User:GreenSarah
| This is a Wikipedia user page. This is not an encyclopedia article or the talk page for an encyclopedia article. If you find this page on any site other than Wikipedia, you are viewing a mirror site. Be aware that the page may be outdated and that the user whom this page is about may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Wikipedia. The original page is located at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:GreenSarah. |
Professionally, my work is related to environmental science. My main project at Wikipedia right now is to clean up the article on carbon offsets, although that has inevitably led me to a series of related articles. I am a new user, so still getting the hang of the various conventions.
The carbon offsets article is looking better than it did before, but there are several areas needing more focus:
Offset standards
[edit]There are 16 or so offset standards in the voluntary market, and then of course the compliance market standards as well. I don't they all need to be detailed here, but it would be good to at least list out the major ones and talk about how they relate to one another.
Offset regimes
[edit]Would also be helpful to talk about how offsets fit into the various compliance regimes already in place or under consideration: ETS, WCI, RGGI...anything else?
Suspicious edits
[edit]{{helpme}}
This issue just cropped up. Someone made a group of highly selective edits to the carbon offsets page, with the apparent intent of flattering one particular carbon offset retailer. I'm not totally sure what to do about this, even after reading through various Wikipedia help pages. I left a note on the article talk page. So far no response. I could put out a request for comment, but the issue seems a bit trivial for that. Should I just revert? Should I restore some of the old material, but keep the "selective" edits that seems reasonable? I'm not interested in kicking off an edit war. Some guidance would be appreciated.
- Hi, I'm User:RyRy5. I suggest restoring most of the old material, but keep the "selective" and "useful" edits that seems reasonable. Any questions? Please comment on my talkpage. Thanks.--RyRy5 Got something to say? 17:26, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
Sarah, I made these edits because the original story in the Baltimore Sun was inaccurate. First, the story acknowledged a senior person had corrected the story that the trees had been planted before print (it is in the story). Second, senior Arbor Day officials also confirmed with reporter that they do in fact quantify carbon in their work, but the reporter did not use it and instead used a quote from an uninformed junior staffer. View ArborDay's relationship with Memorex, which came out at the same time as the Sun story and you can see they absolutely plant trees to offset carbon. http://www.memorexelectronics.com/renew/plant.html