This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 70.121.59.122 (talk) at 23:27, 10 February 2009 (→Usefulness of Efficiency/Conservation). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 23:27, 10 February 2009 by 70.121.59.122 (talk) (→Usefulness of Efficiency/Conservation)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff) | Environment B‑class | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
Template:Archive box collapsible
Change Title?
I think we should change the title to either "Mitigation of climate change (global warming)" or "Mitigation of climate change". I think 'climate change' better captures the complexity of the issue (i.e. some areas are expected to cool not warm, weather and precipitation patterns will change, etc.). In other words global warming is misleading because increased greenhouse gases in the atmosphere cause more than just increased temperature. Jjjbell (talk) 19:29, 15 January 2008 (UTC).
Paul Crutzen
I put in a reference to Paul Crutzen. He is a Nobel Prize winner so he is notable and he was already referenced in the footnotes. I am not related to him so I don't understand how WP:Vanity would apply. Paul Studier 20:37, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
- It appears to have been a tit-for-tat response by Superdeterminism (talk · contribs), whose content describing Archimedes Plutonium was removed in this edit. Uncle G 10:14, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
A-Class article?
Using a bot, I saw that this is an A-Class article. However, there's no template listing it an A-Class article in this talk page. Can someone confirm its quality? OhanaUnited 15:10, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
Nuclear power redux
The nuclear discussion here is horribly out of date. A 1997 study will neither account for the greatly improved capacity factors, the new simplified and less-expensive plant designs, nor the imminent switchover of enrichment from gaseous diffusion to the much lower power requirements of gas centrifuges. Right now, the newest studies are summarized in Economics of new nuclear power plants, although we intend to move them to a more-general article. I will try to find a more recent comparison. Simesa 00:56, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
- After only a smidgen of looking, I found which has a very nice table showing the results of 5 comparative studies. I'll try to incorporate it into the article. Simesa 01:09, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
- Found which offers many Life Cycle Analysis calculations of energy invested as a % of energy generated. But though this is a March, 2006 summary the usual problems apply -- an 80% lifetime capacity factor is far too low, and today's plant offering last a minimum of 60 years not 40. Simesa 01:42, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
I've done a little work on the section, but it's still a bit of a mess frankly.
It previously stated:
- That gas centrifuge technology would lead to energy saving in the future. In fact the only gaseous diffusion still in use is in the USA and possibly Russia, Western Europe went all-centrifuge decades ago, and even the USA now has significant centrifuge capacity. The USA still has some of the enormous enrichment infrastructure built for the Manhattan Project, but there have been no new G-D plants built for a long while, and the remainder won't be long in closing.
- That nuclear power could in the future be used to eliminate the greenhouse emissions associated with enrichment... actually, the French centrifuge plants have never used any other power source.
- That if the same principle were to be applied to renewables, i.e. that they were held responsible for the greenhouse gas emissions produced in manufacturing and erecting the power plants, then as a result these sources would generally cease to be greenhouse-neutral as well. This is dangerously close to WP:OR I think, but it's an excellent point and in the interests of WP:NPOV it needs to be there... surely we can source the statement somewhere, and rephrase it to be a bit clearer than it is at present?
It's a rapidly changing scene... Andrewa 07:05, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
US Gov't Action
I added a section as follows to the section on Government Response, but it was removed recently. Given that the US produces approx. 25% of the world's greenhouse gasses, and given that the US gov't has taken a leadership position in opposing or undermining efforts by most other industrialized countries to take concrete steps to reduce such emissions, the sections I added, which discuss US gov't efforts to suppress American scientists attempting to publish their findings, and actively to mislead the public, are quite significant to the issue covered by this article, the mitigation of global warming, and in particular, are quite pertinent to this section about government responses. Here is the section, comments as to its relevance are welcome. I apologize for the long post:
U.S. government attempts to mislead the public - The U.S. government has pressured American scientists to suppress discussion of global warming, according to the testimony of the Union of Concerned Scientists to the Oversight and Government Reform Committee of the U.S. House of Representatives. "High-quality science" was "struggling to get out," as the Bush administration pressured scientists to tailor their writings on global warming to fit the Bush administration's skepticism, in some cases at the behest of an ex-oil industry lobbyist. "Nearly half of all respondents perceived or personally experienced pressure to eliminate the words 'climate change,' 'global warming' or other similar terms from a variety of communications." Similarly, according to the testimony of senior officers of the Government Accountability Project, the White House attempted to bury the report "National Assessment of the Potential Consequences of Climate Variablity and Change," produced by U.S. scientists pursuant to U.S. law. Some U.S. scientists resigned their jobs rather than give in to White House pressure to underreport global warming.
- The United States government has implemented an industry-formulated disinformation campaign designed to actively mislead the American public on global warming and to forestall limits on climate polluters.."'They've got a political clientele that does not want to be regulated,' says Rick Piltz, a former Bush climate official who blew the whistle on White House censorship of global-warming documents in 2005. 'Any honest discussion of the science would stimulate public pressure for a stronger policy. They're not stupid.' - - "Bush's do-nothing policy on global warming began almost as soon as he took office. By pursuing a carefully orchestrated policy of delay, the White House has blocked even the most modest reforms and replaced them with token investments in futuristic solutions like hydrogen cars. 'It's a charade,' says Jeremy Symons, who represented the EPA on Cheney's energy task force, the industry-studded group that met in secret to craft the administration's energy policy. 'They have a single-minded determination to do nothing -- while making it look like they are doing something.' . . . - - "The CEQ became Cheney's shadow EPA, with industry calling the shots. To head up the council, Cheney installed James Connaughton, a former lobbyist for industrial polluters, who once worked to help General Electric and ARCO skirt responsibility for their Superfund waste sites. - "two weeks after Bush took office - ExxonMobil's top lobbyist, Randy Randol, demanded a housecleaning of the scientists in charge of studying global warming. . . .Exxon's wish was the CEQ's command. --NYCJosh 17:22, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
As after three months the deleter has not stepped forward to defend the deletion, I have restored. I must ask editors to desist from deleting serious contributions unless they are prepared to defend their edits. In fact, when deleting sentences or entire paragraphs, editors should provide specific WP rules-based reasons. --NYCJosh 18:14, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
Undue weight?
Does the Mitigation_of_global_warming#Pacala_and_Socolow section lend them undue weight? The vast majority of those points are hit on elsewhere in the article. If they are only given their due here, can we get some third party, reliably sourced analysis to back 'em up? MrZaius 06:28, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
Kangaroo stomach bacteria
Should this study be mentioned in the article? --Childhood's End (talk) 15:13, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
- Briefly, the thing is that it is just a research idea. Its like that anti-conceptive for men that they have been developing since I was 12 and are still testing. Brusegadi (talk) 22:44, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
Arrow
http://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/arrow1 Should we place it? Brusegadi (talk) 07:43, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
POV Issues...
I have flagged the following subsection for POV problems: US efforts to undermine global warming mitigation. In the following quote, I have highlighted the section which I find to be biased:
The U.S. has also attempted to mislead the public about global warming. The United States government has implemented an industry-formulated disinformation campaign designed to actively mislead the American public on global warming and to forestall limits on climate polluters.."'They've got a political clientele that does not want to be regulated,' says Rick Piltz, a former Bush climate official who blew the whistle on White House censorship of global-warming documents in 2005. 'Any honest discussion of the science would stimulate public pressure for a stronger policy. They're not stupid.'
I recommend replacing the name "U.S.", with "the Bush administration." I feel that making a clear distinction between the United States and the Bush administration will preserve the NPOV of this article. If, by tomorrow, there are no objections, then I will perform the edit I have recommended.
–Gravinos ("Politics" is the stench that rises from human conflict.) 03:40, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
P.S.—I also recommend changing the term "United States government" with the term "Bush administration". –Gravinos ("Politics" is the stench that rises from human conflict.) 03:59, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
P.P.S.—There are other POV problems with this subsection which I have yet to address. Unfortunately, I'm a little under the weather at the moment (I've got a chest-cold, and my doctor prescribed a Z-pack, which has kind of knocked me out), so I'm a bit too tired to go into greater detail. However, I do plan on addressing them in greater detail after I've recovered a bit.
–Gravinos ("Politics" is the stench that rises from human conflict.) 03:59, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
I would like to add information about simple ways we the people can prevent global warming. Would this be relevent to this topic?--Sandiehara (talk) 18:57, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
Wikiproject Earth
Hello i have recently proposed the Wikiproject Earth. This Wikiproject`s scope includes this article. This wikiproject will overview the continents, oceans, atsmophere and global warming Please Voice your opinion by clicking anywhere on this comment except for my name. --Iwilleditu —Preceding comment was added at 15:32, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
Discussion of possible merge with Low Carbon Economy
Let's not merge
I don't know who put the merge tag on this article, but I see no discussion regarding this suggestion. As I look over the two articles, I suggest that we NOT merge the two articles. --Kukini 15:25, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
- I agree, no merge should be done. The Low Carbon Economy deals specifically with non-carbon technologies, and this mitigation article includes other topics - such as efficiency improvements, dealing with waste methane, population, geoengineering, etc. that have zero to do with Low Carbon. This article is already long, and I wouldn't want to see Low Carbon merged into it, even though there is obviously some overlap. Low Carbon might be able to serve as a sort of sub-article though, allowing some information to be generalized here and treated in detail there. Mishlai (talk) 13:21, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
Usefulness of Efficiency/Conservation
I'd like to see more discussion about the usefulness of efficiency or conservation here. "Improved efficiency lowers cost, which in turn increases demand. To ensure that increases in efficiency actually reduces energy use, a tax must be imposed to remove any cost savings from improved efficiency." But even if fossil fuel use was successfully reduced, then that just means we'll use it later - ie, we'll run out later. This has nothing to do with mitigating global warming, it merely delays it by a few years. Or is that the idea? Or is the point that a tax on fossil fuel use will make a certain amount of fossil fuel non-feasibly extractable? Don't get me wrong, there are tons of reasons to conserve, I'm just wondering what this has to do with "mitigation of global warming." ErikHaugen (talk) 23:35, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
It would be worthy to point out that the article talks about how urban planning and neighborhood design can decrease energy demand (I'd like to point out that many other "old" technologies become quite useful and more profitable at higher densities (recycling, district heating and cooling, symbiotic waste practices (waste-to-energy, heat reclamation, industrial I/O exchange). I think there's something in common with your point-- if density solves curbing energy consumption and provides alternatives that further cut energy overhead... what would be the point in also investing in a bunch of technocratic fixes that cause more consumption and leverage higher building costs?
Article Protection
This article is under 100% full protection. Where is explanation given for this protection and why do I not even see a lock or a notice on either the article or the talk page. I will double post this to the help desk as action is needed. -Theanphibian 04:07, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
- Seems to be semi-protected at the moment. Someone who can edit it please add a link to Geritol solution. Tympanum (talk) 21:38, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
- Just made that unref'd stub a redirect to Iron fertilization. Vsmith (talk) 00:06, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
Burying charcoal
James Lovelock recommends burying charcoal in a non-biodegradable fashion. What are the advantages and disadvantages of this form of mitigation? 69.228.235.107 (talk) 02:34, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
- As this is more of a question then anything to do with improving the article, I suggest people answer Misplaced Pages:Reference desk/Science#Burying charcoal to mitigate global warming Nil Einne (talk) 06:23, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
- Google biochar and check the top 10 links dinghy (talk) 09:33, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
- Biochar has a great deal of pertinent information. 69.228.235.107 (talk) 16:52, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
- Google biochar and check the top 10 links dinghy (talk) 09:33, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
- Reuters, January 30, 2007, free archived version at http://www.commondreams.org/headlines07/0130-10.htm, last visited Jan. 30, '07
- Written testimony of Dr. Grifo before the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform of the U.S. House of Representatives on January 30, 2007, archived at http://oversight.house.gov/Documents/20070130113153-55829.pdf
- written testimony of Rick Piltz before the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform of the U.S. House of Representatives on January 30, 2007, archived at http://oversight.house.gov/Documents/20070130113813-92288.pdf last visited Jan. 30, 07
- Reuters, January 30, 2007, free archived version at http://www.commondreams.org/headlines07/0130-10.htm, last visited Jan. 30, '07
- Rolling Stone, June 13, 2007, http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/15148655/the_secret_campaign_of_president_george_bushs_administration_to_deny_global
- The Washington Post, June 21, 2007 "http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/blog/2007/06/21/BL2007062101075_2.html?nav=hcmodule , citing the Rolling Stone invetigative report published 2007/6/13