Talk:Climate justice/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
Archive 1

potential resource

Climate Change Justice (Princeton University Press 2010) by Eric Posner (with David Weisbach) ISBN-13: 978-0691137759

99.190.87.173 (talk) 21:24, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

==Under the section talking about the Controversial Interpretations of Climate Justice it talks about how Hurricane Katrina “provided insights into how climate change disasters affect different people differently.” However, it doesn’t really explain how it was controversial, such as what the skeptics believed, who were the skeptics, or even what evidence there was that made people believe otherwise. I think this would help in understanding both sides of this article better, since one side is more represented than the other. I think information was also left out that could help give a more well-rounded look at the Climate Justice issue. Specifically that it’s not only an unequal burden on people of different color and income but also people of different countries. Such as the fact that China, India, and other countries are blamed most of the time, even though the U.S. and other first world countries should be also to blame. This could actually be another controversial interpretation in itself because professionals then argue who should be taxed and capped. Alexis1621 (talk) 07:59, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Climate justice. 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.

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: 18 January 2022).

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:09, 26 January 2018 (UTC)


I think this page needs more examples relating to climate injustice as well as a more comprehensive section on global resistance movements that deal with legal climate action. Jtlee0 (talk) 08:06, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Updates

This topic is of special importance today due to the impacts of climate change that are already beign observed. However this page lacks sufficient information on climate justice and especially does not adequately explain the connection between climate change and topics impacted by climate justice such as poverty. To better the page I will be writing more in debt about what climate justice is, what it effects, why it matters, the way it is viewed today, and its connection with poverty, gender, race, human rights, ethics and other issues. This is a tentative list as of now and will most likely change as I read more about it and determine what is most important to discuss.Eunice.AKI (talk) 23:24, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Is a term for

Per

WP:ISATERMFOR, the lead sentence should be phrased to what the concept climate justice actually is/represents, and not what the term itself means. I'll leave it to the subject matter experts.—Bagumba (talk
) 05:01, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Two sections for "Reasons for the differential effects of climate change"

Why are there two identical sections for this? The second one is very poorly cited. I propose that it either be merged with the first, or deleted outright. BirdValiant (talk) 10:31, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Most of the content in the bottom section was already in the top section, better written and better cited. Thus I have
boldly removed the bottom one. 107.190.33.254 (talk
) 16:30, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

Is there any bias here?

@Megaman en m: There is an NPOV cleanup tag on this article, but I don't see any signs of bias here. Does this article still need to be revised for "neutrality?" Jarble (talk) 16:04, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

That section had sentences chock-full of bias, the worst offender being "She reaches the audience through impactful phrases and scientific information making the climate crisis a reality and not as far off as some politicians want us to think". This is something you'd write on your personal blog or high school essay, not an encyclopedia. I went ahead and removed all the unencyclopedic sentences and removed the NPOV tag.--Megaman en m (talk) 16:21, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
@Megaman en m: This article is a magnet for this kind of thing. In case you didn't notice, the edit preceding yours added such hot-takes as "Behind the concept of 'climate justice' is the eugenics, a movement to depopulate the world to a base population of 500,000,000 people" and "This slight-of-hand is lost on most casual observers, but to the scientific mind, it is a clear flaw in this social movement", all without any citation of course. I'm glad that it's getting a little review. BirdValiant (talk) 07:20, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
That edit managed to stay live for over two weeks? I'll add this page to my watchlist to prevent such changes.--Megaman en m (talk) 09:56, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

to do list

To get this article to GA/FA...

  • does the lede incorporate all aspects of the issue
  • double-check history section; earlier uses?
  • reorganize sections to ...

proposed outline below -- phoebe / (talk to me) 14:40, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

  • Introduction/lede (inclds definition)
  • History of the term
  • Aspects of climate justice
  • Disproportionate impacts of climate change
  • impact on minority groups
  • impact on low-income people
  • impact on specific livelihoods
  • Climate-related migration and conflict
  • Migration and refugees
  • Conflict and climate
  • Responses and addressing climate justice
  • Climate justice related protests and activism
  • Climate justice-related litigation
  • Climate justice related law and policy
  • Civil society responses
  • Just transition for workers
  • See also
  • References / further reading

Untitled

Hello, I plan to edit this article by adding more information about how politics play a huge role in climate justice. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maisha28 (talk • contribs) 02:49, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Hi - The climate ethics page that this page originally linked to had some serious problems. I have started a new page here. What I have written is just a stop gap, I will add/edit it soon.

I think this page needs to link to a separate new page called "climate change litigation" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Solar Kermit (talk • contribs) 05:31, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Hello, I plan to make additions to the lead/intro of the article, to include more details on difference conceptions of climate justice currently in use (e.g. procedural, distributive and transformational climate justice). --Voyageur23 (talk) 18:00, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Hello, I have edited the lede and placed the three core types of climate justice, which voyageur123 added before, in the first two opening paragraphs. I also added simple simple explainers for each type of justice. I did this because I believe this can help the reader navigate and make sense of the quite varied content currently in the page. A future edit might be to draw this language and framing down through the whole page to give greater clarity to the reader. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gcundill (talk • contribs) 16:00, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Scrap the "further reading" list?

I would be inclined to scrap the further reading list. Maybe replace it with a short external links list. Those further reading lists usually get quite arbitrary and outdated. If there are good publications there then they should be cited in the text rather. EMsmile (talk) 03:30, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

OK, so I have removed the list now. If anyone wants to "rescue" any of these then please use them for inline citations:

EMsmile (talk) 02:10, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Off topic, NPOV issues?

I feel like that this article has a lot of off-topic information that is not directly related to the topic of climate justice. In particular, I feel like the #Disproportionate impact and #Case studies are overwhelmingly off-topic. I feel like there is an article-wide NPOV problem, with this possibly being that. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 01:39, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

I agree with you that the section on "Examples" (formerly called "case studies") is rather weak. It might even contain
WP:OR - not sure. Should it be condensed into a bullet point list maybe? EMsmile (talk
) 02:16, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Removed ill-fitting example

I have removed this text from the examples section because it doesn't fit well here. It's not really about climate justice. I imagine it could be moved to another article but which one? Here is the text:

Extended content

Environmental dumping of harmful appliances

The growing use of cooling appliances like air conditioners and refrigerators is projected to be one of the top drivers of global electricity demand growth in the coming years.[1] As demand for cooling appliances has grown, environmental dumping of energy inefficient electronic products into developing countries has increased.[2][3] These inefficient cooling appliances include used and near end-of-life appliances that use refrigerants with either high global warming potential (GWP) or super polluting greenhouse gases like hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs) and hydrochlorofluorocarbons (HCFCs) which are ozone-depleting substances (ODS). An end to environmental dumping of such products is critical in mitigating climate change and ensuring climate justice for communities that are being dumped upon.

EMsmile (talk) 13:30, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

It's much better written than what's currently in Refrigerant. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 21:38, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
Would you suggest that we moved that content to Refrigerant? Or is there one on "environmental issues of cooling appliances" or something like that? (did you agree with my decision to remove it from "climate justice"?) EMsmile (talk) 01:58, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
@EMsmile: Of course. Sorry for the delay. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 16:00, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
OK, done, I have moved the text block to the talk page of Refrigerant.EMsmile (talk) 00:16, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ "Air conditioning use emerges as one of the key drivers of global electricity-demand growth". International Energy Agency. 15 May 2018. Retrieved 29 November 2020.
  2. ^ CLASP/IGSD (2020). "Environmentally Harmful Dumping of Inefficient and Obsolete Air Conditioners in Africa" (PDF). Retrieved 29 November 2020. {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)
  3. ^ Anderson, Stephen; Ferris, Richard; Picolotti, Romina; Zaelke, Durwood; Carvalho, Suely; Gonzalez, Marco (2018). "Defining the Legal and Policy Framework to Stop the Dumping of Environmentally Harmful Products". Duke Environmental Law & Policy Forum. 29: 3.

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 19 January 2021 and 6 May 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Valycarr22.

Above undated message substituted from

talk
) 17:50, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 16 August 2021 and 17 December 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Nabaan.

Above undated message substituted from

talk
) 19:12, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Removing the template asking for improvements?

User:Chidgk1 To indicate progress, I suggest removal or modification of the Nov 2021 template asking for improvements in the article including explanations for "historically constituted","anonymous structure","perpetuated rhetoric","legitimacies" and "neoliberalism". Have added useful Wikilinks for each of these. Have worked with Professor Henry Shue to improve many parts of the article. I have also rewritten the worst of the lengthy run-on sentences. The article is much improved but needs more attention regarding readability and provision of references for some of the statements. Regards ASRASR (talk) 15:23, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for that, Arno. There are still some crazy long sentences in there (I was just looking at the section on systemic causes). Who writes like that?? Must be someone not used to writing for the general public. I plan to try and reduce those. So maybe it's still a little bit too early to remove that template (but soon). EMsmile (talk) 18:15, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Which images to use

As per the comment by RCraig09 above, I have now taken out 2 of the climate protest photos. I have swapped the photo about Hurricane Katrina for a more people-centred photo. I've moved up a different one to the lead position (the one about system change) but this would warrant further discussion. Is this a suitable image for the lead? If not, then what image should we choose? EMsmile (talk) 07:03, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Trying to get more Wikipedia editors involved

OK, I have just posted in the following places now to try and get more Wikipedia editors involved in this article: WikiProject Climate Change, Climate Justice Taskforce of same WikiProject, WikiProject Human Rights, WikiProject Black Lives Matter. I agree with the comment that I just found on the Climate Justice Taskforce's talk page from January of this year: "It seems the Climate Justice page has gotten really messy, with lots of repetition, poor writing and quite a few questionable sections added." (by User Cyberperson) EMsmile (talk) 07:28, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Hi. Yes it needs a lot of work, IMO it needs a properly coordinated overhaul. Perhaps a plan could be made using phoebe's to do list above as an initial template? Cyberperson (talk) 10:15, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
Hi Cyberperson good to see you here! Which to-do list do you mean? This one?: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Climate_change/Justice#To-do_list I only found this which could be relevant: General things to do:
  • check sources - are they up to date? Neutral?
  • are current laws in a jurisdiction (eg a US state) listed?
  • is the article accessible/readable to a layperson? If not, try to write a better summary
  • does the lede adequately summarize the article?
  • are there any pictures or open access scientific graphs on commons to add to the article?

It would be great to have a coordinated overhaul but for that we need people who take an interest in this article - where to get them from... If you're one of them: great! Let's get started... EMsmile (talk) 10:48, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, it's the 'to do' list above on this talk page (not sure how to link to it). But yes I was previously in contact with phoebe who seemed keen or reworking the climate justice page. These are the other users from WikiProject Climate change/Justice, perhaps some of them might also be interested? Sadads,Treetopz,Swiftestcat,Kaizenify ,Kritzolina,Ainali,Lovemedead,Mervat,lifeofconan Cyberperson (talk) 12:42, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
Oh, OK, I see now the list from 2020 which is shown earlier on this talk page. I have now compared the proposed structure with the current structure and made some adjustments. I think the current structure matches fairly well with the one that proposed back then (and I don't agree with putting history first, I think people get bored with history stuff, so I tend to put it towards the end of articles for most articles; it does not need to be the first thing that readers see; note the history section has recently been improved by Henry Shue via User:ASRASR around 9 March, see comment earlier on this page; I think the history section and the lead read quite well now). The section on "debates and issues" wasn't in the original structure and is a bit problematic because it is not very focused. I think some trimming (and converting academic language to easier language) is needed here. So the current structure looks like this:
1	Aspects and considerations
1.1	Disproportionality between causality and burden
1.2	Responsibility and causes
1.3	Intergenerational equity
1.4	Disproportionate impacts on disadvantaged groups
1.5	Climate migrants

2	Responses to improve climate justice
2.1	Common principles of justice in burden-sharing
2.2	Litigation
2.3	Climate justice protests
2.4	Political approaches towards climate justice
2.5	Human rights

3	Debates and issues
3.1	Fundamental differences in economic systems as a root cause
3.2	Systemic causes
3.3	Reduced efficiency
3.4	Disruption of social stability, jobs and uncomfortable changes
3.5	Public political support
3.6	Perceived injustice, conflict and legitimacy
3.7	Conflicting interest-driven interpretations as barriers to agreements
3.8	Less ambitious mitigation

4	History

5	Examples
5.1	Subsistence farmers in Latin America
5.2	Hurricane Katrina

6 See also 7 References EMsmile (talk) 15:44, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Further expert comments (March 2022)

I have the pleasure of making some important improvements to this article especially thanks to input from Professor Henry Shue (Merton College Oxford, UK) author of the book Climate Justice[1]. These improvements are being made from March 9, 2022 as part of the Wikipedia project Communication of Environment SDGs[2]. ASRASR (talk) 16:38, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Much appreciated. I see that those edits by Henry Shue have improved the lead and the history section a lot. We'd still need inputs by Henry to the section on "debates and issues" if possible? EMsmile (talk) 15:46, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

References

  1. OCLC 880686133
    .
  2. ^ "Wikipedia:Meetup/SDGs/Communication of environment SDGs", Wikipedia, 2022-03-01, retrieved 2022-03-09

Too many images and insets

The article has become cluttered with images and quoteboxes, making some sections hard to read on desktop. I do not know if this affects mobile as well, as I never use mobile. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 07:31, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

Hi User:LaundryPizza03 I agree with you regarding the high number of quoteboxes. I'm discussing this further down below on this talk page, perhaps you'd like to help there with the consensus building? EMsmile (talk) 15:48, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Consequentialism vs. Deontology

Will emphasizing disparities as the first line of remedy result in more or less climate justice, climate mitigation, etc. and better conditions for those most harmed by climate disruption? MaynardClark (talk) 12:13, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

I don't think this is the place to discuss which climate mitigation strategy will prove to be the best. However, if secondary sources are discussing it, then we could think about adding it to the article, in which case, it would be appropriate to discuss how exactly to add such material to this article. BirdValiant (talk) 14:21, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
A few years ago (2017?) I authored a draft page on climate responsibility (which was 'speedily deleted'), which sought to apply standards of moral responsibility from the field(s) of medical ethics to climate mitigation. Therefore, I would argue, a broader moral duty could be ascribed to public health and other global problems if their characteristics are as real and perplexing as medical issues are for human beings, for which governments, foundations and other nonprofits, and corporations with employees assume duties and responsibilities, and advocates blame and insist upon ascribing responsibilities to certain groups. A sense of that 'reality' necessarily precedes developing articles (or sections in articles) on that discipline of discerning and describing fields of the duties ("who holds the bag?") for scoping out what needs to be done (and then how best to achieve the ends of mitigation and reversal). MaynardClark (talk) 11:55, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
Hi User:MaynardClark I don't understand what your comment is trying to tell us with regards to this article? Which sections need to be added to/changed or removed, and which additional references do you want to cite? Please advise. EMsmile (talk) 15:50, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Proposed merge of Most Affected People and Areas into Climate justice

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 no consensus. Chidgk1 (talk) 13:18, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

This term is used within climate justice and would be better covered at that article. (t · c) buidhe 07:33, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

  • Support. The issues seem closely aligned, if not identical. Especially since the other article is still a stub, it's most appropriate to consolidate now. If genuinely distinct content emerges in the future (doubtful), it can be bifurcated then. —RCraig09 (talk) 15:32, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose. This term is being widely used by the environmental movement right now and it's going to gain strength in the future. Spanish is my native language and I've seen this term come up more and more in discussions, I actually came into the article because I wanted to trace the history of the term. It encompasses concepts that "climate justice" does not and it works to reference global issues, unlike local & regional interpretations of climate justice. MAPA clearly references both communities of color in the US affected by environmental racism but also people in the Philippines that might be affected by the disproportionate GHG emissions of industrialized countries, while "climate justice" will always have a local interpretation. Scann (talk) 23:34, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Support. Definitely support - The MAPA micro-article gets only 5 views per day and needs to be better connected to climate change. Climate Justice which gets 135 views per day is a natural mother article for MAPA. ASRASR (talk) 13:44, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
Oppose per the discussion so far, MAPA is an emerging theme within the Environmental movement that describes a who of participation in climate action, rather than a what which is what climate justice is focused on. Sadads (talk) 18:15, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
Comment: I have no strong opinion here but the arguments by Scann and Sadads are quite convincing. If the term MAPA is also used outside of the climate justice context then I guess it warrants its own article, even though it's only a stub so far and hasn't grown in the last six months. If it does grow, let's make sure it doesn't end up overlapping with climate change vulnerability or environmental racism and alike. I suggest removed the merger tag now. OK? EMsmile (talk) 18:18, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
I've removed the merger tag now. EMsmile (talk) 15:29, 28 March 2022 (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.

Wiki Education assignment: The Economics of Social Justice and Injustice

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 19 January 2023 and 5 May 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): AuntGayle (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by WCSUEconProf (talk) 17:54, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

Removed "further reading"

This publication was listed under "further reading" but why single it out like this? If it's important it could be cited in the main text (but it's behind a paywall, so not easily accessible):

Thanks for removing, almost did that too.
Any links there should be open access and highly valuable as in providing a very good overview including info not contained in the article. Maybe something to put there could be the refs used most often in the article (maybe these a MediaWiki change could make them show there automatically). Prototyperspective (talk) 09:35, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

Long difficult text block under systemic causes from just one source

I wonder what to do about this text block. It has only one citation at the very end (which is behind a paywall so not easily verifiable). It uses very complicated language, long sentences etc. I don't thinks this text works for the target audience, the general public. I would struggle to improve its readability. Is it really encyclopedic in content? Should it perhaps be shrunk down a lot? Here it is: "The study noted that the common demand by grassroots movements expressed in the slogan "system change not climate change" may correctly identify the scope of the challenge. While there may have been some cases of active prevention of transformative changes, responsibilities due to a lack of changes in policy may be more difficult to discern, with relevant domains possibly including education policy, media policy, the selection of issues in political campaigns, meta policy, changes to the policy cycle and to what degree required unprofitable transformative work is enabled and facilitated instead of structurally inhibited. However, without discrete political goals and obligations such a root-cause determination of responsibility risks absolving individual responsibility within an anonymous structure, especially as powerful political or corporate leaders have the ability to make certain pro-mitigation decisions even if they are not as rational, beneficial or effective as if the structural context would facilitate these decisions (e.g. for being the economically "most profitable" choice). Furthermore, such decisions by leaders may often be considered impossible or highly irrational by the respective parties partly due to a core principle of self-preservation (e.g. of a company, a political party in power or for a national economy) within the contemporary structures even when complemented with other relevant domestic or international policies.[1] [additional citation(s) needed]"EMsmile (talk) 17:23, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

I think semantically it's content very important and relevant to this article. It could be shrunk down on the basis of insufficient citations (as the tag that I added said) and intelligibility. A very brief version subject to further revision:

The study noted that the common demand by grassroots movements expressed in the slogan "system change not climate change" may correctly identify the scope of the challenge. Responsibilities for neglection of policy changes may be difficult to discern as such changes span many domains and are partly structural. Determination of root-cause responsibilities risks absolving individual responsibility within an anonymous structure, especially as powerful political or corporate leaders across domains have the ability to make certain climate action decisions even when they are not as beneficial as they could be if changes first occurred in other domains.

Prototyperspective (talk) 10:06, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

References

  1. S2CID 224971164
    .

Are those 3 quote boxes adding much value?

I wonder if we really need those 3 boxes with quotes or if they should be deleted or moved to other articles? I find them distracting. Perhaps one of those quotes is OK (the most recent one?) but I don't think we need 3 of them. EMsmile (talk) 09:44, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

The quote boxes succinctly summarize the positions of authoritative legal bodies or the Glasgow Climate Pact. As such, they are not 'distractions' but are central to the article's topic. Further, they are mutually distinct, not interchangeable, and an arbitrary reduction in their number, especially for stylistic preference, is not warranted; 3 is not excessive. The quotes are much more notable, encyclopedic and instructive than, say, pictures of demonstrators. —RCraig09 (talk) 17:38, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
There are actually 5 boxes with quotes in total in this article (the last two, in the history section, use different formatting). Only the 5th box actually mentions "climate justice" explicitly. Some of the others talk more about human rights. Wouldn't they fit better in the article Human rights and climate change? Or if they are indeed very important to understand the concept of "climate justice" then I think it would be better if they're introduced in the prose section as a quote because then they could be put into context (in which way do the positions of authoritative legal bodies or the Glasgow Climate Pact relate to climate justice exactly?). I think quotes in boxes on the right hand side feel a bit old fashioned now. I rarely see them in featured articles anymore (e.g. the article on climate change does not have a single boxed quote). They don't work well as a substitute for images as they have no visual impact. It would actually be fairly easy to find photos of climate injustice on Wikimedia Commons, being the opposite of climate justice. Good photos of climate justice are harder to come by, if we don't want to show lots of courtroom photos. But injustice photos would work equally well, right? EMsmile (talk) 22:32, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
Climate justice is an abstraction and can't actually be pictured. Justice, generally, is adjudicated in courts or implemented by administrative agencies—which answers the question you pose. This article isn't about the words "climate justice" but about the concept—which is succinctly summarized by authoritative bodies in the quote boxes. Your observations, both here and in other articles like Talk:Instrumental temperature record#Requested move 17 March 2022, are more stylistic and/or personal preference, and less substantive. There so much of substance that an editor can focus on, in this encyclopedia. —23:04, 23 March 2022 (UTC) link changed —RCraig09 (talk) 05:03, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
Well let's wait and see what other editors say about this issue with the five quote boxes in this article. With regards to my efforts in Wikipedia editing being apparently mostly non substantive (according to you), I'll contact you by e-mail or on your talk page for clarification. EMsmile (talk) 00:05, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
I apologize for referring to the entire ITR article and not the Requested Move. Link is corrected above. —RCraig09 (talk) 05:03, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
Coming back to the topic of this section which was whether the 5 quotes in boxes are suitable for this article. I still feel that for readers who know little about the subject ( = our target group), these quotes appear out of context and their relevance is not clear. They would be better off to be introduced with some prose in the main text. I've had a look at
WP:LONGQUOTE). This is consistent with my observation that GA and FA articles rarely use such quotes in boxes on the side. would you be willing to reconsider your stance? And are there any other page watchers with an opinion on this? EMsmile (talk
) 15:44, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
@EMsmile: I frankly don't see how there is any confusion whatsoever about how the quotes' relevance is not clear: the quotes are foundational, essential expressions of climate justice itself—which efficiently crystalizes our readers' understanding without long narrative. From national- or international-standing organizations, the quotes aren't "opinions" in the context of Wikipedia's neutrality policy. Again, "climate justice" is an abstraction and thus demands words over pictures. In this discussion (one more of style than substance), if anything we should reduce the number of ~decorative "demonstration/protest" pictures because they are not substantively very instructive and are essentially pictures of very short quotes! Other editors' viewpoints are of course welcome. —RCraig09 (talk) 01:34, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
I gave you the links to Wikipedia's manual of style regarding quotes. Those recommendations wouldn't be in there if quote boxes were not problematic. If you fail to see how there could be any non-clarity here, I suggest you show the article to an uninvolved friend or colleague - a member of the public and see how much of the article they find readable and understandable. The article suffers from an overly academic language (see also my comments in the other section below). I am just trying to make it more understandable. Can you please not bring up the issue of "style versus substance" again? - one type of edit is not better/more important than the other. If you don't want to get involved in discussions over style, that is your choice. Other editors might find it important. Please accept that all editors are different and all have a place on Wikipedia, provided they follow Wikipedia guidelines of course. With regards to photos, I'm happy to remove some of the climate protest photos and have just done so (see also section below). Is there a WikiProject where we could highlight this article in order to get more editors involved? One would be WikiProject Climate Change of course (see new section below) EMsmile (talk) 07:10, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
I don't find them distracting but a nice alternation making the article much more exciting, varied and interesting to the reader.
However, I doubt the quote from the "Constitutional Court of Ecuador" is notable, at least not once there are more legal statements like this and I think there are by now. If anything this should be used as a ref for a very brief note that some regard nature to "have an intrinsic value" albeit this is flawed as is in this context in various ways such as that it's natural that nature gets destroyed (for example historic species (mass-)extinctions, natural wildfires, invasive species, asteroid impacts). I don't know whether this notion could be constructively relevant but I think it would need to be more nuanced than the impression the reader is given via this isolated quote.
I think the quote of the "The Glasgow climate pact" should be replaced as soon as possible once there is a similar international statement like this. For example considering "obligations on human rights, the right to health" only "when taking action", not considering this as obligations "for taking (sufficient and adequate) action". There are some further issues in there like extensive bias. Hence, I'd be neutral as to whether or not that one is removed and would support its removal once a better relevant international agreement quote is available. Prototyperspective (talk) 09:53, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
— The Ecuador quote succinctly exemplifies the growing number of jurisdictions that recognize "rights of nature" and is thus important in that regard. Your critique of the content should not govern inclusion.
— The COP26/Glasgow quote is a concise but encompassing description of official acknowledgement by the IPCC UNFCC parties of rights and obligations.
— More generally, quotes are needed in this article, because "justice" is an abstract concept that can't be readily communicated by pictures of physical objects. —RCraig09 (talk) 16:02, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
  • Good point but the text next to it does not inform about the "growing number of jurisdictions that recognize "rights of nature"", hence I'd support replacing the quote-as-example with text-as-explanation/information about this, possibly including a reference to this particular decision.
  • Basically I tend towards inclusion unless there is a better quote to replace it with. As long as nobody brings such up I think it makes quite some sense to put this quote there. Maybe the IPCC has a similar quote.
  • That's another reason we need more science-related images such as informative illustrations that help explain various concepts, issues and developments (albeit this could currently be difficult for CJustice). However, quotes are text and hence the right thing to compare these with is article text content, not images.
Prototyperspective (talk) 16:08, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
Granted, as a general principle, "better" quotes may come along. Here, a "growing number..." (routine factual) description is most appropriate in an article's narrative text, while (more dramatic extraordinary) official pronouncements are most appropriate for quote boxes. FYI: Re images-versus-quotes, I was only hearkening back to the March 2022 discussion re the cumulative collection of unencyclopedic "protest crowd" pictures. —RCraig09 (talk) 17:08, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

Text block to be cut from "systemic causes"

I am proposing that this text block ought to be cut. Not encyclopedic, all based on just one publication? Reads like an essay or academic writing on climate change causes in general.

+++++++++++ The study noted that the common demand by grassroots movements expressed in the slogan "system change not climate change" may correctly identify the scope of the challenge. While there may have been some cases of active prevention of transformative changes, responsibilities due to a lack of changes in policy may be more difficult to discern, with relevant domains possibly including education policy, media policy, the selection of issues in political campaigns, meta policy, changes to the policy cycle and to what degree required unprofitable transformative work is enabled and facilitated instead of structurally inhibited. However, without discrete political goals and obligations such a root-cause determination of responsibility risks absolving individual responsibility within an anonymous structure, especially as powerful political or corporate leaders have the ability to make certain pro-mitigation decisions even if they are not as rational, beneficial or effective as if the structural context would facilitate these decisions (e.g. for being the economically "most profitable" choice). Furthermore, such decisions by leaders may often be considered impossible or highly irrational by the respective parties partly due to a core principle of self-preservation (e.g. of a company, a political party in power or for a national economy) within the contemporary structures even when complemented with other relevant domestic or international policies.[1][additional citation(s) needed] EMsmile (talk) 22:58, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Cite error: The named reference 10.1177/1474885120955148 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

EMsmile (talk) 22:58, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

See my reply at in section above; in brief: I suggest making it a lot shorter & more intelligible. Prototyperspective (talk) 16:01, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
Sure, if you can distill the essence out of it with a couple of clear, understandable sentences that are well sourced, then it could go back into the section "systemic causes". As it stands at the moment, I find that text block unclear and essay-like. EMsmile (talk) 07:46, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

Removed a section called "Responsibility and causes"

I've removed this section with the following justification in the edit summary: "I am removing this as it doesn't fit here. Responsibility for climate change? Should be about responsibility for climate injustice... Too simplistic." Already the section heading is vague and unclear: is this about causes for climate change in general or causes for climate justice/injustice?

++++++++ Responsibility and causes:

Responsibility for climate change has been attributed to:

  • fossil fuel companies[1][2]
  • consumers purchasing fossil fuels and goods produced using fossil fuels
  • structures that distribute power and wealth to the fossil fuel companies
  • lack of public and contemporary free private investment into sustainable development
  • lack of alternatives (e.g. public transport infrastructure and advanced sustainable energy grids)
  • lack of policies that reduce fossil fuel consumption or their harmful effects
  • lack of change development (e.g. eco-tariffs, new socioeconomic designs, changes in subsidization and financial allocations, sustainability certifications)


Many policies (and contemporary private endeavors such as voluntary ones by billionaires or asset managers)[3] may often have well-intentioned substantial positive environmental effects. But these may amount to (or have the purpose of) greenwashing. Or they may fall short of climate goals and policies since politics is often based on compromise.[4][5][6] EMsmile (talk) 13:26, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

References

  1. S2CID 108287513
    .
  2. S2CID 158375989. Archived
    from the original on 30 May 2022. Retrieved 18 March 2022.
  3. ^ Pratley, Nils (2 December 2019). "BlackRock's Larry Fink must think again over tackling climate crisis". The Guardian. Archived from the original on 28 October 2021. Retrieved 28 October 2021.
  4. ^ Timperley, Jocelyn (19 June 2020). "Who is really to blame for climate change?". www.bbc.com. Archived from the original on 28 October 2021. Retrieved 28 October 2021.
  5. S2CID 92588553. Archived
    from the original on 20 January 2022. Retrieved 16 November 2021.
  6. ^ Levermann, Anders (10 July 2019). "Individuals can't solve the climate crisis. Governments need to step up". The Guardian. Archived from the original on 28 October 2021. Retrieved 28 October 2021.

EMsmile (talk) 13:26, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for making a talk page post when removing such content, this is good practice. I think it's best if we keep this content here, but possibly in a revised form.
  • It's brief and the layout is quickly readable or skimmable.
  • It's highly relevant here as responsibility is a major component of climate justice. For example, who is responsible and most responsible for anthropogenic climate change and for (inaction on/insufficient) climate change mitigation is relevant to litigations as well as to climate justice based finance.
  • It's very important to include content on this here also because many if not most people have a misconception whereby only one or a few of these are thought of as the most responsible, usually in simplistic ways whereby for example companies are blamed without consideration of consumer behavior or policy (or vice versa). I don't get your "too simplistic" removal rationale – if you want to address simplistic notions and inform neutrally about the many different notions people have on this (it does not suggest only one of these can be true) then you'd include this content.
Prototyperspective (talk) 10:22, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
Where in the new structure would you want to re-insert this content? We have a section on "causes of injustice" which I think makes sense. But that list above is about "causes of climate change in general"? Also, the bullet point list only has a source for the first bullet point. I wonder if you are going into
industrial revolution, and too many people, and capitalism... But this is where it gets a bit essay-like and philosophical, doesn't it. EMsmile (talk
) 08:02, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
Ok, I better see your concern now with the revised article structure and I'd agree that it doesn't really fit into "Causes of injustice" as is. Like RCraig09 also pointed out in another discussion on this page, the responsibilities are highly relevant here (it's also mentioned three times in the lead) and this is kept brief in the form of a bullet-point summary without going into detail.
You could say the bottom line cause for climate climate is the industrial revolution, and too many people, and capitalism
  • That is one/three notion/s and this list is exactly about listing the different major notions people came up with. The latter point is exactly what sections "Existing economic systems as a root cause" and "Systemic causes" are mostly about. I don't think I need to address any specific notion but just to give you an example:
  • the industrial revolution wouldn't necessarily lead to problematic levels of warming if it shifted economics to sustainable structures in time, nor would "too many people" if the average person consumed little energy intensive products such as cars (e.g. via rationing and sustainable-by-design principles) so some people would go one step further and ask: why has this not occured.
  • You could say the reason is "capitalism" but a plain word in itself is not an explanations, and again that's just one notion and capitalism could have a different form or e.g. be limited in ways that mitigates/prevents this problem or be amended by certain sufficiently effective policies in various ways.
  • → The whole point of it is not to make this "essay-like and philosophical" but just to briefly inform, without undue weight on any notion and in a way that the reader understands, about the different notable notions people came up with so far. Maybe one could say that this informs that there is philosophical debate about the causes, albeit I don't think it's mostly a philosophical question. It's a good point that excessive(?) reproduction is not reflected in that list, however the "consumers purchasing..." point could be made more broader in a way that makes it about individual responsibility&behavior and other than that it may already be partly included in the other points.
Your OR concern could be a good point, I need to check what the sources said and will look for more sources which takes time. Maybe I can do so next month.
Currently, I think it should go into a new brief subsection such as "Historical causes and responsibility for climate change" under "Conflicting interest-driven interpretations as barriers to agreements" (basically individuals blame companies who could blame policy-makers who blame other policy-makers and individuals so that effectively nearly nothing changes swiftly) or "History". Will work on it later, it should be kept brief and I think this is very important to all levels/types of justice (intergenerational, state law, litigations, etc) that relate to climate change. Prototyperspective (talk) 16:40, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

The section headings and structure are a bit unclear

I think we need to re-think the section headings a bit. Currently, the table of content is like this:

Aspects and considerations

Disproportionality between causality and burden
Intergenerational equity
Disproportionate impacts on disadvantaged groups
Climate migrants

Responses to improve climate justice

Common principles of justice in burden-sharing
Litigation
Climate justice protests
Political approaches towards climate justice
Human rights

Debates and issues

Fundamental differences in economic systems as a root cause
Systemic causes
Reduced efficiency
Disruption of social stability, jobs and uncomfortable changes
Public political support
Perceived injustice, conflict and legitimacy
Conflicting interest-driven interpretations as barriers to agreements
Fossil-fuels dependent states
Less ambitious mitigation

Could we bring that to more standard section headings like Definition, Purposes, Causes, Challenges, Possible solutions, Society and culture and alike?

In particular the headings "Aspects and considerations" and "Debates and issues" are rather vague and overlapping.

The article also uses rather complicated sentence structure, e.g. very long sentences. The Flesch-Kincaid Reading Ease score is rather low at around 28.4. Pinging also User:ASRASR and User:Richarit. EMsmile (talk) 22:12, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

Looking at it a bit more closely, I see that a lot of the text under "debates and issues" has been added by User:Prototyperspective. In my opinion, too much text and content has been added about climate change in general (e.g. all the problems we are having in getting people to take action about it, climate change mitigation and so forth) rather than being specific for the content of this article which is climate justice. As such, those edits have added content that overlaps a lot with other articles such as politics of climate change, climate change mitigation and so forth. If it was up to me, I would cull and condense a lot of this as people will get lost reading all this digressing content, rather than being told the specifics of climate justice.
It reminds me a bit of how climate change mitigation used to look a year ago: it was nearly impossible to read as it was digressing into so many different directions. EMsmile (talk) 22:49, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
I've made a bunch of changes to the structure and content now, culling quite a bit of content that I found essay like and not encyclopedic. I still see more text blocks that I find problematic but I will stop here for now to let others catch up. I'll actually be away for a few days, don't be surprised if I don't reply immediately. Back on Monday at the latest. EMsmile (talk) 23:19, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
Why compulsively squeeze content into an arbitrary list of headings, that's not constructive and there is no list of headings that are inherently appropriate for all kinds of different articles. Renaming or restructuring can still make sense but so far I see no good rationale for that and no specific proposed changes. I think renaming the section to "Challenges" was good and and overlapping content should be restructured and/or deduplicated where appropriate.
Long sentences are a problem at some places, depending on the information it can be difficult to convey it adequately and accurately in a shorter way, I haven't gotten to shorten such sentences so far.
I think more important than culling info is having brief sections and many headers so that readers can easily and quickly skim or skip or skip to content.
I don't know what exactly you're referring to but these are specific of climate justice, not e.g. CC mitigation in general. The IPCC report also "digresses" in many directions, that is because CCM is a very large multifaceted complex problem. The solution is not to just to cut off core key info or to include info/focus only on one topic while ignoring others (such as indigenous land rights against deforestion while ignoring trade/product/antideforestation-transparency policy at CCM) but to move info about different aspects into subarticles that are summarized in brief sections with many subheaders, which was applied to some extent.
Content overlapping with other articles is not inherently a problem if the articles' scopes overlap. When the info is too extensive and another article has more info on that, it should be linked, preferably as a {{Further|}} wikilink.
The Challenges section is at the bottom making it even easier for people to simply skip it if they're not interested in that.
Many of your changes are highly constructive, some imo should be revisions of text instead of removals and few imo aren't helpful (but I haven't yet checked the edits here in detail). Hoping other editors also review the recent changes. Prototyperspective (talk) 11:09, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
I agree with you that section headings are useful for people to jump directly to those sections that interest them the most. That's why it's so important to use main headings that make it very clear to non-experts what's in them. I like main headings that are clear, such as "causes", "impacts", "challenges" and so forth. This is not about "compulsively squeeze content into an arbitrary list of headings". It's finding proper main section headings that provide the readers with a clear, easy to find structure of an article. I think the new section headings that I came up with are fairly OK now:
  1. Objectives
  2. Causes of injustice
  3. Responses to improve climate justice
  4. Challenges

Maybe the section heading "challenges" is still a bit unclear. It could be named "difficulties" or "ongoing debates", or something else? Or just leave it as "challenges"? EMsmile (talk) 07:57, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

I think the current structure as it's now after the changes is fine and I'd keep the "Challenges" section header as is. I don't think it's needed but one could add some clarifications to a lead to that section such as something roughly like "There are numerous difficulties in producing or codifying climate justice goals. These are subjects of academic research and ongoing debates." Prototyperspective (talk) 16:59, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

Suggestion to remove section "Political approaches towards climate justice"

I suggest this text block ought to be removed because it's not specific about climate justice, more about climate change in general. Also feels a bit advocacy like:

Click at right to show/hide text in question

Political approaches towards climate justice:

Main article:
Politics of global warming
The COP26 Climate Change Conference...

     ... acknowledging that climate change is a common concern of humankind, Parties should, when taking action to address climate change, respect, promote and consider their respective obligations on human rights, the right to health, the rights of indigenous peoples, local communities, migrants, children, persons with disabilities and people in vulnerable situations and the right to development, as well as gender equality, empowerment of women and intergenerational equity, ...

— The Glasgow climate pact[1]
13 November 2021

The early 21st century – particularly the decade 2020 to 2030 – became the time in which both relatively large shares of populations – in and outside of formal democracies – realized that urgent serious action towards climate change mitigation – climate justice for young and future generations – need to be taken and which scientific research indicated to contain the last closing window of opportunity for mitigating climate change to a manageable, potentially justifiable level.[2][3] Scientific data indicates that, assuming 2021 emissions levels, humanity has a carbon budget equivalent to 11 years of emissions left for limiting warming to 1.5 °C,[4][5] although there are deep concerns over potential tipping points that could be triggered even before that carbon budget is used up.[6][7][8][9][10] These are main reasons why many scientists are calling for the declaration of and, critically, adequate action upon a state of "climate emergency".

Some of the relevant elite groups – particularly

IMF, World Bank and OECD – were found to have been incompetent or unwilling to solve climate change, making their rhetoric ultimately meaningless, partly by continuously including what some consider "globalism" and "ethics of growth" in their perpetuated rhetoric.[11][additional citation(s) needed
]

In terms of political approaches, some researchers identified a need for a participatory deliberative democracy model of political decision-making in which voting-related decisions are not made via polarized opinions spurred via possibly imperfect media and education and immediate near-term impacts but gain their legitimacy via authentic deliberation.[12][13][14]

References

  1. ^ Washington Post Staff (13 November 2021). "The Glasgow climate pact, annotated". The Washington Post. Archived from the original on 14 November 2021.
  2. ^ Watts, Jonathan (29 May 2021). "Johan Rockström: 'We need bankers as well as activists... we have 10 years to cut emissions by half'". The Guardian. Archived from the original on 9 November 2021. Retrieved 9 November 2021.
  3. ^ "Warming expert: Only decade left to act in time". NBC News. September 14, 2006. Archived from the original on 9 November 2021. Retrieved 9 November 2021.
  4. ^ Neuman, Scott (4 November 2021). "Earth has 11 years to cut emissions to avoid dire climate scenarios, a report says". NPR. Archived from the original on 30 May 2022. Retrieved 9 November 2021.
  5. S2CID 240490309. Archived (PDF) from the original on 24 November 2021. Retrieved 16 November 2021.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (link
    )
  6. ^ "Explainer: Nine 'tipping points' that could be triggered by climate change". Carbon Brief. 10 February 2020. Archived from the original on 11 February 2020. Retrieved 9 November 2021.
  7. S2CID 208330359. Archived
    from the original on 5 February 2020. Retrieved 9 November 2021. Information summarized in the two most recent IPCC Special Reports (published in 2018 and in September this year) suggests that tipping points could be exceeded even between 1 and 2 °C of warming (see 'Too close for comfort').
  8. doi:10.1093/biosci/biab079
    .
  9. S2CID 67020630. Archived
    (PDF) from the original on 23 February 2022. Retrieved 16 November 2021.
  10. PMID 32157098
    . Worryingly, recent plot inventories from the Amazon show a declining rate of carbon sequestration, and there is growing evidence that further deforestation and degradation of the feedback between moisture formation and vegetation coverage may lead to a system-wide tipping point as soon as 2021. For a system the size of the Caribbean coral reefs (~20,000 km2), the empirical model estimates a 15 year period (95% CI: 5–50 years) to collapse once triggered.
  11. ISBN 978-1-78699-783-8. Archived
    from the original on 11 May 2022. Retrieved 9 November 2021.
  12. ISBN 978-1-77199-215-2. Archived
    from the original on 11 May 2022. Retrieved 9 November 2021.
  13. S2CID 153602433
    .
  14. ^ Uncu, Baran Alp (October 2020). "In Defense of both Climate and Justice: The Climate Justice Movement" (PDF). TESEV. Archived (PDF) from the original on 9 November 2021. Retrieved 11 May 2022.

Citizens' juries could be "a deliberative democracy tool that allows a demographically representative sample of the population to learn about a contested issue from experts, and discuss, debate and develop policy recommendations".[1] EMsmile (talk) 22:38, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

Had some doubts about that section too but didn't want to outright remove it so I edited it to make it more accurate, better sourced, and more relevant to the article. I think it can be removed and that may be constructive but I think some info contained there that is currently missing in the Politics of global warming article should be moved to that article.
Briefly explaining the societal realization of the urgency and time-element / closing window of opportunity of CCM as well as the CCM rationale and policy-making dimension of it could be substantially relevant to climate justice but a whole section is probably too much (especially as such info should rather be added in direct reference to climate justice aspects) and possibly partly duplicates content. Prototyperspective (talk) 11:20, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
EMsmile (talk) 22:38, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
The COP26 quote directly concerns climate justice, listing obligations and rights. You are correct that much of the narrative text concerns CChange and not CJustice. —RCraig09 (talk) 22:43, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
The COP quote doesn't even mention climate justice though. It seems to fit better into the article human rights and climate change maybe? EMsmile (talk) 22:51, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
The COP26 quote doesn't have the words "climate justice" but it enumerates rights and obligations. The article right now has the string "rights" thirty-seven (37) times and a section titled "Human rights". Rights (and its ~opposite, obligations) are what justice is about. —RCraig09 (talk) 23:20, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
Well, can you add that explanation into the section on "objectives" accordingly, with a suitable ref? What speaks against putting the COP quote into the article human rights and climate change? I think you are expecting our readers to be too smart/intellectual to understand the relevance of that quote for this article on climate justice. I didn't get it (I am a layperson on this subject). I think a quote that is in a big fat box should contain the words "climate justice" explicitly. But I remember arguing with you about the high number of quote boxes in this article previously, probably a year ago. Might have to agree to disagree, and see what others in the editing community make of this and the other quotes? . For now I will put it back in, in the section on human rights, even though I don't think it really belongs in this article. EMsmile (talk) 23:34, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
If you don't immediately see that justice involves the tension between (a) duties/obligations/responsibilities versus (b) rights (and doing so equitably: read the opening paragraph of the lead), that is a big problem for editing this article. The COP26 quote doesn't require readers to be "smart/intellectual" to see how it brilliantly captures the concept of climate justice. The COP26 quote is a high-level description from an authoritative source, and I was originally thinking of replacing the lead image with that quote. Yes, the quote may belong in other articles as well. —RCraig09 (talk) 15:26, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
Support and very much agree with what RCraig09 said above.
However, I think that understanding the relevance of this tension/relation may be more relevant to other removals by EMsmile (despite many–most of them probably being somewhat–largely warranted). I don't think this quote is particularly good but at least as long there is no better equivalent international authoritative brief quote to replace it with I'm neutral on that.
I also think that whether or not it's also relevant to other articles doesn't matter in terms of relevance to this article (it clearly is). In my comment above I wasn't referring to this quote box and some info contained in the section may also possibly still be worth keeping here in some form. Prototyperspective (talk) 15:57, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

Hi User:Prototyperspective, you said Briefly explaining the societal realization of the urgency and time-element / closing window of opportunity of CCM as well as the CCM rationale and policy-making dimension of it could be substantially relevant to climate justice.. My response to that: Something along those lines could go into the new section on "objectives" that I created a few days ago. I think this could be useful as long as it's brief and refers readers across to the relevant other Wikipedia articles for more details. EMsmile (talk) 07:51, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

I don't think it fits into an "Objectives" section. It would fit into a section that is about the use of Climate justice to enable and accelerate/improve/increase climate change mitigation. Climate change mitigation has many aspects of justice, it's not just about making the CCM itself more just, for example CCM in itself is a justice issue (as in intergenerational justice and so on).
Such a section currently seems to be missing but the section "Court cases and litigation" should be a subsection of that. Maybe the section "Responses to improve climate justice" should be renamed somehow accordingly. Maybe it could be called "Active climate justice" or "Applied climate justice" or "Responses based on climate justice" or "Climate justice in climate change mitigation". Prototyperspective (talk) 17:13, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

Images in the lead

Hi Prototyperspective and RCraig09, thanks for your helpful comments, I will reply to some of them in turn. But first I wanted to make a suggestion about the images in the lead. I see that we now have 3 images in the lead (2 with protests, 1 with court case). This is not ideal. We are supposed to have either exactly one image in the lead or have an image collage. I think that those 2 x 2 image collages work very well. See for example at climate change mitigation and climate change adaptation. If we can't agree on exactly one "representative" image here then how about we have an image collage? In the 4-image collage we could have 2 images with protests, 1 with a court case and perhaps 1 with showing an "unfair/unjust" impact of climate change. we already have 3 images in the lead now, so would only have to agree on a fourth one. EMsmile (talk) 07:44, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

Good idea in principle but that would make the images too small and leave too little space for text. Having the images beneath each other works well, they neatly leave enough space for the lead text. I don't think we're "supposed" to have either of that. i don't know of any policy or even guidelines that says so and can't think of any good reasons for why that should be the case even if there is. Many articles have multiple images on the right of the lead. For example, see Deforestation. Prototyperspective (talk) 17:17, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
When I read the Manual of Style, it seems pretty clear to me that generally exactly one image is preferred in the lead, see here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Images#Images_for_the_lead I'm not sure why you picked deforestation as a good example, let's rather look at featured articles: As far as I can see, they tend to use just one image in the lead (an image collage is in my mind "one image" as well). EMsmile (talk) 21:06, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
  1. S2CID 239598258
    .
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Climate_justice/Archive_1&oldid=1215029667"