Jump to content

Talk:Ecological footprint

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

[edit]

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 20:03, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Citation and Weasel Word Removal

[edit]

Lets make an assertive effort to rework the content that caused the labels to be placed on this article. This topic is to important to our future to have those tags distract readers! I will remove them only after ALL content is up to Wikipedia standards Mkevlar
paragraph containing weasel comments removed
Citations added
Removing tags from article Mkevlar 2015 January 27

Accounting non-renewables

[edit]

It seems that the index does not and article does not say anything about it. But how can you speak about overshoot if even a slightest consumption of non-renewable (whose recovery period is infinite) result in finite overshoot day? There is a clue: you can recover some non-renewables artificially but others are truly non-recoverable. Furthermore, there are toxic wastes, whose impact is not considered only by damage caused by wasting its ingredients but also must include the effects that toxic waste produces depending on how much it is allowed to. Simliarly is with artificially renewable waste: the ecological footprint considers how is it difficult to turn waste into back raw materials but this must depend on waste storage: was it stored separately or mixed with something or released into atmosphere where you will never get it back. I am not sure that I can write about it. --Javalenok (talk) 01:48, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

COI

[edit]

Per the connected contributor box above, a contributor has cited his own work in this article. Needs to be reviewed for NPOV. Jytdog (talk) 02:14, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

removed the tag and reviewed the contribution of the conflicted editor. fixes are here Jytdog (talk) 03:04, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Ecological footprint. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 02:23, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Critiques review

[edit]

For its first paragraphs, the Critiques section reads as a list of published works, which should be used as references, instead. Could they be turned into a summary of criticisms directed at ecological footprint measurements?

The rest of the section, although a bit fragmented, does a better work of explaining where the criticism stands: what and how it measures, plus how valid those measurements are interpreted and adjusted. I don't see any opposition to the concept per se, which could be used as an introduction to the section. First, explain criticisms in general, then move into the details?

I'll add this page to my watchlist and check from time to time. If noone adds new information, I'll adapt the section the best I can, without adding or removing information, to the best of my ability.

Elideb (talk) 13:03, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Ecological footprint. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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) 16:34, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Overview

[edit]

Instead of starting off going right into the details, try putting in a small introduction using common vocabulary. This way, the average reader will be able to start at the overview section and get a better overall understanding of this topic. The background is nice to have so it provides some history of the ecological footprint, but should do better at explaining the general concept. Dz14 (talk) 03:42, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Ecological footprint. 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).

  • 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) 18:17, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Ecological footprint. 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).

  • 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) 04:47, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Notation for units

[edit]

Units should be expressed in correct notation. For example the kilo prefix is denoted by k whereas K denotes the Kelvin unit of temperature. For details see International System of Units. Regards, ...PeterEasthope (talk) 14:42, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please check first reference in Reviews and Critiques

[edit]

I have just reverted an unmotivated change to two references (e.g. the first in Reviews and Critiques), but it still seems to be a mess. Perhaps someone could check out what it is meant to be, but it makes little sense to me. PJTraill (talk) 23:53, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Off-topic text

[edit]

This is well written and referenced, except for the salient point, that it is a notable criticism. Basically a wikipedia editor disagrees with an aspect of the methodology and is trying to substantiate his/her theory. It might be a valid criticism, but there is not a reference to support it is a notable criticism of the subject matter of this article, "ecological footprint". Even if it were, it is too much detail about a single aspect of the methodology. It should be moved to another wikipedia article, or deleted entirely if redundant: Leo Breman (talk) 08:48, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply] 

Although the ecological footprint model prior to 2008 treated nuclear power in the same manner as coal power,[1] the actual real world effects of the two are radically different. A life cycle analysis centered on the Swedish Forsmark Nuclear Power Plant estimated carbon dioxide emissions at 3.10 g/kW⋅h[2] and 5.05 g/kW⋅h in 2002 for the Torness Nuclear Power Station.[3] This compares to 11 g/kW⋅h for hydroelectric power, 950 g/kW⋅h for installed coal, 900 g/kW⋅h for oil and 600 g/kW⋅h for natural gas generation in the United States in 1999.[4] Figures released by Mark Hertsgaard, however, show that because of the delays in building nuclear plants and the costs involved, investments in energy efficiency and renewable energies have seven times the return on investment of investments in nuclear energy.[5]
The Vattenfall study found Nuclear, Hydro, and Wind to have far less greenhouse emissions than other sources represented.
The Vattenfall study found Nuclear, Hydro, and Wind to have far less greenhouse emissions than other sources represented.
The Swedish utility Vattenfall did a study of full life-cycle greenhouse-gas emissions of energy sources the utility uses to produce electricity, namely: Nuclear, Hydro, Coal, Gas, Solar Cell, Peat and Wind. The net result of the study was that nuclear power produced 3.3 grams of carbon dioxide per kW⋅h of produced power. This compares to 400 for natural gas and 700 for coal (according to this study). The study also concluded that nuclear power produced the smallest amount of CO2 of any of their electricity sources.[6]

 Claims exist that the problems of nuclear waste do not come anywhere close to approaching the problems of fossil fuel waste.[7][8] A 2004 article from the BBC states: "The World Health Organization (WHO) says 3 million people are killed worldwide by outdoor air pollution annually from vehicles and industrial emissions, and 1.6 million indoors through using solid fuel."[9] In the U.S. alone, fossil fuel waste kills 20,000 people each year.[10] A coal power plant releases 100 times as much radiation as a nuclear power plant of the same wattage.[11] It is estimated that during 1982, US coal burning released 155 times as much radioactivity into the atmosphere as the Three Mile Island incident.[12] In addition, fossil fuel waste causes global warming, which leads to increased deaths from hurricanes, flooding, and other weather events. The World Nuclear Association provides a comparison of deaths due to accidents among different forms of energy production. In their comparison, deaths per TW-yr of electricity produced (in UK and USA) from 1970 to 1992 are quoted as 885 for hydropower, 342 for coal, 85 for natural gas, and 8 for nuclear.[13]

References

  1. ^ Questions and Answers, Global Footprint Network
  2. ^ Vattenfall 2004, Forsmark EPD for 2002 and SwedPower LCA data 2005.
  3. ^ Energy Analysis of Power Systems Archived 2008-03-03 at the Wayback Machine accessed 20 October 2007
  4. ^ Electric Power Industry CO2 Emissions accessed 20 October 2007
  5. ^ Hertsgaard, Mark (2011) "Hot: Living Through the Next Fifty Years on Earth" (Houghton Mifflin Harcourt)
  6. ^ nuclearinfo.net. Greenhouse Emissions of Nuclear Power
  7. ^ David Bodansky (June 2001). "The Environmental Paradox of Nuclear Power". Environmental Practice. 3 (2): 86–8. doi:10.1017/S1466046600002234. Archived from the original on 2008-01-27.
  8. ^ "Some Amazing Facts about Nuclear Power". August 2002. Retrieved 2008-01-31.
  9. ^ Alex Kirby (13 December 2004). "Pollution: A life and death issue". BBC News. Retrieved 2008-01-31.
  10. ^ Don Hopey (June 29, 2005). "State sues utility for U.S. pollution violations". Pittsburgh Post-Gazette. Retrieved 2008-01-31.
  11. ^ Alex Gabbard. "Coal Combustion: Nuclear Resource or Danger". Oak Ridge National Laboratory. Archived from the original on 2007-02-05. Retrieved 2008-01-31.
  12. ^ Nuclear proliferation through coal burning Archived 2009-03-27 at the Wayback Machine — Gordon J. Aubrecht, II, Ohio State University
  13. ^ "Safety of Nuclear Power Reactors".

More off-topic text

[edit]

Hi C.J. Griffin -I removed these two studies from the article because they are not about the subject matter of this article, ecological footprint. Sure, these subjects are all related as they pertain to sustainability, but then they belong in that general article, not this specific article. The news article about the study I called the anti-meat study, forget the name, does in fact mention the word "footprint", although the usage is unclear; the reporter might mean carbon footprint, but he may just be using the phrase as a literal device. This study is specifically misleading as it calculated from GHG costs of different agricultural products only. EF, as I understand it, has costs calculated from 5 categories, which are then subtracted from what they tabulate as biocapacity, of which agricultural land is the major component. Considering that animal husbandry, specifically extensive, take up such a large proportion of agricultural land which cannot used for arable crops, its quite possible that a meat-eating herder in Mongolia, for example, may actually produce a EF 'surplus'. Even if, considering the sources, 60% of EF costs are from CO2, the data is not comparable because it is calculated much differently. Adding that text insinuates that one could reduce their EF by becoming vegetarian, it may be true or not, but that is not what the study actually says, and it is 'original research' to associate the two concepts without a reference. Note the London study which did actually calculate individual contributions contradicts the claim the text is making, meat being the 4th most important, likely for these reasons. Furthermore, the A-M study is cradle-to-the-grave GHG accounting (and controversially, also includes 'opportunity costs'), but it doesn't actually do that same accounting for other means of GHG reduction, i.e. transport, so the statement that becoming vegetarian makes the largest contribution to GHG reduction compared to other forms of reduction is misleading because becoming vegetarian is not actually being compared to other forms of reduction. Logially, one would assume having no children would garner the largest reductions, but that is equally OR on my part.

Please remember this page is not meant to be advocating an ideology, be that whatever, it is neutrally informing readers about "ecological footprint"! Cheers, Leo Breman (talk) 06:28, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Hi C.J. Griffin -I removed these two studies from the article because they are not about the subject matter of this article, ecological footprint." The article's lead directly states that ecological footprint "is a measure of human impact on the environment." The materials you removed covered human impacts on the environment on the individual level, in the appropriate section on individual impacts. The material certainly seems WP:DUE and relevant to the section in question, and hardly WP:OR. Not only that, but the sourcing is impeccable, certainly WP:RS, with the "Warning" having more co-signers than any other academic article written. You stated "The news article about the study I called the anti-meat study, forget the name, does in fact mention the word "footprint", although the usage is unclear; the reporter might mean carbon footprint, but he may just be using the phrase as a literal device." Again, as I stated in my last edit summary, it was one of the contributors to the 2018 Science study, Joseph Poore, who directly states in The Guardian article that "A vegan diet is probably the single biggest way to reduce your impact on planet Earth, not just greenhouse gases, but global acidification, eutrophication, land use and water use," (emphasis added) so it is quite clear this goes beyond just carbon footprints and looks at overall impact, which of course makes it DUE for this section IMO. I post it here for other editors to see for themselves.

The 2017 World Scientists' Warning to Humanity, signed by over 15,000 scientists around the globe, urges human beings to "re-examine and change our individual behaviors, including limiting our own reproduction (ideally to replacement level at most) and drastically diminishing our per capita consumption of fossil fuels, meat, and other resources."[1] According to a 2018 study published in Science, avoiding animal products altogether, including meat and dairy, is the most significant way individuals can reduce their overall impact on the environment.[2]

--C.J. Griffin (talk) 14:08, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not arguing about WP:RS, it is WP:OR and WP:DUE we disagree about. As stated above, I believe the first statement+study, is simply promotion of sustainable practices, without explaining the concept of "ecological footprint" in any meaningful way in light of an encyclopedia article. The opinion letter signed by all these people is simply telling us they think we should change n certain ways, but it doesn't even mention the subject matter "ecological footprint". Let me try to put in another context for you: say the subject of this article was a tire brand, "Firestone", and the article had an admonition signed by 15,000 super proficient car mechanics telling us that safe driving means changing your tires regularly. That would come across as UNDUE. Say we added a letter signed by 15,000 Republicans that climate change was just a Leftist conspiracy. That would be exactly commiserate to adding these peoples opinion: tangentially related, but off-topic. The second source likewise is simply not about this subject matter, it is only tangentially related and appears to have only been added to promote veganism. Joseph Poore's opinions on the sustainability of livestock husbandry visa vis GHG emissions is beyond the scope of the accounting system "ecological footprint". You say it is quite clear that it is related based on your summary interpretation of EF and that Poore's statement can be recast as a calculation equivalent of a EF. That, my friend, is a very nice demonstration of OR. Cheers, Leo Breman (talk) 16:33, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hey! This study is also not about EF. If they tally things differently by using alternate accounting models, no wonder all these studies are giving different results. Leo Breman (talk) 07:18, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply] 

A 2017 study posited that the most significant way individuals could reduce their carbon footprint is to have fewer children, followed by living without a vehicle, forgoing air travel and adopting a plant-based diet.[3]

References

  1. ^ Ripple, William J.; et al. (13 November 2017), "World Scientists' Warning to Humanity: A Second Notice" (PDF), BioScience, 67 (12): 1026–1028, doi:10.1093/biosci/bix125
  2. ^ Carrington, Damian (May 31, 2018). "Avoiding meat and dairy is 'single biggest way' to reduce your impact on Earth". The Guardian. Retrieved March 29, 2019.
  3. ^ Perkins, Sid (July 11, 2017). "The best way to reduce your carbon footprint is one the government isn't telling you about". Science. Retrieved April 8, 2018.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ecological_footprint&oldid=1196368600"