Talk:Climate change/Archive 94

Some effects of climate change: Wildfire intensified by heat and drought, bleaching of coral caused by marine heatwaves, and worsening droughts compromising water supplies.

Please vote below whether you Support or Oppose having the effects collage (shown on the right) restored to the lead, as it was here before being edited out. The argument for cutting it was simply "too many images in the lead". Arguments for restoring it are that we don't have a visual presentation of effects until much later, plus the lead is long and is followed by a definitions section that does not have images, so I don't know that having lots of images in the lead is a problem. As an introductory article visuals are important. Efbrazil (talk) 20:39, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

• Support keeping in it. The balance between graphs (technical & scary) and images (accessible) is worse than it was previously. I'm pretty sure I wouldn't get consensus for it, but if we want to be closer to normal practice with the number of figures in the lead, I would skip the very first one. (minor Point of order, we don't vote, but !vote on Wikipedia, as these things are still discussions even with bolded declarations). —Femke 🐦 (talk) 20:43, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
• Mild support. As overflow into the non-image-bearing /*Terminology*/ section does not seem to bother most other editors, it's fine to replace the image collage in the lead (but not lower in the article, where subsections under /*Impacts*/ already contain two five-image image collages that include a wildfire, coral and drought). —RCraig09 (talk) 21:54, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
• Neutral The collage was fine where it was before deletion, showing impacts in chapter Impacts. The current 2 graphs in the lead show temperature change. What the lead of Climate Change should show is a climate change graph. For example: What are the climate changes, pre-industrial versus current of Tokyo, Delhi or Shanghai? Uwappa (talk) 18 February 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose. Not surprisingly, I am opposed to restoring it (as I was the one who took it out in the first place). I don't understand why this article should need 5 images in the lead when other featured articles on Wikipedia manage to stick closer to the convention of having just one representative image (or an image collage of 4). Couldn't we devise an image collage of 4, just like at effects of climate change on agriculture? It could be a mixture of graphs and images, but in a 2 x 2 collage.
  If people insist that the 3-image collage of effects need to be in the lead, can we take another closer look if the choice of images is really ideal? Each of the images shown also has other causes, not just climate change. So I think it's hard to explain it all with the short caption. I especially find the coral bleaching image problematic, as coral bleaching has a range of causes (also nutrient pollution). Plus, it only speaks to those people who have ever seen colourful corals in real life (like scuba divers, or locals) or in movies... One could argue that a more important image on effects would be one showing an extreme weather event, like a flood from an intensified hurricane, or a photo showing a heatwave.
  By the way, the 4 image collage at effects of climate change is also not the best; I am not sure about the one showing an abandoned village in Mali; again, there could be all sorts of causes for that. I think the causal link is not clear. Also it says there "bleached coral caused by ocean acidification and heating" which I think is unclear and possibly wrong (do we have evidence that the ocean acidification is already now contributing to coral bleaching?) EMsmile (talk) 11:11, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

  I'm very happy to re-look at the 3 images in a separate discussion. I think this should ideally be a 4-image collage; I believe one image may have been removed due to something like copyright, and we started out with four.

  I don't think a 4-image collage with a graph can be made accessible. The text would not be readable for a reasonable size of a 4-image collage. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 18:55, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

  Like Femke says, we do not want charts and graphs shrunk down so the content is not longer visible in thumbnail view. A lot of work has gone into making the charts and graphs readable in thumbnail and smartphone views. Regarding other points raised above:

  1. There are major benefits to having all the images, and the only drawback seems to be "it's not conventional". We should care about the user experience, not what's conventional.
  2. The vast majority of our users are on smartphone, and for them whether the content is a collage or separate images makes no difference, as the images are shown the same way. The articles "effects of climate change" and "effects of climate change on agriculture" will have 4 or 5 images in the lead for the vast majority of our users.
  3. Whether the images should be changed is really a separate discussion like Femke says. Briefly, heatwaves, hurricanes, and floods all happened before climate change of course, so they have the same issue you are raising with coral. Heatwaves are hard to show visually. Hurricanes and climate change is a very mixed story we shouldn't lead with. Floods are a serious issue and could be added in place of drought or fire. Coral I would want to keep as it is likely the ecosystem being most damaged by climate change currently and the science shows that virtually all coral reefs are vulnerable this century to destruction by the combination of temperature change and acification.
  4. What is in the Effects of Climate Change collage should be discussed on the talk page there.

  Efbrazil (talk) 18:58, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

Support Likely obvious as I brought this forward for discussion. I just don't see any harm in having more images in the lead, and I see major benefits in having a visual presentation of effects early on. Efbrazil (talk) 18:41, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

For comparison: this is the image collage used at effects of climate change: Some climate change effects: wildfire caused by heat and dryness, bleached coral caused by ocean acidification and heating, environmental migration caused by desertification, and coastal flooding caused by storms and sea level rise.

As per request above I am starting a new section to discuss and revisit the choice of images for the effects in the lead. I think we should have a 2 x 2 collage and maybe - to make our lives easier and for efficiency reasons - simply take the same collage as is used at effects of climate change (or make them the same at the end of the discussion). I copy my concerns about the current group of 3 from above: EMsmile (talk) 23:59, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

Each of the images shown also has other causes, not just climate change. So I think it's hard to explain it all with the short caption. I especially find the coral bleaching image problematic, as coral bleaching has a range of causes (also nutrient pollution). Plus, it only speaks to those people who have ever seen colourful corals in real life (like scuba divers, or locals) or in movies... One could argue that a more important image on effects would be one showing an extreme weather event, like a flood from an intensified hurricane, or a photo showing a heatwave.

By the way, the 4 image collage at effects of climate change is also not the best; I am not sure about the one showing an abandoned village in Mali; again, there could be all sorts of causes for that. I think the causal link is not clear. Also it says there "bleached coral caused by ocean acidification and heating" which I think is unclear and possibly wrong (do we have evidence that the ocean acidification is already now contributing to coral bleaching?) - I could put this on the talk page of effects of climate change but it might be more efficient to discuss both issues together here, and to use the same 4 images and caption in both articles. EMsmile (talk) 23:59, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

Also copied from above is Femke's reply "I'm very happy to re-look at the 3 images in a separate discussion. I think this should ideally be a 4-image collage; I believe one image may have been removed due to something like copyright, and we started out with four" EMsmile (talk) 23:59, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

Also copied from above is Efbrazil's reply: "Briefly, heatwaves, hurricanes, and floods all happened before climate change of course, so they have the same issue you are raising with coral. Heatwaves are hard to show visually. Hurricanes and climate change is a very mixed story we shouldn't lead with. Floods are a serious issue and could be added in place of drought or fire. Coral I would want to keep as it is likely the ecosystem being most damaged by climate change currently and the science shows that virtually all coral reefs are vulnerable this century to destruction by the combination of temperature change and acidification." EMsmile (talk) 23:59, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

The image collage does not show climate change. It shows effects of climate change, which is fine for the lead of Effects_of_climate_change.

The current 2 graphs show change of temperature, global warming. Neither shows temperatures since 1850.

Revolutionary idea: The lead of climate change should show... an image that depicts climate change, differences between a pre-industrial climate and its current version. Yes I know, it is a big step. At the moment Climograph at the English Wikipedia does not yet have graphs such as

Take those climate graphs one step further, create an original image that shows climate change:

What are the climate changes?

• Which months are drier?
• Which are wetter?
• Which months are hotter?
• Which are cooler?

Jumping 2 steps forward: Show the impact with background colours. Which months are moving into a 'red' danger zone, agriculture not possible anymore? Which months are moving towards green? Uwappa (talk) 08:45, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

The current lead images crystalize the issue of hotter temperatures, their location, and their cause. The effects collage then shows some effects of those hotter temperatures, which include droughts and fire and ecosystem damage. I'm not sure how it can be said the current lead images don't focus on climate change.

This is an introductory article and the lead in particular should be targeted at a middle school level of education. I don't support going to a more confusing, graduate level set of images.

In general, the only changes I think could make sense here are updating the effects collage. Maybe somebody could make a proposal with updated images that include an image on storm intensification, maybe from the 2022 Pakistan floods. Efbrazil (talk) 17:31, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

Impact section has 4 subsections:

5.1 Environmental effects

5.2 Tipping points and long-term impacts

5.3 Nature and wildlife

5.4 Humans

Maybe we can have an image for each. For tipping points, we can put an image representing one of the tipping points likely before 2C (in dark red) here . The images suggested by EMsmile might already cover all 4 subsections. Bogazicili (talk) 22:09, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

Efbrazil, how current lead images don't focus on climate change? It is the difference between temperature change and climate change.

• 
  one temperature
• 
  temperature change

• 
  one climate
• 
  climate change

Uwappa (talk) 09:37, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Temperature is a major part of climate. Climate involves many other things too numerous to capture in one or two images or charts, which is why you have a "?" graphic above. Also, after a renaming/move a few years ago, "global warming" redirects here, so temperature is probably the most important aspect of climate change. —RCraig09 (talk) 15:43, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Seconding what Craig said. Also, I'm not sure what you are expecting people to learn from looking at the "one climate" image. I don't see a monthly breakdown as interesting. For showing precipitation changes, the soil moisture map that is later in the article works better, as precipitation changes will be a highly localized phenomena. That image is unfortunately a bit too technical for the lead I think, as it shows standard deviations of moisture change and is a projection at 2 C. We want to keep the lead squarely focused on the basics. Efbrazil (talk) 19:05, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

What I expect people to learn from looking at a Thermopluviogram (or any Climograph)?

Two variables are important for a climate:

1. temperature (thermo)
2. rain (pluvio).

Two variables is a big mental step from: only one variable matters for a climate and that is temperature.

The question mark: What would the big brother of a thermopluviogram look like, a climate change diagram showing long term changes in temperature and precipitation? What would your design be for a simple diagram that suits the lead of climate change?

Alternative: a 'precipitation change over the past 50 years' globe, similar to that complements .

Suggestion: swap green for blue, the colour of water. Uwappa (talk) 20:36, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Uwappa: I don't think you are convincing anybody here on the thermopluviogram or any other highly technical type of graph. I'm not that keen on another graph in the lead, but the precipitation change over 50 years is quite nice. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 20:48, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

I think that consensus here over the years is to resist foundational changes in how things are charted. Warming stripes were resisted because they were new and too simplistic; conversely, climograms are resisted because they're new and techy (and describe only two dimensions of climate change rather than one—not much of an improvement). I'm afraid we have to be ~conventional in our communication, especially in high-level articles, mostly because our audience is lay people who are not eager to learn new charting methods. —RCraig09 (talk) 04:34, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

I am not suggesting a thermometer, thermopluviogram or any highly technical graph. Here is a rephrase of the question:

• 
  one temperature
• 
  temperature change

• 
  one climate
• 
  climate change

Uwappa (talk) 08:05, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

Two possible answers to the question "What would a climate change diagram look like":

• 
  Four periods of each 30 years. Each period is hotter and drier than the previous, with the exception of 1941-1970 which was hotter but drier.
• 
  Climate change in Paris 1881-2000 by month. All months are hotter. Most months are wetter, but summer months June and August are drier.

Suggestion: zoom out. These are diagrams for just one city. What would a diagram look like for a country, a continent, earth? My answer: same style of diagrams can be used, just feed them with other data. Uwappa (talk) 08:10, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Talking of graphs and charting I'm minded to include this (from NOAA) to introduce a long term context. What do you think?

https://www.climate.gov/media/11332 Lukewarmbeer (talk) 07:52, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

That's from here BTW Lukewarmbeer (talk) 07:54, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

Extremely long time frames like the one you linked to are more likely to be confusing to a lay audience, as they could make it appear that climate change is no big deal in the grand sweep of planetary history. What's important about climate change is how it relates to life on Earth today (including us), not how it relates to our planetary history of solar, atmospheric, and geological processes.

I think the best "long" time frame to add would be from when modern humans evolved, which is about 300K years ago. Ideally the smoothing would be a 20 year interval, to match the IPCC definition of climate. We have this high resolution data from the last 2K years, maybe it could be extended back further. The trouble is that data sets going back further are less reliable and don't have annualized data. Efbrazil (talk) 18:48, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure providing a long time frame for context is going to mislead anyone.

Can you help me understand why that would be the case. Lukewarmbeer (talk) 17:51, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Current global warming, which is "only" 1.4+ °C in comparison, looks dwarfed by changes millions of years ago. This visual juxtaposition gives layman viewers the impression the current global warming is trivial, which it's not. —RCraig09 (talk) 18:00, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Well said. I'd also point out that current warming is happening on a time scale that those older charts do not include, as they smooth data over time periods of thousands to millions of years. If you honor that smoothing function, current warming wouldn't show up at all.

Also, the impacts of climate change are going to be felt by life on Earth today, so what's relevant is the time period that life on Earth evolved to live in. Data prior to a few million years back may be interesting in an academic sense, but it's irrelevant to the concerns of life on Earth today. Efbrazil (talk) 19:54, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

I understand. I'll have a more thorough look at our section

Temperature records prior to global warming

and Main articles: Climate variability and change; Temperature record of the last 2,000 years; and Paleoclimatology

and see how these articles are fitting together and come back. Lukewarmbeer (talk) 21:58, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

I noticed that there are quite a few of these notifications in the list of sources now: "Harv warning: There is no link pointing to this citation. The anchor is named CITEREFThe_Guardian,_26_January2015." (I can't remember now if one needs to have a script installed to see this Harv warnings or if they're always there). Can someone, or shall I, remove those particular sources now? I assume they are "left overs" when sentences were removed. EMsmile (talk) 10:39, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

I've used the readability tool to spot difficult to read sentences in the lead. This one caught my eye: Strategies to phase out fossil fuels involve conserving energy, generating clean and sustainable electricity, and using electricity to power transportation, heat buildings, and operate industrial facilities. I have simplified it to this but the score is still low: Strategies to phase out fossil fuels include conserving energy, generating sustainable electricity, and switching to using electricity as an energy source.. Better to go back to how it was, or try again with some simpler words?

But I didn't like how the transport example was given, as it's Global North focused. The aim is to go from cars with combustion engines to EVs, but the aim is not to go from bicycles to EVs. The example of "heating buildings" is also Global North focused. So I think it's better to not have those three examples at all.

Just for fun, I asked Chat GPT how it would simplify the sentence and it came up with something similar to my proposal: The plan to replace fossil fuels includes saving energy, creating clean power sources, and using electricity for transportation, heating, and industry.. I like that one actually. EMsmile (talk) 12:19, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

I undid your last 2 edits to the lead. Any lead changes require consensus here first.

I agree with trying to simplify the text, but I disagree with removing content as a way to resolve the issue. It is important to enumerate what electrification requires. Perhaps the text could be split into 2 sentences instead, like this:

Strategies to phase out fossil fuels involve conserving energy and powering systems with sustainably generated electricity. Electricity must replace fossil fuels for powering transportation, heating buildings, and operating industrial facilities. Efbrazil (talk) 18:32, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

I agree with Efbrazil. Removing content for purposes of simplification—especially when guided by a sage as circumspect and wise as Chat GPT—is another example of elevating form over substance. We should avoid that. —RCraig09 (talk) 20:25, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Thank you, Efbrazil, for being open to changing that sentence. Sorry that I made the change before discussing it on the talk page first. Breaking the sentence in two could work. Although this is not easy to read either: "powering systems with sustainably generated electricity". The second sentence is good although I am not sure about the word "must". Should it be rather like this?: "Electricity can replace fossil fuels..." or "Electricity should replace fossil fuels...". EMsmile (talk) 21:37, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

As to the remark by RCraig09, well Chat-GPT is a tool like any other tool. If it gives a good suggestion then why not consider its merits and take inspiration from it? I see nothing wrong with it. Eventually, it will likely replace many of us knowledge workers and/or help us enormously with making our texts more reader friendly. You'll see. The proposal by Chat-GPT was not bad: The plan to replace fossil fuels includes saving energy, creating clean power sources, and using electricity for transportation, heating, and industry.. Quite to the point, really. (what this means regarding copyright is another question, i.e. are the outputs of chat-GPT under copyright or not... ) EMsmile (talk) 21:37, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

must --> should works for me, and I see your point on the first sentence. How about this:

Transitioning away from fossil fuels requires conserving energy and using sustainably generated electricity. Electricity should replace fossil fuels for powering transportation, heating buildings, and operating industrial facilities.

Reasoning:

• People had complained about "phase out" before, and saying "transitioning away" is maybe better. It allows for minor use cases for fossil fuels provided they are offset.
• We say power in the next sentence, so simplified to just say "using" in the first sentence, which lowers the word count a fair bit

Efbrazil (talk) 21:59, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

I like your proposal. Some minor further points:

• Would "transitioning away" still be hyperlinked to fossil fuel phase-out? I think it should.
• Is it a stylistic problem that the sentence ends with "electricity" and the next one starts with the same word? Or not a problem.
• Could we simplify it to "powering transportation, heating, and industry"? Reasoning: what else would you heat than buildings. So "buildings" is superfluous. "Operating industrial facilities" sounds odd in my ears. If anything it's about "industrial processes". But simply "industry" might do the trick?
• (but I am also fine with your proposal, don't want to chew up too much of your time.) EMsmile (talk) 22:09, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Even simpler alternative:

Fossil fuels can be phased out by conserving energy and switching to sustainable electricity. Uwappa (talk) 10:59, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

Mostly that first sentence works for me Uwappa, but I don't like removing "generated" from "Sustainably generated electricity". Having it in there helps to clarify what makes the electricity sustainable.

As for the second sentence, replying to EMsmile:

• Issue resolved by taking Uwappa's text
• We can say "this electricity" to begin the second sentence, to draw the connection more tightly.
• Heating and powering are actions, industry is not an action, so I don't like shortening the text too much there. I think it is good to have a 2 word phase, with "ing" followed by the thing. We could go with "generating heat", but I think "heating buildings" is more descriptive and hits the largest issue there. We can replace "operating industrial facilities" with "running industrial processes", which I think is a bit more to the point and in line with your suggestion. So maybe "powering transportation, heating buildings, and running industrial processes".
• No worries, best to get it right!

Finally, I think it is best to replace the judgy "should" in the second sentence and instead say "can", as we do in the first sentence.

So maybe this:

Fossil fuels can be phased out by conserving energy and switching to sustainably generated electricity. This electricity can replace fossil fuels for powering transportation, heating buildings, and running industrial processes. Efbrazil (talk) 16:02, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

It seems like announcing the obvious that electricity needs to be generated. How about a link to Low-carbon_electricity, merging the 2 sentences and provide links to use of electricity:

Fossil fuels can be phased out by conserving energy and switching to low-carbon electricity for transport, heat and industrial processes. Uwappa (talk) 16:45, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

We need low-carbon electricity for everything, including what we are currently powering with electricity. The second sentence is talking about stuff that still needs to be electrified. Merging the sentences loses that idea.

While it may be obvious that electricity needs to be generated, it's not obvious what sustainable electricity is. In the age of green washing everything is labeled as sustainable. The key point is that how the electricity is generated is what makes it sustainable- pointing to that connects the dots for people just being inttroduced to climate change, which is who this article is targeted at. Consider the middle schooler, that's our primary audience here.

Can you live with what I suggested above? Efbrazil (talk) 18:44, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I think I'll survive this and live to tell the tale. Uwappa (talk) 18:47, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

What I was hoping for:

• the hyperlink to low-carbon electricity targets the readers that like to know more, while those who already know need not follow that link.
• the word switching makes it clear that it is a change. It can be a change from 'dirty' electricity or from fossil fuels.
• the hyperlinks to electric vehicles, electrical heating and electrical industry processes provide alternatives for those who would consider switching.

Uwappa (talk) 19:02, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

Thanks! We're getting close:

• In terms of wording, "sustainably generated electricity" points people at what needs to change, while "low-carbon electricity" doesn't point anywhere and is confusing, as it seems it should be no-carbon electricity for phase-out. In terms of links, I think it's OK to link to either "Sustainable energy" or "Low-carbon electricity", but I think the sustainable energy is the article in better shape.
• Switching is fine, but what isn't good is scoping the switch too narrowly. All electricity needs to be switched over, not just electricity used in the cases mentioned.
• In terms of hyperlinks, electric vehicles is good. I don't know about Electric heating- that's a general topic, and we're talking buildings in specific, so maybe heat pumps should be called out in specific? There is no topic on "electrical industry processes", but we do have "Green industrial policy", so we could use that.

I added those links in down below, but I'm a bit concerned that there's too much linking going on now. Maybe it's fine?

Fossil fuels can be phased out by conserving energy and switching to sustainably generated electricity. This electricity can replace fossil fuels for powering transportation, heating buildings, and running industrial processes. Efbrazil (talk) 20:57, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

Yes, we are getting close. Yes, it's a lot of links, so be it. I think it's fine. Yes, the links point people at what needs to change. Good!

• I agree. "sustainably generated electricity" is a better link text, although it is a bit of a mismatch with the link target, Sustainable_energy.
• The switch should be broader than just electricity, from fossil to sustainable in general.
• The quality of the Low-carbon_electricity article is a separate issue.
• I'm not sure about electric heating as the prime solution for heating buildings. It might be when there is plenty of low carbon electricity available. I expect other methods to be more energy efficient, such as Ground_source_heat_pump, Solar_thermal_collector and reusing industry heat waste for District_heating.

Suggested fine-tuning:

Fossil fuels can be phased out by conserving energy and switching to sustainable energy. Low-carbon electricity can replace fossil fuels for powering transportation, heating buildings, and running industrial processes. Uwappa (talk) 10:32, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

I still don't like saying "low-carbon electricity" or "sustainable energy". Sustainable energy frequently omits nuclear, and natural gas is often advertised as "low-carbon", because the carbon output is much less than coal or oil. Despite that, generating electricity from natural gas is not on the pathway to phase out. We need to be more clear here about electricity being generated without fossil fuels.

A the risk of scope creep, I looked at the rest of the paragraph and think our work here would be better if we included the next sentence as well, since it enumates what energy sources we are talking about. It currently reads "The electricity supply can be made cleaner and more plentiful by vastly increasing the deployment of wind, and solar power, alongside other forms of renewable energy and nuclear power."

That sentence is hard to parse and easy to tighten up. "cleaner and more plentiful" should just be "clean" as that's the point. "more plentiful" is both inaccurate and besides the point, as the idea is to replace fossil fuel generated electricity. It's also a confusing read as the sequencing requires a lot of parsing and commas. It's more natural to begin with nuclear and then to enumerate renewable energy sources. It's also odd we are leaving out hydroelectric power. It also makes sense to enumerate energy sources first, then talk secondly about using that energy to electrify transportation and so forth. So, here is an updated proposal:

Fossil fuels can be phased out by conserving energy and switching to carbon-free energy. Carbon-free energy sources include nuclear power and renewable energy sources like wind, hydroelectric, and solar power. Cleanly generated electricity can replace fossil fuels for powering transportation, heating buildings, and running industrial processes. Carbon can also be removed from the atmosphere, for instance by increasing forest cover and farming with methods that capture carbon in soil. Efbrazil (talk) 21:03, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

Hmm, I think the list of renewable sources is too detailed here and will open a new can of worms. I suggest to leave those details on other pages.

I think the idea is wider than replacing fossil fuel generated electricity: replace fossil generated energy. E.g. replace diesel and petrol in cars.

Bold suggestion for the next sentence: Just remove it. Uwappa (talk) 06:43, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

I really like the friendly, collaborative tone that you two have displayed here over the weekend! This is what makes Wikipedia editing fun. I can see some clear improvements. For greater clarity I have created a table to show a side-by-side comparison (and will add some comments just now):

My comments:

• I'd like to run the readability tool over this new text to see if the sentence is now no longer in bright red as it was before. But there is no readability tool for talk pages. Could use Web-FX instead or just wait until the new text is in the live article, and re-check then. The first sentence uses passive voice which always lowers the score a bit.
• I don't understand where "carbon-free energy" came from all of a sudden? We don't even have a Wikipedia article for it? Wouldn't low-carbon electricity be better? I doubt that any electricity could ever be completely carbon free.
• I see hydroelectric appearing in the list which wasn't there before (was it not there before on purpose?). Firstly, I know that technology more under the term "hydro power" (the other two also use "power"). Secondly was it perhaps not in the list to start with due to the sustainability issues that come from large dams? I mean we don't need to provide a comprehensive list here, we also don't mention tidal energy or geothermal. Perhaps we just limit to to wind and solar as those are the two that most people are familiar with?
• Should the last sentence wikilink to carbon dioxide removal rather than Carbon sequestration behind "removed from the atmosphere"? (I've done a bit of work on those two articles lately; I find the one on Carbon sequestration really could do with a bit more brain power and improvements).
• I agree with your take that the wording "can be made cleaner and more plentiful" is not worth keeping. "More plentiful" sounds very odd, now that you pointed it out. EMsmile (talk) 23:23, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

• Regarding carbon-free energy vs low-carbon, please see my comment dated 21:03, 17 March 2024 (UTC). I am fine with different phrasing as well (eg clean energy), but low-carbon and sustainable both miss the mark.
• Hydro leads nuclear, solar, and wind at present, we shouldn't leave it out. Hydroelectricity is the article we have on the topic, but I'm fine with hydropower as well.
• As for the last sentence, begin a new section if you want to crack that open. It can be edited separately. The second to last sentence I brought in here because it's integral to this edit.

Efbrazil (talk) 00:31, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your compliments EMsmile. Yes, it is a joy to cooperate with Efbrazil, as voluntary work should be. It is a please to work with someone who can focus on text improvements, aims for a clear, easy to read text.

The readability tool might work on text copied to a sandbox. Suggestion: extend the WP manual of style so editors know what to aim for.

I prefer to keep the scope as small as possible. Work on just one or two sentences at the time. That is hard enough as it is. Once those are stable, shift focus to other sentences. I expect that to be a relatively easy process once the first sentences are stable. Next time we could start with the focus on a whole paragraph.

A list of energy sources seems off topic to me in the lead of climate change. It triggers an endless debate. The list should include XYZ. No it should not because... etc. See text of 17 Mar 10:32 above for suggested text that links to a another page with energy sources. Uwappa (talk) 09:07, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

It's all good and I think we are close to being ready to make the changes to the live article. But I really think we cannot use the new term of "carbon-free energy". There is no such thing. If there was, there'd be a wikipedia article for it. Maybe we could say instead "and switching to those energy sources that have much lower CO2 emissions". Or "switching to suitable energy sources". Whichever term we use, it needs to be wikilinked to a Wikipedia article, shouldn't it? It's such a crucial sentence (in the lead!) and we can't figure out the best term to use, hmmmmm.... NB: "clean energy" redirects to "sustainable energy". And there were debates in the past to give the "sustainable energy" article another name, too. Tricky. EMsmile (talk) 13:12, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

Yes, we are close! And yes, it is a crucial sentence that must be good.

I am not sure about "no such thing as carbon-free". A simple Solar_cooker seems carbon free to me.

There may be some carbon emissions during one-time construction, but not during long term usage.

My suggestion: don't get lost in details, do not list low-carbon solutions in the intro of climate change, do not focus on clean electricity, zoom out. Stay focussed on climate change and deal with other details on other pages.

Bold new suggestion, just too easy:

"A low-carbon economy fases out fossil fuels." Uwappa (talk) 14:19, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

I looked online a fair bit, and carbon-free is the correct term to use as far as I can tell. Carbon-free or zero-carbon energy is nuclear plus renewables. Low-carbon energy is carbon-free energy plus biofuels and sometimes natural gas. In the context of phase-out, carbon-free is the correct term to use.

I also think enumerating the energy sources is a good thing. It makes it clear what we're talking about and avoids linking to an article we don't have. The list we have in the proposal is the correct list to use, as it covers all the significant carbon-free energy sources. So, in other words, I'd like to see us simply roll with the content in "Proposal to change last para of the lead". Efbrazil (talk) 15:46, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

OK, go for it! Implement the improvements and let us take it from there if needed.

Include a link to carbon free so it can become an article?

Did you have a look at Low-carbon_economy, that's economy not energy? Uwappa (talk) 16:21, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

This is the last line in the previous paragraph btw: "Limiting warming to 1.5 °C will require halving emissions by 2030 and achieving net-zero emissions by 2050.[21]" So maybe we should say something about what net zero means first or at the end of the last paragraph? Here's a good source btw: Net Zero by 2050 p. 47

So I think the last paragraph should concentrate on net-zero, not necessarily fossil fuel phase out. "plants with carbon capture, utilisation and storage (CCUS)" is not ruled out per above. Bogazicili (talk) 21:44, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

Actually, here's my suggestion. Remember that the last sentence in previous paragraph is this "Limiting warming to 1.5 °C will require halving emissions by 2030 and achieving net-zero emissions by 2050.[21]"

Achieving net zero means leaving no carbon emissions in the atmosphere. This is done by reducing emissions to a minimal level that can be sucked in and stored by nature or by other methods. Reducing emissions involves cutting fossil fuel use significantly, switching to sustainable energy, and conserving energy. It also involves increasing electrification, using carbon capture and storage methods, and utilizing hydrogen. Sustainable energy includes wind and solar power. Electrification refers to switching to electrically-powered methods, such as for transport and heating buildings. Carbon can also be removed from the atmosphere, for instance by increasing forest cover and by farming with methods that capture carbon in soil.

Bogazicili (talk) 23:32, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

Regarding the statement above that "Carbon-free or zero-carbon energy is nuclear plus renewables", this cannot be true. It takes a lot of GHG emissions to build a nuclear power plant, to mine the uranium, to transport it and so forth. Same with solar panels, they have to be made somewhere, transported, later recycled. You need to look at the whole product lifecycle, not just one phase of it (see also carbon footprint). There is no such thing as a free lunch. Do the IPCC reports talk about "carbon-free energy" anywhere? I checked the AR 6 WG 3 report and it doesn't mention that term. EMsmile (talk) 11:00, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

No, there is no "Carbon-free or zero-carbon energy". There is also no phasing out fossil fuels to 0. It looks like we all did an oversight here Talk:Climate_change/Archive_93#Reducing_energy_use?.

This is for net zero by 2050: "Coal demand declines by 90% to less than 600 Mtce in 2050, oil declines by 75% to 24 mb/d, and natural gas declines by 55% to 1 750 bcm."

Also pinging Clayoquot since she was also involved in the discussion and inserted the new wording . Clayoquot, you might be interested in this discussion. Bogazicili (talk) 11:12, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

Zero carbon or carbon-free energy refers to the operational byproduct of an energy production facility, not the embodied carbon that is part of the construction of that facility. See here for the definition on the EPA web site:

https://www.epa.gov/greeningepa/carbon-pollution-free-electricity-epa#:~:text=Carbon%20pollution%2Dfree%20electricity%20(CFE,and%20electrical%20energy%20generation%20from

If you want to talk about a carbon free construction industry and the issue of embodied carbon, that's contained in the issue of electrifying transportation and industrial processes, which the suggested consensus text also covers.

Finally, the text that we were converging on up above is not saying that all fossil fuels use must be phased out, it is going through ways that fossil fuel use can be phased out. In other words, the text is succinct and correct, and I see no reason not to proceed with it. Efbrazil (talk) 16:56, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

That EPA website calls it "Carbon pollution-free electricity (CFE)" which is slightly different. I don't think we should be pushing a little used and ill-defined term of "carbon free energy" which neither the IPCC uses, nor is there a Wikipedia article for it. The rest of the proposed wording changes seem pretty good to me. EMsmile (talk) 17:04, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

I don't see a significant difference between carbon-free and carbon pollution-free. It is problematic that we have articles on sustainable, renewable, and low-carbon, but none of them cover exactly what we need to talk about here.

Would it work for you if we amend the consensus text to remove a term, and instead just say "energy sources that do not produce carbon pollution"? That's a way to skirt the issue. So this text:

Fossil fuel use can be phased out by conserving energy and switching to energy sources that do not produce carbon pollution. These energy sources include nuclear power and renewable energy, which includes wind, hydroelectric, and solar power. Cleanly generated electricity can replace fossil fuels for powering transportation, heating buildings, and running industrial processes. Carbon can also be removed from the atmosphere, for instance by increasing forest cover and farming with methods that capture carbon in soil. Efbrazil (talk) 17:22, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

How about shifting focus away from energy towards Low-carbon_economy? Uwappa (talk) 17:40, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

That seems like jargon and indirection to me. It's best in a beginner introduction like this to be succinct and clear about what we mean in terms of change that needs to happen, not talk in terms of frameworks or pathways or jargon. Efbrazil (talk) 18:01, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

I like the 17:22, 19 March 2024 proposal of Efbrazil. I mean it's never absolutely perfect but better than what we currently have. Someone could now say we need an article on carbon pollution or that we shouldn't place nuclear power before renewables. We could also specify that the phrase "do not produce carbon pollution" refers to the "operational byproduct of an energy production facility, not the embodied carbon that is part of the construction of that facility". But that's all too much for the lead of this high level article.

At this stage, I would say thumbs up for implementing those changes. (interesting that a similar discussion took place only a few months ago, as pointed out by Bogazicili). It's a big challenge.

By the way, once we are happy with this para, we should also revisit the lead of climate change mitigation and check if the wording there matches well. EMsmile (talk) 23:13, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

Thanks Bogazicilli for the ping. Looking over the proposed changes in the table:

• I think most of our readers will have no idea what we mean by "carbon-free" and some will probably think we mean hydrogen. "Low-carbon" is a bit more widely understood but still jargon. I suggest saying what we mean: "switching to sources of energy that produce near-zero greenhouse gas emissions. These sources include..."
• To reflect projected growth rates, renewable energy sources should be mentioned before nuclear, and solar should be mentioned before hydro. The IEA net zero scenario envisions that in 2050, renewables will produce around 90% of electricity and nuclear around 5%.
• "Removed from the atmosphere" should link to Carbon dioxide removal and not carbon sequestration as the context implies anthropogenic processes. CDR is by definition anthropogenic. Most carbon sequestration is not anthropogenic.

Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 04:53, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

Clayoquot, EMsmile, and Efbrazil, I think you missed my proposed text so I moved it into the table above. I think the current text in the article and the suggestion by Efbrazil and Uwappa? are incorrect based on the IEA quote in the gray box above. Sorry, I was a bit late because I was working on other issues. Bogazicili (talk) 06:03, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

Clayoquot:

• You understandably missed the recent update that replaced "carbon-free energy" with "energy sources that do not produce carbon pollution", as requested by EMSmile. It is dated 17:22, 19 March 2024 and endorsed by emsmile down below, and I think addresses your concern.
• That's a fair point. Nuclear was mentioned first because of sentence structure, not priority. I think the best solution could be to omit mention of "renewables" as a category and just go with "These energy sources include wind, solar, hydro, and nuclear power." That also goes further in the direction of cutting jargon in favor of less words that just present the fact of the matter, which is really what we want in an introduction for middle schoolers.
• That link update is good by me, but in general we are not editing the last sentence here so that we can hopefully get to consensus.

Making those updates, that leaves us with this compromise text:

Fossil fuel use can be phased out by conserving energy and switching to energy sources that do not produce carbon pollution. These energy sources include wind, solar, hydro, and nuclear power. Cleanly generated electricity can replace fossil fuels for powering transportation, heating buildings, and running industrial processes. Carbon can also be removed from the atmosphere, for instance by increasing forest cover and farming with methods that capture carbon in soil.

Bogazicili: Please review the discussion leading to the consensus text we are working on. What you are proposing greatly lengthens the text, adds jargon, and is confusing in several places. If we're going to get to consensus it's best to focus on the text proposal we've been working on. Efbrazil (talk) 17:26, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

@Efbrazil: I read it and it's incorrect. There is no fossil fuel phase out per IEA even in a net zero by 2050 scenario. The problem is you are making suggestions without looking at sources. Bogazicili (talk) 17:31, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

I'll try to recap the discussion above that led to the current text: The text does not say "all fossil fuels must be phased out", it says "fossil fuel use can be phased out by...". In other words, we are describing the ways to stop using fossil fuels, which is the key component of net zero pathways that lead to fossil fuels being used in only residual situations. We talked about words like reduce or low-carbon, but those terms can be interpreted as saying a large amount or even the majority of fossil fuel use continues. If you have a particular suggestion you think makes the point better without adding much to overall word count please suggest it. Efbrazil (talk) 17:59, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

I like the text. It's an improvement on the current text, as it's a bit easier to read. Removing "plentiful" makes the text feel more neutral. Of the mainstream high-quality sources, the IEA is likely the most conservative wrt getting rid of combustion. The illustrative mitigation pathways in the IPCC report do have an either full or near-full phase-out of fossil fuels in the three substantative mitation scenarios (page 312, corresponding text on 309). The compromise language of phase down isn't really compatible with those scenarios. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 18:01, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

Alright, that makes me feel better, I don't like adding unverifiable text to the article. I still feel the balance is off though. IEA does mention carbon capture and storage methods, and utilizing hydrogen. Those seem more important than hydro for example. Bogazicili (talk) 18:10, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

So Bogazicili, if the words 'phase out' are the problem, I suggest to replace them by 'reduced'.

Other finetuning:

• replace the list of low-carbon energy types by a hyperlink and leave the 'can of worms' at another page.
• I would still prefer less words in the hyperlink, e.g. sustainable energy. I am not really worried about such words being too difficult for the average reader. Go and have a look where climate change scores in the top 1000 Wikipedia pages. Disconcerting.... It doesn't score at all in the top 1000. The average reader seems to use Wikipedia primarily for fancruft, TV shows, artists, sport, games. Reading serious subjects seems to be an exception.
• add a hyperlink to Low-carbon_electricity

How about:

Fossil fuel use can be reduced by conserving energy and switching to energy sources that do not produce carbon pollution. Cleanly generated electricity can replace fossil fuels for powering transportation, heating buildings, and running industrial processes. Carbon can also be removed from the atmosphere, for instance by increasing forest cover and farming with methods that capture carbon in soil. Uwappa (talk) 18:13, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

I'd also like people to think how we are connecting paragraphs. The last paragraph ends with this: "Limiting warming to 1.5 °C will require halving emissions by 2030 and achieving net-zero emissions by 2050." So we expect everyone to know what exactly net-zero is and go directly to fossil fuel phase out? Bogazicili (talk) 18:18, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

Uwappa, how about "Near or full fossil fuel phase-out can be achieved by..." Bogazicili (talk) 18:20, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

Personally, I think a 100% phase-out is impossible. I expect there will be a minimal usage of fossil fuels left. So to me the words "phase-out" are OK, meaning great reduction, but not all the way down to zero. Uwappa (talk) 18:27, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

Please keep the scope small and solve one thing at the time. This started as a simplification of just one sentence. Let us get that done first and then worry about connecting paragraphs. Uwappa (talk) 18:30, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

Phase out means to 0 to me. Fossil fuel phase-out says the same: Fossil fuel phase-out is the gradual reduction of the use and production of fossil fuels to zero (bolding is mine). Bogazicili (talk) 18:33, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

Well, if you interpret zero as a computer would do, you would be right.

In real life, it is a different story.

• If one person somewhere outback still uses coal or peat, the phase-out has failed?
• If small groups of old-timer enthusiasts still use petrol, the fase-out has failed?

A computer would say 'failed'. As a human I would say 'success'. Uwappa (talk) 18:45, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

I agree with Uwappa. For instance, we say incandescent lights are phased out all the time. Still, I would be very surprised if none remain in 2100. Phase out mean it disappears from day to day life, rather than a reduction to 0. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 18:52, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

Well, again, I was also influenced by this from IEA: "Coal demand declines by 90% to less than 600 Mtce in 2050, oil declines by 75% to 24 mb/d, and natural gas declines by 55% to 1 750 bcm. " Bogazicili (talk) 19:03, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

That sounds like good, hopeful news.

At a small scale I see the same thing happening with petrol in my own neighbourhood. A lot of people switch to electric cars, just because it is so cheap to charge batteries with solar panels. I have good hope the phase-out of fossil fuels will be faster than expected, when clean energy becomes the cheaper option. As prices of clean energy go down, the market will phase-out fossil fuels.

I think that is a bit of good news that should be reflected in the climate change article. Let us deal with that in a new talk subject. Uwappa (talk) 19:09, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

It's their 2050 projections IF net zero by 2050 happens Bogazicili (talk) 19:11, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

Let us deal with those projections in a new talk subject and refocus here on improving the few sentences in the lead.

Bogazicili, would you like to start a new subject. Propose a new text, e.g. for Climate_change#Modelling or Climate_change#Clean_energy? Uwappa (talk) 19:23, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

This is about few sentences in the lead though.

I am saying last paragraph should talk about reducing emissions or "Near or full fossil fuel phase-out can be achieved by..." because IEA says: By 2050, unabated fossil fuels for energy uses account for just 5% of total energy supply: adding fossil fuels used with CCUS and for non-energy uses raises this to slightly less than 20%.

About 20% is not insignificant. You can't talk about fossil fuel phase out without any qualification in the lead. Bogazicili (talk) 19:29, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

Well, the quantification does not need to be in the lead of climate change. It can be down in some chapter or at the main page Fossil_fuel_phase-out.

My preference would be to keep the lead as short as possible and keep it focussed on climate change. Uwappa (talk) 19:38, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

Then why even mention fossil fuel phase out in the lead? Explain what net-zero is and talk about how to reduce emissions. Bogazicili (talk) 19:39, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

I agree. My own preference would be to take it out of the lead. But taking things out is surprisingly hard, probably too hard. Uwappa (talk) 19:42, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

In December 2023, the last paragraph started with "Reducing emissions" . Bogazicili (talk) 19:46, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

Bold suggestion: Let us ditch the whole last paragraph of the lead. Uwappa (talk) 19:49, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

4th paragraph ends with net-zero by 2050 goal. 5th paragraph should explain the realistic pathway to that goal. Bogazicili (talk) 19:54, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

I can't see why that need to be in the lead of climate change.

Other options:

• Net_zero_emissions#Approaches
• somewhere in Fossil_fuel_phase-out

Uwappa (talk) 20:01, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

Per Wikipedia:Featured article criteria and Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section, the lead needs to summarize the topic. The last paragraph covers "Reducing and recapturing emissions" section. Bogazicili (talk) 15:33, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

In improving readability of the last paragraph of the lead, several issues were raised several times, so that the discussion up above went in circles. Below is my best attempt to make everyone happy. I think we need an up or down vote at this point, as we are not coming together with consensus. Here is the rationale for the changes, see above for gory details:

• Improving readability with shortened sentences, particularly breaking the first sentence into 2 parts
• Eliminating jargon (sustainable, renewable) in favor of just talking about the key energy sources that do not produce significant carbon pollution. Sustainable and renewable are really beside the point.
• Adding in hydro with sourcing from IEA, as hydro is currently the primary clean energy source and a key element of demand management for fluctuating renewable sources
• Removing unsourced text saying energy will be "more plentiful" after being made renewable
• Cutting teske source that imagines a world without nuclear power, particularly as it is currently after a sentence talking about nuclear power
• Change operating industrial facilities to running industrial processes to be more precise
• A lot of disagreement went into the first sentence describing nuclear + renewables as being energy sources that "do not produce carbon pollution". The US EPA and DOE define nuclear and renewables as carbon free, but other places put them under the umbrella of being "low carbon". The issue of embodied carbon was frequently raised, but carbon free is describing their operation, while embodied carbon is under industry (construction). The IPCC AR6 says "very low- or zero-carbon energy sources" typically, but they are including sources without market presence, like fossil fuels with CCS. Things get further muddled as natural gas is frequently advertised as low-carbon. In the end I went with "do not produce significant carbon pollution". Hopefully that helps.

Note sources below are not in "harvnb" format as that doesn't work on the talk page best I can figure, I'll switch to that format if this change is approved.

Efbrazil (talk) 20:01, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

Proposed version is friendlier, and avoids pedantic micro-arguments. —RCraig09 (talk) 20:47, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

Great summary and compromise. Thumbs up on the condition that 1) the DOE not be cited as a source. A better source is this one from the IPCC: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sustainable_energy#cite_note-AnnexIII_IPCC-84. And 2) Don't link to Green industrial policy, as this essay-like article is mostly not about industrial processes. I'd also add a "some" before "industrial processes". Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 02:49, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Thanks! The source change and link removal are good by me. I'm not sure about qualifying industrial processes with "some" though. Do you mean there are exceptions? That's true, but I don't think the text requires that all instances in every category are electrified, but rather that electrification is the principal pathway. If we are going to focus on exceptions they also apply to transportation and buildings. For instance, planes may be powered by hydrogen created using clean energy instead of by electricity. Efbrazil (talk) 17:36, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Great work here Ef finding a compromise. The text is definitely better. Agree with changing away from the DOE source, as hydro in the US is lower-carbon than globally, so a global source is needed. In terms of industrial processes, I get where Clayoquot is coming from, but want to note that using hydrogen produced from electricity is sometimes also called electrification. Not sure I agree, but that makes quite a large share of industry electrifyable. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 20:10, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

I'm fine with leaving out "some". Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 23:34, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

I'm going to suggest additional sentence covering things that can't be electrified after this round. But we have discussed enough for the current suggestion I think lol Bogazicili (talk) 10:44, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, change made! Covering the challenges of electrification in a single sentence is going to be a sticky wicket. There's corner cases that can't be electrified, grid changes needed, handling flutuating renewables, environmental issues around disposal / mining, and so on. Whether any of that is lead worthy is debatable. Efbrazil (talk) 22:55, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

This is a definite improvement to the current text. Can we just change the last example, given Ar6 WG3 p. 89 quote above (vii about DACCS and BECCS): "Carbon can also be removed from the atmosphere, for instance by increasing forest cover and using direct air carbon capture methods." (change in bold). It's also mentioned prominently in Summary for Policymakers (Ar6 WG3 pp.24-25 C.3 and C.3.5) Bogazicili (talk) 10:52, 30 March 2024 (UTC) Actually now that I looked at Ar6 WG3 more, the suggested text is good. We can also add an additional source at the end (Ar6 WG3 p.114) Bogazicili (talk) 11:03, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

Thanks to DuncanHill for fixing my attempt at adding a harvnb reference.

Addressing their edit comments: All the references in the lead are because of discussions that happen on the talk page on how to word things. Getting to consensus on lead text is difficult, and long discussions usually fall back to references for wording, so we find it's best to back stop the text with those references.

I personally dislike the harvnb format as I find it very hard to understand and edit. Since the reference isn't self contained you can't put it in a talk page or preview it correctly, and I find bugs in preview mode. However, femke spent a long time getting that format in place and it does slim down the article content by pushing reference declarations to the end, so I can live with it. The edit was adding an IPCC reference so I figured I should follow harvnb, but obviously I introduced syntax errors in the process. Thanks again for fixing that. Efbrazil (talk) 17:31, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

I loathe harvnb, and all shortened references, as they almost inevitably cause errors. For an article where there are numerous sources missing and it's impossible for the uninitiated to fix see Causes of climate change, which at my count has 38 missing sources. DuncanHill (talk) 01:20, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

A big "well done" to EfBrazil for not giving up and for bringing this difficult consensus-finding mission to a conclusion!! Excellent work.

As the one who started this discussion, based purely on the reading ease aspect, I am humbled to see how difficult it has been. But also glad it's done.

Using the readability took again, there is only one sentence now remaining in bright red ( = difficult to read) in this paragraph now (and only three red sentences in the lead in total). It is this one: Cleanly generated electricity can replace fossil fuels for powering transportation, heating buildings, and running industrial processes. Not sure why it scores so low on readability, probably because of the many multi-syllable words. We can live with that.

Could we however either wikilink "cleanly generated electricity" to another Wikipedia article (to clean energy? I see that one of the earlier versions above had wikilinked this to Low-carbon electricity) or otherwise perhaps add a footnote to explain what we mean with that? Or do we purposefully intend to leave this vague so as to not "commit" to anything? EMsmile (talk) 15:09, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Thanks! I could go either way on adding a wikilink. On the con side, the low-carbon electricity article isn't in great shape- the definitional statement is very iffy (needs a reference) and the lead is both short and dated to 2020. The sustainable energy article is in much better shape but is less accurate to the topic. We say "cleanly generated" immediately after enumerating and linking to the primary sources, so I think it's OK to not have a link here. Efbrazil (talk) 15:45, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Ah, I see. Would it perhaps then be better and easier for the reader if we linked the two sentences like this: These energy sources include wind, solar, hydro, and nuclear power. They can replace fossil fuels for .... It wasn't obvious to me that "cleanly generated electricity" was referring to those 4 listed in the previous sentence. Mind you, perhaps electricity is not exactly the same as energy sources). So then maybe better like this: These energy sources include wind, solar, hydro, and nuclear power. Electricity generated from those energy sources can replace fossil fuels for ....

I just don't like "cleanly generated" unless we have a wikilink for it.

For our to-do list: let's also improve low-carbon electricity as well as low-carbon economy (see talk page discussion there)... EMsmile (talk) 17:01, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

@DuncanHill: references in the lead are absolutely necessary or we'd have endless debates here about which sentence comes from what source. Or people would be more likely to challenge the wording in the lead in the future. So it's important for long-term stability of the article. Climate change is also a Wikipedia:Contentious topic. It's not a non controversial article that can get away with no sources in the lead. Bogazicili (talk) 20:30, 1 April 2024 (UTC)