Talk:Greenhouse gas emissions/Archive 1

Correcting wikilinks after the split-off (April 2021)

So this article has been split off from greenhouse gas today. We should now change the wiki links to this article that come from other articles to link correctly to either greenhouse gas or to greenhouse gas emissions. Is there an easy way to do this? I would start with the tab on the left which says "what links here". That's thousands of articles that are currently linking to greenhouse gas. Would be very time consuming to go through them all. Is there a faster method? I noticed that about 300 articles already link to here which is good. EMsmile (talk) 08:57, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

I am going through with Findlink for the various redirects -- I am on it -- doesn't take too much time, and I will be able to get most of them, Sadads (talk) 00:03, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

@EMsmile FYI, I also fixed 510 other links in the last couple hours. If you find a link that ought to be corrected let me know, I might be able to fix a set of other residual links, Sadads (talk) 00:20, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

@Sadads that's awesome, thanks! I will keep my eyes open for links that might still need to be corrected. Right now there are 1,922 links to this page which is quite a lot already. Other comparable articles that I have looked at have around 5000 incoming links. The climate change article has about 12,000 incoming links. EMsmile (talk) 06:48, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Table of countries

@Phoenix7777: Thanks for updating this. As there are so many countries perhaps it should now be moved to List of countries by carbon dioxide emissions just leaving the top 10 or so here? Chidgk1 (talk) 14:15, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

Yea, there are so many different country level articles already: List of countries by carbon dioxide emissions, List of countries by carbon dioxide emissions per capita, List of countries by greenhouse gas emissions, and List of countries by greenhouse gas emissions per capita. Wondering if they are not better off merged? Might make it easier to keep them updated? Also if this article is about greenhouse gas emissions, should a table really be about CO2 emissions or should it be GHG emissions in total? Should we explain somewhere what portion of GHG is CO2, or how the other gases such as methane are converted to CO2 equivalents (maybe it's already there and I have overlooked it)? - Also it's true that if we have those sub-articles one wonders if we really need the entire table here. Then again, the table uses that slider on the side, therefore it is not taking up much space. I am undecided about that one. EMsmile (talk) 09:30, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

I have found some information about calculations in the article and have grouped them together in a new first section called "Calculations and measurements". Further work needed on this one. EMsmile (talk) 10:03, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Section 2 and 3 overlap now

Section 2 is called "Sources" and Section 3 is called "Regional and national attribution of emissions". This kind of split doesn't make sense to me. Either the two sections ought to be merged (Section 3 is also about sources) or renamed and restructured? EMsmile (talk) 09:26, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Historical fossil fuel CO2 emissions

I added a graphic showing changes in log(CO2 emissions) in the 'Projections' section, because there didn't seem to be a section on historical growth. Lee De Cola (talk) 23:05, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, could you please add a precise reference into the end of the caption to show where you got the data from. I see a website listed on the x-axis of the graph but it's not very practical as it's not clickable. EMsmile (talk) 00:16, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

I added citations both to the data and to the latest data report. I also moved the graphic and text. Frankly I don't find the article easy to follow. I suggest a high-level section on temporal analysis (historical and forecasted). Hard to think of more important Wikipedia articles.Lee De Cola (talk) 01:25, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

I agree with you, Ldecola: a really important article with lots of scope for improvement (see also below). Surprisingly, it was only created as a stand-alone article in April. Before that, it was part of greenhouse gas. EMsmile (talk) 03:51, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

In light of the accelerating effects of these emissions, I strongly suggest somebody - but who? - take charge of this article and reorganize/shorten/clarify. A place to begin would be the excellent pub I reference (Friedlingstein, P., et al. (2020)) in my contribution.Lee De Cola (talk) 16:25, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

Some improvement suggestions (Aug 2021)

I have some improvement suggestions and would work on them myself as soon as time permits, but perhaps I can find some collaborators here:

• The lead (summary of the article) should be made longer, about 600 words (4 paragraphs)
• The overlap between the section called "Sources" and Section 3 is called "Regional and national attribution of emissions" should be removed (see my comment above from 28 April)
• Images still need to be reviewed and updated.
• Consider also updating data and tables.
• Check how well it interlinks with NDCs. EMsmile (talk) 03:51, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

Suggested organization

1. Mechanism - How do Greenhouse Gases (GHG) work?
2. Type - What kinds of GHG are there?
3. Time - How have emissions changed in historical time?
4. Space - Where in the world do they come from?
5. Policies – What can be done?
   

Perhaps the first 2 sections could be very brief summaries of, and with references to, other articles. Lee De Cola (talk) 19:33, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

I like your proposal to some extent although you would have to be very careful to not overlap with other articles more than necessary. E.g. the section on "types" is presumably covered in greenhouse gas. The section on "mechanism" might already be in greenhouse effect. The section on "policies" is probably covered in climate change mitigation. It might work if you use the excerpt function for content that is in other articles but which you feel ought to be included here. It wasn't clear to me under which headings you would put the current content of the article? Overall, I agree that the article needs further work so it would be great if you and others could give it the attention it deserves. EMsmile (talk) 01:33, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

This topic - and all those relating to global climate - is far too important to be edited ad hoc by amateurs. Isn't there some kind of Wikipedia panel of experts that could undertake a complete reorg/rewrite of the various topics? For the moment I'm most preoccupied with the ‘piecewise analysis of CO2 emissions’ (which I feel deserves greater prominence once it’s been validated) so I’m not in a position to rework other sections.Lee De Cola (talk) 22:04, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

This is the panel you asked about: WikiProject Climate Change. I see you're already a member there. I agree with you we need more people to work on this in their day jobs, not just as volunteers. I have a project that has some funded time for myself for SDG 13 topics on Wikipedia, see here. I plan to write more proposals to get more funding. If you're interested in joining forces, do send me a message through the Wikipedia email system. EMsmile (talk) 02:27, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Which content experts might be approachable?

I am planning to approach some content experts to help with the review and improvements of this article. They won't have to do Wikipedia editing themselves if they don't want to but could mark up a Word document instead. This is part of this project that I am working on. Question: which content expert might be open to this - any suggestions? My experience so far is that textbook authors who are already in retirement are sometimes quite open to this kind of collaboration. They might also have a little bit more time on their hands than those in the middle of their hectic careers. Is there a good textbook on this topic? Another option could be some of the authors of the IPCC sixth assessment report but there are so many, I wouldn't know where to start. Or perhaps some science journalists? Some people value the opportunity to finally be shown how Wikipedia editing can work behind the scenes. EMsmile (talk) 03:39, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

@Femkemilene may have some referrals -- she has talked about her personal work on this with colleagues for a while. @Dtetta may know someone late career. Sadads (talk) 11:37, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Using the outline I suggested above, I volunteer to review, reassemble, and edit entries related to #3: temporal visualization and analysis. But it would be good if there were experts looking at my work. Lee De Cola (talk) 22:27, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

How to give more balance to the article?

There needs to be a distinction made between human-emitted greenhouse gases and natural greenhouse gases. A greenhouse gas is obviously not something else because it is emitted or generated naturally. The CO2 that is in the atmosphere that comes from volcanoes or termites is not a different kind of gas, nor does it have a different effect on the atmosphere than the CO2 which comes from a fosil fuel plant. By failing to make this distinction, the reader left wondering why the carbon emissions from natural phenomena and the offsetting processes, such as photosynthesis, are not even mentioned. The openning statement is incomplete, and therefore actually inacurrate and misleading. The increase in CO2 is obviously causes by human activity, but that is not the same as saying that this is what CO2 exclusively is.Contraverse (talk) 20:17, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

I've changed the first sentence to make clear the article is about human emissions. It needed to be shortened anyway. It gave a definition, rather than a description, which made it awkward. Femke (talk) 20:35, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

References

Course details

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 17 January 2022 and 1 May 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Aderush (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Pearl2070, Bixle023, Gray0696, LandonA77.

New report: "Global Energy Review: CO2 Emissions in 2021"

There's a new report by IEA which could be used to update the data in this article: Global Energy Review: CO2 Emissions in 2021 . EMsmile (talk) 22:18, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Add information about GHG emissions from internet usage, streaming

I think we need to add information about GHG emissions from internet usage, streaming of videos, youtube etc. Those are not negligible and will continue to grow in future. See also discussion here on the talk page of WikiProject Climate Change. I don't have time right now to search for the actual numbers on the internet, so am just putting this here as a reminder. EMsmile (talk) 08:59, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

I contend they are negligible but it would be good to have other people commenting first as I am also busy with other articles. Ping me if you want any detailed argument from me. Chidgk1 (talk) 10:30, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Only negligible if the data centres use fully 100% renewables, right? Or what is your definition of "negligible"? It all adds up. I haven't looked into latest estimates (the headline of: "streaming porn over the internet globally emits as much CO2 as the entire country of Belgium" (here) sticks in my head). Also keep in mind that this type of activity (i.e. streaming videos, video conferencing) is likely to keep rising in future. EMsmile (talk) 10:37, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Firstly I agree that streaming videos, video conferencing etc are likely to keep rising in future. Before we get into details and maybe my and your definition of "negligible" can we clarify the scope of the discussion. Would you agree:

1) All internet activities other than video, gaming and cryptocurrency emit negligible GHG

2) Crypto is outside the scope of this discussion (happy to discuss here but people might get confused as the arguments are a bit different to video and gaming)

Chidgk1 (talk) 11:06, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

I don't know as I haven't done a literature search on that yet. I've just heard it on the news here and there that our internet usage and cloud services data centres use more energy than one might think. But yes, for example sending e-mails will have less GHG emissions associated with it than video streaming on Netflix etc. About Crypto, I don't know. I think anything that is more than say 2% of global emissions, or more than 2% of household GHG emissions (and with a rising tendency) is worth mentioning, at least briefly. This article looks interesting: https://www.iea.org/commentaries/the-carbon-footprint-of-streaming-video-fact-checking-the-headlines. For example "What is indisputable is the need to keep a close eye on the explosive growth of Netflix and other digital technologies and services to ensure society is receiving maximum benefits, while minimising the negative consequences – including on electricity use and carbon emissions. Instead of relying on misleading media coverage, this will require rigorous analysis, corporate leadership, sound policy and informed citizens." I saw it cited in the streaming media article here: https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Streaming_media#Greenhouse_gas_emissions EMsmile (talk) 16:38, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Environmental Economics

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 24 January 2022 and 16 May 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Elluhnore (article contribs).

Maybe use the diagram from the IPCC report

I'm not sure about how the IPCC diagrams are licensed for reuse, but I think the per capita emissions according to region used in AR6 WGIII SPM figure 2 is a more comprehensive visualization, if someone knows how to get that into Wikipedia.. –Jiaminglimjm (talk) 21:33, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

I think the existing diagram File:20210626 Variwide chart of greenhouse gas emissions per capita by country.svg is more meaningful because it breaks down emissions by country rather than by continent or region as the IPCC Summary presents. It is countries, not continents or regions, that have direct control over emissions and are therefore responsible for them. To group countries into continents or regions conceals that responsibility. —RCraig09 (talk) 23:23, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

Ah yeah that's true I didn't think about that, but the problem that comes with it is the distribution is quite uneven and leaves out huge chunks of the world that may distort the reader's perception of where emissions really come from, and seems as if some may be negligible where it is not e.g. the rest of Africa might seem to lie on the right of India. Also, one might think from the current diagram that SEAsia and Latin America sort of get a 'free pass' in emissions given how tiny Brazil and Indonesia looks, whereas the IPCC figure shows just how urgent deforestation/land use is in the region, and them emitting as much as Europe in total. Jiaminglimjm (talk) 03:40, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

Both the current graphic, and another graphic here on Wikimedia (File:20210703 Variwide chart of greenhouse gas emissions per capita by country (includes OTHER).svg), focus on the greatest overall emitters. However, when I look at the IPCC graphic, land use etc doesn't contribute a major amount to the entire graph's overall "area". A graphic including regional land use etc might be appropriate in Land use or Attribution_of_recent_climate_change#Land_use or Greenhouse gas emissions from agriculture, but not at the top of the present article. Maybe it's appropriate lower in this article, in the section Greenhouse_gas_emissions#From_land-use_change. It's harder to make a graphic if the raw numerical data isn't provided by the IPCC, but can do it as I did the other two graphics I refer to above (there may be copyright issues for merely copying the IPCC graphic). —RCraig09 (talk) 05:27, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

Oh this link Data for Figure SPM.2 says that it's released under creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0 and they also included their github repo https://github.com/mcc-apsis/AR6-Emissions-trends-and-drivers that looks like it includes lots of data, pictures and code, though I don't really know how to make use of any of it –Jiaminglimjm (talk) 13:59, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

1850-2019 Cumulative greenhouse gas emissions by region - bar chart - IPCC AR6 WG3 - Fig SPM.2b.svg

2019 Greenhouse gas emissions per capita by region - variwide bar chart - IPCC AR6 WG3 - Fig SPM.2c.svg

I've found the specific data download links: https://ipcc-browser.ipcc-data.org/browser/dataset?id=441 However, the data for 2b isn't consistent with Graph 2b, and it's a long process to take the data for 2c and make a new graphic from scratch, so it may be best to just clip from the original png. I can do this in the next few days. Do you agree that 2b and 2c are the most illustrative graphics? —RCraig09 (talk) 17:29, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

I've generated two graphics (shown at right) in SVG format (easy to form charts in other languages using only a text editor; can be arbitrarily enlarged without loss of detail). I've inserted them where I thought appropriate, lower in this article and in other articles you can find by clicking through to the Wikimedia file description pages. I definitely think the earlier country-by-country charts are more meaningful, but that the two new charts have a special use in describing the effect of land use on emissions. —RCraig09 (talk) 05:11, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

Should there not be a fairly prominent Y-axis: anthropogenic GHG emissions in tons, X axis: Calendar years chart?

I came here looking for one (it's often hard to find one that isn't 2-3 years old from google results) and was rather startled that none exist, beyond that one starting in 1900 with 20 year increments (which therefore ends... 2020? 2017? Hard to say.) There are all kinds of very rich visual aides here and my hat's off to everyone, but surely I'm not the only one looking for the "how much has it gotten worse over the 5Y and 10Y" data hit. 134.41.20.147 (talk) 04:52, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

Emissions from non-sewered sanitation

I came across this open access publication which is worth using in the section on emissions from the sanitation sector: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0013935122007952?via%3Dihub (Title: "Non-negligible greenhouse gas emissions from non-sewered sanitation systems: A meta-analysis"). Am a bit undecided if I should add some content from the paper here in this article and also at sanitation or if that is inelegant (to have the same figures in two different Wikipedia articles). EMsmile (talk) 21:16, 24 May 2022 (UTC)