This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Climate change policy of the United States article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2 |
This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The
contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to
climate change, which has been
designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. |
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Peer reviewers: Doragelerinter.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 19:11, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 7 January 2019 and 23 April 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Dkcantwell.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 19:11, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 26 August 2019 and 31 December 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Nicole.young1.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 19:11, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Hpw27, Jingwu1104.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 17:50, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
For a class assignment, a group of about three including myself would like to add some information to this page to update it and edit it so it doesn't have any of its current issues (as indicated by the banner). We want to add information about the Trump Administration and a climate justice section. So far here are some of the sources I have accumulated to help with this undertaking: 1. Climate Change Justice [1] 2. The EPA website on climate change 3. http://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/abs/10.1162/glep.2007.7.4.92
If anyone has any suggestions of places to start looking for sources or just feedback in general, let me know!
Hpw27 (
talk) 00:56, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
References
Position of political parties and other political organizations will be a strong section to integrate the theme about US's climate change policy. I will add more details about American political parties and other interest groups to this section. -- Jingwu1104 ( talk) 09:30, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
Can someone explain to me why this section has been flagged? I might be able to fix it if I knew what was wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Berkeley17 ( talk • contribs) 02:42, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
@ Berkeley17, Hpw27, and Jingwu1104: do we have a better source for the Green Party? I'm comfortable citing policy documents on their Web site but would also like to have a third-party source corroborating, if at all possible. Greens' section is a bit wordy and may require condensing as well.
I've also followed Jingwu1104's contribution of Greens, and added two skeleton-sections for the other major U.S. political parties we could expand upon. Maybe will need to be updated over time, so we should discuss how to best structure it as to require the least future maintenance. I propose inclusion criteria of this section be limited to major parties with significant ballot access. (there exist other WikiProjects' inclusion criteria we can lean upon for determining "major" and "significant".)
Climate Justice section still may be undue, but we can work on integrating that in due time. (no pun!)
Also: I know the cleanup process can be frustrating and annoying, but please don't let it deter you from making contributions and collaborating to build better articles. -- dsprc [talk] 00:53, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
Policies of Tribal governments and indigenous peoples are also underrepresented here; likewise those of U.S. territories such as Puerto Rico, American Samoa and so forth. -- dsprc [talk] 01:53, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
Recognized as a major national party by the FEC". Original rationale was LP being orders of magnitude larger than GP and threw in Constitution for completeness, per template.
It was mentioned in the edits of this article that the Trump section should no longer be added to because it might violate the wiki BLP guidelines. I read through these guidelines, and from my understanding all it is saying is to be extra sensitive when discussing current events/people who are alive. Due to the nature of this project, discussing Trump is a key part of it, but I would love to get some feedback from the community on how to properly discuss this while being unbiased and following all the wikipedia guidelines. Hpw27 ( talk) 16:59, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Climate change policy of the United States. 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:
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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 12:52, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Climate change policy of the United States. 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:
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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 20:30, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
I agree with @ Joel B. Lewis: that the January 4 edit by @ Mitzi.humphrey: was not placed in the correct section (it probably should have gone in the general Trump admin section, not the environmental justice subsection). However, I feel that the edit comment was somewhat uncharitably and that the revert does not follow the suggestion in WP:REV: "If you see a good-faith edit which you feel does not improve the article, make a good-faith effort to reword instead of reverting it." This edit appears to be made in good faith, and it adds a description of a potentially important executive-level policy decision, so it might have been nicer (and more constructive) to modify rather than revert. At the same time, I recognize the desire to simply strike an awkward, poorly placed sentence.
Second: At the same time, I will not add back the sentence at this time. By WP:NOTNEWS, one ought to be careful with breaking news. Since the reporting has been so preliminary at this point (I don't think that the order has gone into effect or been released yet to the public), this caution seems to apply here. This source would certainly be useful in the future if more reporting emerges.
For easy reference, here's the statement:
A Trump rule excludes climate change in its infrastructure planning. [1]
References
Thanks for both of your contributions! I'm trying to get a feel for the subtleties of editing, so feel free to give your interpretations on this.
Jlevi ( talk) 03:57, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
long neglected article with little or no traffic Sadads ( talk) 12:39, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
Should these paragraphs be deleted? They seem POV. These paragraphs would maybe be better if introduced by leading sentence(s) like: “The US’s climate change policy has drawn criticism from some scientists” (many scientists, while true, would be a weasel word.) It seems like the first paragraph would be best placed in a section about the Paris climate accord, and not POV there. The second paragraph seems more deletable, but it would probably work in a “criticisms” section. When you say that military spending is 28 times higher than climate spending, it seems more like you’re writing an opinion piece which would be at most paraphrased by Wikipedia than dispassionately reporting the facts.
Italic textThe A September 2016 study from Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory analyses a set of definite and proposed climate change policies for the United States and finds that these are just insufficient to meet the US intended nationally determined contribution (INDC) under the 2015/2016 Paris Agreement. Additional greenhouse gas reduction measures will probably be required to meet this international commitment. These additional reduction measures will soon have to be decided on in order to start complying with the agreement's "below 2 degrees" goal, and countries may have to be more proactive than previously thought
An October 2016 report compares US government spending on climate security and military security and finds the latter to be 28 × greater. The report estimates that public sector spending of $55 billion is needed to tackle climate change. The 2017 national budget contains $21 billion for such expenditures, leaving a shortfall of $34 billion that could be recouped by scrapping underperforming weapons programs. The report nominates the F-35 fighter and close-to-shore combat ship projects as possible targets. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.238.19.60 ( talk) 17:47, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 6 August 2023 and 8 September 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Abanarsee ( article contribs).
— Assignment last updated by Abanarsee ( talk) 05:06, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
I am not an American but I wonder if your Supreme Court is influential enough in climate policy to be mentioned in the lead by one of you guys? Chidgk1 ( talk) 20:43, 20 May 2024 (UTC)