Talk:Carbon footprint/Archive 1

Archive 1

Carbon footprint calculators

I've looked at some of the carbon footprint calculators on the Web (e.g. carbonfootprint.com and bp.com), and there seem to be a lot of differences between the readings I get. Any expert opinions on which online calculators are best? Also, maybe there should be a section on the major contributors to the carbon footprint e.g. car miles travelled, fuel-efficiency of car, air travel, home heating, buying local vs imported produce, etc. I know I was pretty shocked by how much a few flights a year contributed to my "score" (no matter which calculator I used, that was the biggest factor) Fionah 20:25, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Nobody else was doing it, so I added a section on activities that affect the footprint. Maybe someone with more expertise in this area could edit this. Fionah 10:07, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

--This site review carbon and ecological footprint calculators: www.esd.rgs.org

Carbon Footprint Relation to Global CO2 PPM

Can anyone provide information on how carbon emissions are related to global CO2 concentrations? Even something simple would be appreciated. Mike wiki 23:36, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

==ignores ecological biocapacity of countries in question==

going per capita is simplistic, one must consider the carrying capacity of the land as well. large forrested land areas are carbon sinks that offset the emissions

Cleaned External Links Section

This article is filling up with external links which includes some link spammers. Please review WP:EL. Per WP guidelines, when an article starts attracting numerous links, it should be periodically emptied - Wikipedia:WikiProject Spam. Before adding a new link, suggest it first on this Talk page rather than adding to the links section. Calltech 15:51, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

{{helpme}} The plea seems to have gone unheard, as the external links section has again filled up with links to in some cases commercial websites. Moreover, some of these websites may harbour potentially harmful scripts (as per my NoScript). Should an external links section be really maintained for this (and related) articles?Malljaja 16:25, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

If you feel a link is spam, I suggest you be bold and remove it. However, I do see value in leaving one or two links that go through the Carbon footprint calculation for interested readers. The same goes for related articles. You may want to add a <!-- Comment --> in the section to ask future editors to be mindful of spam. Hoof Hearted 16:52, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Many thanks Hoof Hearted. I'll shed my inhibitions and will come down more harshly on suspect spam links. The very recent edit by Lucasbfr of the external link section of this article was judicial, and I'll do the same when I feel it's needed.Malljaja 17:49, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Unreferenced Tag

This article does not contain a single reference and is all Original Research.Prester John 03:39, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Sooty Footprints!

Carbon footprints are, presumeably, produced by people who have walked through powdered carbon? Carbon dioxide doesn't produce footprints! Why are so many people now so ignorant as to equate 'carbon' with 'carbon dioxide'? By the way, what word do people use to stand for carbon monoxide, carbon disulphide, carbon tetrachloride, etc - 'carbon'? Viclud

--you seem to have missed the point here somewhat. The carbon in carbon footprint stands for carbon dioxide, a common abreviation made for the sake of convenience.

I strongly suggest www.carbonsolutionsgroup.com as a resource for anyone interested in learning about carbon risk and the most sophisticated ways to really make a difference. There is very little understanding out there regarding what an appropriate offset is and carbon solutions group is out there educating interested companies and other entities.

I registered to ask/say this: Isn't there an inherent disservice to the public when complex concepts are abbreviated, to such a degree, for the sake of convenience? A growing number of people associate the word carbon in 'carbon footprint' with the simplified and somewhat hysterical idea that carbon IS pollution. Isn't this abbreviation like saying calcium footprint when speaking of how much limestone was used in a building or how much milk you've drunk? It makes sense only in the world of marketing. This in itself is perfectly fine. But there should be a mention of how this term is in growing use to market products and services in "the voluntary market" that have yet to be proven to impact the cycle in a positive or neutral way, and which may in fact increase a clients "carbon" footprint and impact the cycle negatively. Entervisit 01:07, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Criticism of Carbon (dioxide) footprints/stragegy

I see nothing in this article of the many criticisms of carbon footprints' use in controlling green issues, and wonder whether this would be of value in presenting a neutral article. For example, the UK government wants to encourage all new houses to be carbon-neutral, yet the net effect of this is negligable when the "developer housing" they are encouraging are built with an expected lifespan of only 100 years, since at least 50% of the carbon cost is in the construction and material of the house itself. There are numerous other examples; carbon strategies are well-meaning, but often miss the point. Worth including? Graldensblud 20:19, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

If someone can find referenced criticism from reliable sources, that would be a v useful addition. For example, it think that the Economist had a recent article critising "food miles". Fionah 10:11, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

We need more specific criticism of aspects of carbon footprints like the above comments. I mean take this: "One criticism of the term carbon footprint is that it is politically correct." - is this a joke or what? virutally all modern ideas being seriously discussed are labelled politically correct by someone. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.249.225.229 (talk) 08:41, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I have removed the PC criticism till someone cares to argue it, and restructured the section anyway. Criticism of the global warming consensus should not be repeated here, so I have replaced that with links to appropriate articles PJTraill (talk) 00:08, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Carbon footprints "circle" of different countries may still be helpful

One of those carbon footprints of different families (as the one in the NGC magazine special) shown in smaller and bigger circles (for resp. families in eg Finland, Mali, USA, ...) could be helpful as extra image. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.246.156.29 (talk) 11:04, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

It could be but it's a bit ... selective, no? (I've moved it only because it looked a bit untidy.) Vinny Burgoo (talk) 19:50, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

electricity or energy?

" [edit] Carbon footprint by energy type

It has been suggested that this article or section be merged into Life cycle assessment. (Discuss) 

The following table compares the carbon footprint of various forms of energy generation, from " Surely the above is incorrect and should be electricity not energy generation?

Also why has the link to the carbon footprint of heat been removed?

http://www.claverton-energy.com/carbon-footprints-of-various-sources-of-heat-chpdh-comes-out-lowest.html

to be of any use the footproint of heat must be included and this is a good table, which someone oculd incorporate into the article?

Engineman (talk) 12:32, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Summary?

Can someone do a bit of research and make a "summary" section, with sources, that contains, among other things, a breakdown of

1) Total annual Human Generated CO2, worldwide

2) A breakdown (By country) of current annual CO2 generation

3) A graph showing annual CO2 Generation for the 10 most populous countries (different colored lines) for the last century

Such a section would help clarify CO2 generation over the years, and how it relates to current events. Redwood Elf (talk) 14:56, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

CO2 production per unit of energy list

Hi. It seems to me that one very useful statistic that I haven't been able to find on Wikipedia so far (please correct me if I'm wrong) is CO2 production per unit of energy produced (e.g. KWh,MWh). It seems to me that this would be a better measure of ranking countries by environmental impact, as it would offput, say, exported carbon footprints from industrialised to broadly manufacturing nations, while still accounting for inefficient production (e.g. China's small-scale coal power stations). Does anyone know if such a list exists, or how we could go about creating one? Thanks! Hongshi (talk) 04:24, 9 August 2008 (UTC) cleanup Since it was tagged for cleanup last July, the article has been substantially improved. I've removed the cleanup tag. --TS 15:46, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

I suggest changing the order of the sections. Given our title and definition, the first sections should be on carbon footprints, not offsets. As the intro says, offsets are just one technique, so I would put the Kyoto/Offset section near the end.

While changing the order, and to create a logical flow from the definition, I would re-title:
"Carbon Labeling" as Footprints of Products;
"Age-related..." as Footprints of Individuals;
"...Electricity..." as Footprints of Electricity;
"...Heat..." as Footprints of Heat;
"Holidays..." as Footprints of Holidays.
Concerning the Products section, the.CO2List.org shows many sources to add besides the current items from the Carbon Trust. The external link to the Nature Conservancy calculator seems too limited; there are dozens of calculators, and Nature Conservancy's is not one of the best. Rather than picking one, I suggest links to the comparison sites at esd.rgs.org or co2.homestead.com/files/calculators -- Numbersinstitute (talk) 16:17, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Since there were no objections in over 2 weeks, I did the re-ordering and re-naming of sections. On 1 Sept 2009 an anonymous person deleted the sections on Age-related and Holiday footprints without giving a reason. I am thinking of restoring them unless someone supports their omission. Numbersinstitute (talk) 20:37, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Carbon footprint#Carbon footprints of electricity Template:Cleanup

When I first came across this article, this section was even more of a mess than it is now (it used to include a table of jumbled elements, showing numbers from very self-serving & unreliable source(s) (ie. nuclear power plant(s)/industry(s) touting their own green credentials)). I tried to correct all of the table elements, references and even the text which preceded and followed the table of this section, but alas, I was hesitant to change too much without first consulting the rarely used talk-page for this article, which I didn't have time for, until now.

To clarify, I cited every number that could be traced to a reference, while the un-cited numbers were calculated from already present data & made sense to me to be included in this mostly empty table, and still do. But as I understand wikipedia standards: If it can not be found in a reliable reference; Then it should either be cited as such via the template(s) {{Citation needed}} or {{Verify credibility}} or {{Verify source}} or {{Dubious}} or {{Failed verification}} OR in extreme cases: {{Original research}} then in such a case the original research could/should/would be deleted.

So if anyone wants make changes, even rather big changes to this section, I will not object, that is, if this section and it's table is made more complete, more informative and more reliable (ie. more encyclopedic). That said, I skimmed through the article Wikipedia:Manual of Style, and I still do not know what is expected of us editors to effectively cleanup this section to satisfy the undiscussed whim of the person who installed the Cleanup template. Furthermore, I cannot agree that any part of this section need be included in the article Life cycle assessment and I can not believe a wikipedia article can be considered "Cleaned up" when it is filled with templates suggesting the article be modified. So if you think the Cleanup and/or Mergeto requests are justified, then I think it would be a good idea for you to say why, here and now. --202.168.102.96 (talk) 01:02, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Suggestion on Nuclear Industry stats

I am really reluctant to make changes on this site, as things are controvercial, but this link might be of use:[1]. In the abstract, it says the range of estimates for nuclear industry carbon emissions is from 1.4 gCO2e/kWh to 288 gCO2e/kWh with an average of 66 gCO2e/kWh. This suggests the colored graph is very far off, and the tables likewise. —Preceding unsigned comment added by George H. Harvey (talk • contribs) 16:16, 16 February 2010 (UTC) I also just got information about solar PV technology from Evergreen Solar, it indicates that newer PV carbon footprints range from 20 to 28 gCO2e/kWh. I will see if I can get a link to use as a reference.--ghh 16:44, 17 February 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by George H. Harvey (talk • contribs) I found a reference on newer solar technology: http://www.nrel.gov/pv/thin_film/docs/cdte_ghg_energy_fthenakis_mrs_11-21.pdf According to this article, the photovoltaic technology reviewed produces about 23.6 grams CO2-equivalent/kwh. This would mean that the table is quite obsolete. —Preceding unsigned comment added by George H. Harvey (talk • contribs) 14:10, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Buzzword tag

Who claims "Carbon footprint" is a buzzword? I intend to remove this tag unless someone can justify it - but I am open to explanation. Not every topical concept is a buzzword. The main point about a buzzword seems to be that it is vague and used to impress rather than to communicate, but "carbon footprint" is fairly clearly defined, apart from the allocation problem. I have also not observed it used as a vague metaphor to impress others. PJTraill (talk) 22:39, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I have removed it. -- Alan Liefting- (talk) - 03:49, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Its use among the media and corporations is extremely vague, who often misrepresent the idea. They might claim, for example, that water use or the lack of use of non-biodegradable materials contributes to one's carbon footprint, when no connection can be made between them. Among general opinion, it is simply the scale that measures how much an individual (very specifically) pollutes, uses resources, or even the amount and frequency of bodily emissions they have. The very phrase evokes feelings of guilt and responsibility among listeners. There are two different meanings to the 'Carbon Footprint' one being clearly defined, the other a buzzword. --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 08:31, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

With an option to buy a carbon offset when purchasing airline tickets from some airlines and it's only benefit is to make you feel good about your flight (not any tangible affect such as the verifiable tree being planted and such), I would DEFINITELY describe this ridiculous new made-up hokey gibberish as a buzzword. MiracleMat (talk) 20:51, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Both "Green" and "Cabon footprint" are in danger of becoming not only buzz words but weasle words. They can be used quite vaguely, even dishonestly, to displel concerns, divert attention, equivocate, mislable, conceal, and lie. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tonygumbrell (talk • contribs) 22:10, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Resource: 2010 book How Bad Are Bananas?: The Carbon Footprint of Everything ISBN 978-1553658313 by Mike Berners-Lee

• Mike Berners-Lee - British estimator of greenhouse gas emissions arising from everyday activities, author of 2010 book How Bad Are Bananas?: The Carbon Footprint of Everything ISBN 978-1553658313. 99.181.128.190 (talk) 07:53, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

There are one or possibly two small text errors in the section By Area, third sentence: 'nonprofits' should surely be 'nonprofit organizations; and 'academic mooseervice' means nothing to me, and should surely be referenced if there really is such a word as 'mooseervice' ardj--Ardj (talk) 23:38, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Carbon footprint of Beef

I am Geoff Beacon.

My entry on the embodied carbon of beef was removed by a moderator. OK, It did point to a website I set up with a grant from UnLtd, the millennium charity, which has the relevant references. But the moderation has had the effect of denying readers the chance to know the enormous carbon footprint of beef (and the meat of other ruminants).

As far as I can see there is no [[the carbon footprint of beef] on Wikipedia or many other everyday products and activities that were found on the website I set up. Wikipedia would be a much better place than my site.

I did offer to pay a student this summer on the carbon footprint of beef or anything else of his choice without mentioning my site. He couldn't get past the moderator.

Wake up Wikipedia. Your coverage of carbon footprints tells very little about the impact of our everyday lives. You give references to academics that do not disclose their actual figures. Those that do get it wrong (e.g. pig meat and beef do not have the same footprint!) — Preceding unsigned comment added by RedParasol (talk • contribs) 09:24, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Units not defined

In the table titled Carbon footprint by generation technology, is this grams of CO2, grams of Carbon, or something else? Commentor above says "carbon footprint" is clearly defined... where? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.231.128.119 (talk) 18:23, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

I clarified headings, which were pretty cryptic for a general encyclopedia article. Still not clear on thermal vs. electrical units, and source does not clarify it. Can someone else help? Also noted very narrow range of 3 sources. Need more sources, for example as cited in http://the.co2list.org and may continue when I have time. Numbersinstitute (talk) 15:50, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

"Save the Planet, Kill Yourself" Meme

Many enviro groups speak of the importance of having a max of 2, 1, or even 0 kids. Wouldn't suicide be the most eco-friendly thing a person could do for the planet? It's an anti-human cult, I tell ya! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uMFAhW_ZmV8 74.90.57.148 (talk) 04:51, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Carbon Footprint Term

Question regarding definition: Why is water vapour not included in the list of greenhouse gases ? Surely if you go into a greenhouse and measure the differences between environment inside and outside the greenhouse, the major differences are temperature, relative humidity and concentrations of carbon dioxide and oxygen. Any sort of carbon combustion emits water plus CO2 but the heat capacity of water vapour is much higher than any of the other gases and has a much higher capacity store heat energy. Water vapour seems to be more influential than any of the other gases mentioned. Why is it not included in the list of GHG? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.90.63.20 (talk) 22:08, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Who coined the term carbon footprint? I have a friend who says its al gore, but I have strong doubts. I believe it is scientific. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Z347gj1 (talk • contribs) May 25, 2006 (18:55 UTC).

Great question, especially when you realize that Al Gore is a major shareholder and CEO of Generation Investment Management, a company that sells the carbon offsets. How convenient that he produced a documentary (can you spell infomercial?) that promotes the practice of offsetting our impact on the environment with such a purchase. Hmmm... smells fishy to me. --M.S. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.247.232.228 (talk • contribs) March 4, 2007 (14:45 UTC).

Actually, he's Chairman, rather than CEO (purely a point of fact, it doesn't really affect the argument). The more serious question is whether the claim that Generation Investment Management sells carbon offsets is actually true. I can find no evidence of this. --Salvadors 17:16, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

My first encounter with the term was through BP advertising, and I had assumed they coined the phrase. They were certainly responsible for popularising it in the UK. Would be nice to nail down the origins though. Xyster 30 May 2007

I am wondering (as a non native) why the metaphor 'footprint' is used. - OliverGassner 16 June 2007

The idea of footprinting is at least 8 years old (1999) to my knowledge and came from a desire to explain how unsustainable western lifestyles are particularly in the context of global equity.ExampleDB42 (talk) 12:44, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

I would say a footprint is an effective metaphor that communicates a sense of 'leaving something behind.' There is the leave no trace motto in hiking, that you only take pictures and memories and only leave footprints. So the idea of a footprint here, is that we can understand our impacts and the size of them and use that to adjust them. --Ryandwayne (talk) 13:00, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Carbon footprint. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090511102744/http://www.carbontrust.co.uk:80/solutions/CarbonFootprinting/what_is_a_carbon_footprint.htm to http://www.carbontrust.co.uk/solutions/CarbonFootprinting/what_is_a_carbon_footprint.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 03:54, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 external links on Carbon footprint. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091025164626/http://www.isa.org.usyd.edu.au/publications/documents/ISA_Nuclear_Report.pdf to http://www.isa.org.usyd.edu.au/publications/documents/ISA_Nuclear_Report.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130515034836/http://www.buses.org/files/2008ABAFoundationComparativeFuelCO2.pdf to http://www.buses.org/files/2008ABAFoundationComparativeFuelCO2.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130515034836/http://www.buses.org/files/2008ABAFoundationComparativeFuelCO2.pdf to http://www.buses.org/files/2008ABAFoundationComparativeFuelCO2.pdf
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.rail-reg.gov.uk/upload/pdf/rolling-c9-environ.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080516033219/http://www.carbontrust.co.uk/carbon/briefing/carbon_label.htm to http://www.carbontrust.co.uk/carbon/briefing/carbon_label.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110710170031/http://ecosystemmarketplace.com/documents/acrobat/StateoftheVoluntaryCarbonMarket18July_Final.pdf to http://ecosystemmarketplace.com/documents/acrobat/StateoftheVoluntaryCarbonMarket18July_Final.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070707112535/http://www.acore.org/renewableenergyinfo/includes/resource-files/bios.doc to http://www.acore.org/renewableenergyinfo/includes/resource-files/bios.doc
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131005014225/http://cecmanitoba.ca/resource/hearings/22/WPG2-006.pdf to http://cecmanitoba.ca/resource/hearings/22/WPG2-006.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081223014334/http://www.censa.org.uk:80/reports.html to http://www.censa.org.uk/reports.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090307034640/http://www.walkerscarbonfootprint.co.uk:80/walkers_carbon_trust.html to http://www.walkerscarbonfootprint.co.uk/walkers_carbon_trust.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:29, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Carbon footprint. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110722030340/http://iga.igg.cnr.it/documenti/IGA/Fridleifsson_et_al_IPCC_Geothermal_paper_2008.pdf to http://iga.igg.cnr.it/documenti/IGA/Fridleifsson_et_al_IPCC_Geothermal_paper_2008.pdf
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.censa.org.uk/reports.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.walkerscarbonfootprint.co.uk/walkers_carbon_trust.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:08, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

GHG Footprint

Perhaps it would be better to make a new article called GHG-footprint and put 'carbon footprint' in it (as it is only a part of it).

- response - As I have just commented in the GHG footprint page, exclusively CO2 is not a common understanding or usage of the term 'carbon footprint', so I think the article mentioned, and the GHG footprint section of this article, are probably unhelpful. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 163.1.19.1 (talk) 12:38, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Does anyone else think it is ironic there is a disclaimer for this topic stating "This article may require cleanup to meet Wikipedia's quality standards"?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.205.216.132 (talk) 17:18, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Ways to reduce carbon footprint

I am currently working on separating the section previously labeled "Ways to reduce carbon footprint," into two sections. These two sections being, "Ways to reduce personal carbon footprint," and the other "Ways to reduce industry's carbon footprint". I think the distinction between these two is very important and apply to two different audiences; those looking into ways to reduce their impact and those looking at various strategies for companies (whether it is their own or purely for research). Any suggestions on topics that these new sections should include are welcome! Thanks! KristenTomberlin (talk) 20:37, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

I am afraid encouragement is all I have to offer right now, but I think you are quite right to make this distinction. You might, however, find that they have enough in common to justify making them sub-sections of a common section on reducing the footprint in general, and/or you may find other aspects of reduction that belong in a third sub-section; it is very arguable that the "Schemes" section belongs there. PJTraill (talk) 10:13, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Personal Carbon Footprint

When I first heard the term, the context suggested that it referred to the amount of emissions caused by a person over a period of time. I don't know enough about the subject to feel comfortable about extending the definition -- guidance or pointers welcome... --Soundray 14:54, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

• For anyone ever "looking back": The wording for "Personal Carbon Footprint" is now Hand-print. -- Otr500 (talk) 21:03, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Article issues

This is reportedly an encyclopedia. In some areas it seems Wikipedia is used as a promotional vehicle for certain causes. I am not against "causes" or presenting them but it must be done in a encyclopedic tone. I have read two articles and both push "Plant-based diet" (alternate wording for Vegans) and content derived from "Environmental Research Letters" as a solution to the problem. While that may be a consideration there are just as many people that believe humans were created or evolved (depending on the point of view) into meat-eaters. Some say proof would be the human teeth. I do not know all the scientific reasoning but "pushing" animal rights and "stop eating meat" is good material for an essay but needs neutrality (remember the "Five pillars") for inclusion here.

I have linked to Plant-based diet which seems to say that Plant-based diets can contain a little meat. By the way I am not sure why your post here was not automatically signed. Perhaps you have already amended the article - if not feel free to do so. Chidgk1 (talk) 18:34, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

TV wasteful Broadcasting format generates excesses in Carbon footprint

There are a lot of unecrypted FTA TV Stations in rich countries (UK, Germany) which use old Video coding like MPEG-2 which are very excessive in Carbon footprint.

A lot of Smaller and poorer countries use at least MPEG-4 because for them using MPEG-2 would be just too wasteful and generate too much financial cost. (Poland, Czechia, Slovakia, Slovenia, Croatia )

FTA receiver for much more effective AV1 or H.265/HEVC are cheap for population in rich countries and cost just few hours of Minimum wage.

FTA TV Stations are doing so just to promote paid encrypted TV Stations, and hold back competition on TV market.

A lot of FTA TV Stations are just SD version of paid encrypted HDTV Stations.

As using 4 or 8 times more effective Video coding makes entry capital for new TV station about 4-8 cheaper.

And competition would be 4-8 more hard.

What is more unecrypted FTA TV Stations very often using narrow beam for geolocking signal.

That technique is also very very excessive in Carbon footprint when compared to number of population covered.

What is more enryption and decryption cost power and have greater Carbon footprint than FTA TV Stations.

And People watching TV have much less Carbon footprint than doing other activities.

That is especially true for people not forced to earn ability to pay for TV as it is in case of FTA.

And it is much cheaper and effective way of forcing vast population of not doing activities with much more Carbon footprint like traveling by foot or machine.

Other mean of forcing that effect upon population is heavy taxation (on machine travel) which makes population much poorer in general.

Please could you sign your post. If you have a reliable source for the carbon footprint of TV broadcasting please edit the article. Chidgk1 (talk) 10:52, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

References

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 7 January 2019 and 26 April 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): KristenTomberlin. Peer reviewers: Mliao2, Dparida7.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 16:46, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 24 August 2021 and 20 December 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Odunn23. Peer reviewers: Istone2vu.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 18:38, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 9 November 2021 and 10 December 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Lindseywiesen. Peer reviewers: Fltuhol, Nicolewin.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 18:38, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Removed section on solutions

I'm boldly removing this section called "solutions" as it was also introduced from that merger (see above) and is repetitive with earlier sections in this article about reducing carbon footprint and also with content that is at other Wikipedia articles. Have copied it to the talk page in case someone feels it needs rescuing. EMsmile (talk) 09:15, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

Extended content

Everyday life changes Further information: Individual action on climate change There are many simple changes that can be made to the everyday lifestyle of a person that would reduce their GHG footprint. Reducing energy consumption within a household can include lowering one's dependence on air conditioning and heating, using LED lamps, choosing ENERGY STAR appliances, recycling, using cold water to wash clothes, avoiding a dryer, and eating less meat. Another adjustment would be reducing one's reliance on gas combustion-based motor vehicles, which produce many GHGs. One could also lower their footprint by taking direct flights during air traveling. While making these changes won't bring down one's carbon footprint overnight, they will make a significant difference long term. Lifestyles and systemic changes Sustainable living refers to ways of living that are found to be sustainable within the Earth system or by which one purposely attempts to reduce an individual's or society's use of the Earth's natural resources, and one's personal resources. Studies found that systemic change for "decarbonization" of humanity's economic structures or root-cause system changes above politics are required for a substantial impact on global warming. Such changes may result in sustainable lifestyles, along with associated products, services and expenditures, being structurally supported and becoming sufficiently prevalent and effective in terms of collective greenhouse gas emission reductions. Reducing greenhouse gases Reduction of carbon dioxide In order to decrease CO2 emissions, the reliance of fossil fuels must be lowered. These fuels produce much CO2 across all forms of their usage. Alternatively, renewable sources are cleaner for the environment. Household energy conservation measures include increasing insulation in construction, using fuel-efficient vehicles and ENERGY STAR appliances, and unplugging electrical items when not in use. Reduction of methane Reducing methane gas emissions can be accomplished in several ways. Capturing CH4 emissions from coal mines and landfills, are two ways of reducing these emissions. Manure management and livestock operations is another possible solution. Motor vehicles use fossil fuels, which produces CO2, but fossil fuels also produce CH4 as a byproduct. Thus, better technology for these vehicles to avoid leakage as well as technologies that reduce their use would be beneficial. Reduction of nitrous oxide Nitrous oxide (N2O) is often given off as a byproduct in various ways. Nylon production and fossil fuel usage are two ways that N2O is given off as a byproduct. Thus, improving technology for nylon production and the gathering of fossil fuels would greatly reduce nitrous oxide emissions. Also, many fertilizers have a nitrogenous base. A decrease in usage of these fertilizers, or changing their components, are more ways to reduce N2O emissions. Reduction of fluorinated gases Although fluorinated gases are not produced on a massive scale, they have the worst effect on the environment. A reduction of fluorinated gas emissions can be done in many ways. Many industries that emit these gases can capture or recycle them. These same industries can also invest in more advanced technology that will not produce these gases. A reduction of leakage within power grids and motor vehicles will also decrease the emissions of fluorinated gases. There are also many air conditioning systems that emit fluorinated gases, thus an update in technology would decrease these emissions. References

EMsmile (talk) 09:15, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

removing Carbon footprint of political choices and Financed emissions

I am also culling this as it reads more like an academic literature review piece and is not suitable for this kind of high level article, in my opinion. EMsmile (talk) 09:26, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

Extended content

Financed emissions The carbon footprinting of financial portfolios (so-called "financed emissions") has its origin in the mid-2000's with initiatives from investors (Henderson and Pictet AM) and NGOs seeking to hold banks and investors to account with regard to their carbon footprint. The 2° Investing Initiative conducted the first review of financed emissions methodologies in 2013. The Montreal Carbon Pledge is the first formal footprinting pledge by financial institutions. Overseen by the PRI, it has attracted commitment from over 120 investors with over US$10 trillion in assets under management, as of the United Nations Climate Change Conference (COP21) in December 2015 in Paris. There are a range of financed emisisons data and methodology providers across major financial service providers (e.g. ISS, MSCI, S&P Sustainable1). The Partnership for Carbon Accounting Financial (PCAF) is an industry initiative designed to standardize the accounting principles underpinning financed emissions. The use of the carbon footprint concept is not without controversy however, as the translation of the footprinting logic to financial instruments comes with a number of challenges and caveats, including the need to normalize by financial variables that distort the results and data qualty. As a result, many major climate target-setting initiatives focus on forward-looking portfolio alignment methodologies (e.g. PACTA). References

EMsmile (talk) 09:26, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

What to do with the section "Schemes to reduce carbon emissions"

I am tempted to also delete the section "Schemes to reduce carbon emissions". It seems to digress into other areas of climate policies and is probably much better covered in other articles, e.g. carbon offset. I think it's also a bit outdated by now. Thoughts? Pinging also User:Dtetta. EMsmile (talk) 09:38, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I think I agree with you. That section is about reducing carbon emissions much more broadly and generally. What does a typical reader want? A typical reader probably wants to know how to reduce their personal (or maybe company) carbon footprint, which is covered in the previous section Reducing carbon footprints So all the material about emissions trading, the Kyoto protocol, and so on is better dealt with elsewhere? 45154james (talk) 10:41, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

I agree. Dtetta (talk) 13:18, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

OK, I've removed it now. I thought about utilising it for another Wikipedia article but it's actually all very outdated so I don't think there is anything worth rescuing there (I used the "who wrote that?" tool to find out when the text was added). EMsmile (talk) 08:28, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

Extended content

CO2 projection Review (Jan 2023) Hi, we have this article on our list of articles that we would like to see improved as part of this project this year. It has quite high pageviews (around 1000 pageviews per day). Who is currently actively watching this article and perhaps has some improvement ideas already? Pinging User:Chidgk1 and User:Dtetta (I've seen carbon accounting and carbon footprint mentioned in the same publications so there is naturally some overlap / a relationship). Anyway, today I received some inputs from reviewer Christian Berg (who has previously helped with the sustainability article). I think these are useful pointers that can inspire us to make some necessary changes (translated from German with Deepl): "Carbon footprint is ONE important but ultimately poor means to determine environmental impact. We are in danger of judging everything by CF, which ignores many other problems (biodiversity, water, ...). There are conflicting goals in reducing CF: lightweighting in vehicle construction leads, among other things, to use more fiber composites, which makes vehicles lighter, but much harder to recycle! At the moment, there is a paragraph on CF of energy consumption - then, in my opinion, something should definitely be said about CF of energy production, see the EROI-discussion in my book. This becomes especially important when thinking about CCS, BECCS etc. Because these processes of the CDR are partly extremely energy-intensive, thus also have a partly substantial CF. Why is the CF nevertheless important or what are the difficulties for other areas? The big chance lies in simple, easily measurable and quantifiable quantity, which in principle gives the GHG potential (if one calculates with CO2 equivalents. Unfortunately, this is much more difficult in many other areas)." Oh and we could also compare with the article in the German Wikipedia which looks quite different (or French, Spanish etc.): https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/CO2-Bilanz (use Google Translate to translate to English; works so well these days). EMsmile (talk) 12:13, 19 January 2023 (UTC) Sorry I doubt I will have time to think about this article Chidgk1 (talk) 06:43, 20 January 2023 (UTC) Some of the criticisms Christian highlights are worth adding to the article, perhaps, as a discussion about the validity and usefulness of the overall carbon footprint concept? We would need sources that discuss these areas, but I'm sure they are easy to find. 45154james (talk) 15:44, 21 March 2023 (UTC) I agree with you. Now that I have culled out stuff that was just bloating it up, it's easy to see the missing content. A section on criticisms (or challenges) would be very useful. I'll ask Christian if he wants to suggest some publications. I do have his book that he mentions as a pdf file here with me but it's behind a paywall so not so easy to use for other editors. EMsmile (talk) 08:36, 22 March 2023 (UTC) References What do readers expect from this article? I'd like to pick up something that User:45154james wrote above: "What does a typical reader want? A typical reader probably wants to know how to reduce their personal (or maybe company) carbon footprint, which is covered in the previous section Reducing carbon footprints". This might be true but I'd hesitate to build up this content a lot but I would rather to keep it very brief and point them to individual action on climate change - which should be the number 1 page with content about reducing carbon footprint of individuals? What would be the equivalent page for companies or governments that we should point them to? I guess there is politics of climate change, carbon emission trading and lots of others (which would be the most important ones?). Some further thoughts: I see in this article a bit of overlap/repetition with content from "carbon accounting", e.g. it also talks about Scope 1, 2 and 3. Is all the existing overlap normal/unavoidable or not? Does the article explain it well enough what carbon footprint and carbon accounting have to do with each other? My other conceptual problem is that carbon footprint is essentially just another word for "summing up the greenhouse gas emissions". For that reason where it talks about carbon footprint from travelling it actually has the same content as the article "greenhouse gas emissions". So how would be best streamline that so we don't have to write about the same content in two articles? I suggest to refocus this article so that it talks more about the concept, how it's used in the media, how people understand it, also any criticism and challenges. I envision quite a short article in the end. It's interesting that in common language people are perhaps more likely to say "I want to reduce my carbon footprint" than "I want to reduce my greenhouse gas emissions" even though it would be the same thing, right? Or is there something about carbon footprint that is different to GHG emissions that I am missing? EMsmile (talk) 13:27, 22 March 2023 (UTC) Merger proposal 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 merge. Chidgk1 (talk) 18:56, 12 June 2020 (UTC) I propose to merge Greenhouse gas footprint into this article as I think it is a synonym. Chidgk1 (talk) 18:52, 27 May 2020 (UTC) Support. The carbon footprint concept typically already includes other GHGs. Mostly synonym. Femke Nijsse (talk) 11:13, 28 May 2020 (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. I think it's good that you merged it. The article Greenhouse gas footprint was very bad and outdated. However, I think we ought to mention the term "greenhouse gas footprint" here as well (which I have now done). Interestingly, the IPCC AR 6 report (from 2022) in its glossary includes only CO2 in the definition for carbon footprint. That publication from 2007 explains why (they even say if we included all greenhouse gases it should be called "climate footprint"). Anyway, I just wanted to point this out as it contradicts Femke's statement a little bit: "The carbon footprint concept typically already includes other GHGs.". I tend to agree with Femke, but it seems that IPCC favours the narrow definition for just CO2. In any case, they focus in their publication more on "greenhouse gas emissions", not on the more "popular term" of carbon footprint, I guess... EMsmile (talk) 00:38, 23 March 2023 (UTC) Some images added I added some images that I found on Wikimedia Commons. But this needs further work, e.g. we need to decide on just one good image for the lead (or a 2 x 2 collage like at climate change mitigation). EMsmile (talk) 09:00, 24 March 2023 (UTC) Good choices. These are a step (footprint!) in the right direction: they're much more relevant to "carbon footprint". 45154james (talk) 10:52, 24 March 2023 (UTC) Chidgk1 is right that the top two are ambiguous and need sources. From the Wikimedia captions, it seems they may be just rough illustrations rather than exact infographics? 45154james (talk) 06:12, 30 March 2023 (UTC) Yes, I think they are just vague visualisations without trying to be precise. Pinging User:Tommaso.sansone91 who had created them. Are you still around and can tell us more? If not then we might need to find better images that have a clearer source. EMsmile (talk) 11:19, 30 March 2023 (UTC) Review by content expert (April 2023) As part of my work on this project, I've received comments about this Wikipedia article in a marked-up Word document by Vivienne Reiner who is a PhD student at the University of Sydney. Over the coming days and weeks my colleague User:ASRASR and I will enter them into the Wikipedia article bit by bit. Please speak up if you have any concerns/ideas now or later or if you can also help to make the article better. Here are some broad comments that she sent me in several e-mails (oldest e-mails last in the list): Just to highlight some of the edits: The section on Products is an excerpt from an older article; however I have added information from IPCC’s 6ARWGIII for the By Sector section, which has some overlap. I’ve added in several news sub-sections under Definitions and also updated the Calculations with IPCC 6ARWGIII information from the Introduction/framing including a nice figure/image (have copied across the full caption as background). So see the hyperlinks for the sources, you can accept changes or click ‘edit hyperlink’ over the relevant section for background. I have not focused much on the individual carbon footprint but rather put more effort into the industry/government carbon footprint because these comprise most global GHGs so it is really systemic issues and whole-of-society responses (rather than individual action) that are the critical lever in slashing the global carbon footprint and therefore addressing climate change. Carbon footprinting is hugely important and it’s likely that soon companies globally will have to report on their carbon emissions i.e. footprint – this is the key to stopping climate change but it needs to be scope 3, not just a local footprint that doesn’t include much of the emissions. Carbon footprinting isn’t just popular in the media, it’s also increasingly popular with governments and businesses. The term is used interchangeably to mean the footprint of GHGs, which is carbon dioxide or equivalent emissions, carbon being the main tone. Footprinting includes indirect impacts, extending to scope 3 emissions along the extended supply chain, which is expected to become increasingly mandated. (When asked about the term "climate footprint" which redirects to here:) Climate footprint isn’t a common term but where I have seen a climate footprint done recently was in UN-hosted Sustainable Consumption and Production Hotspot Analysis Tool (SCP-HAT). In one of the sections, you can compare different footprints like GHGs, water, biodiversity and also the footprint for short-term and long-term climate change. In the last par of the first section, I would update/add a bit of information about scope 3 emissions being ‘difficult’ to calculate because they’re not with input-output analysis, the methodology my research group uses, which is widely used worldwide. I.e. in this explainer I wrote with my supervisors Google and Amazon misled about their carbon footprint we explain: “software does exist that can routinely quantify scope-3 emissions [and] there are also consultants and researchers who model global sustainability footprints.” You could update the article further by adding in the latest big thing in carbon accounting globally, the International Sustainability Standards Board (ISSB), which is brining together many of the leading carbon accounting programs and groups together; the first tranche is for scope 3 emissions reporting and next is expected to be other material sustainability issues i.e. perhaps modern slavery. EMsmile (talk) 13:05, 19 April 2023 (UTC) Update in June 2023 Update: User:ASRASR has recently added the edits that were sent to us by by Vivienne Reiner by e-mail and also added his own content and refs, I believe. @User:ASRASR perhaps you could briefly summarise the major changes that came out of this round of editing? I've also made some changes to the article today. I have restructured it a bit. I wanted to move the content that is specific to carbon footprinting (e.g. the critique section), to the front of the article, and leave the part that is not unique and that is identical to content at greenhouse gas emissions, climate change mitigation and so forth to the second half of the article. There might be even scope for further condensing here. Some further comments: It seems to me that the content about Scope 1, 2 and 3 is a bit repetitive. I am not sure if it really fits so well under "definitions" or should be moved to "calculations". (update: I have changed that now) Can we come up with better images for carbon footprint? I feel that we have a lot of images and graphs about GHG emissions which again seems to imply that carbon footprint = GHG emissions but doesn't make it clear why it's its own Wikipedia article that is unique. I have taken out a few mentions of "new" and "recent" and "now" as those words will age quickly if they are not specified with a particular year. I have changed terms to italics rather than quotation marks. The section on "calculations" still seems a bit messy and the logical flow is missing a bit. (update: I've re-arranged these sections a bit but it's still not great) EMsmile (talk) 13:31, 12 June 2023 (UTC) Also, the lead contained content that was not in the main body of text. I have moved that now. Once we are happy with the structure and content of the article we need to revisit the lead and ensure it's a good summary of the article, about 400-500 words long.EMsmile (talk) 15:50, 12 June 2023 (UTC) Changes to the definition section I've just changed the definition section a bit to achieve a more logical flow (I hope). It seems that the current IPCC definition only includes CO2 and is based on a publication from 2008. It seems to me though that more commonly nowadays several GHGs are included in carbon footprint though (I hesitate to say "all"). So I've changed it around a bit to reflect that. The definition from 2011 would now be the more prominent one (comes first in that section). Maybe we could add some more references about this if this has been described like this in the literature somewhere. EMsmile (talk) 13:26, 28 June 2023 (UTC) Main image (moved from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Climate Change) Carbon footprint scale of eating different kinds of meat (e.g. red meat has a higher carbon footprint than poultry). Carbon footprint scale of transportation means I've been working on the carbon footprint article lately. Does anyone have a better idea for the image in the lead? I quite like the ones chosen so far but I am a bit concerned as they are not properly sourced but are more "own work" (not mine but User:Tommaso.sansone91). Also, I don't understand why mutton is shown to have a higher footprint than beef. This does not match with this which could be regarded as the underlying source: https://ourworldindata.org/food-choice-vs-eating-local. I do like the "visual" aspect of the different sizes of clouds, rather than showing actual numbers like a graph would do. I think that's one of the distinguishing aspects between the carbon footprint and the greenhouse gas emissions article - the carbon footprint concept is more of a communication thing. Anyhow, if anyone has time to help with this article I would appreciate it. EMsmile (talk) 09:14, 3 July 2023 (UTC) References EMsmile (talk) 09:14, 3 July 2023 (UTC) I think those two images might be better off as 2x2 instead of a single file of four? The current format really seems to struggle to represent scale. It all looks like relatively limited difference and a gradual trend, when there's an over 2X difference between even beef and mutton, let alone beef and the rest of foods. Similarly, clouds for bus and rail look almost the same, when bus emissions are twice as large (and single-person drive emissions are also twice as large as those from the bus.) Another way to represent it might be to omit writing "CO2" on every single cloud and instead just place the foods/means of transportation inside the cloud, so that there's more space to make certain clouds larger? InformationToKnowledge (talk) 16:40, 6 July 2023 (UTC) I've removed the graphic on meat from the article because, as you pointed out, it incorrectly states lamb has a bigger footprint than beef. In terms of what to replace it with, I agree with InformationToKnowledge's point - just put two photos (like a steak and a bowl of lentils) side by side and explain in the caption that one has a bigger carbon footprint than the other. By the way this discussion should be at Talk:Carbon footprint so I will move it there. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 17:09, 6 July 2023 (UTC) Thanks for your inputs, InformationToKnowledge and Clayoquot. I didn't really want to create my own graphs or images, so I went back to the Our World in Data website and searched for any articles or graphs with the term "carbon footprint". I found information on the two easy to grasp examples of food and transport. So I have used some of their graphs now (including one for the lead), rather than that simplistic one with the clouds of CO2. I think these graphs by Our World in Data are quite good; they show a bit the complexities, especially the different GHGs food comparisons. But I would still like to find a depiction that is very simple, just for visualising what the carbon footprint is all about. Perhaps it doesn't exist. But if anyone knows of such an image, please bring it to my attention. Thanks. EMsmile (talk) 12:31, 7 July 2023 (UTC) Improvements in July I've just completed another round of improvements where I tried to make it all a bit clearer, less academic and with more examples that people can understand. I plan to take a little break now from editing this article, although I will be contacting also some further reviewers for comment. Overall, I think it's still not great but far better than before. Some of the sections still suffer from academic language and low readability scores but I am currently not able to improve on those (as I am undecided what is important and what is not). If anyone can help, please do! Also, here are some comments I got from Christian Berg last week which I have already addressed/incorporated now. Note, the text below was translated from German to English by Deepl so won't be perfect English: +++ To your questions I will first write an assessment and then you / we can consider whether and how to incorporate it. Ad 1: the problem with ecological externalities is, after all, that economic activities cause damage to nature for which no one pays (whether that is the case in the Art. Carb. Foot. has to be explained, I am not sure, rather skeptical). After all, there are quite different kinds of environmental damages, which are mostly (also) shown by damages to the environmental media (water, soil, air). The idea of quantifying these damages in some way is ultimately in the background of the question about the Carb. Footprint - BUT the CF is just one, today very common, but very limited view on things. There were already other concepts in the 90s: For example that of the ecological backpack (https://www.nachhaltigkeit.info/artikel/schmidt_bleek_mips_konzept_971.htm) or the ecological footprint https://www.nachhaltigkeit.info/artikel/kologischer_fussabdruck_733.htm , (https://www.footprintnetwork.org/our-work/ecological-footprint/ or also https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Ecological_footprint). Ad 2: Maybe you could write after an introduction/general classification, as just tried, that the climate crisis is one of the most discussed ecological crises of our time (there are countless sources writing this - if necessary also in distinction to underrepresented topics like BioDiv or material cycles).There have been political efforts for a very long time, the IPCC, the Kyoto Protocol, Paris etc..And for it, unlike other crises, it is true that there is (more or less) ONE indicator, CO2 eqiv, describing the situation. Moreover, almost all economic activities are associated with GHG emissions. This all illustrates why the GHG/Carbon Footprint has become such an important metric. BUT this should not make us forget that it is "only" about carbon. So BioDiv, toxicity, land degradation, etc. all don't enter into it. Ad 3: First of all, I have to say that I am not a CF expert either. But in my opinion, it is first important to distinguish what you are looking at: a company, a product, a country ....? As the name suggests, the LIFE-cycle assessment LCA / ecobalance is oriented towards a product. Therefore, ISO 14067 and PAS 2050 have the product in mind (https://www.iso.org/standard/71206.html ). The World Resources Institute (WRI) with the World Business Council for Sustainable Development (wbcsd) had developed the Greenhouse Gas Protocol with its 3 scopes coming from a business perspective. These are simply different perspectives, in that they complement each other. Complicating matters further, LCA standards such as ISO 14067 are proprietary... EMsmile (talk) 10:28, 10 July 2023 (UTC) History of carbon footprint calculators Among colleagues the question arose what were the origins of carbon footprint calculators. Particularly: What role did BP play here? You often hear people say, that BP developed the concept, but this is apparently not true. The article is not specific about the question. In the first section it claims: "The use of household carbon footprint calculators originated when oil producer BP hired Ogilvy, an advertising agency, to create a marketing campaign in 2005." This paragraph refers to this 2014 paper by James Morton Turner (pdf). I'll come back to the paper below. In the section "critique" it says (mixing history and criticism): "According to the Oxford English Dictionary, the term "carbon footprint" was first used in a BBC vegetarian food magazine in 1999, though the broader concept of "environmental footprint" had been used since at least 1979. The idea of a personal carbon footprint was popularized by a large advertising campaign of the fossil fuel company BP in 2005, designed by Ogilvy. It instructed people to calculate their personal footprints and provided ways for people to "go on a low-carbon diet"." The Turner paper has a closer look at the history of footprint calculators. Turner writes: "[...] Carbon footprints have become so ubiquitous in discussions of climate change it is easy to take the term for granted, but the concept has a short history. Important moments in this history include: In 2001, the World Resources Institute launched one of the first carbon calculators on the Internet at SafeClimate.net. In 2003, Carbonfund paired an online carbon footprint calculator with its carbon offset program to encourage individual action. In 2005, BP, the energy company, ran television advertisements in the US and Europe that asked consumers, “What is your carbon footprint?” Despite these efforts, attention to the concept was slow to develop. Only after the surge of attention to global warming in 2006 did public interest in carbon footprints begin to grow, peaking in 2008 when more than a dozen online carbon footprint calculators were available on the Internet from non-governmental organizations, such as The Nature Conservancy and Carbonfund.org, governmental agencies, such as the US Environmental Protection Agency, and corporations, such as BP. [...]" It's clear that neither the concept nor the idea of online CFP calculators originated by BP. I find this quite important for the concept, so I would like to include the first part of the quoted paragraph in the article and to move this sentence from the section "critique" here too: "According to the Oxford English Dictionary, the term "carbon footprint" was first used in a BBC vegetarian food magazine in 1999, though the broader concept of "environmental footprint" had been used since at least 1979." This could either be a new (next-to-last) paragraph in the first section or in an own section "Early development of the concept" after the section "Definitions". The sentence on BP quoted first should be deleted ("... The use of household carbon..."). Opinions or ideas? Zaoul (talk) 11:31, 10 May 2023 (UTC) Thanks for this information Zaoul. In light of the information that BP was not in fact the originator of the carbon footprint concept, I agree with deleting that sentence and highlighting the sentence you suggest about the BBC vegetarian food magazine's use. In general, I agree the focus should be on the main uses, i.e., moves towards a wide-spanning definition of the footprint as including the entire supply chain, which is about ensuring the responsibility is laid with those who are the drivers of carbon emissions. Overall, I think the carbon footprint Wikipedia article should focus on the concept, but not about the details of GHG emissions and how to reduce them - a bit similar to the article on carbon budget which focuses on the concept, not on how to stay within the carbon budget… instead, it uses an excerpt from the CC mitigation article at the end: https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Carbon_budget. VivhD (talk) 10:44, 18 May 2023 (UTC) Thanks. I am just going to ping Zaoul to make sure they see your reply and so that they can take it further. EMsmile (talk) 12:16, 24 May 2023 (UTC) Took me some time to get back to the issue, sorry! I'm not sure how best to proceed? Haven't ever changed larger parts of a wiki article - and also without collaborating with others. I'd feel better if we could negotiate a version before making public changes. Or what do you think? Zaoul (talk) 08:34, 13 July 2023 (UTC) Hi Zaoul, I suggest you put into your sandbox (see link at the top in red) what you are proposing to add to this article (as you are still a new editor), and then we can quickly reach consensus. That Turner 2014 paper is behind a paywall so I can't easily check what it's saying. Are you saying this information from that paper needs to be added?: "In 2001, the World Resources Institute launched one of the first carbon calculators on the Internet at SafeClimate.net. In 2003, Carbonfund paired an online carbon footprint calculator with its carbon offset program to encourage individual action." Could be done although it might be better to convert this quote into own text and perhaps shorten and condense it. In general, quotes are discouraged in Wikipedia editing. Apart from this, is there anything else that you want to change in either the History section or in the Critique section of the article? EMsmile (talk) 10:04, 13 July 2023 (UTC)