Misplaced Pages

Talk:Politics of climate change

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Chidgk1 (talk | contribs) at 14:00, 30 October 2023 (→Proposal to merge "Political economy of climate change" into this article again: closed result merge). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 14:00, 30 October 2023 by Chidgk1 (talk | contribs) (→Proposal to merge "Political economy of climate change" into this article again: closed result merge)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Politics of climate change article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2Auto-archiving period: 31 days

Template:Vital article

The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to climate change, which has been designated as a contentious topic.

Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

This page is not a forum for general discussion about Politics of climate change. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Politics of climate change at the Reference desk.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
July 27, 2009	Peer review	Reviewed

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Environment Top‑importance

	Environment portal This environment-related article is part of the WikiProject Environment to improve Misplaced Pages's coverage of the environment. The aim is to write neutral and well-referenced articles on environment-related topics, as well as to ensure that environment articles are properly categorized. Read Misplaced Pages:Contributing FAQ and leave any messages at the project talk page.EnvironmentWikipedia:WikiProject EnvironmentTemplate:WikiProject EnvironmentEnvironment
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Climate change Top‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Climate change, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Climate change on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Climate changeWikipedia:WikiProject Climate changeTemplate:WikiProject Climate changeClimate change
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
If you are looking for ways to improve this article, we recommend checking out our recommended sources and our style guide

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Politics Top‑importance

	Politics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Science Policy Top‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Science Policy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Science policy on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Science PolicyWikipedia:WikiProject Science PolicyTemplate:WikiProject Science PolicyScience Policy
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Economics High‑importance

	Business and economics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Economics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Economics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EconomicsWikipedia:WikiProject EconomicsTemplate:WikiProject EconomicsEconomics
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Country Positions Historical Information

This content was cut and past here. It's mostly out of date and POV laden with weasle words etc. However, there might be something valuable we can harvest and reincorporate into the article.

English Speaking Countries In most English-speaking countries, support for action to mitigate global warming, such as ratification and implementation of the Kyoto Protocol is strong on the political left.

However, the first politician to put global warming on the political agenda was Richard Nixon 1969. Nixon wanted environmental topics (as acid rain and greenhouse effect) to be treated by a third and civil pillar of NATO. The reaction of the NATO allies was lukewarm but the initiative gained impact in the civil field.

In the 1980s, Margaret Thatcher was instrumental in increasing the United Kingdom's electricity generation from North Sea gas and reducing generation from coal.

In Germany Angela Merkel, then secretary of the environment during the conservative Helmut Kohl government, lead the German Kyoto Delegation and had a substantial role in making the Kyoto agreement possible.

In December 2007, Kevin Rudd's first act as prime minister of Australia was to ratify the Kyoto Protocol in time for the Kyoto Protocol talks in Bali.

In Canada, the Liberal Party government ratified Kyoto.

In New Zealand, the Labour government of Helen Clark ratified Kyoto.

In the United Kingdom, the Labour Party ratified Kyoto

In the United States, Bill Clinton's Administration signed Kyoto and Democrats have proposed and supported a number of bills to mitigate emissions. Although Kyoto is signed, subsequent sessions of Congress failed to ratify the treaty and thus the United States is not bound to it. US diplomats have conceded the treaty will never be ratified. "We are not going to ratify the Kyoto Protocol. That is out," said US climate negotiator Jonathan Pershing at the 2009 Bangkok Climate Change Talks. Barack Obama supported passage of the American Clean Energy and Security Act to establish a United States Carbon Cap and Trade Program; while the bill was approved in the House of Representatives, it was not taken up in the Senate.

In some countries the political right are fighting on a platform of taking tough action against global warming, while in others the political right either dispute the scientific consensus on global warming or oppose action to mitigate global warming, instead favoring adaption. All European countries have ratified the Kyoto Protocol, and all have supported strong reductions in greenhouse gas emissions.

In the United States, a February 2007 survey found that 95% of the 41 Congressional Democrats surveyed agreed "it's been proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the Earth is warming because of man-made problems" while only 13% of the 31 Republicans surveyed agreed.

Global warming skepticism has been promoted by newspapers associated with the right such as The Australian, the Daily Telegraph in the United Kingdom and the National Post in Canada.

Asia Australia officially ratified the Kyoto Protocol, after the new Labor government came into power on December 3, 2007. The previous Coalition government had long objected to ratifying the treaty, arguing it would unduly impact on Australian jobs, especially when countries such as China, India and the U.S. were not party to it.

Japan is preparing to force industry to make big cuts in greenhouse gases, taking the lead in a country struggling to meet its Kyoto Protocol obligations.

Canada Canada's Liberal Government during the 1990s had agreed to Kyoto but oversaw the increase of greenhouse gas emissions during their terms in office and did little to meet Kyoto's targets. Canada's current Conservative Government has claimed that, due to increased emissions since 1990, it is realistically impossible to meet their Kyoto targets and attempting to do so would be disastrous for the Canadian economy. Current Prime Minister Stephen Harper has come under fire for being adamant in leaving Kyoto and working on a different climate plan. Consequently, this issue has become something of an Achilles' heel for the Government in recent months. The current Liberal Party has been quick in their condemnation of the Government but has also been accused of using Global Warming for political purposes as seen in the naming of leader Stéphane Dion's dog 'Kyoto'.

Europe

Russia signed the Kyoto Protocol in November 2004, after a deal with the European Union over WTO membership. Russia's ratification completed the requirements of the treaty to come into force, based on nations totaling 55% of world greenhouse gas emissions.

The UK government-commissioned Stern Review into the economic effects of climate change was published in October 2006. Tony Blair's assessment was that it showed that scientific evidence of global warming was "overwhelming" and its consequences "disastrous". He added, "We can't wait the five years it took to negotiate Kyoto — we simply don't have the time. We accept we have to go further ." The UK government launched an official calculator in the week of June 18, 2007 that enables every person in the country to work out how much carbon dioxide they produce and how to cut it. Tory group sets out plans for Green Revolution. In the UK campaign group Camp for Climate Action aims to keep climate change on the political agenda, using direct action against major carbon emitters.

United States

Main article: Climate change policy of the United States

The politics of global warming is played out at a state and federal level in the United States. Attempts to draw up climate change policy are being made at a state level to a greater extent than at a federal level.

Vatican Pope Benedict XVI told up to half a million people, over a hillside near the Adriatic city of Loreto on the day Catholic Church marks its annual Save Creation Day, that world leaders must make courageous decisions to save the planet "before it is too late".

^ Cite error: The named reference Hüne was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
Murray, Iain (2003-09-17). "Fixing the Game:Kyoto rules". National Review Online. Retrieved 2010-01-20.
Purvis, Andrew (2007-10-17). "Angela Merkel — Heroes of the Environment". Time Magazine. Retrieved 2010-01-30.
^ AAP (2007-12-03). "Rudd ratifies Kyoto The Age". The Age Company Limited. Retrieved 2010-06-07. Australia's official declaration today that we will become a member of the Kyoto Protocol is a significant step forward in our country's efforts to fight climate change domestically and with the international community
Hood, Marlowe (2009-10-08). "Climate: What's to become of the Kyoto Protocol?". AFP. Retrieved 2009-10-10. {{cite news}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)
Climate change concerns championed by Cameron's Conservatives
"Base page" (PDF). Retrieved 2010-08-29.
"Climate change: The Deniers". www.canada.com. CanWest MediaWorks Publications Inc. 2007-06-20. Retrieved 2010-01-25.
WBCSD. "World Business Council for Sustainable Development". WBCSD. Retrieved 2010-08-29.
"Climate change fight 'can't wait'". BBC News. 2006-10-31. Retrieved 2010-08-29.
Juliette Jowit, environment editor (2007-06-18). "calculator to help save the planet". London: Observer.guardian.co.uk. Retrieved 2010-08-29. {{cite news}}: |author= has generic name (help)
"Tory Group Sets Out Plans for Green Revolution". Planet Ark. 2007-09-14. Retrieved 2010-08-29.
"Save The Planet Before It's Too Late, Pope Urges". Planet Ark. 2007-09-03. Retrieved 2010-08-29.

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)

Wiki Education assignment: Applied Plant Ecology Winter 2022

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 10 January 2022 and 23 April 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Jennifersenv (article contribs).

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. 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.

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. 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

Mann 2021, chpt. 8 , p.213 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFMann2021 (help)
IPCCSR 2018, Section 3.5.2 & 3.5.5 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFIPCCSR2018 (help)

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)

Support. Daask (talk) 14:02, 17 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.

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).