This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Low-carbon economy 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 |
Archives: 1Auto-archiving period: 2 years |
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) 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. |
"Continued emission of greenhouse gases ??*may*?? cause long-lasting changes around the world, increasing the likelihood of severe, pervasive, and irreversible effects for people and ecosystems". Observational science and existing observed effects demonstrate that the continued emission of greenhouse gases already is, and will continue to, cause long-lasting changes around the world, radically increasing the likelihood of severe, pervasive, and irreversible effects for people and ecosystems. U.S. Department of Defense internal documents also articulate that climate change is increasing the likelihood of nuclear war. It's not a matter of "may". It is, and will, if greenhouse gas emissions are not drastically reduced. An accurate "Encyclopedia" has to stick to the facts as they are, and keep ambiguity and vagaries to a bare minimum.
I came to this project as part of this project but have currently run out of time to make these improvements myself:
I am just wondering where we stand with this article now, as we had a quick discussion about it two years ago on the talk page of sustainable energy, see here. At the time, User:Clayoquot remarked " Low-carbon economy is one of the most frighteningly chaotic and error-filled articles I've seen in a while, to be honest. I'm tempted to nominate it for deletion. Or, it could be redirected to Climate change mitigation or perhaps Sustainable energy." How do you feel about it now, User:Clayoquot? Also pinging User:Chidgk1. Is this article better off as a redirect or should it undergo WP:TNT? EMsmile ( talk) 21:36, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
I've just added an image collage for the lead. As I didn't have much time, I opted to simply use the same image collage as for sustainable energy but replaced the fourth photo (cooking in Ethiopia) with the lead image from renewable energy. I'd be happy if others would like to suggest further improvements / tweaks / different images. Pinging User:RCraig09 because the lead image of renewable energy is from him so perhaps he's interested to comment here. EMsmile ( talk) 11:48, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
I've taken this reference out from the first sentence but this publication could be useful as a source for elsewhere in this article: Under the different sectors: the relationship between low-carbon economic development, health and GDP EMsmile ( talk) 16:55, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
I recently changed the first sentence to A low-carbon economy (LCE) or decarbonised economy is a concept for a desirable
economy which has relatively low
greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions per person.
. Two thoughts here:
Is the concept of low-carbon economy more of a Global North thing? We don't want countries to having to be poor to qualify for a low-carbon economy... I guess this comes back to the issue that I just mentioned above about the decoupling. See eco-economic decoupling. Who knows good references that we could use to explain this well? The link to the OWID article that CDM gave above could be a good starting point. EMsmile ( talk) 09:12, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
The question was raised above if this article might be better off merged into green economy. For brainstorming purposes, I copy below what Chapt-GPT provided when I asked it about the differences between the two terms:
+++++++++
The terms "green economy" and "low-carbon economy" are related concepts, but they focus on slightly different aspects of sustainability and environmental impact. Here's an overview of the key differences:
Green Economy:
Low-Carbon Economy:
In summary, the green economy is a more comprehensive concept that considers various aspects of environmental sustainability, including but not limited to carbon emissions. On the other hand, the low-carbon economy specifically focuses on reducing carbon emissions to address the urgent issue of climate change. While there is overlap between the two concepts, the green economy provides a broader perspective on sustainable and environmentally friendly economic practices.
++++++
EMsmile ( talk) 10:09, 17 January 2024 (UTC) Even so, the two concepts could be covered in the same article (similar to carbon offsets and credits but I am not yet sure if it would be beneficial to do so. Instead, one could rework it so that low-carbon economy is like a sub-article to green economy perhaps. But I wouldn't be totally opposed to a merger either. In any case, the green economy article ought to be improved, given it gets 400 pageviews per day, about 4 times as many as the low-carbon economy one. EMsmile ( talk) 10:09, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
The hydrogen economy article was created 20 years ago. At the time it was a good idea, but it is now obvious that the world economy will not become a hydrogen economy, and very unlikely that any national economy will become a hydrogen economy. However it is still possible that hydrogen will be part of a global or national low carbon economy. Therefore I propose this merge as a small step to help Wikipedia better represent the real world. Chidgk1 ( talk) 10:29, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Low-carbon economy 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 |
Archives: 1Auto-archiving period: 2 years |
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) 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. |
"Continued emission of greenhouse gases ??*may*?? cause long-lasting changes around the world, increasing the likelihood of severe, pervasive, and irreversible effects for people and ecosystems". Observational science and existing observed effects demonstrate that the continued emission of greenhouse gases already is, and will continue to, cause long-lasting changes around the world, radically increasing the likelihood of severe, pervasive, and irreversible effects for people and ecosystems. U.S. Department of Defense internal documents also articulate that climate change is increasing the likelihood of nuclear war. It's not a matter of "may". It is, and will, if greenhouse gas emissions are not drastically reduced. An accurate "Encyclopedia" has to stick to the facts as they are, and keep ambiguity and vagaries to a bare minimum.
I came to this project as part of this project but have currently run out of time to make these improvements myself:
I am just wondering where we stand with this article now, as we had a quick discussion about it two years ago on the talk page of sustainable energy, see here. At the time, User:Clayoquot remarked " Low-carbon economy is one of the most frighteningly chaotic and error-filled articles I've seen in a while, to be honest. I'm tempted to nominate it for deletion. Or, it could be redirected to Climate change mitigation or perhaps Sustainable energy." How do you feel about it now, User:Clayoquot? Also pinging User:Chidgk1. Is this article better off as a redirect or should it undergo WP:TNT? EMsmile ( talk) 21:36, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
I've just added an image collage for the lead. As I didn't have much time, I opted to simply use the same image collage as for sustainable energy but replaced the fourth photo (cooking in Ethiopia) with the lead image from renewable energy. I'd be happy if others would like to suggest further improvements / tweaks / different images. Pinging User:RCraig09 because the lead image of renewable energy is from him so perhaps he's interested to comment here. EMsmile ( talk) 11:48, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
I've taken this reference out from the first sentence but this publication could be useful as a source for elsewhere in this article: Under the different sectors: the relationship between low-carbon economic development, health and GDP EMsmile ( talk) 16:55, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
I recently changed the first sentence to A low-carbon economy (LCE) or decarbonised economy is a concept for a desirable
economy which has relatively low
greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions per person.
. Two thoughts here:
Is the concept of low-carbon economy more of a Global North thing? We don't want countries to having to be poor to qualify for a low-carbon economy... I guess this comes back to the issue that I just mentioned above about the decoupling. See eco-economic decoupling. Who knows good references that we could use to explain this well? The link to the OWID article that CDM gave above could be a good starting point. EMsmile ( talk) 09:12, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
The question was raised above if this article might be better off merged into green economy. For brainstorming purposes, I copy below what Chapt-GPT provided when I asked it about the differences between the two terms:
+++++++++
The terms "green economy" and "low-carbon economy" are related concepts, but they focus on slightly different aspects of sustainability and environmental impact. Here's an overview of the key differences:
Green Economy:
Low-Carbon Economy:
In summary, the green economy is a more comprehensive concept that considers various aspects of environmental sustainability, including but not limited to carbon emissions. On the other hand, the low-carbon economy specifically focuses on reducing carbon emissions to address the urgent issue of climate change. While there is overlap between the two concepts, the green economy provides a broader perspective on sustainable and environmentally friendly economic practices.
++++++
EMsmile ( talk) 10:09, 17 January 2024 (UTC) Even so, the two concepts could be covered in the same article (similar to carbon offsets and credits but I am not yet sure if it would be beneficial to do so. Instead, one could rework it so that low-carbon economy is like a sub-article to green economy perhaps. But I wouldn't be totally opposed to a merger either. In any case, the green economy article ought to be improved, given it gets 400 pageviews per day, about 4 times as many as the low-carbon economy one. EMsmile ( talk) 10:09, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
The hydrogen economy article was created 20 years ago. At the time it was a good idea, but it is now obvious that the world economy will not become a hydrogen economy, and very unlikely that any national economy will become a hydrogen economy. However it is still possible that hydrogen will be part of a global or national low carbon economy. Therefore I propose this merge as a small step to help Wikipedia better represent the real world. Chidgk1 ( talk) 10:29, 23 March 2024 (UTC)