Talk:Breakthrough Institute

Here are the updates I'd like to discuss with other editors to reach some sort of consensus.

• Summary changes according to [], [], [], and [] to make it more accurate, to eliminate the difference with the infobox (foundation year, etc), and to add the definition of the ecomodernism, which is not yet defined quite clearly, based on the sources.

The Breakthrough Institute is a nonprofit multidisciplinary environmental research center. Founded in early 2000s by Michael Shellenberger and Ted Nordhaus, the organization is headquartered in Berkley, California.

The organization's research mostly lays in the domain of ecomodernist philosophy, an environmental philosophy which argues that technological development can protect nature and improve human wellbeing through eco-economic decoupling, i.e., by separating economic growth from environmental impacts. Many environmental scientists and academics outside of the institute have disagreed with Breakthrough's environmental positions.

• Add information about the origins, according to various sources ([], [], [], [], [], [], [], and this^[1]). In particular, to better disclose the topic of the nuclear power, planetary boundaries hypothesis, etc.

Nordhaus and Shellenberger have written a number of articles at Breakthrough, with subjects ranging from positive treatment of nuclear energy and shale gas to critiques of the planetary boundaries hypothesis. The Breakthrough Institute has argued that climate policy should be focused on higher levels of public funding on technology innovation to "make clean energy cheap", and has been critical of climate policies such as cap and trade and carbon pricing. The institute advocates higher levels of public spending on technology innovation, which they argue will lead to higher environmental quality, economic growth, and quality of life.

Michael Shellenberger left Breakthrough Institute in 2015 and founded another research nonprofit Environmental progress, where he's been serving as CEO since then. Ted Nordhaus continues to serve as Breakthrough's executive director.

• Actualize the data about their research programs, according to the official site (like, urbanization, human technologies, zero-carbon energy sources).

The Breakthrough institute is registered as 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization and is supported by various public institutions and individuals. As of 2022, the organization's chart of funders include Breakthrough Energy, ClimateWorks Foundation and The William and Flora Hewlett Foundation, among others.

Breakthrough's executive director is Ted Nordhaus. Others associated with Breakthrough include former National Review executive editor Reihan Salam, journalist Gwyneth Cravens, political scientist Roger A. Pielke Jr., sociologist Steve Fuller, and environmentalist Stewart Brand. The organization's notable senior fellows include a geneticist Pamela Ronald, a principal research scientist at MIT Andrew McAfee, a novelist Gwyneth Cravens, an Australian scientist Barry Brook, an American sociologist Dalton Conley, a landscape ecologist Eric W. Sanderson, an American environmental scientist Erle Ellis, an American sociologist Fred L. Block, an Indian economist Joyashree Roy, an environmental geographer Ruth DeFries and Steven Pinker, among others.

• Update publications' list and the manifesto section, according to various sources ([], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], and []) to make it more neutral. It has probably too much direct quotes now and should be rebalanced

Breakthrough Institute's research is based on its Ecomodernist Manifesto[29] and organized around several principles, which it characterizes as follows:
*A good Anthropocene demands that humans use their growing social, economic, and technological powers to make life better for people, stabilize the climate, and protect the natural world.
*Human technologies, from those that first enabled agriculture to replace hunting and gathering, to those that drive today’s globalized economy, have made humans less reliant upon the many ecosystems that once provided their only sustenance, even as those same ecosystems have often been left deeply damaged.
*The human population will peak in the 21st century and then start to decline. The total human impact on the environment, including land-use change, overexploitation, and pollution, can peak and decline this century. By understanding and promoting these emergent processes, humans have the opportunity to re-wild and re-green the Earth.
*Ecosystems around the world are threatened today because people over-rely on them.
*Urbanization, agricultural intensification, nuclear power, aquaculture, and desalination are all processes with a demonstrated potential to reduce human demands on the environment, allowing more room for non-human species.
*Plentiful access to modern energy is an essential prerequisite for human development and for decoupling development from nature.
*Transitioning to a world powered by zero-carbon energy sources will require energy technologies that are power dense and capable of scaling to many tens of terawatts to power a growing human economy.
*Decoupling of human welfare from environmental impacts will require a sustained commitment to technological progress and the continuing evolution of social, economic, and political institutions alongside those changes.

• Restructure the article a bit with the new info.

• Add a couple of categories: Environmental research institutes, International educational organizations, International research institutes.

KhinMoTi (talk) 12:01, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

short answer: new categories are good. However, much of what you’re proposing is false balance (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#Giving_%22equal_validity%22_can_create_a_false_balance). Neutral point of view doesn’t mean you give equal weight to “both sides.” Sadads explained this on this talk page a few months ago. Reliable Sources shouldn’t be removed, even if they are critical of the subject. There are going to be more sources critical of this than not critical, as generally experts have viewed writing like the Manifesto as flawed (example that could be added, but wasn’t: https://read.dukeupress.edu/environmental-humanities/article/7/1/233/8202/The-Theodicy-of-the-Good-Anthropocene).

Also, as explained previously on this page by myself and sadads, the BTI’s webpage and the manifesto themselves are primary sources. We should strive for information from reliable secondary sources, and we don’t need a point by point breakdown of the manifesto. We need a summary, a link to it for further reading, and relevant expert opinion on it.

Finally, we need to strive for clearer language when summarizing. “ eco-economic decoupling,” for example, is not accessible to a layman. This wording specifically was discussed at Shellenberger’s page and changed to be more accessible, and that is the version that is here now.

In short, much of what you propose, I think, is unnecessary information and creates false balance. The new categories, though, are a good idea.—Hobomok (talk) 01:31, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

My Comments:

• 'Summary'. I think the summary looks more or less balanced now. I'd only replace "many" with "a cohort" in the sentence "many environmental scientists and academics outside of the institute have criticized" to make it more sensible. And, for better reading, I propose to simply merge two sentences by using a comma: Founded in 2007 by Michael Shellenberger and Ted Nordhaus, the institute is aligned with ecomodernist philosophy.
• Agree on categories
• I will leave my comments on other fragments once the editor above explains in which sections they intended to use them--Bormenthalchik82 (talk) 03:50, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

  Bormenthalchik82 (talk), Hobomok (talk).

  Let me clearly show the pieces of information I'd like to add, as well as its new sources (I do not list the old ones separately, although they are also used).

  Origins and foundation

  The Breakthrough Institute was conceptualized by Ted Nordhaus and Michael Shellenberger, who co-authored "The Death of Environmentalism: Global Warming Politics in a Post-Environmental World" work in 2004. In the paper, the authors argued that environmentalism is incapable of dealing with climate change and should "die" so that a new politics can be born.

  The two were described by Slate as "ecomodernists," while the authors have described themselves as the "bad boys" of environmentalism. The organization was established circa 2003-2004.

  Nordhaus and Shellenberger have written a number of articles at Breakthrough, with subjects ranging from positive treatment of nuclear energy and shale gas.

  The Breakthrough Institute has argued that climate policy should be focused on higher levels of public funding on technology innovation to "make clean energy cheap", and has been critical of climate policies such as cap and trade and carbon pricing.

  The institute advocates higher levels of public spending on technology innovation, which they argue will lead to higher environmental quality, economic growth, and quality of life.

  Many of their positions have been debated by environmental scientists and academics.

  Michael Shellenberger left Breakthrough Institute in 2015 and founded another research nonprofit Environmental progress, where he's been serving as CEO since then.

  Ted Nordhaus continues to serve as Breakthrough's executive director.

  Breakthrough Institute's research is based on its Ecomodernist Manifesto and organized around several principles, which it characterizes as follows:

  • A good Anthropocene demands that humans use their growing social, economic, and technological powers to make life better for people, stabilize the climate, and protect the natural world.
  • Human technologies, from those that first enabled agriculture to replace hunting and gathering, to those that drive today’s globalized economy, have made humans less reliant upon the many ecosystems that once provided their only sustenance, even as those same ecosystems have often been left deeply damaged.
  • The human population will peak in the 21st century and then start to decline. The total human impact on the environment, including land-use change, overexploitation, and pollution, can peak and decline this century. By understanding and promoting these emergent processes, humans have the opportunity to re-wild and re-green the Earth.
  • Ecosystems around the world are threatened today because people over-rely on them.
  • Urbanization, agricultural intensification, nuclear power, aquaculture, and desalination are all processes with a demonstrated potential to reduce human demands on the environment, allowing more room for non-human species.
  • Plentiful access to modern energy is an essential prerequisite for human development and for decoupling development from nature.
  • Transitioning to a world powered by zero-carbon energy sources will require energy technologies that are power dense and capable of scaling to many tens of terawatts to power a growing human economy.
  • Decoupling of human welfare from environmental impacts will require a sustained commitment to technological progress and the continuing evolution of social, economic, and political institutions alongside those changes.

  Research programs

  • Climate and Energy (led by Seaver Wang and Patrick Brown)
  • Nuclear Energy Innovation (led by Adam Stein)
  • Energy for Development (led by Vijaya Ramachandran) with the focus on research related to clean and cheap energy technologies
  • Food and Agriculture (led by Dan Blaustein-Rejto) with the focus on intensive farming characterized by a low fallow ratio, higher use of inputs such as capital and labour, and higher crop yields per unit land area.

  Organization, funding and people

  The Breakthrough institute is registered as 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization and is supported by various public institutions and individuals.

  As of 2022, the organization's chart of funders include Breakthrough Energy, ClimateWorks Foundation and The William and Flora Hewlett Foundation, among others.

  Breakthrough's executive director is Ted Nordhaus.

  Others associated with Breakthrough include former National Review executive editor Reihan Salam, journalist Gwyneth Cravens, political scientist Roger A. Pielke Jr., sociologist Steve Fuller, and environmentalist Stewart Brand.

  The organization's notable senior fellows include a geneticist Pamela Ronald, a principal research scientist at MIT Andrew McAfee, a novelist Gwyneth Cravens, an Australian scientist Barry Brook, an American sociologist Dalton Conley, a landscape ecologist Eric W. Sanderson, an American environmental scientist Erle Ellis, an American sociologist Fred L. Block, an Indian economist Joyashree Roy, an environmental geographer Ruth DeFries and Steven Pinker, among others.

  An Ecomodernist Manifesto

  In April 2015, An Ecomodernist Manifesto was issuedIn April 2015, An Ecomodernist Manifesto was issued by John Asafu-Adjaye, Linus Blomqvist, Stewart Brand, Barry Brook. Ruth DeFries, Erle Ellis, Christopher Foreman, David Keith, Martin Lewis, Mark Lynas, Ted Nordhaus, Roger A. Pielke, Jr., Rachel Pritzker, Joyashree Roy, Mark Sagoff, Michael Shellenberger, Robert Stone, and Peter Teague. KhinMoTi (talk) 07:19, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Hi, KhinMoTi, thank you for clarification. Let me comment on your suggestions. I will only comment if the updates you propose for the article can be confirmed by independent reliable secondary sources per Wikipedia's main policy. So, my primary focus would be on sources you used.

• I agree with you and Hobamook that adding categories will be beneficial to the page
• Origins and foundation. #23 source is primary, so I'd better avoid it or add a secondary source to confirm the information. Sources 24 and 25 cite Nordhaus and Shellenberger but do not confirm that they "have written a number of articles at Breakthrough". Source 26 doesn't open. The source 27 (WSJ) is an opinion of the institution's founders, and, a primary source. I believe it can incorporated if you quote them with something like "According to the organization's founders written in the Wall Street Journal", then "quote". I'd suggest not abuse using primary sources but if it happens once or twice, there is nothing bad about it.

Sources 28 and 29 do not open (for at least, not on my device). Source 30 shows "the page doesn't exist".

• Ecomodernist Manifesto. It is based on a primary source #31 again but I believe the manifesto has been covered in many other articles, so if you shorten that manifesto to 2-3 sentences highlighting the main aspects of it, it would probably work. If there are secondary sources, please, add them.
• Research programs. Source 32 leads to Britannica, where a definition of "intensive agriculture" is explained. It says nothing about research programs.
• Organization, funding and people. The source 33 leads to Charity Navigator, which is often used on Wikipedia. I think it is fine to use it. Sources 34-38 all lead to the website of BI, so they are all primary sources. Unless you have secondary sources for the same information, it would be abuse "of primary sources" on Wikipedia. I would refrain adding the information if you don't have other confirmations.
• An Ecomodernist Manifesto. Source 39 is good and can also fit the Ecomodernist Manifesto above. Source 40 looks like a primaru website.

I hope my analysis helped you! Don't hesitate to ask any questions!--Bormenthalchik82 (talk) 01:08, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

In the section titled 'Criticism', the following two statements are made: (1) "Journalist Paul D. Thacker alleged that the Breakthrough Institute is an example of a quasi-lobbying organization which does not adequately disclose its funding." and later, (2) "However, as Thacker has noted, the institute's funding remains largely opaque" . These are 'supported' by the citation 'https://ethics.harvard.edu/blog/breakthrough-institutes-inconvenient-history-al-gore . But on that page, Thacker does not make any reference to the Breakthrough Institute, in regards to funding. He does say "think tanks have been exposed as quasi lobbying organizations, with little funding transparency" - but this is a general reference to all 'think tanks', not a specific accusation leveled against the Breakthrough Institute. I plan to remove these criticisms unless anyone can provide a good reason not to. Steerpike5800 (talk) 03:25, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

Indeed, he is not criticizing the funding, but the intellectual rigour of the institute publications. It shouldnt be removed, but corrected. JoaquimCebuano (talk) 05:42, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

OK, so we can agree that Thacker's 'reference article' is leveling two broad criticisms at think tanks in general - funding transparency, and intellectual rigor. And we can agree that the rest of the article provides no evidence whatsoever of 'funding transparency' issues. So the current reference is clearly not supportive of the main body article statements ""Journalist Paul D. Thacker alleged that the Breakthrough Institute is an example of a quasi-lobbying organization which does not adequately disclose its funding."" and ""However, as Thacker has noted, the institute's funding remains largely opaque"". You seem to be suggesting that the main body article be 'corrected' to reflect the true intent of the reference? I don't believe it is the responsibility of editors to re-write main body articles to justify the inclusion of a reference. The statement and associated reference should be removed because it is blatantly inaccurate, and if someone else wants to create a new 'criticism' paragraph that more correctly reflects what Thacker is saying, and use the reference, they are free to do so. Steerpike5800 (talk) 18:34, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

I made an edit adding 'some' to the above sentence, so it would read: "Since its inception, some environmental scientists and academics have criticized Breakthrough's environmental positions.". This was removed as a 'weasel word'. But without this clarification, it gives the impression that all (or the majority) or environmental scientists and academics take this position.

Obviously, there is a set of environmental scientists and academics who praise or value these environmental positions - for example, at an absolute minimum, those environmental scientists and academics who consider themselves to be 'ecomodernists'. There needs to be some acknowledgement that there is a body of environmental scientists and academics that do not criticize these positions.

What about using the word 'traditional' in the sentence - as in "Since its inception, traditional environmental scientists and academics have criticized Breakthrough's environmental positions."? That actually makes a lot of sense to me and reflects the idea that ecomodernism is indeed a new, non-traditional approach. Steerpike5800 (talk) 20:45, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

Absolutely against any inclusion of 'traditional environmental scientists', as such thing does not exist. Ecomodernism claim of novelty is itself just a claim, not a consesual fact, especially given that much of the criticism directed against it rests on the recognition that it is not really distinct from modernism itself. JoaquimCebuano (talk) 00:02, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

'such a thing does not exist' - that's nonsense. Environmentalists exist on a spectrum like many other disciplines, and they range from 'Traditional', 'Conservative' or 'Classic' to 'modern', etc. How about this from the MIT Reader: https://thereader.mitpress.mit.edu/how-american-environmentalism-failed/ "How American Environmentalism Failed" (context: "Traditional environmentalism has lacked a meaningful, practical democratic vision ..."). Or how about this - I just read this article in "The Atlantic" today - https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2023/03/climate-change-nuclear-power-safety-radioactive-waste/672776/ in which they refer to 'mainline environmentalists' (context: "Although only a handful of the mainline environmental organizations are openly “nuclear inclusive” (for example, the Nature Conservancy), many quietly accept that nuclear power can be part of the climate solution"). Or how about https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/jan/09/republicans-climate-change-conservatives-environmentalists-arkansas ("Not all environmentalists eat tofu: the hunters fighting climate change") (context: "In order to address the urgent realities of climate change, traditional environmentalists must..."). I can give you dozens of mainstream, quality articles referencing 'Traditional Environmentalists'.

We need to somehow change the current standalone statement "environmental scientists and academics have criticized Breakthrough's environmental positions" to acknowledge that this is not an exclusive position of all environmental scientists and academics (ESA for short, for this discussion), because it is patently obvious that 'some' ESAs do not criticize these positions - especially not 'all' these positions. There are the ESA's that are a member of Breakthrough itself; and there are the ESAs that identify as Ecomodernists. But beyond that, there are clear elements of the Ecomodernist position that many ESAs are now embracing; take Nuclear Energy, Carbon Capture, or Green Hydrogen as an example. The Nature Conservancy is one of a number of mainstream (is that acceptable?) Environmental Organizations that have accepted that Nuclear Energy has an important role to play in the battle against climate change. Example - https://www.nature.org/en-us/about-us/who-we-are/how-we-work/policy/clean-energy-climate-policy-economic-benefits/ "Incentives for clean energy—including zero-emitting nuclear, natural gas with carbon capture and storage, and green hydrogen, alongside solar and wind power—would help diversify our energy mix."

What if we extend the current sentence as follows - "ESAs have criticized ... but a growing number are accepting at least some of these positions, such as the need for Nuclear Power, Carbon Capture, and Green Hydrogen" - and use the Nature Conservancy reference above as a citation? We could also introduce the former Greenpeace co-founder Patrick Moore, who left Greenpeace because of its opposition to nuclear (reference: https://www.politico.com/story/2008/03/why-a-greenpeace-co-founder-went-nuclear-008835). Or (and I hate to suggest it ...) we could even quote Ms. Thunberg and her acceptance of Nuclear Energy - https://www.forbes.com/sites/arielcohen/2023/04/03/greta-thunberg-has-embraced-nuclear-power-will-the-greens-follow/?sh=3aa9fa8d1e9a .

Steerpike5800 (talk) 01:14, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

I don't like the "traditional environmental scientists" wording either. But I do not like the current wording, which implies unanimity. I think the best way to phrase the sentence is this:

"since its inception, many environmental scientists and academics have..." Philomathes2357 (talk) 05:50, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

"Many" is also WP:WEASEL.

If there is no unanimity, there are sources where environmental scientists agree with the Institute. Those who want to change the text should find those sources. --Hob Gadling (talk) 11:27, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

OK, I found plenty of sources (posted above in my previous reply). Would they be acceptable to you? I'm trying to avoid getting into edit wars, where someone nit-picks a reference because maybe its not 100% inclusive, or whatever). Steerpike5800 (talk) 01:26, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

I checked the first two, and they do not even mention the Breakthrough institute. Therefore they are obviously not acceptable. See WP:SYNTH. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:35, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

That doesn't make sense. The matter at hand here is that the Wikipedia article is saying "Environmental scientists and academics have criticized Breakthrough's environmental positions". The positions are clear - acceptance of Nuclear, acceptance of Carbon Capture, acceptance of Green Hydrogen - among others. You don't need a citation to specifically mention 'Breakthrough Institute' in order to make the counter point. If you use that requirement - mentioning Breakthrough by name - then the majority of the citations currently used to justify the statement don't measure up (they don't mention Breakthrough, and/or can't be validated because they are references to a book that has to be purchased, or are otherwise non-transparent). Example - current reference #16, Michael E Mann, "The Madhouse Effect: How Climate Change Denial Is Threatening Our Planet, Destroying Our Politics, and Driving Us Crazy" - no link provided, and when I search for that title it's just a book I would need to buy on Amazon. Reference #13 ('Against the Anthropocine...') - just an ISBN # is given, and a title, but nothing that can be verified. Reference #17 links to an NY Times article, which is paywalled. In short, it should be sufficient to cite sources that agree with the positions of the Institute, not the institute itself (by name). Steerpike5800 (talk) 00:26, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

If you want to change the rules, Wikipedia talk:No original research is the right place. Not here.

they don't mention Breakthrough Then they should be deleted. Which ones are those?

can't be validated because they are references to a book That is not a problem. Books are fine as a source.

which is paywalled Also not a problem. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:38, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

I want to focus on my comment "The matter at hand here is that the Wikipedia article is saying "Environmental scientists and academics have criticized Breakthrough's environmental positions". ". The focus here is on the environmental positions, not on Breakthrough. It is not 'original research' to demonstrate that there is support for these 'environmental positions' among Environmental scientists and academics. Steerpike5800 (talk) 17:07, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

In other words, you close your eyes and hope that the rules go away because you cannot see them. --Hob Gadling (talk) 17:16, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

The subject of the sentence is 'environmental positions', not the organization. You are using rules to protect a clearly biased 'take down' article. This needs to get reviewed by others. Several posters have suggested the simple inclusion of 'many' as a solution. I've suggested 'Traditional' or 'mainstream'.

How about another approach; it shows clear bias in the article that the statement in question ('environmental scientists ... have criticized ...') is present in the introductory paragraph. The introductory paragraph says virtually nothing about the institute itself then immediately launches into a criticism. What if we simply move that statement into the existing 'Criticism' section? Steerpike5800 (talk) 04:07, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

WP:CSECTION. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:12, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

So you want it both ways - you want to retain criticism in the 'head', and you want to retain the stand-alone 'Criticism' section, which contradicts the very guideline you are quoting.

I'm not suggesting we do away with the criticism, I'm suggesting we take it out of the 'head' where it is given disproportionate prominence in the article. The 'head' should give a broader introduction to the purpose of the Institute.

From that WP page (CSECTION):

"In most cases separate sections devoted to criticism, controversies, or the like should be avoided in an article because these sections call undue attention to negative viewpoints.

Avoid sections and articles focusing on criticisms or controversies

Often it is best to integrate the negative criticism into the article: negative information is woven throughout the article in the appropriate topical sections. The article does not have a dedicated "Criticism" section."

The article DOES have a dedicated Criticism section already, and I'm suggesting we move the critical statement out of the 'head' and into that criticism section to make the 'head' section less biased. But Wikipedia encourages criticism to be 'woven throughout the article', which this article already has - so that suggests we should do away with the 'criticism' section. It would seem you are defending both approaches - criticism woven into the article AND a dedicated Criticism section (not to mention, overwhelmingly critical content in the 'publications' section - with references to 'military industrial complex' and 'social justice' - which are way out of scope for a critique of their publications). Steerpike5800 (talk) 21:31, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

The introduction has the function of summarizing the article, so it should also contain an point of the criticism section. WP:CSECTION is hardly applicable in this case, as in many other articles that do contain criticism and controversies sections. JoaquimCebuano (talk) 23:07, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Ah, so cite the WP:CSECTION rule to justify not making a change, then ignore it when it's not convenient (and claim that WP rules don't actually apply in reality - when convenient to support the narrative, of course). One way or another, we need to get a more balanced article so you can't keep throwing up arbitrary roadblocks. Either move the criticism, or agree to improvements to the first paragraph (as discussed below) by removing the irrelevant references to "US Economic Growth" and "urbanization". Steerpike5800 (talk) 01:32, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

It wasnt me that brought CSECTION in, so its not for me to justify it. Its a bare fact that this isnt an universally aplicable principle, it is at most a recommendation. The introduction section has as porpuse to summarize the article, as stated in WP:LEAD

The lead should stand on its own as a concise overview of the article's topic. It should identify the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies.

JoaquimCebuano (talk) 04:02, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

you want to retain the stand-alone 'Criticism' section No, I don't. The criticisms should be spread over the article instead of ghettoed in a single section. But resisting the whitewashing action of deletion in the lede is more urgent. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:25, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

The current head content is not a good summary of the institute's stated goals. And while I don't think we should re-write article content based on existing citations, we could better summarize the existing citations and thus retain them as a starting point, then expand the content and provide additional or replacement citations.

The head states this: "The institute advocates for an embrace of modernization, technological development, and increasing U.S. economic growth, usually through a combination of nuclear power and urbanization". This is not reflective of the content of the citations provided (those that I can read - the Orion archive and the Time article). Nowhere is 'urbanization' stressed as a primary solution, nor even mentioned. And why is 'increasing U.S. economic growth' stated as something the institute is advocating for? If anything, it should simply be 'economic growth', not US specific, but more to the point - it's not a primary focus of the institute.

It's not clear to me why we can't use the statement from the Institute's own website - "The Breakthrough Institute is a global research center that identifies and promotes technological solutions to environmental and human development challenges." It is a primary source but it is not in the least bit contradicted by the two citations I read - in other words, the exact same citations could be used to validate the statement; it is no less a reflection of the citations than the current statement. Steerpike5800 (talk) 04:48, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

I moved this section. See WP:BOTTOMPOST. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:12, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

It's not clear to me why we can't use the statement from the Institute's own website

WP:SELFPUBLISH JoaquimCebuano (talk) 19:36, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

OK, how about a head statement as follows: "The Institute advocates for an embrace of modernization and technological development (including nuclear power and carbon capture) in order to address environmental challenges." The current published statement makes no reference to the fact that the Institute exists to solve environmental challenges - it just states that they support growth and believe in nuclear power - a focus on negatives and a deliberate attempt to avoid their primary goal. The citations already provided (Orion and Time) fully support this re-wording (Orion: "In attempting to solve these problems, we ..."; Time: "If we're smart, this approach might be the new way to attack climate change: ..."). Steerpike5800 (talk) 21:08, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

I undid my previous commment, as i didnt understood your proposal. I think we could use

"The institute advocates for an embrace of modernization, technological development, and increasing U.S. economic growth, usually through a combination of nuclear power and urbanization + , in order to address environmental challenges"

JoaquimCebuano (talk) 23:11, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Please explain where you are getting 'U.S. Economic Growth' from, and also, 'urbanization'. These are not the stated goals of the institute, and are not backed up by the references. This was raised last year by user 'Quant Analysist' in 2022, seen in the first 'talk' section above. Quoting Quant Analyst above: "what the institute "advocates for" needs to be backed up by evidence of statements from the institute (not dissenting journalistic opinion). The Orion article cited does not mention "urbanization" or "economic growth". These terms should be backed up by proper sources or else removed. " He (Quant Analyst) is saying exactly what I'm saying and he makes perfect sense. Please explain how you justify retaining 'urbanization' and 'growth'. Steerpike5800 (talk) 01:17, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

The climate pragmatism report was written by the institute. In the Times commentary, it mentions the report emphasis on the "the iron law of climate policy", and goes on to say that what follows from it is that "Any climate policy that is viewed as obstructing economic progress will fail — especially in large developing countries that are counting on rapid economic growth to lift citizens out of poverty". The pragmatic strategy imply the conciliation of growth and climate action. JoaquimCebuano (talk) 03:58, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

I'm sure there's a WP rule or guide somewhere against 'implying' a conclusion.

Is the US a 'large developing country'? if not, why is there a reference to 'US Economic Growth'? The article you reference focuses on developing economies ("Since they risked slowing economic growth in many emerging economies, efforts to extend the Kyoto-style UNFCCC framework to developing nations predictably deadlocked as well").

Further - the Institute, and the Times article, are accepting as a simple reality that NOT taking into account economic growth is going to cause climate policies to fail. That does not translate to 'Economic Growth' being a primary driving force for the Institute. The reference to Economic Growth (US or otherwise) is simply out of place and inappropriate in the head article.

In a similar manner, 'Urbanization' is not a stated goal of the Institute. Urbanization is not mentioned in the Time Article nor the Orion article, nor by the Institute itself. The Institute does take the position that human development has been a good thing, but only to defend it against the 'degrowth' agenda from some environmentalists ("Where ecotheologians suggest that the unintended consequences of human development might be avoidable, proponents of modernization view them as inevitable, and positive as often as negative."). That's hardly justifying the use of 'urbanization' as being a primary means of solving the climate problem. We need to remove 'Urbanization' from the 'head'. I again propose to replace the current wording with " "The Institute advocates for an embrace of modernization and technological development (including nuclear power and carbon capture) in order to address environmental challenges."" Steerpike5800 (talk) 21:37, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

Their manifesto sez Urbanization, agricultural intensification, nuclear power, aquaculture, and desalination are all processes with a demonstrated potential to reduce human demands on the environment, allowing more room for non-human species William M. Connolley (talk) 14:07, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

I originally suggested we use BTI's own statement as the best summary of their position, but user JoaquimCebuano invoked WP:SELFPUBLISH as a barrier. So if we have to rely on independent sources, we can't justify 'urbanization' (reviewers rightly focus on more appropriate items). However, if we can use their own manifesto as a reference, then this works.

They mention 'urbanization' as a member of a list of items that together can 'reduce human demands on the environment'. As long as it is presented in that context, it makes sense and reflects their goals. If we can include the original list of items together, and retain the important fact that it is to 'Reduce human demands on the environment and provide more room for non-human species', I'm good with that. Numerous 'other' elements of their statement (Nuclear Power, desalination, etc) are picked up by the reviewers in the citations, so focusing only on 'urbanization' and dropping the context of 'reducing human demands' presents a false impression.

I would propose the following re-wording, based on the above discussion:

"The Institute advocates for an embrace of modernization and technological development (including nuclear power and carbon capture) in order to address environmental challenges. Their Ecomodernist Manifesto (citation) claims that Urbanization, agricultural intensification, nuclear power, aquaculture, and desalination are all processes with a demonstrated potential to reduce human demands on the environment, allowing more room for non-human species. "

We can either cite the economist manifesto right after its use above, or simply add it to the existing list of citations at the end of the paragraph. Steerpike5800 (talk) 15:41, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

I published what I wrote above (with minor changes) but you changed 'demonstrated potential' to 'alleged potential'. Since we are talking about what the Institute believes, I think it's appropriate to say 'demonstrated' but since you are going to fight about it, I'll agree to simply remove 'demonstrated' but also to remove 'alleged'. The statement is already 'conditional' by virtue of opening the sentence with 'Proposing' - it's what they propose, not a statement of fact. Steerpike5800 (talk) 16:28, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

If it is what the Institute believes, then its not 'demonstrated', demonstration is public consensus, there is no consensus that 'agricultural intensification' would be any better for the environment, quite the contrary, this goes against most environmental sciences. So it is 'alleged'. JoaquimCebuano (talk) 17:15, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

According to the institutes websites about page, used as source in this article (is ones own web profile a reputable source?), it was founded in 2007. However, the institute is already mentioned in a 2005 article form the NYT. Curiously, reading Mr. Shellenbergers page on the institutes website one stumbles over an even earlier date, 2003. So we got three different dates, each used for a different wiki article. It doesn't help that on this very page there are two different dates one in the info box, the other in the header, both provided by the very same source. Might be good to look into making it consistent across all three pages and, especially, to at least have consistency within an article. I will start this topic for the other two pages as well.

Kind regards, 178.115.75.53 (talk) 03:10, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Interesting point. By 2004 it had the website (https://web.archive.org/web/20040402061617/https://thebreakthrough.org/). Although at that point the "about" page is entirely about "Michael Shellenbergers" (sic) William M. Connolley (talk) 09:37, 5 February 2024 (UTC)