Talk:Greenhouse gas removal

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Greenhouse gas removal redirect.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Environment

This environment-related redirect is part of the WikiProject Environment to improve Wikipedia's coverage of the environment. The aim is to write neutral and well-referenced articles on environment-related topics, as well as to ensure that environment articles are properly categorized.
Read Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ and leave any messages at the project talk page.EnvironmentWikipedia:WikiProject EnvironmentTemplate:WikiProject EnvironmentEnvironment articles

Climate change

	This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Climate change, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Climate change on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Climate changeWikipedia:WikiProject Climate changeTemplate:WikiProject Climate changeClimate change articles
If you are looking for ways to improve this article, we recommend checking out our recommended sources and our style guide

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 26 August 2019 and 11 December 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Chelseabello.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 22:45, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed rename

I propose that this be renamed Negative emissions technologies, as that has become the dominant phrase for this concept. Jesse L Reynolds (talk) 08:28, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I reject that premise on the basis of poor messaging, confusion within the public sphere (where GHG removal is a term of art, esp. in the UK), and an avoidable conflation of technology with practice: Dr. S. Julio Friedmann

I support keeping originally known and established terminologies, but to clarify the terminologies, their respective meaning and use within a first paragraph: Carbon Dioxide Removal (CDR) is a particular group of so-called Negative Emissions Technologies (NETs) or Greenhouse Gas Removal (GGR) technologies, which have arisen as technology clusters within debates on mitigating climate change. They mean the active and large-scale removal of greenhouse gases (or in case of CDR – specifically the removal of CO2) that have previously been emitted and to store the removed gases over long periods of time (e.g. in geological formations) in order to reduce the concentrations of GHGs in the atmosphere and thus mitigate the impacts of climate change. CDR, (as well as NETs or GGR) are one of two categories of so-called climate engineering (or geoengineering or climate geoengineering), the other one being Solar Radiation Management (SRM; or Radiation Management, RM). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.37.210.253 (talk) 10:35, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merger proposal

I propose to merge Carbon_dioxide_removal into this page, because Carbon dioxide removal is a subcategory of Greenhouse gas removal or of Negative emissions technologies.Jesse L Reynolds (talk) 08:31, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I reject this premise. Carbon Removal is a well established term of art in the United States, and the subject of two National Academy of Sciences reports. Also, GHG removal is largely speculative in all other dimensions that are not carbon removal. Dr. S. Julio Friedmann — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.65.205.66 (talk) 11:34, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: It's CO2 sequestration is specific and different enough from other GHG removal that they should be kept separate. -- Sjschen (talk) 14:38, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I support the proposition of merging. Carbon dioxide removal clearly represents a subset of greenhouse gas removal. The first opposing argument above cites another term 'carbon removal' and therefore does not concern the proposed merger. The cited term 'carbon removal' already is forwarded to this article on greenhouse gas removal, which makes perfect sense (just as Negative missions technologies forwards to this article). (Matthias Honegger, Nov. 17) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Matthias Honegger (talk • contribs) 21:12, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: there is enough information to have a separate article specifically for CO2 removal. Since there has been no consensus after half a year, I will remove the tags. --Ita140188 (talk) 11:15, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Carbon dioxide removal

What is the difference between this article and Carbon dioxide removal? Looks redundant to me. 80.71.142.166 (talk) 19:07, 29 October 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.71.142.166 (talk)

Proposed redirect to other Carbon dioxide removal or Carbon sequestration

As Dr. Julio S. Friedman commented above, proposed methods for removing any type of greenhouse gas other than CO₂ are all speculative. The sourcing we have for these technologies are all primary studies, which should not be used as the basis for Wikipedia articles according to our Reliable sourcing guidelines. For all practical purposes, greenhouse gas removal means carbon dioxide removal.

I propose redirecting this article to either Carbon dioxide removal or Carbon sequestration. And those two articles should also probably be merged into one article that covers all methods. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 23:16, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]