Talk:Climate change policy of the United States

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

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)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

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)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

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)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

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)

Adding to the page

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 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

Lack of Content for the Last Section

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)

Climate Justice Policy section flagged

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)

May add undue weight to certain aspects and potentially advocates what may be fringe and/or biased positions; content is also contributed by participants with stated bias and conflict of interest within subject area. Also humbly requested 'Berkeley Environmental Justice' class project participants avoid contributing content related to the Trump Administration (or similar) per BLP-violating statements from Instructor on the course page. -- dsprc ^[talk] 03:05, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Participants may also wish to review WP:COI since outcomes of that course may depend on inclusion of potentially undue and biased material. -- dsprc ^[talk] 04:12, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

@Dsprc - You mentioned that my 85th reference didn't include the information I was sighting, however, I double checked and it is on the first page of the article. The first statement I make is mentioned at the end of the first column and the second statement is mentioned in the middle of the second column (on the first page).Thanks for your help!Berkeley17 (talk) 16:49, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Please thread and indent replies: WP:Indentation.

85^th has probably rolled off to another location by now but, if one is referring to the worldwatch.org source, the hyperlink is to the home-page and not a particular article. Source itself may not be reliable but, that's another matter entirely. If that is not the source in question, please do provide the one we're to discuss. -- dsprc ^[talk] 00:11, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Parties, sourcing, other bits

@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)

Thank you for following my contributions. I will do my best to update the latest content as I can especially from the most recent 2016 platform. I also saw someone added more subsections but just the tiles of "the Constitution Party" and "the Libertarian Party". Since climate change policy is an ongoing issue, I will keep my updates and further improve my subsections. I will also ensure my contributions not to touch wiki's gray areas which advocate a neutral and objective environment for every writer.Jingwu1104 (talk) 05:34, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Two parties were lifted from {{United States political parties}}; that template states the given parties are: "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.

What of the idea to include positions of Tribal nations? I'm inclined to include them, but unsure how to cleanly integrate given the sheer volume of (recognized) Tribes. Any feedback in that regard is most welcome. -- dsprc ^[talk] 00:00, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Talking about the Trump Admin in this article

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)

As some of us have told your instructor, the mission of this class to sound the alarm in the face of imminent changes by the Trump administration runs counter to the mission of Wikipedia and violates WP:NOT (which says what WP is, and what it is not - kind of guidestar policy) in a few ways (WP:NOTADVOCACY and WP:NOTNEWS). Sorry you are stuck in the middle of that. Jytdog (talk) 23:51, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080212000544/http://www.environmentaldefense.org/page.cfm?tagID=1075 to http://www.environmentaldefense.org/page.cfm?tagID=1075
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://apps1.eere.energy.gov/news/news_detail.cfm/news_id%3D12144
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060928031617/http://gov.ca.gov/index.php?%2Fpress-release%2F4111%2F to http://gov.ca.gov/index.php?%2Fpress-release%2F4111%2F
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=supreme-court-rejects-global-warmin

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).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:52, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070131202854/http://oversight.house.gov/Documents/20070130113813-92288.pdf to http://oversight.house.gov/Documents/20070130113813-92288.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101216210246/http://www.usclimatenetwork.org/policy/copenhagen-accord-commitments to http://www.usclimatenetwork.org/policy/copenhagen-accord-commitments
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080820112714/http://rggi.org/states.htm to http://www.rggi.org/states.htm

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).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:30, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Regarding removed comments on Trump admin infrastructure planning rule

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.

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)

Hi Jlevi, thanks for the ping. I agree with your analysis re: NOTNEWS and the potential future usefulness of this source. --JBL (talk) 02:24, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Proposed merge of Regional climate change initiatives in the United States into Climate change policy of the United States

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 to merge. Chidgk1 (talk) 13:15, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

---

long neglected article with little or no traffic Sadads (talk) 12:39, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

• Support This would be great, thanks! Efbrazil (talk) 17:15, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
• Support with some nuking. FemkeMilene (talk) 20:01, 11 April 2021 (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.

Paragraphs to be deleted

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)

Don’t know if neutral but the article does seem rather too detailed - maybe you could do a little trimming and rewriting Chidgk1 (talk) 18:34, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Introduction to Policy Analysis - Summer Session23

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)

Supreme Court should be added to lead?

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)

There are a few mentions of the Supreme Court in the article, but they seem to have partially contradictory results with respect to regulating greenhouse gas emissions. It is arguable whether those cases are notable enough to include in the lead, since most government actions involve the legislative and executive branches. —RCraig09 (talk) 20:59, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Introduction to Policy Analysis - Summer Session24

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 29 June 2024 and 16 August 2024. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Gesellepulido (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Brianda (Wiki Ed) (talk) 18:15, 13 August 2024 (UTC)