Merger proposal[edit]

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 merge. Chidgk1 (talk) 18:56, 12 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I propose to merge Greenhouse gas footprint into this article as I think it is a synonym. Chidgk1 (talk) 18:52, 27 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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.
I think it's good that you merged it. The article Greenhouse gas footprint was very bad and outdated. However, I think we ought to mention the term "greenhouse gas footprint" here as well (which I have now done). Interestingly, the IPCC AR 6 report (from 2022) in its glossary includes only CO2 in the definition for carbon footprint. That publication from 2007 explains why (they even say if we included all greenhouse gases it should be called "climate footprint"). Anyway, I just wanted to point this out as it contradicts Femke's statement a little bit: "The carbon footprint concept typically already includes other GHGs.". I tend to agree with Femke, but it seems that IPCC favours the narrow definition for just CO2. In any case, they focus in their publication more on "greenhouse gas emissions", not on the more "popular term" of carbon footprint, I guess... EMsmile (talk) 00:38, 23 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Review (Jan 2023)[edit]

Hi, we have this article on our list of articles that we would like to see improved as part of this project this year. It has quite high pageviews (around 1000 pageviews per day). Who is currently actively watching this article and perhaps has some improvement ideas already? Pinging User:Chidgk1 and User:Dtetta (I've seen carbon accounting and carbon footprint mentioned in the same publications so there is naturally some overlap / a relationship). Anyway, today I received some inputs from reviewer Christian Berg (who has previously helped with the sustainability article). I think these are useful pointers that can inspire us to make some necessary changes (translated from German with Deepl):

Oh and we could also compare with the article in the German Wikipedia which looks quite different (or French, Spanish etc.): https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/CO2-Bilanz (use Google Translate to translate to English; works so well these days).

EMsmile (talk) 12:13, 19 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sorry I doubt I will have time to think about this article Chidgk1 (talk) 06:43, 20 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Some of the criticisms Christian highlights are worth adding to the article, perhaps, as a discussion about the validity and usefulness of the overall carbon footprint concept? We would need sources that discuss these areas, but I'm sure they are easy to find. 45154james (talk) 15:44, 21 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree with you. Now that I have culled out stuff that was just bloating it up, it's easy to see the missing content. A section on criticisms (or challenges) would be very useful. I'll ask Christian if he wants to suggest some publications. I do have his book[1] that he mentions as a pdf file here with me but it's behind a paywall so not so easy to use for other editors. EMsmile (talk) 08:36, 22 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

References

  1. ^ Berg, Christian (2020). Sustainable action : overcoming the barriers. Abingdon, Oxon. ISBN 978-0-429-57873-1. OCLC 1124780147.((cite book)): CS1 maint: location missing publisher (link)

Too much overlap with Greenhouse gas emissions[edit]

I feel parts of this article stray too much into more general aspects of climate change better left to other articles. In particular, the sections on "Causes" (Carbon_footprint#Causes) and "Rise in greenhouse gas over time" (Carbon_footprint#Rise_in_greenhouse_gas_over_time) might be better left to Greenhouse gas emissions?? There's obvious duplication/repetition, it's not clear (to me) why these topics should be covered under a more specific article about carbon footprints or why readers would expect to find this info here? 45154james (talk) 17:26, 13 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I agree with you. I used the tool "who wrote that" and found that these two sections were added as a result of a merger in 2021, see here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=962213662&diffmode=source They were moved by User:Chidgk1. I think they need to be culled and integrated better into the article. I am tempted to just delete them. Especially this section can just be deleted, it's anyway out of date by now: "Rise in greenhouse gas over time". EMsmile (talk) 09:39, 14 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
When I merge articles I merge the lot and perhaps delete some later. This is so that other people can more easily revert if they want to. But often I don’t delete very much but leave it to others who know better than me. So go ahead as you wish Chidgk1 (talk) 11:01, 19 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Makes sense. Thanks. @User:45154james do you have time to do this clean-up? I think it would be very good. EMsmile (talk) 17:00, 19 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've briefly reviewed the "Causes" section and I see nothing here that isn't already adequately covered in Greenhouse gas emissions. One sentence looks helpful in the context of carbon footprints, so I moved that further up the page. Also I kept the photo of the power plant and moved that higher up. Then I deleted the remainder of "Causes". Some of the info just looks very out-of-date and wrong - e.g. the info about Methane emissions is contradicted by the info on Greenhouse gas emissions. That leaves the section on "Rise in greenhouse gas over time" to review. The chart looks like it might have a useful home elsewhere, if not here. 45154james (talk) 18:32, 20 March 2023 (UTC) Fixing typo in previous edit. 45154james (talk) 18:33, 20 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've moved the chart further up the page so it illustrates the point about aviation. Also deleted the "Rise in greenhouse gas over time" , which dates from 2010, 2014, and 2017 and is covered better (newer info, more detail) by Greenhouse gas emissions. 45154james (talk) 07:14, 21 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks. Looking at this article overall, I think it needs further culling. It overlaps with Greenhouse gas emissions also in the sections on carbon footprint by sector and ways of reducing carbon footprint. At the end of the day, carbon footprint is just a fancy/popular term for Greenhouse gas emissions ... so we have to think carefully about what should be contained in this article exactly. EMsmile (talk) 09:17, 21 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Removed section on solutions[edit]

I'm boldly removing this section called "solutions" as it was also introduced from that merger (see above) and is repetitive with earlier sections in this article about reducing carbon footprint and also with content that is at other Wikipedia articles. Have copied it to the talk page in case someone feels it needs rescuing. EMsmile (talk) 09:15, 21 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Extended content

Everyday life changes[edit]

Further information: Individual action on climate change

There are many simple changes that can be made to the everyday lifestyle of a person that would reduce their GHG footprint. Reducing energy consumption within a household can include lowering one's dependence on air conditioning and heating, using LED lamps, choosing ENERGY STAR appliances, recycling, using cold water to wash clothes, avoiding a dryer, and eating less meat. Another adjustment would be reducing one's reliance on gas combustion-based motor vehicles, which produce many GHGs.[1] One could also lower their footprint by taking direct flights during air traveling. While making these changes won't bring down one's carbon footprint overnight, they will make a significant difference long term.[2]

Lifestyles and systemic changes[edit]

Sustainable living refers to ways of living that are found to be sustainable within the Earth system or by which one purposely attempts to reduce an individual's or society's use of the Earth's natural resources, and one's personal resources. Studies found that systemic change for "decarbonization" of humanity's economic structures[3] or root-cause system changes above politics are required[4] for a substantial impact on global warming. Such changes may result in sustainable lifestyles, along with associated products, services and expenditures,[5] being structurally supported and becoming sufficiently prevalent and effective in terms of collective greenhouse gas emission reductions.

Reducing greenhouse gases[edit]

Reduction of carbon dioxide[edit]

In order to decrease CO2 emissions, the reliance of fossil fuels must be lowered. These fuels produce much CO2 across all forms of their usage. Alternatively, renewable sources are cleaner for the environment.[6]

Household energy conservation measures include increasing insulation in construction, using fuel-efficient vehicles and ENERGY STAR appliances, and unplugging electrical items when not in use.

Reduction of methane[edit]

Reducing methane gas emissions can be accomplished in several ways. Capturing CH4 emissions from coal mines and landfills, are two ways of reducing these emissions. Manure management and livestock operations is another possible solution. Motor vehicles use fossil fuels, which produces CO2, but fossil fuels also produce CH4 as a byproduct. Thus, better technology for these vehicles to avoid leakage as well as technologies that reduce their use would be beneficial.[6]

Reduction of nitrous oxide[edit]

Nitrous oxide (N2O) is often given off as a byproduct in various ways. Nylon production and fossil fuel usage are two ways that N2O is given off as a byproduct. Thus, improving technology for nylon production and the gathering of fossil fuels would greatly reduce nitrous oxide emissions.[citation needed] Also, many fertilizers have a nitrogenous base. A decrease in usage of these fertilizers, or changing their components, are more ways to reduce N2O emissions.[6]

Reduction of fluorinated gases[edit]

Although fluorinated gases are not produced on a massive scale, they have the worst effect on the environment. A reduction of fluorinated gas emissions can be done in many ways. Many industries that emit these gases can capture or recycle them. These same industries can also invest in more advanced technology that will not produce these gases. A reduction of leakage within power grids and motor vehicles will also decrease the emissions of fluorinated gases. There are also many air conditioning systems that emit fluorinated gases, thus an update in technology would decrease these emissions.[6]

References

  1. ^ "Product Life Cycle Accounting and Reporting Standard" (PDF). GHG Protocol. Archived (PDF) from the original on 25 February 2019. Retrieved 2019-02-25.
  2. ^ "What is your carbon footprint?". The Nature Conservancy. Archived from the original on 10 September 2021. Retrieved 2021-10-23.
  3. ^ Forster, Piers M.; Forster, Harriet I.; Evans, Mat J.; Gidden, Matthew J.; Jones, Chris D.; Keller, Christoph A.; Lamboll, Robin D.; Quéré, Corinne Le; Rogelj, Joeri; Rosen, Deborah; Schleussner, Carl-Friedrich; Richardson, Thomas B.; Smith, Christopher J.; Turnock, Steven T. (7 August 2020). "Current and future global climate impacts resulting from COVID-19". Nature Climate Change. 10 (10): 913–919. Bibcode:2020NatCC..10..913F. doi:10.1038/s41558-020-0883-0. ISSN 1758-6798. S2CID 221019148.
  4. ^ Ripple, William J.; Wolf, Christopher; Newsome, Thomas M.; Gregg, Jillian W.; et al. (28 July 2021). "World Scientists' Warning of a Climate Emergency 2021". BioScience. 71 (9): biab079. doi:10.1093/biosci/biab079. hdl:1808/30278. Archived from the original on 26 August 2021. Retrieved 26 August 2021.
  5. ^ Kanyama, Annika Carlsson; Nässén, Jonas; Benders, René (2021). "Shifting expenditure on food, holidays, and furnishings could lower greenhouse gas emissions by almost 40%". Journal of Industrial Ecology. 25 (6): 1602–1616. doi:10.1111/jiec.13176. ISSN 1530-9290.
  6. ^ a b c d EPA, OA, US (2015-12-23). "Overview of Greenhouse Gases | US EPA". US EPA. Archived from the original on 12 August 2016. Retrieved 2017-11-01.

EMsmile (talk) 09:15, 21 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

removing Carbon footprint of political choices and Financed emissions[edit]

I am also culling this as it reads more like an academic literature review piece and is not suitable for this kind of high level article, in my opinion. EMsmile (talk) 09:26, 21 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Extended content

Carbon footprint of political choices[edit]

The concept of a political "carbon footprint" measuring individuals' political choices (e.g. voting) were first introduced in 2021 for the election in Canada[1] by Seth Wynes, Matthew Motta, and Simon Donner; and in parallel for Germany and the UK[2] by Jakob Thomä. This research represents the first attempt to expand the concept of a personal footprint beyond consumption and investment footprints. The analysis for the election in Canada suggests the median "pro-climate" vote translated to 34.2 tons of CO2e emissions reduction, compared to a 2 ton reduction of living car free. The analysis for Germany and UK measured relative footprint reductions by switching the vote to more "pro-climate parties". In the German Elections in 2021, a German voter would have reduced around 7 tons of CO2e emissions per year when switching from the SPD (Labour) party to the Green party, compared to 3 tons associated with switching to a more "sustainable lifestyle". Political carbon footprints typically find significantly higher emissions reduction potential than consumption or investment footprints, given that consumption footprints only capture effects on your own behavior whereas voters determine climate outcomes for both voters for the winning party, voters for the losing party, and non-voters.

Financed emissions[edit]

The carbon footprinting of financial portfolios (so-called "financed emissions") has its origin in the mid-2000's with initiatives from investors (Henderson and Pictet AM) and NGOs seeking to hold banks and investors to account with regard to their carbon footprint.[3] The 2° Investing Initiative conducted the first review of financed emissions methodologies in 2013.[3] The Montreal Carbon Pledge is the first formal footprinting pledge by financial institutions.[4] Overseen by the PRI, it has attracted commitment from over 120 investors with over US$10 trillion in assets under management, as of the United Nations Climate Change Conference (COP21) in December 2015 in Paris. There are a range of financed emisisons data and methodology providers across major financial service providers (e.g. ISS, MSCI, S&P Sustainable1). The Partnership for Carbon Accounting Financial (PCAF) is an industry initiative designed to standardize the accounting principles underpinning financed emissions.[5] The use of the carbon footprint concept is not without controversy however, as the translation of the footprinting logic to financial instruments comes with a number of challenges and caveats, including the need to normalize by financial variables that distort the results and data qualty.[6] As a result, many major climate target-setting initiatives focus on forward-looking portfolio alignment methodologies (e.g. PACTA[7]).

References

  1. ^ Wynes, Seth; Motta, Matthew; Donner, Simon D. (2021-03-19). "Understanding the climate responsibility associated with elections". One Earth. 4 (3): 363–371. Bibcode:2021OEart...4..363W. doi:10.1016/j.oneear.2021.02.008. ISSN 2590-3322. S2CID 233634925.
  2. ^ Thomä, Jakob (2021). "A Citizen's Footprint: An analysis of the carbon footprint of our consumption, investment, and political choices for the UK and Germany" (PDF). 2° Investing Initiative Working Paper.
  3. ^ a b Dupre, Stan (2013). "From financed emissions to long-term investing metrics" (PDF). 2° Investing Initiative Working Paper.
  4. ^ "Montreal Pledge". PRI. Retrieved 2022-08-25.
  5. ^ "PCAF: Enabling financial institutions to assess greenhouse gas emissions". PCAF. Retrieved 2022-08-25.
  6. ^ Thomä, Jakob; Dupré, Stan; Hayne, Michael (February 2018). "A Taxonomy of Climate Accounting Principles for Financial Portfolios". Sustainability. 10 (2): 328. doi:10.3390/su10020328. ISSN 2071-1050.
  7. ^ "Paris Agreement Capital Transition Assessment". Paris Agreement Capital Transition Assessment. Retrieved 2022-08-25.

EMsmile (talk) 09:26, 21 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

What to do with the section "Schemes to reduce carbon emissions"[edit]

I am tempted to also delete the section "Schemes to reduce carbon emissions". It seems to digress into other areas of climate policies and is probably much better covered in other articles, e.g. carbon offset. I think it's also a bit outdated by now. Thoughts? Pinging also User:Dtetta. EMsmile (talk) 09:38, 21 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes, I think I agree with you. That section is about reducing carbon emissions much more broadly and generally. What does a typical reader want? A typical reader probably wants to know how to reduce their personal (or maybe company) carbon footprint, which is covered in the previous section Reducing carbon footprints So all the material about emissions trading, the Kyoto protocol, and so on is better dealt with elsewhere? 45154james (talk) 10:41, 21 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree. Dtetta (talk) 13:18, 21 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
OK, I've removed it now. I thought about utilising it for another Wikipedia article but it's actually all very outdated so I don't think there is anything worth rescuing there (I used the "who wrote that?" tool to find out when the text was added). EMsmile (talk) 08:28, 22 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Extended content
CO2 projection

Schemes to reduce carbon emissions[edit]

Carbon dioxide emissions into the atmosphere, and the emissions of other GHGs, are often associated with the burning of fossil fuels, like natural gas, crude oil and coal. While this is harmful to the environment, carbon offsets can be purchased in an attempt to make up for these harmful effects.

The Kyoto Protocol defines legally binding targets and timetables for cutting the GHG emissions of industrialized countries that ratified the Kyoto Protocol. Accordingly, from an economic or market perspective, one has to distinguish between a mandatory market and a voluntary market. Typical for both markets is the trade with emission certificates:

Mandatory market mechanisms[edit]

To reach the goals defined in the Kyoto Protocol, with the least economical costs, the following flexible mechanisms were introduced for the mandatory market:

The CDM and JI mechanisms requirements for projects which create a supply of emission reduction instruments, while Emissions Trading allows those instruments to be sold on international markets.

The CERs and ERUs can then be sold through Emissions Trading. The demand for the CERs and ERUs being traded is driven by:

  • Shortfalls in national emission reduction obligations under the Kyoto Protocol.
  • Shortfalls amongst entities obligated under local emissions reduction schemes.

Nations which have failed to deliver their Kyoto emissions reductions obligations can enter Emissions Trading to purchase CERs and ERUs to cover their treaty shortfalls. Nations and groups of nations can also create local emission reduction schemes which place mandatory carbon dioxide emission targets on entities within their national boundaries. If the rules of a scheme allow, the obligated entities may be able to cover all or some of any reduction shortfalls by purchasing CERs and ERUs through Emissions Trading. While local emissions reduction schemes have no status under the Kyoto Protocol itself, they play a prominent role in creating the demand for CERs and ERUs, stimulating Emissions Trading and setting a market price for emissions.

A well-known mandatory local emissions trading scheme is the EU Emissions Trading Scheme (EU ETS).

New changes are being made to the trading schemes. The EU Emissions Trading Scheme is set to make some new changes within the next year. The new changes will target the emissions produced by flight travel in and out of the European Union.[1]

Other nations are scheduled to start participating in Emissions Trading Schemes within the next few years. These nations include China, India and the United States.[1]

Voluntary market mechanisms[edit]

In contrast to the strict rules set out for the mandatory market, the voluntary market provides companies with different options to acquire emissions reductions. A solution, comparable with those developed for the mandatory market, has been developed for the voluntary market, the Verified Emission Reductions (VER). This measure has the great advantage that the projects/activities are managed according to the quality standards set out for CDM/JI projects but the certificates provided are not registered by the governments of the host countries or the Executive Board of the UNO. As such, high quality VERs can be acquired at lower costs for the same project quality. However, at present VERs can not be used in mandatory market.

The voluntary market in North America is divided between members of the Chicago Climate Exchange and the Over The Counter (OTC) market. The Chicago Climate Exchange is a voluntary yet legally binding cap-and-trade emission scheme whereby members commit to the capped emission reductions and must purchase allowances from other members or offset excess emissions. The OTC market does not involve a legally binding scheme and a wide array of buyers from the public and private spheres, as well as special events that want to go carbon neutral. Being carbon neutral refers to achieving net zero carbon emissions by balancing a measured amount of carbon released with an equivalent amount sequestered or offset, or buying enough carbon credits to make up the difference.

There are project developers, wholesalers, brokers, and retailers, as well as carbon funds, in the voluntary market. Some businesses and nonprofits in the voluntary market encompass more than just one of the activities listed above. A report by Ecosystem Marketplace shows that carbon offset prices increase as it moves along the supply chain—from project developer to retailer.[2]

While some mandatory emission reduction schemes exclude forest projects, these projects flourish in the voluntary markets. A major criticism concerns the imprecise nature of GHG sequestration quantification methodologies for forestry projects. However, others note the community co-benefits that forestry projects foster. Project types in the voluntary market range from avoided deforestation, afforestation/reforestation, industrial gas sequestration, increased energy efficiency, fuel switching, methane capture from coal plants and livestock, and even renewable energy. Renewable Energy Certificates (RECs) sold on the voluntary market are quite controversial due to additionality concerns.[3] Industrial Gas projects receive criticism because such projects only apply to large industrial plants that already have high fixed costs. Siphoning off industrial gas for sequestration is considered picking the low hanging fruit; which is why credits generated from industrial gas projects are the cheapest in the voluntary market.

The Taskforce on Scaling Voluntary Carbon Markets (TSVCM), an initiative led by ex-governor of the Bank of England Mark Carney, aims to bring more outstanding quality and integrity to the voluntary carbon markets. The TSVCM during 2023 will seek to create a set of Core Carbon Principles (CCPs) and mechanisms to simplify companies access to high-integrity credits and provide banks and investors confidence for financing carbon projects and trading credits.


The size and activity of the voluntary carbon market are difficult to measure. The market size of voluntary carbon offsets market in 2021 is expected to hit $1 billion.[4]

References

  1. ^ a b Callick, Rowan. "Nations Split on Route to Reduce Carbon Emissions." The Australian. 2 March 2011. Web. 1 March 2011.
  2. ^ "Archived copy" (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on 10 July 2011. Retrieved 21 August 2007.((cite web)): CS1 maint: archived copy as title (link)
  3. ^ "Archived copy". Archived from the original on 7 July 2007. Retrieved 21 August 2007.((cite web)): CS1 maint: archived copy as title (link)
  4. ^ "Carbon Offset Markets 👉 Market Size, Controversy and Major Trends". Carlos Sanchez. 2021-11-24. Retrieved 2021-12-09.

What do readers expect from this article?[edit]

I'd like to pick up something that User:45154james wrote above: "What does a typical reader want? A typical reader probably wants to know how to reduce their personal (or maybe company) carbon footprint, which is covered in the previous section Reducing carbon footprints". This might be true but I'd hesitate to build up this content a lot but I would rather to keep it very brief and point them to individual action on climate change - which should be the number 1 page with content about reducing carbon footprint of individuals? What would be the equivalent page for companies or governments that we should point them to? I guess there is politics of climate change, carbon emission trading and lots of others (which would be the most important ones?). Some further thoughts:

  1. I see in this article a bit of overlap/repetition with content from "carbon accounting", e.g. it also talks about Scope 1, 2 and 3. Is all the existing overlap normal/unavoidable or not? Does the article explain it well enough what carbon footprint and carbon accounting have to do with each other?
  2. My other conceptual problem is that carbon footprint is essentially just another word for "summing up the greenhouse gas emissions". For that reason where it talks about carbon footprint from travelling it actually has the same content as the article "greenhouse gas emissions". So how would be best streamline that so we don't have to write about the same content in two articles?
  3. I suggest to refocus this article so that it talks more about the concept, how it's used in the media, how people understand it, also any criticism and challenges. I envision quite a short article in the end.
  4. It's interesting that in common language people are perhaps more likely to say "I want to reduce my carbon footprint" than "I want to reduce my greenhouse gas emissions" even though it would be the same thing, right? Or is there something about carbon footprint that is different to GHG emissions that I am missing? EMsmile (talk) 13:27, 22 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Some npv work needed?[edit]

The "Origin of the concept" section reads like it's written from an environmental activist viewpoint? I think it needs to be more balanced, less cynical about motives. Personally, I'd agree with what's written here, but I feel it's not appropriately neutral for Wikipedia. 45154james (talk) 21:49, 22 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I agree with you. I've made some corrections there. Also I've moved this now to a new section called "critique" (or is "problem areas" better? "Challenges"?). This section needs to be expanded; I see it as very important for this article There is also some good content at the German Wikipedia which could be utilised, as least for inspiration (Google Translate works well).
I've removed some of those outdated figures about carbon footprint of sectors or products; this kind of detail is all at greenhouse gas emissions (this article didn't exist yet when the carbon footprint article was created). I think the structure that is used at the German Wikipedia is useful for guidance. They also don't have those detailed figures on CO2 emissions there. EMsmile (talk) 22:43, 22 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks for all your work! I think a separate "Critique" section works well - and I'll have a look around later and see if I can find some sources for material to add. Just as there are green critics, I'm sure there are "light green" groups who think it's a useful concept for people who engage only lightly with environmental issues or not at all - people who might try to "reduce their carbon footprint" but wouldn't care to "reduce their greenhouse gas emissions". So a balanced summary of the pros and cons of the concept, from different angles might be useful?
Also, you have touched on the problematic overlap between "greenhouse emissions" and "carbon footprint", but there is also the newer concept of "net zero" (which, on Wikipedia, redirects to Carbon_neutrality. All these articles overlap/repeat to a very unhelpful degree. 45154james (talk) 07:40, 23 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've added a couple of quotes to the Critique section to illustrate different, balanced viewpoints. Geoffrey Supran seems to be a leading proponent of the "carbon footprint is a tactic to deflect blame from fossil fuel interest" school of thought. I found one other balancing view - and I'm sure there are others. There are numerous green groups with carbon footprint calculators (such as WWF). Please feel free to expand/delete/shuffle around as you see fit! 45154james (talk) 07:35, 25 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Some images added[edit]

I added some images that I found on Wikimedia Commons. But this needs further work, e.g. we need to decide on just one good image for the lead (or a 2 x 2 collage like at climate change mitigation). EMsmile (talk) 09:00, 24 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Good choices. These are a step (footprint!) in the right direction: they're much more relevant to "carbon footprint". 45154james (talk) 10:52, 24 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Chidgk1 is right that the top two are ambiguous and need sources. From the Wikimedia captions, it seems they may be just rough illustrations rather than exact infographics? 45154james (talk) 06:12, 30 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, I think they are just vague visualisations without trying to be precise. Pinging User:Tommaso.sansone91 who had created them. Are you still around and can tell us more? If not then we might need to find better images that have a clearer source. EMsmile (talk) 11:19, 30 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Review by content expert (April 2023)[edit]

As part of my work on this project, I've received comments about this Wikipedia article in a marked-up Word document by Vivienne Reiner who is a PhD student at the University of Sydney. Over the coming days and weeks my colleague User:ASRASR and I will enter them into the Wikipedia article bit by bit. Please speak up if you have any concerns/ideas now or later or if you can also help to make the article better. Here are some broad comments that she sent me in several e-mails (oldest e-mails last in the list):

Update in June 2023

Update: User:ASRASR has recently added the edits that were sent to us by by Vivienne Reiner by e-mail and also added his own content and refs, I believe. @User:ASRASR perhaps you could briefly summarise the major changes that came out of this round of editing?

I've also made some changes to the article today. I have restructured it a bit. I wanted to move the content that is specific to carbon footprinting (e.g. the critique section), to the front of the article, and leave the part that is not unique and that is identical to content at greenhouse gas emissions, climate change mitigation and so forth to the second half of the article. There might be even scope for further condensing here.
Some further comments:

History of carbon footprint calculators[edit]

Among colleagues the question arose what were the origins of carbon footprint calculators. Particularly: What role did BP play here? You often hear people say, that BP developed the concept, but this is apparently not true. The article is not specific about the question. In the first section it claims:

"The use of household carbon footprint calculators originated when oil producer BP hired Ogilvy, an advertising agency, to create a marketing campaign in 2005."

This paragraph refers to this 2014 paper by James Morton Turner (pdf). I'll come back to the paper below.

In the section "critique" it says (mixing history and criticism):

"According to the Oxford English Dictionary, the term "carbon footprint" was first used in a BBC vegetarian food magazine in 1999, though the broader concept of "environmental footprint" had been used since at least 1979. The idea of a personal carbon footprint was popularized by a large advertising campaign of the fossil fuel company BP in 2005, designed by Ogilvy. It instructed people to calculate their personal footprints and provided ways for people to "go on a low-carbon diet"."

The Turner paper has a closer look at the history of footprint calculators. Turner writes:


"[...] Carbon footprints have become so ubiquitous in discussions of climate change it is easy to take the term for granted, but the concept has a short history. Important moments in this history include: In 2001, the World Resources Institute launched one of the first carbon calculators on the Internet at SafeClimate.net. In 2003, Carbonfund paired an online carbon footprint calculator with its carbon offset program to encourage individual action. In 2005, BP, the energy company, ran television advertisements in the US and Europe that asked consumers, “What is your carbon footprint?” Despite these efforts, attention to the concept was slow to develop. Only after the surge of attention to global warming in 2006 did public interest in carbon footprints begin to grow, peaking in 2008 when more than a dozen online carbon footprint calculators were available on the Internet from non-governmental organizations, such as The Nature Conservancy and Carbonfund.org, governmental agencies, such as the US Environmental Protection Agency, and corporations, such as BP. [...]"


It's clear that neither the concept nor the idea of online CFP calculators originated by BP. I find this quite important for the concept, so I would like to include the first part of the quoted paragraph in the article and to move this sentence from the section "critique" here too: "According to the Oxford English Dictionary, the term "carbon footprint" was first used in a BBC vegetarian food magazine in 1999, though the broader concept of "environmental footprint" had been used since at least 1979." This could either be a new (next-to-last) paragraph in the first section or in an own section "Early development of the concept" after the section "Definitions". The sentence on BP quoted first should be deleted ("... The use of household carbon...").


Opinions or ideas? Zaoul (talk) 11:31, 10 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for this information Zaoul. In light of the information that BP was not in fact the originator of the carbon footprint concept, I agree with deleting that sentence and highlighting the sentence you suggest about the BBC vegetarian food magazine's use.
In general, I agree the focus should be on the main uses, i.e., moves towards a wide-spanning definition of the footprint as including the entire supply chain, which is about ensuring the responsibility is laid with those who are the drivers of carbon emissions.
Overall, I think the carbon footprint Wikipedia article should focus on the concept, but not about the details of GHG emissions and how to reduce them - a bit similar to the article on carbon budget which focuses on the concept, not on how to stay within the carbon budget… instead, it uses an excerpt from the CC mitigation article at the end:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_budget. VivhD (talk) 10:44, 18 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks. I am just going to ping Zaoul to make sure they see your reply and so that they can take it further. EMsmile (talk) 12:16, 24 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Took me some time to get back to the issue, sorry! I'm not sure how best to proceed? Haven't ever changed larger parts of a wiki article - and also without collaborating with others. I'd feel better if we could negotiate a version before making public changes. Or what do you think? Zaoul (talk) 08:34, 13 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi Zaoul, I suggest you put into your sandbox (see link at the top in red) what you are proposing to add to this article (as you are still a new editor), and then we can quickly reach consensus. That Turner 2014 paper is behind a paywall so I can't easily check what it's saying. Are you saying this information from that paper needs to be added?: "In 2001, the World Resources Institute launched one of the first carbon calculators on the Internet at SafeClimate.net. In 2003, Carbonfund paired an online carbon footprint calculator with its carbon offset program to encourage individual action." Could be done although it might be better to convert this quote into own text and perhaps shorten and condense it. In general, quotes are discouraged in Wikipedia editing. Apart from this, is there anything else that you want to change in either the History section or in the Critique section of the article? EMsmile (talk) 10:04, 13 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Proposing a new first sentence[edit]

This is my proposed new first sentence for this article, trying to move away from a formal definition, more to an encyclopedic sentence (this is probably still a bit too long and complicated?): The carbon footprint (or greenhouse gas footprint) is a concept to quantify and compare the amounts of greenhouse gases emitted directly or indirectly from an activity or product at various scales. EMsmile (talk) 16:15, 12 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

P.S. I also checked with Chat-GPT but didn't get a better first sentence from it. EMsmile (talk) 16:19, 12 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have been discussing with User:VivhD some alternative options for the first sentence. I am putting her suggestions here for further brainstorming (at this stage, I like the current sentence better but am open for discussion):
  1. “The carbon footprint (or greenhouse gas footprint) is the headline indicator for climate change” or
  2. The carbon footprint is, put simply, the greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions resulting from economic activity. Carbon and carbon-dioxide equivalent emissions/GHGs can be footprinted for goods and services and for geographical areas locally or globally. EMsmile (talk) 22:33, 15 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  3. The carbon footprint (or greenhouse gas footprint) is a concept to quantify and compare the amounts of greenhouse gases emitted directly or indirectly related to the production or consumption of goods or services?
I think it’s better if the first sentence starts with “is a concept for”, or is a “measurement technique to”, or “is a policy approach that” or "is a policy framework to" or something like that. EMsmile (talk) 22:33, 15 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
New proposal: The carbon footprint (or greenhouse gas footprint) serves as an indicator to compare the amount of greenhouse gases emitted for the entire production or consumption of goods or services.. I thought about using yardstick instead of indicator but perhaps indicator is better. EMsmile (talk) 07:02, 16 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Compare also with the first sentence of the entry in the German Wikipedia (translated with Deepl): The carbon footprint is a measure of the total amount of carbon dioxide emissions caused directly and indirectly by activities or generated during the life stages of a product. EMsmile (talk) 07:02, 16 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hello, where is everyone, it feels like I am talking to myself here. :-) So the first sentence is currently: The carbon footprint (or greenhouse gas footprint) serves as an indicator to compare the amount of greenhouse gases emitted for the entire production or consumption of goods or services. Viv suggested this to me by e-mail but I think it's too complex for a first sentence. The carbon footprint (or greenhouse gas footprint) is an externality of human activities and serves as an indicator to compare the amount of greenhouse gases emitted over the entire life cycle from the production of a good or service along the supply chain to its final consumption. Readers won't know what "externality of human activities" is meant to mean. This could rather be explained in a follow up sentence? But what do others think? But the second part is probably good, so I have changed that accordingly now. But does this make the first sentence now too long and complicated? It's now: The carbon footprint (or greenhouse gas footprint) serves as an indicator to compare the amount of greenhouse gases emitted over the entire life cycle from the production of a good or service along the supply chain to its final consumption. EMsmile (talk) 08:54, 19 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have now once more changed the first sentence and have in fact broken it into two. This is because I showed the article to a reviewer (Christian Berg) and he said: "this actually jumps immediately (at least implicitly) into the PRODUCT Carbon Footprint (by the word life cycle). In my opinion, the carbon footprint definition should initially be limited to establishing that it is about the totality of the climate-damaging gases associated with an activity, organization or product. Carbon footprints of companies/organizations are also calculated (then often per time unit) - the life cycle does not necessarily make sense there." (translated from German by using Deepl)
So I have changed the beginning of the lead to this: The carbon footprint (or greenhouse gas footprint) serves as an indicator to compare the total amount of greenhouse gases emitted from an activity, product, service, company or country. For a product, its carbon footprint includes the emissions for the entire life cycle from the production along the supply chain to its final consumption.. - What do you think? EMsmile (talk) 13:30, 28 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Apologies, I just edited the start of the article without checking if there was already a discussion, I'm fine with my edits being reversed or replaced, my alternative first sentence was "A carbon footprint (or greenhouse gas footprint) is a measurement of emissions of carbon dioxide or CO2-equivalent amounts of other greenhouse gases in tonnes of emissions per unit of comparison. These measurements make it possible to compare the total amount of greenhouse gases emitted from an activity, product, company or country." My reason for doing so was that I didn't feel starting the article with "The carbon footprint (...) serves as an indicator" matched the style seen in other articles, which usually start with defining the topic, usually with wording like "[x] is...". I should have realised the start of the article was already being discussed on the talk page.
Also, my own usage of the indefinite article over the definite one wasn't something I consciously thought about heavily, it might not be a suitable usage of the word. Alozenge (talk) 04:05, 30 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hello, User:Alozenge and welcome to Wikipedia! I appreciate your thoughtful words. I think it is useful to explain the first sentence what this is all about, i.e. whether this is a concept, entity, index, or what it is. So I have changed it to A carbon footprint (or greenhouse gas footprint) is a calculated value or index that makes it possible to compare the total amount of greenhouse gases that an activity, product, company or country adds to the atmosphere.. I also think it's important to stress that we are talking here about comparisons. I like your proposed "a" instead of "the" for the starting sentence. I have avoided the term "emission" as it might be difficult to understand. I've replaced it with "added to the atmosphere". EMsmile (talk) 12:57, 19 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Changes to the definition section[edit]

I've just changed the definition section a bit to achieve a more logical flow (I hope). It seems that the current IPCC definition only includes CO2 and is based on a publication from 2008. It seems to me though that more commonly nowadays several GHGs are included in carbon footprint though (I hesitate to say "all"). So I've changed it around a bit to reflect that. The definition from 2011 would now be the more prominent one (comes first in that section). Maybe we could add some more references about this if this has been described like this in the literature somewhere. EMsmile (talk) 13:26, 28 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Main image[edit]

(moved from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Climate Change)

Carbon footprint scale of eating different kinds of meat (e.g. red meat has a higher carbon footprint than poultry).[1]: based on 
Carbon footprint scale of transportation means[2]: based on 

I've been working on the carbon footprint article lately. Does anyone have a better idea for the image in the lead? I quite like the ones chosen so far but I am a bit concerned as they are not properly sourced but are more "own work" (not mine but User:Tommaso.sansone91). Also, I don't understand why mutton is shown to have a higher footprint than beef. This does not match with this which could be regarded as the underlying source: https://ourworldindata.org/food-choice-vs-eating-local. I do like the "visual" aspect of the different sizes of clouds, rather than showing actual numbers like a graph would do. I think that's one of the distinguishing aspects between the carbon footprint and the greenhouse gas emissions article - the carbon footprint concept is more of a communication thing. Anyhow, if anyone has time to help with this article I would appreciate it. EMsmile (talk) 09:14, 3 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

References

  1. ^ Ritchie, Hannah. "You want to reduce the carbon footprint of your food? Focus on what you eat, not whether your food is local". Our World In Data. University of Oxford. p. 24 January 2020. Archived from the original on 3 May 2021. Retrieved 3 July 2023.
  2. ^ Ritchie, Hannah. "Which form of transport has the smallest carbon footprint?". Our World In Data. University of Oxford. p. 30 October 2020. Archived from the original on 3 May 2021. Retrieved 31 March 2023.

EMsmile (talk) 09:14, 3 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think those two images might be better off as 2x2 instead of a single file of four? The current format really seems to struggle to represent scale. It all looks like relatively limited difference and a gradual trend, when there's an over 2X difference between even beef and mutton, let alone beef and the rest of foods. Similarly, clouds for bus and rail look almost the same, when bus emissions are twice as large (and single-person drive emissions are also twice as large as those from the bus.)
Another way to represent it might be to omit writing "CO2" on every single cloud and instead just place the foods/means of transportation inside the cloud, so that there's more space to make certain clouds larger? InformationToKnowledge (talk) 16:40, 6 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've removed the graphic on meat from the article because, as you pointed out, it incorrectly states lamb has a bigger footprint than beef. In terms of what to replace it with, I agree with InformationToKnowledge's point - just put two photos (like a steak and a bowl of lentils) side by side and explain in the caption that one has a bigger carbon footprint than the other. By the way this discussion should be at Talk:Carbon footprint so I will move it there. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 17:09, 6 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks for your inputs, InformationToKnowledge and Clayoquot. I didn't really want to create my own graphs or images, so I went back to the Our World in Data website and searched for any articles or graphs with the term "carbon footprint". I found information on the two easy to grasp examples of food and transport. So I have used some of their graphs now (including one for the lead), rather than that simplistic one with the clouds of CO2. I think these graphs by Our World in Data are quite good; they show a bit the complexities, especially the different GHGs food comparisons. But I would still like to find a depiction that is very simple, just for visualising what the carbon footprint is all about. Perhaps it doesn't exist. But if anyone knows of such an image, please bring it to my attention. Thanks. EMsmile (talk) 12:31, 7 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Improvements in July[edit]

I've just completed another round of improvements where I tried to make it all a bit clearer, less academic and with more examples that people can understand. I plan to take a little break now from editing this article, although I will be contacting also some further reviewers for comment. Overall, I think it's still not great but far better than before. Some of the sections still suffer from academic language and low readability scores but I am currently not able to improve on those (as I am undecided what is important and what is not). If anyone can help, please do!

Also, here are some comments I got from Christian Berg last week which I have already addressed/incorporated now. Note, the text below was translated from German to English by Deepl so won't be perfect English: 

+++

To your questions I will first write an assessment and then you / we can consider whether and how to incorporate it.

Ad 1: the problem with ecological externalities is, after all, that economic activities cause damage to nature for which no one pays (whether that is the case in the Art. Carb. Foot. has to be explained, I am not sure, rather skeptical). After all, there are quite different kinds of environmental damages, which are mostly (also) shown by damages to the environmental media (water, soil, air). The idea of quantifying these damages in some way is ultimately in the background of the question about the Carb. Footprint - BUT the CF is just one, today very common, but very limited view on things.

There were already other concepts in the 90s: For example that of the ecological backpack (https://www.nachhaltigkeit.info/artikel/schmidt_bleek_mips_konzept_971.htm) or the ecological footprint https://www.nachhaltigkeit.info/artikel/kologischer_fussabdruck_733.htm , (https://www.footprintnetwork.org/our-work/ecological-footprint/ or also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecological_footprint).

Ad 2: Maybe you could write after an introduction/general classification, as just tried, that the climate crisis is one of the most discussed ecological crises of our time (there are countless sources writing this - if necessary also in distinction to underrepresented topics like BioDiv or material cycles).There have been political efforts for a very long time, the IPCC, the Kyoto Protocol, Paris etc..And for it, unlike other crises, it is true that there is (more or less) ONE indicator, CO2 eqiv, describing the situation. Moreover, almost all economic activities are associated with GHG emissions.

This all illustrates why the GHG/Carbon Footprint has become such an important metric. BUT this should not make us forget that it is "only" about carbon. So BioDiv, toxicity, land degradation, etc. all don't enter into it.

Ad 3: First of all, I have to say that I am not a CF expert either. But in my opinion, it is first important to distinguish what you are looking at: a company, a product, a country ....? As the name suggests, the LIFE-cycle assessment LCA / ecobalance is oriented towards a product. Therefore, ISO 14067 and PAS 2050 have the product in mind (https://www.iso.org/standard/71206.html ). The World Resources Institute (WRI) with the World Business Council for Sustainable Development (wbcsd) had developed the Greenhouse Gas Protocol with its 3 scopes coming from a business perspective. These are simply different perspectives, in that they complement each other. Complicating matters further, LCA standards such as ISO 14067 are proprietary... EMsmile (talk) 10:28, 10 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Categories