Talk:Paris Agreement

Plan for improving this article to GA

I'm planning to bring this article to GA level. There is quite a lot to do:

• I'm discovering quite a few instances of close paraphrasing
• The article sometimes uses jargon.
• The article needs updating.
• There are external links in the body; often primary sources where secondary sources would be better.
• I think the merge of national communications was improper; it seems to be something under UNFCCC.
• There is systemic bias towards the US and the EU.

If anybody wants to join the effort to improve the article, I always enjoy collaborating. FemkeMilene (talk) 17:15, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi FemkeMilene, you are amazing!! How do you get all this done with just 10 hours per week of Wikipedia editing (like you said in one of those podcasts). :-) Whereever I look at climate change articles at the moment, you are already busy with them. Brilliant. (I am currently looking at about 50 articles related to SDG 13 as part of this project). One of the things I have noticed for many of the articles is that the leads are often not a very good summary of the article. Often the leads talk mostly about the definition and the history but not much about other sections of the article. I see the same problem for this article. So perhaps towards the end of the upgrading process we should take another look at the lead and try to make it into a good summary of the entire article. What's your view on that? EMsmile (talk) 01:46, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

To be fair, I think the last few weeks I did spend bit more than 10 hours a week Wikipedia. Good point about the lead, I usually don't look at it until I've got a good idea of what the body of the article should say. FemkeMilene (talk) 08:03, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi Femkemilene, I am just wondering where we stand with this article now: would you say it's still far off GA standard or quite close now? EMsmile (talk) 03:39, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

The only section that is quite far off is implantationimplementation, which is just a random collection of studies. FemkeMilene (talk) 07:24, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

I've signed us up for a copyedit. The above comment may give an indication why I think it's wise to have my text copyedited. FemkeMilene (talk) 07:31, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

I am just wondering where we stand with this, FemkeMilene? Did someone do a copy edit on this article? EMsmile (talk) 12:56, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

I don't remember, but assume so. The GA review was quite thorough, so nothing further needed here imo. Femke (talk) 16:00, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

Strange, I completely missed the GA review process. Didn't know that it had already taken place. Was there meant to be a link to the process from the talk page? Let me try to add below the link to the review process so that it's easier for people to see it.

Wikipedia:GA Review/Paris Agreement/GA1 EMsmile (talk) 22:18, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

Can't figure out how to do the link properly. You did it somehow on the talk page of sustainability. EMsmile (talk) 22:18, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

I am trying to link properly to here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Paris_Agreement/GA1 EMsmile (talk) 22:19, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

Readability

By the way, the readability score is still not great - using this tool I get 38 (out of 100). Perhaps attention could be paid to this in future reviews. Not sure if the GA reviewer considered readability as an important factor. Perhaps if it's ever taken to FA status, this aspect could be considered. For comparison, with the same tool the climate change article gets a readability score of 44 - which is very good for this kind of topic. I've worked on a range of articles, e.g. sustainability, and regularly struggle to get the score to higher than say 40 (the sustainability article currently sits at a readability score of 21 - very bad). I wish we had science journalists on tap who could help. EMsmile (talk) 22:31, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

WP:BE BOLD! I usually take 45 as a threshold for acceptability (even if many 45+ articles are still too difficult, and an occasional 45- article is sufficiently explained). Usually jargon is considered in reviews, but readability not as much. Our editors are likely more highly-educated that the average readers, so wont notice difficult non-jargon language. With 21, you score lower than your typical scientific article, so that may require an almost full rewrite. Femke (talk) 13:02, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Paris Agreement/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Amitchell125 (talk · contribs) 19:56, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

Happy to review the article.

Non reviewer comment

I was thinking of reviewing this if no one had taken it by the time the nominator had returned from her wiki break later in July. IMO it's already beyond GA class in several respects, but there were some minor non compliances, IMO. In such circumstances, I normally make all needed improvements myself. This might have consumed a lot of time in this case, as Id probably have edited a lot more than is needed for GA status, per the topic's importance. So great to see someone else has stepped up to take this on.

Ive just made a few edits based on minor issues I spotted from my initial skim read when I noticed the nomination. (there may be a few more it needs for GA class.) If anyone doesnt think they are improvements, no worries about reverting. I wont further participate as would hate to think any differences of perspective I might have could cause the article to fail the stability criteria. FeydHuxtable (talk) 13:46, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanks! Note that the stability criterion of GA is weak: no edit warring.

There is a consensus that 'climate skeptic' is a euphemism and shouldn't be used. Given the geographic concentration of climate denial, I wonder if the sentence gives an American POV. Don't have access yet to the book. FemkeMilene (talk) 16:03, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

I've not been able to get access to the full book via my university library, Google Books, CUP or libgen. @FeydHuxtable:, I think it's important to have a conservative opinion cited, but given the climate denial angle and avoiding false balance of opinions far removed from the facts, I would need access to a high-quality source like the one you cited to write a fair statement. Could you reword or send me a few pages via email? FemkeMilene (talk) 20:39, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

You're welcome. I only had the physical book, so I posted it to your Laver building address, as thats easier for me than takeing & emailing pics. I reworded to remove the mention of "skeptics" (it seemed a bit of a stretch to simply change sceptic > denialist, though perhaps you consider the source supports that if you expand the cite to be p 192 – 200. )

On the US centric thing, while US did used to be sceptic central, IMO from about 2016-18 the total anti Paris sentiment from RoW combined outweighted that from the US. Especially from Fossil fuel lobbies in Aus, Canada, Russia & Brazil. Source for President Bolsonaro running on ticket where he promised to withdraw from Paris. FeydHuxtable (talk) 12:46, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

That is incredibly kind! I've got a confirmation it has arrived, and by coincidence I was planning to go into campus for the first time in 9 months this week. When sources say sceptic, it's always a bit of a jumble to see what to replace it with, as that word is not always a euphemism for climate denier (and the word climate denier can confusingly be used to describe people misleading the public about solutions, rather than the physics of climate change). It may simply mean conservative. Similarly with the word activists, which may mean progressives in some contexts.. FemkeMilene (talk) 13:38, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

I've got the books now! They are a great resource. I think you fell into the common trap of attributing the words of unclear people/analysts to activists, which is frequently done by news organisations. The text doesn't mention activists, and attributing it to them gives the impression that it is a more niche point of view than it actually is. I do see why you struggled, given the vagueness of the text. I'll have another think of how to rework this. FemkeMilene (talk) 07:15, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

Summary

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Comments to follow. Amitchell125 (talk) 19:35, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Review comments

Criteria 1

Points that apply to the article in more than one section

• Unlink all countries (MOS:OL).

  All major countries unlinked. FemkeMilene (talk) 19:43, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

• While should only be used when emphasising that two events occur at the same time, or when emphasising contrast. It shouldn't be used as an additive link.

  Done

• Using with as an additive link has led to wordy and awkward prose in some cases.

  Done

• Avoid vague words (I found various, many, several).

  I've removed some, but in broad articles these cannot be avoided altogether in my opinion. I'll double-check if these qualitative statements are from sources, or whether they represent vagueness introduced by editors.

  Looking at some of the sources, I would try to reduce the number of vague words still further (e.g. several). I'm unclear why you think this article is in some way 'broad'. Amitchell125 (talk) 12:30, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

  I have gotten more info from the sources, reducing it further. I think the few remaining cases are defensible. FemkeMilene (talk) 12:56, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

• Amend within as it has a different meaning to "in".

  Didn't quite understand this, but all withins are gone.

• Look out for captions with full stops (that shouldn’t have) – MOS:CAPFRAG.

  Done. FemkeMilene (talk) 19:43, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

• There is a mixture of different tenses, which need to be checked. MOS:TENSE may be of help here, which states "By default, write articles in the present tense", and "Generally, do not use past tense except for past events".

  I think this is fixed now, can't find any improper tenses with a cntr F for "ed ". FemkeMilene (talk) 12:56, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

• Look out for redundant text (in brackets below), the article would be improved if it was found and removed. I've covered up to and including 3.4:

Lead - (representatives of) 196 state parties(; (adverse) effects; (previously) set targets

Development - (round of) negotiations; (what would become) the; (with the aim) to; (by consensus) by all; (together) represented

Parties - (are the only other countries which) have; Article 28 (of the agreement); (in the world); (formal) notice (of withdrawal)

Content - (its) Article 2

I've removed most of the examples above, and have made a start in other parts of the article. Immediate boost to prose quality :).

Finished this. FemkeMilene (talk) 12:56, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

Lead section

• forcing countries – do we know how many?

  At least two, but these legal texts are difficult and it's changing constantly. Have added a second example, but I don't understand the legal basis of the recent verdict in France, which English-speaking newspapers are rather vague on. I could try to delve into the French newspapers, I don't think that's necessary for the GA criteria. FemkeMilene (talk) 08:24, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

Understood. AM

• Not in the main text – The agreement was negotiated by representatives of 196 state parties.

  corrected: 195 state parties + EU in body, summarised as 195 parties in lede. FemkeMilene (talk) 08:24, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

More comments to follow. Amitchell125 (talk) 22:06, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

1 Development

• Link greenhouse gas; mitigation.

  Done

• there were fears – do we know who was fearful? Do these fears still exist?

  'observers' were fearful. As everybody has signed, this is not relevant anymore.. Not sure how to improve text. FemkeMilene (talk) 14:44, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

Sentence tweaked, please revert if you want. Amitchell125 (talk) 06:24, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

• almost 40% - do we have a number?

cited sources don't give more precision and I don't think it's warranted, given that this percentage depends on the method of calculating.

Understood. AM

• Amend a joint statement confirming that both countries to ‘confirmed they’.

  Done

• The last paragraph of section 1.3 could be improved by reducing its size, which retaining the meaning.

  Not sure how

Had a go and I agree it's not worth the effort. AM

• Consider linking reduce their carbon output (Low-carbon economy).

  Done. FemkeMilene (talk) 14:44, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

2 Parties

• Iraq is planning to ratify – I would add ‘as of June 2021'.

   Pending.. Sourcing is confused here. Sources from last few weeks indicate (as a side-note) that they've already ratified / acceded / approved (not clear which), but the UN website says they haven't.. Let me do this at the last moment, hoping that better sourcing is available then. FemkeMilene (talk) 18:06, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

N ^{Not yet sorted}

• Left-aligned images should not be placed at the start of subsections.

Changed. What is the reasoning here? Can't find it in the labyrinth of the MOS. FemkeMilene (talk) 11:06, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

Mmmm, interesting. I got it from User:Ealdgyth/GA review cheatsheet, see also MOS:IMAGELOCATION. Amitchell125 (talk) 10:30, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

• Amend sending a withdrawal notification to to ‘notifying’.

  Done something similar. FemkeMilene (talk) 18:06, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

• Introduce Joe Biden (as has been done with Obama).

  Done. FemkeMilene (talk) 18:06, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

• intends to withdraw – ‘intended to withdraw’.

  Done. FemkeMilene (talk) 18:06, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

• I would delete the first paragraph’s last sentence, it seems surplus to requirements.

  Which sentence is that? I've shortened the last sentence of 'United States withdrawal and readmittance'. FemkeMilene (talk) 18:06, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Apologies for not being clearer, what you've done looks fine. Amitchell125 (talk) 10:36, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

3 Content

• It looks as if the last sentence in 3.1 needs to be cited.

  Done

• Dup links – UNFCCC; Kyoto Protocol.

  Done (I think that MOS detail should be amended to give flexibility for citing once per section on long articles)

I agree. AM

• Remove set in stone as it is an idiom.

  Done

• The contributions each country should make – I think the nature of the contributions mentioned should be specified here.

  I hope this is clear from changing the 'aims'. It's basically any contribution that contributes to the goal and countries have a lot of freedom to do this however they want. FemkeMilene (talk) 16:59, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

• Link name and shame (without quotes); Annex-1 (List of parties to the Kyoto Protocol).

  Done

• Reporting is called the "Enhanced Transparency Framework (ETF)" needs copy editing.

  Done

• the worldwide goal – is this referring to the general aims of the agreement stated in the previous section, or another as yet unspecified goal?

  General aims. Amended. FemkeMilene (talk) 11:56, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

• ''Some of the pledges… the sentence needs to be copy edited to improve the prose.

  I removed typos. Further copy-editing necessary?

No, it's now fine. AM

• While the NDCs themselves are not binding, the procedures surrounding them are (setting a more ambitious NDC every five years). is a confusing sentence.

  Done. FemkeMilene (talk) 14:49, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

• There is no mechanism to force a country to set a target in their NDC by a specific date and no enforcement if a set target in an NDC is not met. - ‘No mechanisms have been set in place to force countries to meet their NDC targets on time’?

  Amended. Proposed amendment changed meaning. FemkeMilene (talk) 11:56, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

• 2 degrees Celsius - 2 °C

  Done, except the quote. FemkeMilene (talk) 11:56, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

• "top down" – shouldn’t bottom up be in quotes as well?

  Done

• own action plans (NDCs) has already been explained, so amend to ‘NDCs’.

  Done

• "executive agreement rather than a treaty" requires a citation.

  Cited in FN66, which comes directly after the next sentence. FemkeMilene (talk) 11:56, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Understood. AM

4 Mitigation provisions and carbon markets

• is the last part of the Agreement that needs to be ironed out – just checking, but this still true? Also ironed out is too informal.

  Still true, more news November. Changed to resolved.

• Dup link - cooperative approaches.

  Unlinked.

• the rights of Parties – ‘the rights of the parties’?

  The previous sound better, I have decapitalised parties.

• of their own jurisdiction toward their NDC – I got rather lost here. Could it be made a little clearer?

  I've changed jurisdiction to borders. Does that make it clear?

Now clearer. AM

• I would explain Annex-1.

  Done in the first instance it's mentioned.

• No italics for Sustainable Development Mechanism or SDM.

• Done.

• There is a [failed verification] tag in this section that needs attention.

• Resolved. FemkeMilene (talk) 07:34, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

5 Adaptation provisions

GCF Signed Pledges 2018

• garnered more focus - more than when?

  Added comparison. FemkeMilene (talk) 10:46, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

• Link G7 countries.

  Done 

• just 16 percent – why just?

  Removed and added comparison. FemkeMilene (talk) 10:46, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

• The text in the image is better placed in the caption. I can amend the image to remove the text at the top if you want me to.

  That would be great! FemkeMilene (talk) 10:46, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Done. Amitchell125 (talk) 14:19, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

6 Loss and damage

• Dup link - Least Developed Countries.

  Done. FemkeMilene (talk) 15:53, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

• many of the worst effects of climate change – is too vague, can the worst effects not be described in some way here?

  FemkeMilene (talk) 15:53, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

• can take various forms – should be more specific if this is at all possible.

  Condensed sentence to remove altogether. FemkeMilene (talk) 15:53, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

8 Implementation and effectiveness

• Dup link – transferred.
• This project is currently under discussion at the United Nations - (see MOS:RELTIME for why) currently should be avoided.

  Removed sentence. FemkeMilene (talk) 20:21, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

• Overall energy efficiency needs to be raised …; Fossil fuel burning needs to be cut back …; implementation needs more effort ... Says who? Ditto more expensive future mitigation would be needed …; all countries would need to ….

  Reworded a bit to come across as less prescriptive and removed paragraph with "all countries .." as duplicative. These are uncontroversial statements within the discipline, so attributing would state facts as opinion. FemkeMilene (talk) 17:50, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

 Partly done I see what you've done, but I'm still unsure about need/needs/needed, it makes the text sound almost editorial, even though it clearly isn't. Difficult to explain, it may not be as important as it appears to me to be. Amitchell125 (talk) 13:08, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Chidgk1 has made further improvements on this front. FemkeMilene (talk) 07:40, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

• in the building sector, transport and heating - ‘in the building, transport and heating sectors’?

  Done. FemkeMilene (talk) 17:50, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

• various barriers – ‘barriers’?

  Done. FemkeMilene (talk) 17:50, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

• Unlink government (common word).

  Done. FemkeMilene (talk) 20:21, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

• States – ‘states’.

  Done. FemkeMilene (talk) 20:21, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

• Link probabilistic (Probability theory).

  Done

• still significantly exceed – needs to be more precise (or remove significant).

  Done

• is under debate – a precise date is preferred here (MOS:RELTIME again).

  Disagree. This is not going to change for a while, and a date would give undue precision. FemkeMilene (talk) 20:21, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Understood. AM

• keeping global temperatures under 1.5 °C – sounds a bit on the cold side to me.

  Done

• these pledges: - there needs to be a semi-colon here, not a colon.

  Done

• upper target of Paris Agreement - ‘upper target of the Paris Agreement’.

  Done

• In 2021, a study … - the paragraph is one long sentence, which needs to be broken up to help make it more readable.

  Done. FemkeMilene (talk) 21:14, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

• I would amend there is little scientific literature on the topics of the effectiveness of the Paris Agreement on capacity building and adaptation to ‘little scientific literature on the topics of the effectiveness of the Paris Agreement on capacity building and adaptation has been produced’.

  I prefer the former. FemkeMilene (talk) 17:50, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Understood. AM

9 International response

• Link climate activist (Individual and political action on climate change).

  There has been consensus to merge that article into oblivion for a while now. I'll review that sentence with the book I now have. FemkeMilene (talk) 20:33, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

• agreement or Agreement? (I would go for the latter).

  Went for the latter. Not sure myself. FemkeMilene (talk) 08:01, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

• "Even if we meet every target ... we will only get to part of where we need to go." needs a direct citation.

  It's in the WH source. Not sure whether it's appropriate to quote Obama so extensively from a primary source, will see what I can do to keep the flow.

  I meant that the WH source needs to be cited straight after the quote (even though it appears later on in the paragraph. Amitchell125 (talk) 15:49, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

  Rm primary source, duplicated the news source, rm the things the secondary source didn't mention. FemkeMilene (talk) 08:01, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

• from the opposite perspective looks redundant.

  Rewrote whole sentence. FemkeMilene (talk) 08:01, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

• "spirit of Paris" – is this Bennett’s phrase (if so he needs to be mentioned in the text), or just something devised by The Guardian?

  He's too small a player to be mentioned in the text. The Guardian is typically accurate with quoting, so we can assume it's something he said. Can you point to guidelines saying we should mention all individuals quoted? I think I remember seeing this practice in FAs.

Best left, as i think you're right. AM

• no action, just promises – quotation marks are needed here.

  Done

10 Litigation

• In a first-of-its-kind case needs copy editing to something like ‘In a case that was the first of its kind’.
• that the company - ‘that it’ sounds better.
• as it too was - ‘as it was’,

  All done. FemkeMilene (talk) 20:59, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

References

The ref numbers are for this version of the article.

• # 5, 46, 57 and 66 I would add a {{subscription required}} template (optional).
• # 13 You could use this link to the source (optional).
• # 19, 102 and 103 are incorrectly formatted (a consistent formatting style is needed at GA).

  Numbering is off. Also, WP:GANOT says otherwise... As somebody who hates reference formatting (and therefore prepping articles for FA), I hope that the essay is right.. FemkeMilene (talk) 20:50, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

My bad, I've crossed out the optional comments. Amitchell125 (talk) 12:40, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

#108 The Economic Times and #13; 109 The Guardian need retrieval dates. As I always check the references section first when I review an article (it took all afternoon to check the refs for this one, and they were nearly all perfect), I should have checked late last night before sending off the comments. WP:GANOT is a useful essay in many ways, bit I wouldn't rely on one person's opinion in this instance. I go with MOS:REFERENCES, "Editors may use any citation method they choose, but it should be consistent within an article." Amitchell125 (talk) 12:59, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Added, and thanks for your dedication. For future reference, WP:GA?, note 4, also explicitly says that consistent formatting is unnecessary for GAs. FemkeMilene (talk) 15:16, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the pointer, there's some time saved in the future... Amitchell125 (talk) 15:39, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

• # 86 is in French, so you should say so.

  Done. FemkeMilene (talk) 20:50, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Criteria 4

• (lead) The Agreement was lauded by various world leaders, but criticised as insufficiently binding by others. Was there a particular prominence for lauding or for criticizing?

  I don't quite understand your question. What do you mean by prominence? FemkeMilene (talk) 21:01, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

The article doesn't really make it clear what proportion of world leaders lauded the Agreement, and how many didn't. If a large majority thought it was laudable in comparison to those who were more critical, this should be stated (and cited) in the text. Apologies for not being clear, hopefully I've helped clarify the point. Amitchell125 (talk) 21:56, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

• (1.1) after Copenhagen's failure – was it a complete failure? It would help if the nature of the failure was specified.

  The nature of the failure is specified in the preceding paragraph: not universal and not binding. I will specify more explicitly that the Paris Agreement did not fail in those two respects. FemkeMilene (talk) 16:13, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

Looking again, it's not too bad as it looks. Amitchell125 (talk) 07:01, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

On hold

I'm putting the article on hold for a week until 28 July to allow time for the issues raised to be addressed. many thanks for all the work you've done so far. Regards, Amitchell125 (talk) 20:29, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Femkemilene Amitchell125 It looks like you have almost finished but if you need any help let me know. Chidgk1 (talk) 06:30, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the offer. I might need some help a DYK. There are two facts that aren't yet in the article, that would be very interesting. One is the negotiations almost failed because of a single word (shall instead of should), and the second one is that they do the negotiations through the night on purpose, as sleepy people are more willing to compromise. I've not been able to find a source for the latter, but I remember reading it in a scientific paper. If you could find something similar, that would really be appreciated. FemkeMilene (talk) 07:10, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

Cannot find the sleep thing but added Noah as a possible DYK - suspect single word thing best DYK though. Chidgk1 (talk) 12:21, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanks! I've removed the Noah bit, as I don't think that blog met the requirements for RS, and it may have been too much trivia. I hope you don't mind. FemkeMilene (talk) 14:52, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

I suspect you are anti-Noah because he boarded the animals alphabetically. Chidgk1 (talk) 15:00, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

@Amitchell125: I think I've addressed everything, including the comment by CMD on my talk page. Thanks for such a detailed review, which has really raised the quality of the article. I'd like to apologise for not preparing a bit better, saving you some time reviewing. FemkeMilene (talk) 14:54, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

Passing

All sorted, thanks for all your efforts with the article. Now passing. Amitchell125 (talk) 07:02, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Is the one book mentioned under further reading really special/important?

I am just wondering if this one book that is listed under further reading is so important & special that we should list it here? It feels like a special endorsement, is this justified? I don't know anything about this book. Am just wondering if it was deliberately chosen or just somehow ended up there?:

• Teske, Sven; et al. (2019). Achieving the Paris Climate Agreement Goals. Springer. ISBN 9783030058425. EMsmile (talk) 21:44, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

Okay book. No need for discussion here. One book further reading is allowed, but feel free to add one or two for balance. Femke (talk) 12:59, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

I don't want to waste people's time on this issue but I feel it's useful to clarify this here, as it also relates to other climate change articles. I don't see the point in setting up, curating and updating a "further reading" list for a topic that is fast changing and developing and for which plenty of information exists on the internet. As it is, the article has 122 references, many of which would be suitable for "further reading". It also has ten "see also" links. If the book by Teske is useful, then how come it is not used as a source for the article and listed in the references list? So all up I think we (as editors) would save ourselves time by not having a "further reading" list here, and the loss of information for the reader would be minimal. EMsmile (talk) 10:21, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

Generally when articles go to FAC, the presence of a Further reading section is queried, for the reasons you mention. If the book adds something not in the article at present, then it should be used as a source, and if it doesn't add there's little point listing it. However, I have not assessed the book in question, and there's no urgency to these things. CMD (talk) 10:24, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

What is Nirosh?

Since 2000, rising CO₂ emissions in China and the rest of the world have surpassed the output of the United States and Europe. It shows the Nirosh average of 1.5%.

What is the "Nirosh average," noted under the total fossil fuel emissions chart? Is this a typo for "national"? The interwebs are silent on this term. Daniel Lewis, Ph.D. 20:43, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

I had a quick look but couldn't figure out what happened there. The caption in Wikimedia Commons is different. Pinging User:Efbrazil. EMsmile (talk) 12:41, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

“NIOSH” in the U.S. refers to the National Institute for Occupational Safety & Health so perhaps the R is a misprint. —— Shakescene (talk) 14:32, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

Thanks- I didn't write that, never heard of Nirosh or niosh, I don't follow this page, so I just deleted that sentence. Efbrazil (talk) 19:59, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

Plan to Abide by the Paris Agreement and Limit Global Warming to 1.5 Degrees C

The Paris Agreement could include a description of the the carbon dioxide and greenhouse gas emissions of the “ideal mathematically average world citizen on track to limiting global warming to 1.5 degrees C”

The United Nations Environmental Programme Gap Report page XIII states “to get in line with the Paris Agreement, emissions must drop 7.6 per cent per year from 2020 to 2030 for the 1.5°C goal.”

https://wedocs.unep.org/bitstream/handle/20.500.11822/30797/EGR2019.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y

We can find out the CO2 emissions of the “ideal mathematically average world citizen on track to limiting global warming to 1.5 degrees C” by taking the 36.8 billion metric tonnes of CO2 emitted by the world in 2019, putting it into an Excel spreadsheet, dividing 36.8 billion metric tonnes of CO2 by the world's population of 7.6 billion people, expressing it as “pounds of CO2 per world citizen per day” by multiplying by 2205 pounds per tonne and dividing by 365 days per year, and decreasing those “pounds of CO2 per person per day” by 7.6% a year until in 2030 the “ideal average world citizen” is emitting just 12.3 pounds of CO2 per person per day.

Can the “ideal average world citizen on track to limiting global warming to 1.5 degrees C” emit 12.3 pounds of CO2 per person per day in 2030 and limit global warming to 1.5 degrees C?

No, those 12.3 pounds of CO2 per world citizen per day will still capture infrared radiation and lead to more global warming above 1.5 degrees C.

What life styles can people lead and not contribute to global warming and climate change?

What life styles can people lead and respond to the New England Journal of Medicine “Call for Emergency Action to Limit Global Temperature Increases, Restore Biodiversity, and Protect Health”?

https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMe2113200

To restore biodiversity, protect health and limit global warming to 1.5 degrees C people must live as hunter gatherers.

To limit global warming to 1.5 degrees C in 2030, every world citizen must sequester all of the carbon dioxide and greenhouse gases that they emit. Currently only hunter gatherers have all of the carbon dioxide and greenhouse gas emissions sequestered by the green plants on planet earth.

How many people can live on earth as hunter gatherers?

In his Discover article on agriculture being "the worst mistake in the history of the human race" Professor Jared Diamond writes that it takes about 10 square miles of land to support 1 hunter gatherer. It is possible to take the number of square miles of arable land in each nation and calculate the number of hunter gatherers that that nations can support. Here is a preliminary estimate of the number of hunter gatherers that the following nations can support: Scott B Love (talk) 06:31, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

This is not a forum. You can make specific text change suggestions. This kind of content is more related to the article Individual action on climate change. I noticed that you posted rather similar content already at the talk page of climate change in 2021. EMsmile (talk) 21:07, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

Re-arranged structure

I've just re-arranged the structure a bit because I felt there were too many main level headings. Also, I think the main level headings should be as generic as possible. The new structure now looks like this (no content was deleted, just moved):

Aims
Development
Parties
Content
Specific topics of concern (note this heading is not yet great; maybe "cross-cutting issues" is better; or something else?)
Implementation
Reception and debates 

For comparison, the old structure was like this:

Development
Parties
Content
Mitigation provisions and carbon markets
Climate change adaptation provisions
Loss and damage
Transparency
Implementation and effectiveness
International response
Litigation 

EMsmile (talk) 22:50, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

Probability of achieving Paris Agreement Goals Infographic

So I did a bunch of research on this image that was used in the Paris Agreement wiki page. It seemed kind of off to me at first glance because Greenland was grayed out while it has joined the Paris Agreements. Granted, it joined in 2023, so the map could just be outdated, but I did further research and the entire map seems off.

So I looked into where the source of the map is from, and it looks reputable, but then I looked for where that article got the graphic from and it's this. This is a document covering a programming tool that can be used to more efficiently display world graphics. I don't see any references in this document to where they got the data from, so I assume it's fabricated. Not only this, but I can't find the map that the original article got from this document. So it's not even a fabricated source - it's just not there.

This image is not only outdated, but as far as I can tell, there's no actual source for it. I could very well be mistaken, but can someone double check my work and determine if this is a legitimate image or not? If I'm right, this should be removed quickly or replaced with a more important graphic. ArkiThe7th (talk) 13:17, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

Oh, that would be a problem. We took it from this journal paper (compatibly licenced): https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8064561/ Could you perhaps contact the authors of that paper and raise your concern about the original source with them? EMsmile (talk) 16:42, 18 April 2024 (UTC)