This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
United States withdrawal from the Paris Agreement article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
A news item involving United States withdrawal from the Paris Agreement was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the In the news section on 2 June 2017. |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 2 August 2020 and 5 September 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Steffany21.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 04:34, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
We need to ensure balance in the Effects section. I don't know exactly what the source says as it is paywalled — I don't doubt for a second that some official somewhere who expressed some concern but in view of the fact that 194 countries representing 81% of the total greenhouse emissions are still in the agreement, someone needs to provide a cogent explanation why the removal of one country would put the accords in danger.-- S Philbrick (Talk) 20:33, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
World leaders vowed to stick with the 2015 Paris Accord without the U.S.. That's the exact opposite of "putting the accords in danger". So does the article go on to refute its own opening sentence, in which case it's useless as a source for this claim, or does it go on to support its opening sentence, in which case it is a source that directly contradicts the claim?-- S Philbrick (Talk) 18:14, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
We need some balance in the reactions. While there are, without question, a number of notable political and business figures who are disappointed by the decision, there are many who support it. As of this writing, seven people are quoted in every one of them as opposed. As an aside, in many cases they evince cluelessness about the rationale of the underlying image but I suppose that's not our job to fix. However, one would hope we could find some reactions from people who have a clue.-- S Philbrick (Talk) 20:48, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
I have removed "However, Trump received support from most Republicans." from the lead. This appears to balance the lead but is not referred to or sourced in the body of the article. Britmax ( talk) 21:18, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
Well he is in in fact receiving support from most republicans so you just removed facts. That's counter productive.
PayneAckerson (
talk) 04:19, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
References
I am currently migrating this video using video2commons. Once it's done, it should be visible here:
I only say this because I have to get to bed and the video is about 33 minutes long so I expect the rendering to take a few hours. Victor Grigas ( talk) 02:05, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
Link to text -- S Philbrick (Talk) 20:07, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
I'm not a supporter of his actions and I don't have a right-wing bias either, but this article reads too biased even for me. If I wanted to read current events with a bias then I'm quite sure I could pick up any news outlet out there.
I particularly think that the line saying that Angela Merkel is the "leader of the free world" is a bit too biased. I think someone needs to write the article in the fact-based manner, leaving the information on controversy to its own subheading. Lankandude2017 ( talk) 10:57, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
If not Angela Merkel, then who? What country in the "free" world has been most predominant in, say, the past 10 years? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 148.177.1.212 ( talk) 13:29, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
I agree that this article is very lacking in neutral tone. There is no section, at all, for the trump administration's reasoning behind this decision. The only time their reasoning is mentioned is a brief sentance in the announcement section, which immediately contains an opposing opinion to dismiss it. This is followed by a long "Reactions" section which serves no purpose except to farther heap on negative opinions. The majority of the article is author opinion, carefully phrased to look like facts. This needs rewriting 82.69.100.180 ( talk) 15:13, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
A good part of what I would have said about bias would be redundant with the above, except this: there is no mention that Trump said in the speech where he announced withdrawal that we would negotiate returning to it under terms "more fair" to the US, to American business, and the American taxpayer. Trump is all about negotiation; to omit his mentioning it is to completely distort the depiction. SvensKenR ( talk) 16:21, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
I have removed the following from the lead: However, Russian President
Vladimir Putin defended Trump's right to decide, and stated that the world should "
not worry [and] be happy".
[1]
Firstly, there is no discussion of this matter in the article itself; so it's weird to put it directly in the lead. Secondly, it is the only international reaction mentioned in the lead: why? Thirdly, the lead presents it as some sort of break from the normal world reaction, which is not true. The Russian reaction was in line with the world reaction, as stated by Peskov in
this Independent article: namely that US withdrawal would reduce the effectiveness of the Paris agreement. In the NBC news segment, Putin said the following (quoting from the NBC news report):
Putin, speaking at an economic forum in Russia, said that although he thinks it would have been better for the U.S. to try to change the agreement rather than leave it, he isn't rushing to condemn Trump for his decision.
Responding to a question from NBC’s Megyn Kelly on stage at the forum in St. Petersburg, Putin also downplayed the significance of the U.S. withdrawal from the accord given that the agreement is not binding.
Putin suggested that there will perhaps still be time to renegotiate the deal so that the U.S. will decide to remain.
“It’s not even come into force yet. It should come into force in 2021. So we still have time, if we work constructively we still have time,” said the Russian president who then, switching to English, quoted a popular song, “Don’t worry, be happy.”
If there is some sort of source which says that Russian reaction to Trump's withdrawal was anything unusual as compared to the world reaction, we can discuss it. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 18:22, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
References
{{
cite web}}
: |last=
has generic name (
help)
This article might as be renamed: "Angry people angrily shaking their fists because Trump"
Now I know the Paris withdrawal is the outrage du jour, despite few people knowing much about the accord. But here is why this article is waaay too long: It's not that big of a deal.
Firstly: If we take a look at popular opinion, only about 40% of Americans think that global warming will become a significant threat in their lifetime. If you ask Americans about what problems the nation faces today, global warming doesn't even show up among the biggest concerns. (Only if you ask leafing questions specifically about global warming do you get a reaction.)
Secondly: The Paris accord won't do much to change global warming. Environmentalists have been saying for years, that the Paris accord has been watered down too much and isn't ambitious enough. All the Paris accord does, is have each country set out a voluntary reduction target, and five years later report on whether it had been met or not. Consequences of failure to meet that reduction? Zero. Can we ensure countries won't set a symbolic target? Nope. All the important parts of the accords are voluntary, and it doesn't do much about two of the biggest problems: Overpopulation and emissions from China and India.
Suggested edits:
I'm not going to make any deletions without consensus about the article. But here is what I suggest could be cut:
Reactions: Do we really need to hear what the Croatian environmental ministry says about the withdrawal? Nah... Same goes for most of the other reactions.
Political stunt making: Some governors and mayors tried to get some press, by saying that they'll live up to the Paris accord. This is of course completely meaningless, since there is no role for them in the accord, and since they lack the authority and powers to make a difference. This section could also be easily cut down.
The articles problem with balance could also be somewhat solved by cutting at least 2/3s of it. 192.38.140.8 ( talk) 15:41, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
I'm not the first one to comment on the fact that this article mostly comes across as an example of Trump-outrage porn. Somebody pointed out, that the article may be unbalanced, but Wikipedia only reports what reliable sources write, so that's the way it has to be.
That is a rather poor excuse.
Now imagine if this was an article about president Obama. One could easily trawl the internet for newspaper editorials and quotes from people of notoriety, concerning how disappointing a president he was, and how he failed with the hope and change. The reaction to posting 40 Obama=disappoint reactions in his article, would undoubtedly be: "Who cares what a Croatian newspaper says. It adds little of significance, aside from making the article too long". That should also be the reaction here. 192.38.140.8 ( talk) 15:46, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
I agree with the first poster Geoffreybmx ( talk) 02:59, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
I'd like to tighten up the wording regarding the initial agreement. It currently reads:
initially agreed to by all 195 countries present at the 2015 United Nations Climate Change Conference in December of that year,
There are a couple problems with this phrasing. First, it's inconsistent with the phrasing in 2015 United Nations Climate Change Conference, which states:
the text of which represented a consensus of the representatives of the 196 parties attending it.
In contrast, Paris Agreement says:
The language of the agreement was negotiated by representatives of
Update: I changed it to 196, because that's what the source says
195 196 countries at the 21st Conference
This source Makes it clear that it not was in an up or down vote by each individual country at the convention; the initial approval was determined by consensus, and each country subsequently decided whether to sign on individually or not. I think this sounds like the most plausible answer, although we have to sort out whether there were 195 or 196 attendees.
We know that both Nicaragua and Syria have not signed on. Unless they initially agreed to sign on and later changed their view, I'm uncomfortable with the statement that every single attendee initially signed on. I think it's much more plausible that the agreement was settled by consensus, which doesn't mean that each individual country signed on or not at that meeting.-- S Philbrick (Talk) 19:42, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
I'm leaning toward wording consistent with 2015 United Nations Climate Change Conference, Although it would be nice to sort out whether 195 or 196 is the better number of countries attending. Update, multiple sources say 196 -- S Philbrick (Talk) 23:13, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
196 parties
196 nations
196 countries
195 countries
195 Signatories
I like to discuss the first two paragraphs of the potential impact section. These two paragraphs essentially say that institutional investors are rethinking investment in carbon-reliant companies.
I don't dispute the factual nature of the assertion. My question is the relevance. I'll start by noting that both statements predate the announcement of the withdrawal. While it is theoretically possible that statements made prior to the withdrawal might end up being prescient, I see nothing in either the paragraphs or the lying references that bears any relationship to the Trump announcement. It was true, prior to the announcement, and in fact, prior to the 2015 and 2017 dates of the two statements, that institutional investors have been considering and moving toward divestment. It is also true that after the announcement the same movement is likely.
If someone makes an argument that divestment is likely to increase (or decrease) as a result of the announcement it might be relevant but there isn't even a hint of that. This sounds like someone read some material that had something to do with carbon and decided to drop it in. I think it should be removed but I'm opening up a discussion to see if someone thinks I'm missing something. At the moment, I don't see how this has anything to do with the impact of the announcement.-- S Philbrick (Talk) 20:43, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
The final paragraph of the "Announcement" section originally said Despite the significance of the announcement, Trump has been unwilling to say if he believes that human activity is contributing to climate change, and the
White House Press Secretary
Sean Spicer seemed to attempt to avoid the topic altogether, and did not know Trump's view on whether climate change is real or not.
.
I thought that language was argumentative and non-neutral, and I changed it to Since the announcement, Trump has been unwilling to say if he believes that human activity is contributing to climate change, and
White House press secretary
Sean Spicer said he does not know Trump's view on whether climate change is real or not.
After several intermediate revisions (mostly pushing toward more POV language such as "refused to say" and "hoax"), it was changed it back to the original version. The original version is currently in the article. Any thoughts about how best to say this? -- MelanieN ( talk) 22:13, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
In response to questions about whether Trump believes that human activity is contributing to climate change, both White House press secretary Sean Spicer and EPA administrator Scott Pruitt said they don't know his thinking. Trump himself has not commented on the issue.The sources are "Trump doesn't want to talk about climate change, and neither does his administration" [2] and "Trump officials refuse to answer whether president believes climate change is a hoax" [3] Granted, "don't know his thinking" is a generous way to put it when the sources are saying "refused to answer". -- MelanieN ( talk) 23:56, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
Jeez, does this really matter? It sounds like we're dealing with an item of religious faith... What if Trump believes 50% of Climate change? What if he believes in it, and wants it to happen faster, cause then New York will have a nice Mediterranean climate? What if he's one of the many people who sorta believe in Climate change, but is still opposed to the Paris Accord?
Ladies and gentlemen, I'd suggest that the specifics of what he believes about climate change, is as irrelevant as whether he believes in the holy Trinity. What matters much more, are his reasons for pulling out of the Paris accords, and that could be put as simply as: "President Trumps decision to exit the Paris Accords, was driven by his administrations agenda of "America First" according to **SOURCE** At the announcement of the withdrawal President Trump declared that "he was elected President of Detroit and not Paris. According to Press Secretary Sean Spicer, the impact on the economy was the concern for the President **INSERT QUOTE**."
By focusing on this, rather than speculate about what Trump believes, we will save some space (something this article desperately needs), reduce the likelihood of future vandalism/edit warring AND the risk of bloat of Trump changes his mind in the future.
Perhaps most importantly: An encyclopedia should strive to be timeless, and this section needlessly dates it. I know it's the outrage 'du jour', and gets a lot of coverage for that reason. But nobody will say in ten years: "Gee I wonder what the 45th Presidents opinion on climate change was!" 192.38.140.8 ( talk) 12:36, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
IMO this does not deserve to be a separate section. I have put it under "domestic reaction" for now. It doesn't fit neatly into the "Republicans" and "Democrats" subsections there; maybe we should get rid of those subsections as well, since some people making notable comments are private citizens and not representative of either party. I'm thinking we could just have several paragraphs under "Domestic reaction" without individual subsections (retaining the one for "states"). What do others think? -- MelanieN ( talk) 21:11, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
Over the last couple of days I have removed at least half a dozen links to Twitter as a reference for something somebody said. It is my understanding that Twitter should not be used as a source if there are secondary Reliable Sources available for the same material. Of course Twitter is not considered a Reliable Source, and furthermore it is primary while Wikipedia prefers secondary sources. If the comment is notable enough to include here, it will certainly be covered by secondary reliable sources. How do others feel about this?-- MelanieN ( talk) 16:38, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
I have deep concerns about the use of this as a source. It's a short podcast interview with Timothy Ball, presented by Radio America, which is some sort of conservative talk radio network. The podcast/interview itself uncritically accepts Ball's statements, which are quite sweeping. I note that Ball's reaction appears to have gotten zero attention from any other source. Its noteworthiness is therefore in question.
But even if it's noteworthy (again, in doubt), its presentation is not acceptable. First is presenting this guy under "Scientists and environmentalists" without making clear that he is quite fringe - i.e., he does not accept the scientific consensus on climate change. This Ars Technica post notes that Ball "who co-authored a book denying the existence of the greenhouse effect (which exists)" and "frequently writes posts on a prominent contrarian blog accusing climate scientists of fraud (and sometimes comparing them to Hitler)." This Pulitzer Prize-winning source identifies Ball as a prominent climate change denialist profiled in the documentary film Merchants of Doubt.
Given all this, even if he was to be included here, for us to uncritically present his view, wedged in between the reactions of mainstream scientists and the reactions of the environmentalist groups, doesn't make sense at all. It violates WP:EVALFRINGE, for one thing. Neutrality talk 04:35, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
First, let's look at the history. The sentence has undergone multiple reversions:
I note that FOX 52 reverted twice, violating the 1RR rule. They had not been notified of the DS; I have now notified them.
Now to the real issue, whether to include this sentence: I agree that Ball is fringe, but I think it is important per BALANCE to include at least one comment in support, as long as we make it clear that his viewpoint is fringe (which previous versions did). I would like to restore it, even giving him the title of retired climatologist (he taught climate and atmosphere issues under the Department of Geography at the University of Winnipeg for 25 years). IMO it does not harm the article to include at least one voice supporting, when they are specified as a climate change denier and drowned out by the otherwise-unanimous chorus of opposition. -- MelanieN ( talk) 17:09, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
Re: Is he a climatologist? : Our article calls him a geographer because he taught in the geography department. But "Weather" falls under the Geography department at the University of Winnipeg. [4] His thesis, at the University of London (1981), was on climate. [5] So I don't think it's a stretch to call him a climatologist. -- MelanieN ( talk) 13:21, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
All this talk about the U.S. withdrawing from the Paris Treaty is missing the point that the United States Senate never ratified the Treaty in the first place. Edknol ( talk) 20:56, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
This article should include an equal amount of opinions that support the withdrawal. The so-called 97% consensus (scientist believe in Global warming) has issues since the original questionnaire sampled a small group of scientist) The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change financialpost.com nationalreview.com. Which is why it wouldn't be right to call Timothy Ball a "denier" - refusal to admit the truth or reality of something. Yet WP's own article is based on an opinion, along with nasa's study that counters some of that opinion. Patrick Moore (environmentalist) would a another voice of opposition, so there should be some more research before just arbitrarily assuming some thing as fact - FOX 52 ( talk) 18:49, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
Awesome! You totally missed the point of the topic. - Nice civility - FOX 52 ( talk) 22:35, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
Is the Global Covenant of Mayors for Climate and Energy notable enough to be included in this article? More info here: "Maltese local councils join the fight against Trump’s climate move" at Times of Malta -- Xwejnusgozo ( talk) 10:22, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
William M. Connolley claimed that Hawking's opinion about turning Earth to Venus is bollox [6]. OK, I removed words about Venus and replaced them with a more general statement [7]. Is it bollox, too? -- Juggler2005 ( talk) 11:58, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
Do we really need a tedious and repetitive list of all the countries that have said something? William M. Connolley ( talk) 19:55, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 22:21, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
Is it really necessary here to put a national flag in front of every foreign leader's comment about the action? I'm just asking, but it strikes me as overkill. I don't really see anything for or against this practice at our advice about flags, but maybe I'm not reading it closely enough. -- MelanieN ( talk) 05:18, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
The second paragraph of the lead includes the assertion, "Until the withdrawal takes effect, the United States may be obligated to maintain its commitments under the Agreement, such as the requirement to continue reporting its emissions to the United Nations." A supporting source is cited and the source does provide support. However, I noticed today that United States withdrawal from the Paris Agreement#National communication says, " Since the United States has not declared an intention to also withdraw from the 1992 UNFCCC, the United States will continue to be obliged to prepare National Communications." (writing there about the 1992 United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change).
I don't know anything about this stuff, but this looks like a contradiction to me. Could some editor who does know something about this stuff please take a look at this? Thanks. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 15:12, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
The UNCC claims that the United States of America ratified the agreement on 3 September 2019 in https://unfccc.int/process/the-paris-agreement/status-of-ratification . What are they referring to? I expected this wikipedia page to have the answer, but it doesn't. -- 31.150.27.0 ( talk) 08:08, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
In the lead, it says, "Trump's withdrawal from the Paris agreement will impact other countries by reducing its financial aid to the Green Climate fund.[21]" Is there any need to keep that prediction there of what a Palgrave Communications article thought would happen in the future back in October of 2017 considering that now the withdrawal has now run its course and the US has been readmitted. At the very least, if this is not taken out of the article entirely, the tense should change so that it is no longer future tense. JMM12345 ( talk) 19:51, 6 November 2021 (UTC)JMM12345
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
United States withdrawal from the Paris Agreement article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
A news item involving United States withdrawal from the Paris Agreement was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the In the news section on 2 June 2017. |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 2 August 2020 and 5 September 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Steffany21.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 04:34, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
We need to ensure balance in the Effects section. I don't know exactly what the source says as it is paywalled — I don't doubt for a second that some official somewhere who expressed some concern but in view of the fact that 194 countries representing 81% of the total greenhouse emissions are still in the agreement, someone needs to provide a cogent explanation why the removal of one country would put the accords in danger.-- S Philbrick (Talk) 20:33, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
World leaders vowed to stick with the 2015 Paris Accord without the U.S.. That's the exact opposite of "putting the accords in danger". So does the article go on to refute its own opening sentence, in which case it's useless as a source for this claim, or does it go on to support its opening sentence, in which case it is a source that directly contradicts the claim?-- S Philbrick (Talk) 18:14, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
We need some balance in the reactions. While there are, without question, a number of notable political and business figures who are disappointed by the decision, there are many who support it. As of this writing, seven people are quoted in every one of them as opposed. As an aside, in many cases they evince cluelessness about the rationale of the underlying image but I suppose that's not our job to fix. However, one would hope we could find some reactions from people who have a clue.-- S Philbrick (Talk) 20:48, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
I have removed "However, Trump received support from most Republicans." from the lead. This appears to balance the lead but is not referred to or sourced in the body of the article. Britmax ( talk) 21:18, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
Well he is in in fact receiving support from most republicans so you just removed facts. That's counter productive.
PayneAckerson (
talk) 04:19, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
References
I am currently migrating this video using video2commons. Once it's done, it should be visible here:
I only say this because I have to get to bed and the video is about 33 minutes long so I expect the rendering to take a few hours. Victor Grigas ( talk) 02:05, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
Link to text -- S Philbrick (Talk) 20:07, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
I'm not a supporter of his actions and I don't have a right-wing bias either, but this article reads too biased even for me. If I wanted to read current events with a bias then I'm quite sure I could pick up any news outlet out there.
I particularly think that the line saying that Angela Merkel is the "leader of the free world" is a bit too biased. I think someone needs to write the article in the fact-based manner, leaving the information on controversy to its own subheading. Lankandude2017 ( talk) 10:57, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
If not Angela Merkel, then who? What country in the "free" world has been most predominant in, say, the past 10 years? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 148.177.1.212 ( talk) 13:29, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
I agree that this article is very lacking in neutral tone. There is no section, at all, for the trump administration's reasoning behind this decision. The only time their reasoning is mentioned is a brief sentance in the announcement section, which immediately contains an opposing opinion to dismiss it. This is followed by a long "Reactions" section which serves no purpose except to farther heap on negative opinions. The majority of the article is author opinion, carefully phrased to look like facts. This needs rewriting 82.69.100.180 ( talk) 15:13, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
A good part of what I would have said about bias would be redundant with the above, except this: there is no mention that Trump said in the speech where he announced withdrawal that we would negotiate returning to it under terms "more fair" to the US, to American business, and the American taxpayer. Trump is all about negotiation; to omit his mentioning it is to completely distort the depiction. SvensKenR ( talk) 16:21, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
I have removed the following from the lead: However, Russian President
Vladimir Putin defended Trump's right to decide, and stated that the world should "
not worry [and] be happy".
[1]
Firstly, there is no discussion of this matter in the article itself; so it's weird to put it directly in the lead. Secondly, it is the only international reaction mentioned in the lead: why? Thirdly, the lead presents it as some sort of break from the normal world reaction, which is not true. The Russian reaction was in line with the world reaction, as stated by Peskov in
this Independent article: namely that US withdrawal would reduce the effectiveness of the Paris agreement. In the NBC news segment, Putin said the following (quoting from the NBC news report):
Putin, speaking at an economic forum in Russia, said that although he thinks it would have been better for the U.S. to try to change the agreement rather than leave it, he isn't rushing to condemn Trump for his decision.
Responding to a question from NBC’s Megyn Kelly on stage at the forum in St. Petersburg, Putin also downplayed the significance of the U.S. withdrawal from the accord given that the agreement is not binding.
Putin suggested that there will perhaps still be time to renegotiate the deal so that the U.S. will decide to remain.
“It’s not even come into force yet. It should come into force in 2021. So we still have time, if we work constructively we still have time,” said the Russian president who then, switching to English, quoted a popular song, “Don’t worry, be happy.”
If there is some sort of source which says that Russian reaction to Trump's withdrawal was anything unusual as compared to the world reaction, we can discuss it. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 18:22, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
References
{{
cite web}}
: |last=
has generic name (
help)
This article might as be renamed: "Angry people angrily shaking their fists because Trump"
Now I know the Paris withdrawal is the outrage du jour, despite few people knowing much about the accord. But here is why this article is waaay too long: It's not that big of a deal.
Firstly: If we take a look at popular opinion, only about 40% of Americans think that global warming will become a significant threat in their lifetime. If you ask Americans about what problems the nation faces today, global warming doesn't even show up among the biggest concerns. (Only if you ask leafing questions specifically about global warming do you get a reaction.)
Secondly: The Paris accord won't do much to change global warming. Environmentalists have been saying for years, that the Paris accord has been watered down too much and isn't ambitious enough. All the Paris accord does, is have each country set out a voluntary reduction target, and five years later report on whether it had been met or not. Consequences of failure to meet that reduction? Zero. Can we ensure countries won't set a symbolic target? Nope. All the important parts of the accords are voluntary, and it doesn't do much about two of the biggest problems: Overpopulation and emissions from China and India.
Suggested edits:
I'm not going to make any deletions without consensus about the article. But here is what I suggest could be cut:
Reactions: Do we really need to hear what the Croatian environmental ministry says about the withdrawal? Nah... Same goes for most of the other reactions.
Political stunt making: Some governors and mayors tried to get some press, by saying that they'll live up to the Paris accord. This is of course completely meaningless, since there is no role for them in the accord, and since they lack the authority and powers to make a difference. This section could also be easily cut down.
The articles problem with balance could also be somewhat solved by cutting at least 2/3s of it. 192.38.140.8 ( talk) 15:41, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
I'm not the first one to comment on the fact that this article mostly comes across as an example of Trump-outrage porn. Somebody pointed out, that the article may be unbalanced, but Wikipedia only reports what reliable sources write, so that's the way it has to be.
That is a rather poor excuse.
Now imagine if this was an article about president Obama. One could easily trawl the internet for newspaper editorials and quotes from people of notoriety, concerning how disappointing a president he was, and how he failed with the hope and change. The reaction to posting 40 Obama=disappoint reactions in his article, would undoubtedly be: "Who cares what a Croatian newspaper says. It adds little of significance, aside from making the article too long". That should also be the reaction here. 192.38.140.8 ( talk) 15:46, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
I agree with the first poster Geoffreybmx ( talk) 02:59, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
I'd like to tighten up the wording regarding the initial agreement. It currently reads:
initially agreed to by all 195 countries present at the 2015 United Nations Climate Change Conference in December of that year,
There are a couple problems with this phrasing. First, it's inconsistent with the phrasing in 2015 United Nations Climate Change Conference, which states:
the text of which represented a consensus of the representatives of the 196 parties attending it.
In contrast, Paris Agreement says:
The language of the agreement was negotiated by representatives of
Update: I changed it to 196, because that's what the source says
195 196 countries at the 21st Conference
This source Makes it clear that it not was in an up or down vote by each individual country at the convention; the initial approval was determined by consensus, and each country subsequently decided whether to sign on individually or not. I think this sounds like the most plausible answer, although we have to sort out whether there were 195 or 196 attendees.
We know that both Nicaragua and Syria have not signed on. Unless they initially agreed to sign on and later changed their view, I'm uncomfortable with the statement that every single attendee initially signed on. I think it's much more plausible that the agreement was settled by consensus, which doesn't mean that each individual country signed on or not at that meeting.-- S Philbrick (Talk) 19:42, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
I'm leaning toward wording consistent with 2015 United Nations Climate Change Conference, Although it would be nice to sort out whether 195 or 196 is the better number of countries attending. Update, multiple sources say 196 -- S Philbrick (Talk) 23:13, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
196 parties
196 nations
196 countries
195 countries
195 Signatories
I like to discuss the first two paragraphs of the potential impact section. These two paragraphs essentially say that institutional investors are rethinking investment in carbon-reliant companies.
I don't dispute the factual nature of the assertion. My question is the relevance. I'll start by noting that both statements predate the announcement of the withdrawal. While it is theoretically possible that statements made prior to the withdrawal might end up being prescient, I see nothing in either the paragraphs or the lying references that bears any relationship to the Trump announcement. It was true, prior to the announcement, and in fact, prior to the 2015 and 2017 dates of the two statements, that institutional investors have been considering and moving toward divestment. It is also true that after the announcement the same movement is likely.
If someone makes an argument that divestment is likely to increase (or decrease) as a result of the announcement it might be relevant but there isn't even a hint of that. This sounds like someone read some material that had something to do with carbon and decided to drop it in. I think it should be removed but I'm opening up a discussion to see if someone thinks I'm missing something. At the moment, I don't see how this has anything to do with the impact of the announcement.-- S Philbrick (Talk) 20:43, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
The final paragraph of the "Announcement" section originally said Despite the significance of the announcement, Trump has been unwilling to say if he believes that human activity is contributing to climate change, and the
White House Press Secretary
Sean Spicer seemed to attempt to avoid the topic altogether, and did not know Trump's view on whether climate change is real or not.
.
I thought that language was argumentative and non-neutral, and I changed it to Since the announcement, Trump has been unwilling to say if he believes that human activity is contributing to climate change, and
White House press secretary
Sean Spicer said he does not know Trump's view on whether climate change is real or not.
After several intermediate revisions (mostly pushing toward more POV language such as "refused to say" and "hoax"), it was changed it back to the original version. The original version is currently in the article. Any thoughts about how best to say this? -- MelanieN ( talk) 22:13, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
In response to questions about whether Trump believes that human activity is contributing to climate change, both White House press secretary Sean Spicer and EPA administrator Scott Pruitt said they don't know his thinking. Trump himself has not commented on the issue.The sources are "Trump doesn't want to talk about climate change, and neither does his administration" [2] and "Trump officials refuse to answer whether president believes climate change is a hoax" [3] Granted, "don't know his thinking" is a generous way to put it when the sources are saying "refused to answer". -- MelanieN ( talk) 23:56, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
Jeez, does this really matter? It sounds like we're dealing with an item of religious faith... What if Trump believes 50% of Climate change? What if he believes in it, and wants it to happen faster, cause then New York will have a nice Mediterranean climate? What if he's one of the many people who sorta believe in Climate change, but is still opposed to the Paris Accord?
Ladies and gentlemen, I'd suggest that the specifics of what he believes about climate change, is as irrelevant as whether he believes in the holy Trinity. What matters much more, are his reasons for pulling out of the Paris accords, and that could be put as simply as: "President Trumps decision to exit the Paris Accords, was driven by his administrations agenda of "America First" according to **SOURCE** At the announcement of the withdrawal President Trump declared that "he was elected President of Detroit and not Paris. According to Press Secretary Sean Spicer, the impact on the economy was the concern for the President **INSERT QUOTE**."
By focusing on this, rather than speculate about what Trump believes, we will save some space (something this article desperately needs), reduce the likelihood of future vandalism/edit warring AND the risk of bloat of Trump changes his mind in the future.
Perhaps most importantly: An encyclopedia should strive to be timeless, and this section needlessly dates it. I know it's the outrage 'du jour', and gets a lot of coverage for that reason. But nobody will say in ten years: "Gee I wonder what the 45th Presidents opinion on climate change was!" 192.38.140.8 ( talk) 12:36, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
IMO this does not deserve to be a separate section. I have put it under "domestic reaction" for now. It doesn't fit neatly into the "Republicans" and "Democrats" subsections there; maybe we should get rid of those subsections as well, since some people making notable comments are private citizens and not representative of either party. I'm thinking we could just have several paragraphs under "Domestic reaction" without individual subsections (retaining the one for "states"). What do others think? -- MelanieN ( talk) 21:11, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
Over the last couple of days I have removed at least half a dozen links to Twitter as a reference for something somebody said. It is my understanding that Twitter should not be used as a source if there are secondary Reliable Sources available for the same material. Of course Twitter is not considered a Reliable Source, and furthermore it is primary while Wikipedia prefers secondary sources. If the comment is notable enough to include here, it will certainly be covered by secondary reliable sources. How do others feel about this?-- MelanieN ( talk) 16:38, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
I have deep concerns about the use of this as a source. It's a short podcast interview with Timothy Ball, presented by Radio America, which is some sort of conservative talk radio network. The podcast/interview itself uncritically accepts Ball's statements, which are quite sweeping. I note that Ball's reaction appears to have gotten zero attention from any other source. Its noteworthiness is therefore in question.
But even if it's noteworthy (again, in doubt), its presentation is not acceptable. First is presenting this guy under "Scientists and environmentalists" without making clear that he is quite fringe - i.e., he does not accept the scientific consensus on climate change. This Ars Technica post notes that Ball "who co-authored a book denying the existence of the greenhouse effect (which exists)" and "frequently writes posts on a prominent contrarian blog accusing climate scientists of fraud (and sometimes comparing them to Hitler)." This Pulitzer Prize-winning source identifies Ball as a prominent climate change denialist profiled in the documentary film Merchants of Doubt.
Given all this, even if he was to be included here, for us to uncritically present his view, wedged in between the reactions of mainstream scientists and the reactions of the environmentalist groups, doesn't make sense at all. It violates WP:EVALFRINGE, for one thing. Neutrality talk 04:35, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
First, let's look at the history. The sentence has undergone multiple reversions:
I note that FOX 52 reverted twice, violating the 1RR rule. They had not been notified of the DS; I have now notified them.
Now to the real issue, whether to include this sentence: I agree that Ball is fringe, but I think it is important per BALANCE to include at least one comment in support, as long as we make it clear that his viewpoint is fringe (which previous versions did). I would like to restore it, even giving him the title of retired climatologist (he taught climate and atmosphere issues under the Department of Geography at the University of Winnipeg for 25 years). IMO it does not harm the article to include at least one voice supporting, when they are specified as a climate change denier and drowned out by the otherwise-unanimous chorus of opposition. -- MelanieN ( talk) 17:09, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
Re: Is he a climatologist? : Our article calls him a geographer because he taught in the geography department. But "Weather" falls under the Geography department at the University of Winnipeg. [4] His thesis, at the University of London (1981), was on climate. [5] So I don't think it's a stretch to call him a climatologist. -- MelanieN ( talk) 13:21, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
All this talk about the U.S. withdrawing from the Paris Treaty is missing the point that the United States Senate never ratified the Treaty in the first place. Edknol ( talk) 20:56, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
This article should include an equal amount of opinions that support the withdrawal. The so-called 97% consensus (scientist believe in Global warming) has issues since the original questionnaire sampled a small group of scientist) The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change financialpost.com nationalreview.com. Which is why it wouldn't be right to call Timothy Ball a "denier" - refusal to admit the truth or reality of something. Yet WP's own article is based on an opinion, along with nasa's study that counters some of that opinion. Patrick Moore (environmentalist) would a another voice of opposition, so there should be some more research before just arbitrarily assuming some thing as fact - FOX 52 ( talk) 18:49, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
Awesome! You totally missed the point of the topic. - Nice civility - FOX 52 ( talk) 22:35, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
Is the Global Covenant of Mayors for Climate and Energy notable enough to be included in this article? More info here: "Maltese local councils join the fight against Trump’s climate move" at Times of Malta -- Xwejnusgozo ( talk) 10:22, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
William M. Connolley claimed that Hawking's opinion about turning Earth to Venus is bollox [6]. OK, I removed words about Venus and replaced them with a more general statement [7]. Is it bollox, too? -- Juggler2005 ( talk) 11:58, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
Do we really need a tedious and repetitive list of all the countries that have said something? William M. Connolley ( talk) 19:55, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 22:21, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
Is it really necessary here to put a national flag in front of every foreign leader's comment about the action? I'm just asking, but it strikes me as overkill. I don't really see anything for or against this practice at our advice about flags, but maybe I'm not reading it closely enough. -- MelanieN ( talk) 05:18, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
The second paragraph of the lead includes the assertion, "Until the withdrawal takes effect, the United States may be obligated to maintain its commitments under the Agreement, such as the requirement to continue reporting its emissions to the United Nations." A supporting source is cited and the source does provide support. However, I noticed today that United States withdrawal from the Paris Agreement#National communication says, " Since the United States has not declared an intention to also withdraw from the 1992 UNFCCC, the United States will continue to be obliged to prepare National Communications." (writing there about the 1992 United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change).
I don't know anything about this stuff, but this looks like a contradiction to me. Could some editor who does know something about this stuff please take a look at this? Thanks. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 15:12, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
The UNCC claims that the United States of America ratified the agreement on 3 September 2019 in https://unfccc.int/process/the-paris-agreement/status-of-ratification . What are they referring to? I expected this wikipedia page to have the answer, but it doesn't. -- 31.150.27.0 ( talk) 08:08, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
In the lead, it says, "Trump's withdrawal from the Paris agreement will impact other countries by reducing its financial aid to the Green Climate fund.[21]" Is there any need to keep that prediction there of what a Palgrave Communications article thought would happen in the future back in October of 2017 considering that now the withdrawal has now run its course and the US has been readmitted. At the very least, if this is not taken out of the article entirely, the tense should change so that it is no longer future tense. JMM12345 ( talk) 19:51, 6 November 2021 (UTC)JMM12345