Talk:Climate change mitigation

Merged Co-benefits of climate change mitigation

I've just carried out the merger from Co-benefits of climate change mitigation. This has made the section on co-benefits a bit too long probably. I've already looked for ways of condensing. Please help with condensing this further (if you think it ought to be condensed). We are actually so lucky that CC mitigation has so many co-benefits. Imagine if it didn't, how much harder it would then be to push it through... EMsmile (talk) 08:33, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

How do we feel about overall length? More culling?

The overall length of the article is still on the long side: 60 kB (9271 words) "readable prose size". What do folks suggest regarding options for condensing and culling. Does anything jump at you that can be condensed or even taken out? - Or do we argue that 60 kB is not too long for this kind of article. For comparison, the climate change article is 54 kB. EMsmile (talk) 11:42, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

Personally as this is such a high level subject I would prefer more excerpts but only if the excerpted articles were rated good. So in practice that probably is not going to happen any time soon. Chidgk1 (talk) 17:13, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

General comment: I'm very wary of excerpting, since they often bring unintended and nonobvious consequences in unspecified locations. —RCraig09 (talk) 19:49, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

There's always room for updating and conciseness. I think that as public consciousness—along with related political controversy—continues to grow, mitigation will rise in importance, bringing an even greater need for updating and conciseness. As Effects of climate change has been promoted to Good Article status, the present article might be high on the community's to-do list. —RCraig09 (talk) 19:46, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

Agreed. I think condensing is needed but am unsure which sections in particular need to be condensed, given WP:DUE considerations. And it would be great if the wider Wikipedia editing community took an interest. We have come a long way with this article. The version from one year ago was quite shocking! 101 kB long and rambling and all over the place, impossible to read and understand. I think we should roughly aim for no longer than 50 kB (which means culling by about 15% compared to the current length).

Looking at the section sizes (see link at the top of the talk page), I have the following suggestions:

1. The section "Preserving and enhancing carbon sinks" has perhaps become a bit too long (perhaps we should rely more on the sub-article carbon sequestration to provide people with details).
2. Also "mitigation by sector" is probably too long (given that this is covered anyway at greenhouse gas emissions
3. Is the section "policies" too long and detailed, given the myriad of sub-articles on this topic?
4. Maybe we should drop the entire "example by country" section? Then again, US, China and EU are probably the three most important players (?). The section on the US is anyway only an excerpt, so it doesn't add to the overall word count. Still, perhaps remove all three examples? EMsmile (talk) 07:57, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

I came back to this one year later and the article has become even longer in the meantime, currently at 63 kB! I think it would be good to get it down to say 58 kB. I had a look at the "section sizes" table at the top of the talk page to see which sections stood out as being overly long. I then condensed the content in:

• Health and wellbeing
• ‎Integrating variable renewable energy
• National policies
• Soils

What do you all think? I think it would make this article more useful for our readers if we looked carefully for paragraphs with excessive detail and moved those to sub-articles. Also we need to ensure that the overall balance and WP:DUE is just right. EMsmile (talk) 14:30, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

Hi User:Xuhang1204, I've removed this recently added content of yours, because I regard this as excessive detail for a high level article that is already overly long. Look for another article to inculde it in, e.g. greenhouse gas emissions or the one on AI maybe?:

"AI-driven optimization and predictive maintenance in industrial processes are emerging as key strategies to enhance energy efficiency and reduce emissions, particularly in energy-intensive sectors like steel and cement." EMsmile (talk) 12:30, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Template:Reflist-talk EMsmile (talk) 12:30, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Image cut from article

I removed this image as it's extremely hard to read.

Variable-width bar chart showing regional per capita emissions; per person emissions are around twice as high in the US compared to China, and seven times as high compared to India.

2022 Worldwide GHG emissions (per capita, by region, growth). Vertical scale shows emissions per person, and areas of rectangles indicate total emissions for countries. Though China has larger emissions, the U.S. has more emissions per person.

Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 21:59, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Content on degrowth for the section on demand reduction?

There is a discussion on the talk page of economics of climate change mitigation whether this text block, called "degrowth", should be moved back to here where it once was before I moved it to the sub-article. It could perhaps fit under the section of "demand reduction" but it sounds somehow wordy/academic to me, and it might overlap with existing content. I have no clear opinion on this, other to say that the article climate change mitigation is on the long side already. It's 64 kB and we put a lot of effort into shrinking it down to this size. This is the text block in question:

+++++++

Degrowth

There is a debate about a potentially critical need for new ways of economic accounting, including directly monitoring and quantifying positive real-world environmental effects such as air quality improvements and related unprofitable work like forest protection, alongside far-reaching structural changes of lifestyles as well as acknowledging and moving beyond the limits of current economics such as GDP. Some argue that for effective climate change mitigation degrowth has to occur, while some argue that eco-economic decoupling could limit climate change enough while continuing high rates of traditional GDP growth. There is also research and debate about requirements of how economic systems could be transformed for sustainability – such as how their jobs could transition harmonously into green jobs – a just transition – and how relevant sectors of the economy – like the renewable energy industry and the bioeconomy – could be adequately supported.

While degrowth is often believed to be associated with decreased living standards and austerity measures, many of its proponents seek to expand universal public goods (such as public transport), increase health (fitness, wellbeing and freedom from diseases) and increase various forms of, often unconventional commons-oriented, labor. To this end, the application of both advanced technologies and reductions in various demands, including via overall reduced labor time or sufficiency-oriented strategies, are considered to be important by some.

+++++++

Note also my proposal on the talk page of economics of climate change mitigation to delete outdated content and to merge the rest into climate change mitigation. The pageviews of economics of climate change mitigation are very low (about 20 per day), and the recent engagement of editors with that article is also very low, which has led to a lot of outdated content (a lot of that outdated content I've already deleted last week). EMsmile (talk) 09:22, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

Template:Reflist-talk EMsmile (talk) 09:22, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

Merge Decarbonization pathway into this article?

I have proposed this merge at Talk:Decarbonization pathway. I would love to hear your views on my proposal. -- Y not? 12:06, 27 February 2025 (UTC)