This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

I've looked at some of the carbon footprint calculators on the Web (e.g. carbonfootprint.com and bp.com), and there seem to be a lot of differences between the readings I get. Any expert opinions on which online calculators are best? Also, maybe there should be a section on the major contributors to the carbon footprint e.g. car miles travelled, fuel-efficiency of car, air travel, home heating, buying local vs imported produce, etc. I know I was pretty shocked by how much a few flights a year contributed to my "score" (no matter which calculator I used, that was the biggest factor) Fionah 20:25, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Nobody else was doing it, so I added a section on activities that affect the footprint. Maybe someone with more expertise in this area could edit this. Fionah 10:07, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

--This site review carbon and ecological footprint calculators: www.esd.rgs.org

Can anyone provide information on how carbon emissions are related to global CO2 concentrations? Even something simple would be appreciated. Mike wiki 23:36, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

==ignores ecological biocapacity of countries in question==

going per capita is simplistic, one must consider the carrying capacity of the land as well. large forrested land areas are carbon sinks that offset the emissions

This article is filling up with external links which includes some link spammers. Please review WP:EL. Per WP guidelines, when an article starts attracting numerous links, it should be periodically emptied - Wikipedia:WikiProject Spam. Before adding a new link, suggest it first on this Talk page rather than adding to the links section. Calltech 15:51, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

((helpme)) The plea seems to have gone unheard, as the external links section has again filled up with links to in some cases commercial websites. Moreover, some of these websites may harbour potentially harmful scripts (as per my NoScript). Should an external links section be really maintained for this (and related) articles?Malljaja 16:25, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

If you feel a link is spam, I suggest you be bold and remove it. However, I do see value in leaving one or two links that go through the Carbon footprint calculation for interested readers. The same goes for related articles. You may want to add a <!-- Comment --> in the section to ask future editors to be mindful of spam. Hoof Hearted 16:52, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Many thanks Hoof Hearted. I'll shed my inhibitions and will come down more harshly on suspect spam links. The very recent edit by Lucasbfr of the external link section of this article was judicial, and I'll do the same when I feel it's needed.Malljaja 17:49, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

This article does not contain a single reference and is all Original Research.Prester John 03:39, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Carbon footprints are, presumeably, produced by people who have walked through powdered carbon? Carbon dioxide doesn't produce footprints! Why are so many people now so ignorant as to equate 'carbon' with 'carbon dioxide'? By the way, what word do people use to stand for carbon monoxide, carbon disulphide, carbon tetrachloride, etc - 'carbon'? Viclud

--you seem to have missed the point here somewhat. The carbon in carbon footprint stands for carbon dioxide, a common abreviation made for the sake of convenience.

I strongly suggest www.carbonsolutionsgroup.com as a resource for anyone interested in learning about carbon risk and the most sophisticated ways to really make a difference. There is very little understanding out there regarding what an appropriate offset is and carbon solutions group is out there educating interested companies and other entities.

I registered to ask/say this: Isn't there an inherent disservice to the public when complex concepts are abbreviated, to such a degree, for the sake of convenience? A growing number of people associate the word carbon in 'carbon footprint' with the simplified and somewhat hysterical idea that carbon IS pollution. Isn't this abbreviation like saying calcium footprint when speaking of how much limestone was used in a building or how much milk you've drunk? It makes sense only in the world of marketing. This in itself is perfectly fine. But there should be a mention of how this term is in growing use to market products and services in "the voluntary market" that have yet to be proven to impact the cycle in a positive or neutral way, and which may in fact increase a clients "carbon" footprint and impact the cycle negatively. Entervisit 01:07, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I see nothing in this article of the many criticisms of carbon footprints' use in controlling green issues, and wonder whether this would be of value in presenting a neutral article. For example, the UK government wants to encourage all new houses to be carbon-neutral, yet the net effect of this is negligable when the "developer housing" they are encouraging are built with an expected lifespan of only 100 years, since at least 50% of the carbon cost is in the construction and material of the house itself. There are numerous other examples; carbon strategies are well-meaning, but often miss the point. Worth including? Graldensblud 20:19, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

If someone can find referenced criticism from reliable sources, that would be a v useful addition. For example, it think that the Economist had a recent article critising "food miles". Fionah 10:11, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

We need more specific criticism of aspects of carbon footprints like the above comments. I mean take this: "One criticism of the term carbon footprint is that it is politically correct." - is this a joke or what? virutally all modern ideas being seriously discussed are labelled politically correct by someone. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.249.225.229 (talk) 08:41, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I have removed the PC criticism till someone cares to argue it, and restructured the section anyway. Criticism of the global warming consensus should not be repeated here, so I have replaced that with links to appropriate articles PJTraill (talk) 00:08, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

One of those carbon footprints of different families (as the one in the NGC magazine special) shown in smaller and bigger circles (for resp. families in eg Finland, Mali, USA, ...) could be helpful as extra image. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.246.156.29 (talk) 11:04, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

It could be but it's a bit ... selective, no? (I've moved it only because it looked a bit untidy.) Vinny Burgoo (talk) 19:50, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

" [edit] Carbon footprint by energy type

It has been suggested that this article or section be merged into Life cycle assessment. (Discuss) 

The following table compares the carbon footprint of various forms of energy generation, from " Surely the above is incorrect and should be electricity not energy generation?

Also why has the link to the carbon footprint of heat been removed?

http://www.claverton-energy.com/carbon-footprints-of-various-sources-of-heat-chpdh-comes-out-lowest.html

to be of any use the footproint of heat must be included and this is a good table, which someone oculd incorporate into the article?

Engineman (talk) 12:32, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Can someone do a bit of research and make a "summary" section, with sources, that contains, among other things, a breakdown of

1) Total annual Human Generated CO2, worldwide

2) A breakdown (By country) of current annual CO2 generation

3) A graph showing annual CO2 Generation for the 10 most populous countries (different colored lines) for the last century

Such a section would help clarify CO2 generation over the years, and how it relates to current events. Redwood Elf (talk) 14:56, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi. It seems to me that one very useful statistic that I haven't been able to find on Wikipedia so far (please correct me if I'm wrong) is CO2 production per unit of energy produced (e.g. KWh,MWh). It seems to me that this would be a better measure of ranking countries by environmental impact, as it would offput, say, exported carbon footprints from industrialised to broadly manufacturing nations, while still accounting for inefficient production (e.g. China's small-scale coal power stations). Does anyone know if such a list exists, or how we could go about creating one? Thanks! Hongshi (talk) 04:24, 9 August 2008 (UTC) cleanup Since it was tagged for cleanup last July, the article has been substantially improved. I've removed the cleanup tag. --TS 15:46, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

I suggest changing the order of the sections. Given our title and definition, the first sections should be on carbon footprints, not offsets. As the intro says, offsets are just one technique, so I would put the Kyoto/Offset section near the end.

While changing the order, and to create a logical flow from the definition, I would re-title:
"Carbon Labeling" as Footprints of Products;
"Age-related..." as Footprints of Individuals;
"...Electricity..." as Footprints of Electricity;
"...Heat..." as Footprints of Heat;
"Holidays..." as Footprints of Holidays.
Concerning the Products section, the.CO2List.org shows many sources to add besides the current items from the Carbon Trust. The external link to the Nature Conservancy calculator seems too limited; there are dozens of calculators, and Nature Conservancy's is not one of the best. Rather than picking one, I suggest links to the comparison sites at esd.rgs.org or co2.homestead.com/files/calculators -- Numbersinstitute (talk) 16:17, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Since there were no objections in over 2 weeks, I did the re-ordering and re-naming of sections. On 1 Sept 2009 an anonymous person deleted the sections on Age-related and Holiday footprints without giving a reason. I am thinking of restoring them unless someone supports their omission. Numbersinstitute (talk) 20:37, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

When I first came across this article, this section was even more of a mess than it is now (it used to include a table of jumbled elements, showing numbers from very self-serving & unreliable source(s) (ie. nuclear power plant(s)/industry(s) touting their own green credentials)). I tried to correct all of the table elements, references and even the text which preceded and followed the table of this section, but alas, I was hesitant to change too much without first consulting the rarely used talk-page for this article, which I didn't have time for, until now.

To clarify, I cited every number that could be traced to a reference, while the un-cited numbers were calculated from already present data & made sense to me to be included in this mostly empty table, and still do. But as I understand wikipedia standards: If it can not be found in a reliable reference; Then it should either be cited as such via the template(s) ((Citation needed)) or ((Verify credibility)) or ((Verify source)) or ((Dubious)) or ((Failed verification)) OR in extreme cases: ((Original research)) then in such a case the original research could/should/would be deleted.

So if anyone wants make changes, even rather big changes to this section, I will not object, that is, if this section and it's table is made more complete, more informative and more reliable (ie. more encyclopedic). That said, I skimmed through the article Wikipedia:Manual of Style, and I still do not know what is expected of us editors to effectively cleanup this section to satisfy the undiscussed whim of the person who installed the Cleanup template. Furthermore, I cannot agree that any part of this section need be included in the article Life cycle assessment and I can not believe a wikipedia article can be considered "Cleaned up" when it is filled with templates suggesting the article be modified. So if you think the Cleanup and/or Mergeto requests are justified, then I think it would be a good idea for you to say why, here and now. --202.168.102.96 (talk) 01:02, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Suggestion on Nuclear Industry stats

I am really reluctant to make changes on this site, as things are controvercial, but this link might be of use:[1]. In the abstract, it says the range of estimates for nuclear industry carbon emissions is from 1.4 gCO2e/kWh to 288 gCO2e/kWh with an average of 66 gCO2e/kWh. This suggests the colored graph is very far off, and the tables likewise. —Preceding unsigned comment added by George H. Harvey (talk • contribs) 16:16, 16 February 2010 (UTC) I also just got information about solar PV technology from Evergreen Solar, it indicates that newer PV carbon footprints range from 20 to 28 gCO2e/kWh. I will see if I can get a link to use as a reference.--ghh 16:44, 17 February 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by George H. Harvey (talk • contribs) I found a reference on newer solar technology: http://www.nrel.gov/pv/thin_film/docs/cdte_ghg_energy_fthenakis_mrs_11-21.pdf According to this article, the photovoltaic technology reviewed produces about 23.6 grams CO2-equivalent/kwh. This would mean that the table is quite obsolete. —Preceding unsigned comment added by George H. Harvey (talk • contribs) 14:10, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Who claims "Carbon footprint" is a buzzword? I intend to remove this tag unless someone can justify it - but I am open to explanation. Not every topical concept is a buzzword. The main point about a buzzword seems to be that it is vague and used to impress rather than to communicate, but "carbon footprint" is fairly clearly defined, apart from the allocation problem. I have also not observed it used as a vague metaphor to impress others. PJTraill (talk) 22:39, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I have removed it. -- Alan Liefting- (talk) - 03:49, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Its use among the media and corporations is extremely vague, who often misrepresent the idea. They might claim, for example, that water use or the lack of use of non-biodegradable materials contributes to one's carbon footprint, when no connection can be made between them. Among general opinion, it is simply the scale that measures how much an individual (very specifically) pollutes, uses resources, or even the amount and frequency of bodily emissions they have. The very phrase evokes feelings of guilt and responsibility among listeners. There are two different meanings to the 'Carbon Footprint' one being clearly defined, the other a buzzword. --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 08:31, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

With an option to buy a carbon offset when purchasing airline tickets from some airlines and it's only benefit is to make you feel good about your flight (not any tangible affect such as the verifiable tree being planted and such), I would DEFINITELY describe this ridiculous new made-up hokey gibberish as a buzzword. MiracleMat (talk) 20:51, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Both "Green" and "Cabon footprint" are in danger of becoming not only buzz words but weasle words. They can be used quite vaguely, even dishonestly, to displel concerns, divert attention, equivocate, mislable, conceal, and lie. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tonygumbrell (talk • contribs) 22:10, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

• Mike Berners-Lee - British estimator of greenhouse gas emissions arising from everyday activities, author of 2010 book How Bad Are Bananas?: The Carbon Footprint of Everything ISBN 978-1553658313. 99.181.128.190 (talk) 07:53, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

There are one or possibly two small text errors in the section By Area, third sentence: 'nonprofits' should surely be 'nonprofit organizations; and 'academic mooseervice' means nothing to me, and should surely be referenced if there really is such a word as 'mooseervice' ardj--Ardj (talk) 23:38, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

I am Geoff Beacon.

My entry on the embodied carbon of beef was removed by a moderator. OK, It did point to a website I set up with a grant from UnLtd, the millennium charity, which has the relevant references. But the moderation has had the effect of denying readers the chance to know the enormous carbon footprint of beef (and the meat of other ruminants).

As far as I can see there is no [[the carbon footprint of beef] on Wikipedia or many other everyday products and activities that were found on the website I set up. Wikipedia would be a much better place than my site.

I did offer to pay a student this summer on the carbon footprint of beef or anything else of his choice without mentioning my site. He couldn't get past the moderator.

Wake up Wikipedia. Your coverage of carbon footprints tells very little about the impact of our everyday lives. You give references to academics that do not disclose their actual figures. Those that do get it wrong (e.g. pig meat and beef do not have the same footprint!) — Preceding unsigned comment added by RedParasol (talk • contribs) 09:24, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

In the table titled Carbon footprint by generation technology, is this grams of CO2, grams of Carbon, or something else? Commentor above says "carbon footprint" is clearly defined... where? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.231.128.119 (talk) 18:23, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

I clarified headings, which were pretty cryptic for a general encyclopedia article. Still not clear on thermal vs. electrical units, and source does not clarify it. Can someone else help? Also noted very narrow range of 3 sources. Need more sources, for example as cited in http://the.co2list.org and may continue when I have time. Numbersinstitute (talk) 15:50, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Many enviro groups speak of the importance of having a max of 2, 1, or even 0 kids. Wouldn't suicide be the most eco-friendly thing a person could do for the planet? It's an anti-human cult, I tell ya! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uMFAhW_ZmV8 74.90.57.148 (talk) 04:51, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Question regarding definition: Why is water vapour not included in the list of greenhouse gases ? Surely if you go into a greenhouse and measure the differences between environment inside and outside the greenhouse, the major differences are temperature, relative humidity and concentrations of carbon dioxide and oxygen. Any sort of carbon combustion emits water plus CO2 but the heat capacity of water vapour is much higher than any of the other gases and has a much higher capacity store heat energy. Water vapour seems to be more influential than any of the other gases mentioned. Why is it not included in the list of GHG? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.90.63.20 (talk) 22:08, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Who coined the term carbon footprint? I have a friend who says its al gore, but I have strong doubts. I believe it is scientific. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Z347gj1 (talk • contribs) May 25, 2006 (18:55 UTC).

Great question, especially when you realize that Al Gore is a major shareholder and CEO of Generation Investment Management, a company that sells the carbon offsets. How convenient that he produced a documentary (can you spell infomercial?) that promotes the practice of offsetting our impact on the environment with such a purchase. Hmmm... smells fishy to me. --M.S. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.247.232.228 (talk • contribs) March 4, 2007 (14:45 UTC).

Actually, he's Chairman, rather than CEO (purely a point of fact, it doesn't really affect the argument). The more serious question is whether the claim that Generation Investment Management sells carbon offsets is actually true. I can find no evidence of this. --Salvadors 17:16, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

My first encounter with the term was through BP advertising, and I had assumed they coined the phrase. They were certainly responsible for popularising it in the UK. Would be nice to nail down the origins though. Xyster 30 May 2007

I am wondering (as a non native) why the metaphor 'footprint' is used. - OliverGassner 16 June 2007

The idea of footprinting is at least 8 years old (1999) to my knowledge and came from a desire to explain how unsustainable western lifestyles are particularly in the context of global equity.ExampleDB42 (talk) 12:44, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

I would say a footprint is an effective metaphor that communicates a sense of 'leaving something behind.' There is the leave no trace motto in hiking, that you only take pictures and memories and only leave footprints. So the idea of a footprint here, is that we can understand our impacts and the size of them and use that to adjust them. --Ryandwayne (talk) 13:00, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Carbon 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090511102744/http://www.carbontrust.co.uk:80/solutions/CarbonFootprinting/what_is_a_carbon_footprint.htm to http://www.carbontrust.co.uk/solutions/CarbonFootprinting/what_is_a_carbon_footprint.htm

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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 II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 03:54, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 external links on Carbon 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091025164626/http://www.isa.org.usyd.edu.au/publications/documents/ISA_Nuclear_Report.pdf to http://www.isa.org.usyd.edu.au/publications/documents/ISA_Nuclear_Report.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130515034836/http://www.buses.org/files/2008ABAFoundationComparativeFuelCO2.pdf to http://www.buses.org/files/2008ABAFoundationComparativeFuelCO2.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130515034836/http://www.buses.org/files/2008ABAFoundationComparativeFuelCO2.pdf to http://www.buses.org/files/2008ABAFoundationComparativeFuelCO2.pdf
• Added ((dead link)) tag to http://www.rail-reg.gov.uk/upload/pdf/rolling-c9-environ.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080516033219/http://www.carbontrust.co.uk/carbon/briefing/carbon_label.htm to http://www.carbontrust.co.uk/carbon/briefing/carbon_label.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110710170031/http://ecosystemmarketplace.com/documents/acrobat/StateoftheVoluntaryCarbonMarket18July_Final.pdf to http://ecosystemmarketplace.com/documents/acrobat/StateoftheVoluntaryCarbonMarket18July_Final.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070707112535/http://www.acore.org/renewableenergyinfo/includes/resource-files/bios.doc to http://www.acore.org/renewableenergyinfo/includes/resource-files/bios.doc
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131005014225/http://cecmanitoba.ca/resource/hearings/22/WPG2-006.pdf to http://cecmanitoba.ca/resource/hearings/22/WPG2-006.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081223014334/http://www.censa.org.uk:80/reports.html to http://www.censa.org.uk/reports.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090307034640/http://www.walkerscarbonfootprint.co.uk:80/walkers_carbon_trust.html to http://www.walkerscarbonfootprint.co.uk/walkers_carbon_trust.html

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 00:29, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Carbon 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110722030340/http://iga.igg.cnr.it/documenti/IGA/Fridleifsson_et_al_IPCC_Geothermal_paper_2008.pdf to http://iga.igg.cnr.it/documenti/IGA/Fridleifsson_et_al_IPCC_Geothermal_paper_2008.pdf
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.censa.org.uk/reports.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.walkerscarbonfootprint.co.uk/walkers_carbon_trust.html

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 18:08, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps it would be better to make a new article called GHG-footprint and put 'carbon footprint' in it (as it is only a part of it).

- response - As I have just commented in the GHG footprint page, exclusively CO2 is not a common understanding or usage of the term 'carbon footprint', so I think the article mentioned, and the GHG footprint section of this article, are probably unhelpful. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 163.1.19.1 (talk) 12:38, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Does anyone else think it is ironic there is a disclaimer for this topic stating "This article may require cleanup to meet Wikipedia's quality standards"?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.205.216.132 (talk) 17:18, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

I am currently working on separating the section previously labeled "Ways to reduce carbon footprint," into two sections. These two sections being, "Ways to reduce personal carbon footprint," and the other "Ways to reduce industry's carbon footprint". I think the distinction between these two is very important and apply to two different audiences; those looking into ways to reduce their impact and those looking at various strategies for companies (whether it is their own or purely for research). Any suggestions on topics that these new sections should include are welcome! Thanks! KristenTomberlin (talk) 20:37, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

I am afraid encouragement is all I have to offer right now, but I think you are quite right to make this distinction. You might, however, find that they have enough in common to justify making them sub-sections of a common section on reducing the footprint in general, and/or you may find other aspects of reduction that belong in a third sub-section; it is very arguable that the "Schemes" section belongs there. PJTraill (talk) 10:13, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

When I first heard the term, the context suggested that it referred to the amount of emissions caused by a person over a period of time. I don't know enough about the subject to feel comfortable about extending the definition -- guidance or pointers welcome... --Soundray 14:54, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

• For anyone ever "looking back": The wording for "Personal Carbon Footprint" is now Hand-print. -- Otr500 (talk) 21:03, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

This is reportedly an encyclopedia. In some areas it seems Wikipedia is used as a promotional vehicle for certain causes. I am not against "causes" or presenting them but it must be done in a encyclopedic tone. I have read two articles and both push "Plant-based diet" (alternate wording for Vegans) and content derived from "Environmental Research Letters" as a solution to the problem. While that may be a consideration there are just as many people that believe humans were created or evolved (depending on the point of view) into meat-eaters. Some say proof would be the human teeth. I do not know all the scientific reasoning but "pushing" animal rights and "stop eating meat" is good material for an essay but needs neutrality (remember the "Five pillars") for inclusion here.

I have linked to Plant-based diet which seems to say that Plant-based diets can contain a little meat. By the way I am not sure why your post here was not automatically signed. Perhaps you have already amended the article - if not feel free to do so. Chidgk1 (talk) 18:34, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

There are a lot of unecrypted FTA TV Stations in rich countries (UK^[1], Germany^[2]) which use old Video coding like MPEG-2 which are very excessive in Carbon footprint.

A lot of Smaller and poorer countries use at least MPEG-4 because for them using MPEG-2 would be just too wasteful and generate too much financial cost. (Poland^[3], Czechia^[4], Slovakia^[5], Slovenia^[6], Croatia ^[7])

FTA receiver for much more effective AV1 or H.265/HEVC are cheap for population in rich countries and cost just few hours of Minimum wage.

FTA TV Stations are doing so just to promote paid encrypted TV Stations, and hold back competition on TV market.

A lot of FTA TV Stations are just SD version of paid encrypted HDTV Stations.

As using 4 or 8 times more effective Video coding makes entry capital for new TV station about 4-8 cheaper.

And competition would be 4-8 more hard.

What is more unecrypted FTA TV Stations very often using narrow beam for geolocking signal.

That technique is also very very excessive in Carbon footprint when compared to number of population covered.

What is more enryption and decryption cost power and have greater Carbon footprint than FTA TV Stations.

And People watching TV have much less Carbon footprint than doing other activities.^[8]

That is especially true for people not forced to earn ability to pay for TV as it is in case of FTA.

And it is much cheaper and effective way of forcing vast population of not doing activities with much more Carbon footprint like traveling by foot or machine.

Other mean of forcing that effect upon population is heavy taxation (on machine travel) which makes population much poorer in general. ^[9]

Please could you sign your post. If you have a reliable source for the carbon footprint of TV broadcasting please edit the article. Chidgk1 (talk) 10:52, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 7 January 2019 and 26 April 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): KristenTomberlin. Peer reviewers: Mliao2, Dparida7.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 16:46, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 24 August 2021 and 20 December 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Odunn23. Peer reviewers: Istone2vu.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 18:38, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 9 November 2021 and 10 December 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Lindseywiesen. Peer reviewers: Fltuhol, Nicolewin.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 18:38, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

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)

EMsmile (talk) 09:15, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

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)

EMsmile (talk) 09:26, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

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)

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)

I agree. Dtetta (talk) 13:18, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

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)

Extended content

Review (Jan 2023) 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): "Carbon footprint is ONE important but ultimately poor means to determine environmental impact. We are in danger of judging everything by CF, which ignores many other problems (biodiversity, water, ...). There are conflicting goals in reducing CF: lightweighting in vehicle construction leads, among other things, to use more fiber composites, which makes vehicles lighter, but much harder to recycle! At the moment, there is a paragraph on CF of energy consumption - then, in my opinion, something should definitely be said about CF of energy production, see the EROI-discussion in my book. This becomes especially important when thinking about CCS, BECCS etc. Because these processes of the CDR are partly extremely energy-intensive, thus also have a partly substantial CF. Why is the CF nevertheless important or what are the difficulties for other areas? The big chance lies in simple, easily measurable and quantifiable quantity, which in principle gives the GHG potential (if one calculates with CO2 equivalents. Unfortunately, this is much more difficult in many other areas)." 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) Sorry I doubt I will have time to think about this article Chidgk1 (talk) 06:43, 20 January 2023 (UTC) 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) 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) References ^ 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) What do readers expect from this article? 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: 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? 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? 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. 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) Merger proposal 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) 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) Support. The carbon footprint concept typically already includes other GHGs. Mostly synonym. Femke Nijsse (talk) 11:13, 28 May 2020 (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. 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) Some images added 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) 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) 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) 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)