizations like the United Nations and its organs like the IPCC likely benefit from the oversight of wealth redistribution schemes or other global warming policies. The United Nations would have to grow a bureaucracy to oversee new programs this would provide for additional funding, additional employees and the overall development of these programs and oversight would raise the visibility, clout, authority and power of the United Nations. It would also give the United Nations more legitimacy as a global governance organization.[1]
  1. ^ "Interacademy Council Review of the IPCC". Business Pundit. Retrieved 23 February 2013.

I am unable to verify the bullet point with the reference given - in fact i couldn't find anything at all in the report by the inter academy council which supports the text. I checked the Summary of the report to see if it was accurate - since the reference is vague. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 18:43, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

As an addendum, the bullet point reads more like a typical american right viewpoint, rather than a nonpartisan description of eventual conflicts of interests by the united nations, which was why i checked the reference to see whether the text was supported by the (undeniably) reliable source given. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 18:49, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
You're welcome to help improve the article and find better references and make it more NPOV and not read like any particular ideology. I think I'll step back from this article while this cabal does what you're undeniably going to do - which is remove anything that doesn't support the green agenda. I'm seeing the usual green faces show up so I'll bow out - two of you are already here and I suspect the rest will show up shortly - I can hear the distant roar of the motorcycles. Good luck revising the encyclopedia to your liking. I don't edit war so I won't revert anything you do and I won't try to improve the article further. Good day.-Justanonymous (talk) 19:17, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
Hmmm? Could you rephrase your objections without all of that battleground language? I'm not certain what motorcycles have to do with my objections above? --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 20:07, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
No WP:BATTLEGROUND. For that you need an oppossing force. I'm not that and I don't seek to win. I'm not pro or anti or sideways on this debate. I was just trying to write a good article and I needed help and I thought I could present all sides of the argument which the article no longer does because we're starting to remove interested parties that we don't want to list because you don't want those listed for whatever personal reason you have. You can blank the page for all I care at this point.-Justanonymous (talk) 20:27, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
If you just want to write a good article, then why not address the problem that i pointed out in my post here? If you are the one that added the text (i have no idea if it was), then you must know where you got the gist of the text from - correct? --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 20:37, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
You can help too. Deletion is not constructive. Want to give it a shot? Why is the onus on me to fix everything? Will you help? -Justanonymous (talk) 21:03, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
I removed it because i don't think the text is supportable as anything more than a political talking point. We do not start with text based on an hypothesis, and then find sources to support this... but instead root information in reliable sources before writing text. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 22:26, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Media coverage of climate change has its own wikipedia article which describes some of the bias and special interest nature Media coverage of climate change yet you and Stephan just delete arbitrarily from here. Perhaps you want to go delete that article as well? Your "thinking" is out of line. -Justanonymous (talk) 19:16, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

If you actually read what has been written, then you might just figure out that the removals were not "arbitrary". I gave specifics in the description above as to why i removed the UN section - how about addressing that problem, instead of going on about cabals, article deletion, and .... motorcycles? ;-) --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 21:44, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
I think I'll step back from this article while... - having flounced off in a huff, which was undoubtedly fun, how about you stay flounced? William M. Connolley (talk) 22:01, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
Your reasoning is bias laden. There is an entire article on the bias and special interest of media coverage of climate change ego, it merits inclusion here. But you and your cabal don't want it here so it's blocked. Your logic is faulty, I was just pointing it out but rational argument is not what you care about right?-Justanonymous (talk) 22:03, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
Oh. You're back. But you said "I think I'll step back from this article". Were you lying? Have you changed your mind? Are you just wildly inconsistent all the time? William M. Connolley (talk) 22:17, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
Oh the illustrious WMC aka William M. Connolley, the cabal leader graces us with his infinite wisdom! Your mosth highest emminence, I meant no disrespect. And I am not editing because largely because with 3 of you, I'll be guilty of 3R or other sanctions quite quickly, but then again, you guys do prefer to gang up on lonely honest editors. You bringing anybody else to your party?-Justanonymous (talk) 23:18, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
It is quite simple: The above text about the UN is not verifiable. And it must be - that is one of the pillars of wikipedia. It has nothing to do with your mythical "cabal" - and once you finally figure that out, progress might happen :) --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 22:31, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
It is quite simple, you and your friends will now block even well established special interests that have their own article on the Wiki. Progress will now proceed at a glacial pace if ever with you guys here and you will dismantle what you wish at your pleasure that's quite simple because it's what you guys do. I've been here for 10 years, I've seen your disgusting work. I'll watch and I might comment but won't interfere with the cabal's work. Please proceed by all means.-Justanonymous (talk) 23:18, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
Can you please come down from your soapbox, and actually address the problem that has been pointed out? Yelling about conspiracy is not getting us anywhere. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 00:30, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
I'm tired Kim and I do mean it that I want to take a step back from the article. Please by all means, go through the entire article and make the whole darn thing better. If it reads too american right of center / left of center, whatever, just go through it and improve it. I have my concerns at you and stephan and william doing this given history but then again I'd have an issue with the other side recking it too....I'll assume good faith.. Go easy on the labor of love. William M. Connolley, just giving him a hard time. History is history and it scares me a bit but, Go for it. I might give you a bit of a hard time now and again but just take it in stride. And yes, I might be mad tomorrow when you delete 5,000 bytes but only if it's the 5,000 bytes that I think you'd predictably delete. Delete or add the other side of the story and I might rethink my whole position on your editing of wikipedia. A good editor is truly NPOV in their edits and it's easy to see. You don't have a good history here and it scares me when you and WMC and Stephan and you guys show up but maybe just maybe I should just assume good faith. Happy editing gentlemen. Remember, this is an article about the POLITICS of global warming not about the SCIENCE of global warming. It's very fair to include the multiple sides to this very complex issue. -Justanonymous (talk) 01:56, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
It comforts me when those editors show it, it means the junk will get cut from the article and the POV pushers won't get their crap into an article hurting the overall quality.130.179.112.134 (talk) 14:43, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Intro

The intro is much too long and starts with a list of bullet points which do not cover the complex situation not the contents of the main parts of article itself. Furthermore the politics of global warming is assaid complex, but does not apply to carbon dioxide emitting only. Its about landuse patterns, acriculture, different vulnerability and governance quality patterns and distribution of burden sharing as well. Furthermore politization applies to the IPCC as well, not only to outside lobbying. Serten (talk) 21:28, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Updating the Page - December 2012

Esteemed editors, I'm going to attempt to do some heavy housecleaning on this page to see if we can bring it up to Wikipedia standards and to see if we can describe succinctly the politics of global warming. Please assume that I'm working in good faith. I know this is a contentious topic and I promise that I will work very hard to treat it fairly in a NPOV manner. Please give me a week or so and then we can discuss how it's turning out and what improvements we might need. I will add citations as I work through the rewrite but it'll take me a week or two to tick and tie everything with reliable sources. Working to make it better!Justanonymous (talk) 20:17, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

@Justanonymous: In your recent edits to this article, you added several statements about the cost-effectiveness of renewable energy in developing countries, but I don't see any references in this article to support them. Are these statements supported by any reliable published sources? Jarble (talk) 03:59, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Electoral Politics

This article discusses issues but not advocacy. I came here looking for commentary and sources on electoral politics and found this to be completely missing. Efforts to elect politicians with views on one side or the other of this issue should be discussed. Examples might be NextGen, Climate Hawks Vote, Heartland, corporate PACs, etc. The purpose would not be to exhaustively list all efforts or all politicians but to generally describe the nature of this advocacy.--RichardMathews (talk) 19:48, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Climate change policy by country

A new page entitled Climate change policy by country could be useful. That idea is partly alluded to in the section above named Country Positions Historical Information. There is also a page for the US at Climate change policy of the United States, so that country already has its own article. Unfortunately I haven't time to work on this but someone else may like to pick it up? Best wishes. RobbieIanMorrison (talk) 20:00, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 external links on Politics of global warming. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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) 04:34, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Why does this pictogram appear in this article?

@Justanonymous: I'm somewhat confused by this pictogram that you added to this article's lead section. It shows "Global Warming" and "Economic Vitality" on two opposite sides of a scale, with "Fossil Fuels" as the scale's central pillar. Is this diagram intended to depict a false dilemma between climate change mitigation and "economic vitality?"

A pictogram of the current relationships of different elements in the politics of global warming.
Politics of Global Warming pictogram

Jarble (talk) 22:23, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Politics of global warming. 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) 05:15, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

denial aspect of the politics

Some additions have recently been put into Climate change denial about how practically all Republicans in government deny climate change. The relevant section of the article is Climate change denial#Public sector and there's a bit of talk about it not really being in the right place and not properly representing the situation at Talk:Climate change denial#public sector section. Anyone like to contribute their two cents there about what should happen thanks? Dmcq (talk) 08:36, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Suggest edit

Under the "Nontraditional environmental challenge" heading, the repeated use of waterway looks redundant. Perhaps the second use could be replaced with a simple 'there' or even eliminated altogether.--ReformedAnarchist (talk) 06:28, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Done - but could you possibly now make some more improvements yourself as the article is not in great shape.Chidgk1 (talk) 19:24, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

Should the pictogram be removed? If not what does it mean?

Apart from that the politics are complicated does the pictogram mean anything nowadays? If so what? If not maybe it should be removed.Chidgk1 (talk) 16:35, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

No comments received so removing.Chidgk1 (talk) 18:41, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

Merger proposal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
The result of this discussion was to merge. Chidgk1 (talk) 08:56, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

I propose to merge Political economy of climate change into this article because as far as I can understand it seems to be more about politics than economics. Having 2 articles about the politics is confusing.

We already have Economics of global warming and Economics of climate change mitigation and Economic impacts of climate change so any small bits about economics can be put in one of those - we don't need another article with the economics otherwise it will be even harder for readers to find what they need. Chidgk1 (talk) 06:18, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

April 2021 re-write

Hello y'all. I thought it might be nice to rewrite the article to address the tags and bring it up to date, making use of various books on the Politics of Climate Change published since 2020. Most especially I leant on Dessler's Cambridge University Press book The Science and Politics of Global Climate Change (2020). Peter Kareiva, director of Institute of the Environment and Sustainability over at UCLA said no other book "comes even close" to this one. IMO, the Cambridge source is almost indispensable for those seeking a comprehensive overview of global Climate Change politics as no other recent source covers all aspects of the topic in such an easy to understand and well structured way.

That said, my rewrite is likely very far from perfect, and of course other editors are welcome to revert in whole or in part if they don't consider it an improvement. Assuming y'all have no major objections, I'll likely be adding a good few additional citations over the next few weeks. The vast majority of the ~4000 new words I added are supported by the various 2020/21 books now cited in the article, but I plan to add various web sources to make it easier for the reader to find more info on particular points.

Some of the pre-existing content has been moved to a new article: Timeline of international climate politics. If there's no objection, then in the next week or two I might restore the Political economy of climate change. IMO it was a good decision to move that here – but now the article has been updated, the PE content doesn't fit in so well, so for now I deleted it. FeydHuxtable (talk) 18:46, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Hey did a first read and some adding of the collective political action and some other content -- you missed climate finance, litigation and maladaptation from the earlier article. However, overall I feel like this is in a much better direction -- its actually a manageable article to read.
I also think its really important to build out different stakeholders -- especially via Climate Justice and the youth movement -- the politics is a very different becauese of their particpation.
I am not convinced that the new political economy article would have a public (who searches for political economy as a separate concept?) What would be in that article that we can't cover here? Sadads (talk) 12:24, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for the excellent additions.
In theory, everything in the PE article could be included here, but it's less central than most of the other content, so I think it's better moved backed out, or deleted, as otherwise the article will be a little bloated. Especially as there will likely be many future additions. IMO, unmerging is better than plain deletion as that preserves the other editors work.
The PE approach to Climate Politics goes a level deeper than many regular treatments. It tries to examine the motivations of the players involved , often from a mix of perspectives that such as Liberal, Realist and often various heterodox schools such as Marxism. At it's best it has considerable predictive power. So the answer to who searches for political economy as a separate concept? includes various civil servants & agency staff prepping for Glasgow, other relevant policy making, think tank, advisory & activist folk, interested regular folk who majored or minored in GPE (which mostly covers the wider economy not climate, but with the same under the hood approach to causality), workers in the Re-insurance industry, etc. etc.
While closely linked, climate Justice & the youth movement are two different things. While criticised by some, every recent top tier source Ive read is +ve about the youth movement, with several saying the kids are opening up whole new possibilities for climate politics.
Climate justice means many things depending on context. There is no justice in this world. For international politics, top tier sources are near unanimous in saying too much focus on Justice has been a major blockage to progress, one of the chief reasons why Copenhagen failed. As Dessler , Figueres & others point out, Paris owed much of its success to Justice concerns taking a back seat. The resurgence of Justice since then contributed to the relative failure of later events like Madrid. This is not to say Climate Justice is always bad. Maybe the recent trend for litigation in going to have net +ve effects on mitigation action within national jurisdictions, which collectively is what really counts. FeydHuxtable (talk) 16:43, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Mann

Also, I have some concern about leaning too much on the Mann book -- I am reading it right now -- and he has a "hit list" of people and actors that he is trying to target throughout the book that don't agree with his own politics. Its very clear that political science is not his area of expertise, and in the process he marginalizes both diverse peoples and diverse political positions that don't conform to his green growth/capitalist framework for policy making. Sadads (talk) 12:31, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
For example the "lack of compromise" section should be written more in the style/language of "Scientist and commentator Micheal Mann believes..." Sadads (talk) 12:33, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
Similar "lack of compromise points" are also made in the Dessler , Figueres & von Lieven books. My prefered approach would be to rewrite it slightly so it represents the combined view.
What you say about Mann is a reasonable take, but it's only part of the story. The FT seemed to rate his work head and shoulders above other recent climate change politics books. (They don't mention Dessler, which may be a little too academic for them)
More on the Mann

In the struggle to save the world from climate change, Mann is seen as a Gandalf like figure. If you read the last chapter you'll see he prefigured the rise of Greta Thunberg a year before she burst on the scene. Mann may not show much familiarity with political science in the just published book, but he does have decades of engagement with actual policy making. I rate him as having a better practical understanding of politics than most academic political scientists and more than any editor other than the Colonel himself. That's not to say hes right about everything of course – history has plenty of examples of folk getting to prime minister level on merit but then making costly political mistakes. Mann does seem to use straw man tactics a little debunking arguments from various relatively heterodox figures, while ignoring the fact similar positions have been expressed by much more mainstream folk like Will Steffen. Mann v Steffen would be a bit like his mate Bill Nye trying to rap against Newton. Anyhow, Mann is not anti diversity overall, he's actually very pro woman & pro minority, almost an SJW in outlook in some respects. He concedes in the 2021 book that Naomi Klein may well be right that preventing catastrophic global warming may be incompatible with retaining capitalism. Granted, he certainly strongly argues for a capitalist friendly approach, not so much as he loves capitalism, he just sees a centrist GND as having the highest chance of success. Mann is well aware that generally speaking, every time civilisation collapses, all progress in the emancipation of women and minorities is reset to square one, with a return to CISHet men dominating everyone else. Hence why Mann gets so passionate in debunking what he sees as self defeating arguments made by well meaning radicals.

With that said, if you or other editors want to remove some of the Mann based content no strong objection from me. FeydHuxtable (talk) 16:43, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
I don't think we need to remove Mann (he is really popular in the United States political left, and clearly is a valid opinion maker in the space) but his opinions need to be really clearly attributed as opinions (per WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV) not the conclusions of an expert observer whose evaluations are conclusive. Sadads (talk) 23:25, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
Agreed. When I saw it as clearly Mann's opinion rather than relaying facts he'd presented in his book, I already attributed, as I did with his view on runaway warming & solar engineering. I might increase attribution as I continue to review my previous big edit. FeydHuxtable (talk) 09:40, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Outdated & US centric addition to the Challenges section

I don't normally like to revert sizeable additions, but this doesn't seem WP:Due weight. It would have been different while the Donald was in power, but his hetrodox views on climate are now hopefuly of mostly historical interest only. Having read 5 complete 2020/21 books on climate politics & lots of papers, no recent top tier RSs are assigning so much blame to the US - in fact several (e.g. Mann 2021) blame a certain other goverment much more. It was to a large extent the US that put climate change onto the global political adgenda in the first place. So unless other editors think the new addtion should stay, then in the next few weeks I'll be substantially trimming back the new US blaming subsections. FeydHuxtable (talk) 13:43, 5 September 2021 (UTC)\

FeydHuxtable Since the US is the world's second largest greenhouse gas emitter, and since it is the world's sole superpower with a major diplomatic and cultural leadership role in the world, steps to address climate in the US, and efforts to undermine it, play a huge role in the climate crisis, larger by far than those in most other countries. But I've heeded your concern by adding information and footnotes regarding lobbying in the EU and the UK, and regarding the targeting of activists in Brazil, Colombia and the Philippines. You are welcome to add additional material on other countries and regions. WP is supposed to be a team sport.NYCJosh (talk) 23:46, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for taking on board my concerns. Your newer edits complicate things - not perfect, but still very good edits. Many would consider what you added about the fossil fuel lobby as due weight, and most of it can be supported by top tier sources , e.g. Mann (2021) or Dryzak (2011). Here's the thing though - when dealing with a huge topic like this, about which many million words have been written - most of the editorial decisions are about what not to include. So it doens't necessarily help that you welcome me adding info about non US governments to balance things out. Take your addition about climate activists being killed or imprisoned by various government agents (still happening even under the Biden administration). I've not seen a single top tier Climate politics source talk about those. But emotionally I very much agree with including it. I don't want to be that guy who argues against someone like yourself from a centrist/mainstream perspective, so instead I might just leave you to this article. I would ask that you consider removing your 'Government suppression of climate science' sub section. That's just not relevant anymore, and arguably wasn't relevant even in 2019 - in that year various right wing outlets closed their climate shops as they saw trying to supress climate change science as fighting a war they'd already lost, despite the support from the Donald. The climate wars are fought on different dimensions now.
Lastly, WP isn't actually meant to be a team sport - editors who treat it that way can be problematic. Its meant to be a collaborative exercise; a big difference. That said, while I'm not expecting to be teaming up with you here, perhaps one day we will on some other article, where there's POV from pro corporate shills in need of balancing. FeydHuxtable (talk) 04:38, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
I want to +1 placing less emphasis on supression of science by governments: that could probably be rolled up into something more general that also looks at how the fossil fuel industry suppressed science, Sadads (talk) 12:03, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
FeydHuxtable 1. First, I agree that we have to be judicious on what to include and what NOT to include. I kept my contributions really focused on important developments, in this case, key "challenges," and succinct in how I phrased them. I also focused on developments in the heavyweight emitter, the US, not on marginal players, and I correctly got called out on it.
2. What do you mean by "top tier climate politics source?" My contribution has several unimpeachable, top tier sources, including Time Magazine, the ACLU and the Guardian, that describe targeting of activists.
3. Government suppression of climate science--It is relevant? It was done in a big way for at least 12 years by the Trump and "W" Bush administrations, which is quite relevant to how we, as a country and planet, got to this point, and Trump seems to be getting ready to run again in a couple years. Columbia University's Sabin Center has a "Silencing Science Tracker" which continues to document this. (Maybe we should add a link to Sabin?)
4. You removed, instead of improved, the section on US opposition. You don't think opposition by the US, the world's second largest greenhouse emitter, to Kyoto, and withdrawal by the US from Paris, is worth discussing as a challenge in an article about the politics of climate change? These seem pretty essential.
1 Other than the original 5 Sept edit, I agree your contributions here have been excellent, and have all the qualities you say.
2 Let's forget about the targeting activist thing – now that's sunk in a bit more, I think that's a great addition, thanks for adding it. By top tier sources, I mean something like a book fully dedicated to Climate Politics from one of the top University Presses, like Oxford, Cambridge, Harvard or MIT. E.g. Dessler (2020) which I used extensively for the rewrite of this article I did a few months back. I might have agreed ACLU was a top tier source if we were back in the days of Ira Glasser . But the young SJWs running it now are in several respects his complete opposite. As for the Guardian, some of their journalists are admittedly very good. Others don't even make 40k, are fully of strong opinions, and haven't learnt even 1% of what a Dessler knows.
A Dressler or similar source of that quality cant really be compared to a Guardian article in the context of a global scope topic as complex as climate politics. One can be relied on to at least have a good go at putting things in proper context and avoiding gross overgeneralisations. The other cannot.
3 Not sure it was that bad under W, and while much government science was indeed suppressed under the Donald, it didn't have much impact on the wider picture. Theres thousands of sources out there about 2018 or 2019 being “the year the world woke up to climate change” in part due to the wider acceptance of the science and the corresponding waning of climate scepticism. I already cited several good sources for that here. I'll concede said “awakening” had a lot to do with activists like Greta, XR and the fact regular folk were increasingly having first hand experience of the effects of warming. But it's also down in part to the science – even the Donald wasn't able to suppress even 0.5% of the work folk were doing during his term. His efforts just weren't that relevant in the wider scheme of things.
4 No I dont think the US withdrawal from Paris is worth discussing as a challenge. Its more a historical event than a current hurdle. Its not totally irrelevant of course, but considering our articles should aim to keep under 10k words max, its best left out. It would take too many words to put it in proper context. Theres all sorts of more impactful events we're missing out.
Examples

Nixon tried to get global warming & GHG on the international agenda as early as 1969, back when quite a few scientists sincerely believed that global cooling was the long term threat. He was thwarted in large part by Germany, where some felt ( despite the totally unprecedented generosity of US treatment of Germany after WWII ) that it was just a ploy to help maintain US hegemony.

Japan was a better friend to the US at least on the Climate front. As far back as 1990, they knew any successful global climate deal would have to be acceptable to the US senate. Hence they invented the Pledge and review system (later to become the central mechanism for Paris, now called NDCs). In the years leading up to the 1997 Kyoto negotiations, the Japs and a few others pleaded with other UN delegates to take the Senates point of view into account. But no, they insisted on a deal that the senate was virtually certain to see as putting an unfair (& largely pointless) burden on the US. If time allowed I could list hundreds more.

I hope this is of some use. As indicated before, Im now going to take this article off my watch list. Please don't ping me back. And please dont take any signs of grumpiness personally, this topic has started to annoy me for reasons that are nothing to do with your good self. FeydHuxtable (talk) 21:44, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
Sadads --Good idea, I would like to see sources for such non-govt suppression. What are you thinking?NYCJosh (talk) 12:54, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
Minimally there is the whole history of Exxon supressing their own science https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/exxon-knew-about-climate-change-almost-40-years-ago/, and then there are a number of cases where the oil industry has tried to prevent or silence publication: https://www.ucsusa.org/resources/how-fossil-fuel-industry-harassed-climate-scientist-michael-mann . There are also fears baked into the IPCC process that the science is going to get diluted by lobbies, for example -- hence why the scientists are leaking recommendations ahead of time. Sadads (talk) 16:59, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
These look intriguing. I plan to work on these sections over the weekend. Additional sources regarding these issues from you or anyone else are welcome.NYCJosh (talk) 16:42, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Could someone add more about politics of carbon pricing and removal of fossil fuel subsidies?

Not sure I have time to do anything on this very important article myself but glad to see others updating it. There isn't much yet on how some countries have successfully implemented carbon pricing and reduced fossil fuel subsidies and others not - for example gilet jeune, iran etc. Could someone add some analysis of the politics of why some have been able to do it and others not - e.g. common factors? Chidgk1 (talk) 09:07, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Relevance of sentence about energy price for industry

William M. Connolley "Making energy more expensive for industry can reduce the amount of economic activity within a jurisdiction, which has knock on effects on jobs and revenue." seems irrelevant to me because energy can be high or low carbon. So making energy more expensive for industry may encourage or discourage GHG emissions depending on the policy details. Also it varies a lot even within one industry. For example increasing the price of fossil fuels may decrease economic activity in blast furnaces but increase that in electric arc furnaces as if their electricity is relatively clean their steel will become more competitive against blast furnaces.

Having said that industry can influence politics so the article should say something about industry - not really sure what. Perhaps you or someone else can improve the sentence. Chidgk1 (talk) 17:48, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

And yet energy price concerns and their consequences are definitely part of the politics-of-GW debate William M. Connolley (talk) 21:32, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Reduced influence of denial needs expansion.

The subsection titled "Reduced influence of climate change denial" needs to be expanded to include more hard numbers to back up this claim. --SpiritedMichelle (talk) 02:03, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Deleted text block about effects of climate change

I've deleted this text block about the effects of climate change and have replaced it with an excerpt from effects of climate change. This will help reduce maintenance work in future. I don't think that any of the text below added much value. If there was anything of value there, it could be moved to effects of climate change:

"Global heating is driven by human emissions of greenhouse gases (GHG). As of 2021, average temperatures have already risen about 1.2 °C above pre-industrial levels.[1] This rise has already contributed to the extinction of numerous plants and animals and to many thousands of human deaths. At the 2015 Paris conference, nations agreed to make efforts to keep further rises well below 2 °C, and to try to limit them to 1.5 °C. Specific actions to achieve this have not yet been decided. With existing policies and commitments, global warming is projected to reach about 3 °C by 2100. The impact of global warming could be worsened by the possible triggering of irreversible climate tipping points.[2]

In the worst case, feedback from mutually reinforcing cascading tipping points could lead to runaway climate change beyond human ability to control; though this is considered highly unlikely.[note 1] Considerable economic disruption is predicted even if political agreement is strong enough to achieve the RCP 2.6 pathway, which is likely to keep warming between 1.5 °C and 2 °C. Among the risks of 2 °C warming are sea level rises that could devastate various Island nations, along with vulnerable countries and regions with much low-lying land, such as Bangladesh or Florida." EMsmile (talk) 09:51, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Mann 2021, chpt. 8 , p.213
  2. ^ IPCCSR 2018, Section 3.5.2 & 3.5.5

EMsmile (talk) 09:51, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

Proposal to merge "Political economy of climate change" into this article again

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
The result of this discussion was to merge. Chidgk1 (talk) 14:00, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

@Ottawajin, Cstetson, Arcahaeoindris, Sadads, FeydHuxtable, RCraig09, Bogazicili, and Efbrazil:

I propose to merge Political economy of climate change into this article because as far as I can understand that article is much more about politics than economics. Having 2 articles about the politics is confusing.

We already have Economic analysis of climate change and Economics of climate change mitigation so any small bits about economics can be put in one of those - we don't need another article with the economics otherwise it will be even harder for readers to find what they need.

This is much the same reasoning as I used the first time I merged it when nobody objected, and if I understand right FeydHuxtable's reason for splitting it again in 2021 was "If there's no objection, then in the next week or two I might restore the Political economy of climate change. IMO it was a good decision to move that here – but now the article has been updated, the PE content doesn't fit in so well, so for now I deleted it.". Not sure why I did not object to a split at the time or ask for clarification as I don't quite understand the split reasoning - perhaps I did not have the article on my watchlist or perhaps I missed the sentence suggesting a split amongst all the other talk in Talk:Politics_of_climate_change/Archive_2#April_2021_re-write.

Anyway I think both politics and economics have changed a bit since 2021 (mainly due to the bad actions of Vladimir Vladimirovich) so it would be good to briefly review whether we now want 1 article or 2. Chidgk1 (talk) 18:23, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Support merge as you describe it, thanks for taking this on! Efbrazil (talk) 17:08, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
Support merge. I'm not sure I understand the history here, but the two subjects seem integrally related, even if as set and subset. (As a general principle, I favor fewer articles.) —RCraig09 (talk) 19:40, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
Weak oppose merge. In my view it's unhelpfully reductive to break down 'Political economy' into politics and economics. PE & sub variants like IPE take quite different perspectives to those found in either regular political science or economics. Hence why PE & regular political science are often separate degree courses. Finding a workable solution to the lack of global cooperation on climate mitigation is a quite important issue, so I don't see why we should jam different treatments together in the same article. Rather, its seems better to follow the example of WP:RS which has separate books for 'climate change and political economy'
Another reason for opposing merge is the gulf in quality between the two articles. The PE & CC article isnt bad, but it's largely based on sources between 10-40 years old. Whereas this article, at least when it was rewritten back in 2021, was based largely on the best available recent sources, including for example Dessler (2020) from Cambridge University Press. Merging here would also bloat this article unless much text is deleted. So keeping it separate dodges the need to delete another editors hard work, as well as best serving our readers. FeydHuxtable (talk) 20:54, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
Support merge What's political economy even? Bogazicili (talk) 11:40, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Is there a Wikignome who enjoys fixing refs?

There are Harv errors which already existed before the above merge Chidgk1 (talk) 15:18, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

Should carbon price be moved to "Regional, National and sub national" section?

Presumably there will never be an international agreement as it would be politically impossible for the USA to agree. Chidgk1 (talk) 16:49, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

Is this sentence in the lead correct?

It says

"Yet local reductions in GHG emission that such policies achieve will not slow global warming unless the overall volume of GHG emission declines across the planet."

But if x gigatonnes are emitted this year and the global emissions next year would have been x +1 gigatonnes and my country cuts 1 gigatonne so that only x gigatonnes are emitted next year in total has my country not slowed global warming?

I understand that my country would not have reduced the global temperature compared to this year but that is not what the sentence is saying. Am I misunderstanding something or does the sentence need changing? Chidgk1 (talk) 16:22, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

Historically at least, a significant portion of local GHG emissions was achieved by offshoring heavy industry and that doesn't reduce global GHG at all, it can actually make it worse. That said, this was a good shout, I'll tweak the line in the lede to make it more accurate. FeydHuxtable (talk) 18:28, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

New source

https://www.economist.com/international/2023/10/11/the-global-backlash-against-climate-policies-has-begun

Has various political points not just the big economic problem of high interest rates at the end Chidgk1 (talk) 06:07, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
Cite error: There are <ref group=note> tags on this page, but the references will not show without a {{reflist|group=note}} template (see the help page).

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Politics_of_climate_change/Archive_2&oldid=1231662239"