Talk:Carbon footprint

From Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Too much overlap with Greenhouse gas emissions[edit]

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

I agree with you. I used the tool "who wrote that" and found that these two sections were added as a result of a merger in 2021, see here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=962213662&diffmode=source They were moved by User:Chidgk1. I think they need to be culled and integrated better into the article. I am tempted to just delete them. Especially this section can just be deleted, it's anyway out of date by now: "Rise in greenhouse gas over time". EMsmile (talk) 09:39, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
When I merge articles I merge the lot and perhaps delete some later. This is so that other people can more easily revert if they want to. But often I don’t delete very much but leave it to others who know better than me. So go ahead as you wish Chidgk1 (talk) 11:01, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Makes sense. Thanks. @User:45154james do you have time to do this clean-up? I think it would be very good. EMsmile (talk) 17:00, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've briefly reviewed the "Causes" section and I see nothing here that isn't already adequately covered in Greenhouse gas emissions. One sentence looks helpful in the context of carbon footprints, so I moved that further up the page. Also I kept the photo of the power plant and moved that higher up. Then I deleted the remainder of "Causes". Some of the info just looks very out-of-date and wrong - e.g. the info about Methane emissions is contradicted by the info on Greenhouse gas emissions. That leaves the section on "Rise in greenhouse gas over time" to review. The chart looks like it might have a useful home elsewhere, if not here. 45154james (talk) 18:32, 20 March 2023 (UTC) Fixing typo in previous edit. 45154james (talk) 18:33, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've moved the chart further up the page so it illustrates the point about aviation. Also deleted the "Rise in greenhouse gas over time" , which dates from 2010, 2014, and 2017 and is covered better (newer info, more detail) by Greenhouse gas emissions. 45154james (talk) 07:14, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Looking at this article overall, I think it needs further culling. It overlaps with Greenhouse gas emissions also in the sections on carbon footprint by sector and ways of reducing carbon footprint. At the end of the day, carbon footprint is just a fancy/popular term for Greenhouse gas emissions ... so we have to think carefully about what should be contained in this article exactly. EMsmile (talk) 09:17, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with what user 45154james said above, that the article should gather more information pertaining to specific cause and effects of the changing carbon footprint . For example the article could mention how the increase in carbon effect the temperature of the earth, which in turn effects calving of major glaciers. These massive calving events lead to a change in the composition of our oceans, causing the salinity levels to change. It would be interesting to have the article talk about how this directly effects the entire earth. Logan T. Jones (talk) 20:55, 19 February 2024 (UTC).[reply]
No, we have other articles that cover this already, e.g. effects of climate change. Each Wikipedia article just shines the spotlight on one particular aspect; each Wikipedia article is like a small chapter; the one on carbon footprint cannot cover everything that there is to know about climate change and shouldn't even try to do that. Too much overlap between Wikipedia articles is a problem. EMsmile (talk) 22:13, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Carbon footprint of political choices[edit]

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

Schemes to reduce carbon emissions[edit]

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

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

Mandatory market mechanisms[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

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

New changes are being made to the trading schemes. The EU Emissions Trading Scheme is set to make some new changes within the next year. The new changes will target the emissions produced by flight travel in and out of the European Union.[3]

Other nations are scheduled to start participating in Emissions Trading Schemes within the next few years. These nations include China, India and the United States.[3]

Voluntary market mechanisms[edit]

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

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

There are project developers, wholesalers, brokers, and retailers, as well as carbon funds, in the voluntary market. Some businesses and nonprofits in the voluntary market encompass more than just one of the activities listed above. A report by Ecosystem Marketplace shows that carbon offset prices increase as it moves along the supply chain—from project developer to retailer.[4]

While some mandatory emission reduction schemes exclude forest projects, these projects flourish in the voluntary markets. A major criticism concerns the imprecise nature of GHG sequestration quantification methodologies for forestry projects. However, others note the community co-benefits that forestry projects foster. Project types in the voluntary market range from avoided deforestation, afforestation/reforestation, industrial gas sequestration, increased energy efficiency, fuel switching, methane capture from coal plants and livestock, and even renewable energy. Renewable Energy Certificates (RECs) sold on the voluntary market are quite controversial due to additionality concerns.[5] Industrial Gas projects receive criticism because such projects only apply to large industrial plants that already have high fixed costs. Siphoning off industrial gas for sequestration is considered picking the low hanging fruit; which is why credits generated from industrial gas projects are the cheapest in the voluntary market.

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


The size and activity of the voluntary carbon market are difficult to measure. The market size of voluntary carbon offsets market in 2021 is expected to hit $1 billion.[6]

References

  1. ^ Wynes, Seth; Motta, Matthew; Donner, Simon D. (2021-03-19). "Understanding the climate responsibility associated with elections". One Earth. 4 (3): 363–371. Bibcode:2021OEart...4..363W. doi:10.1016/j.oneear.2021.02.008. ISSN 2590-3322. S2CID 233634925.
  2. ^ Thomä, Jakob (2021). "A Citizen's Footprint: An analysis of the carbon footprint of our consumption, investment, and political choices for the UK and Germany" (PDF). 2° Investing Initiative Working Paper.
  3. ^ a b Callick, Rowan. "Nations Split on Route to Reduce Carbon Emissions." The Australian. 2 March 2011. Web. 1 March 2011.
  4. ^ "Archived copy" (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on 10 July 2011. Retrieved 21 August 2007.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: archived copy as title (link)
  5. ^ "Archived copy". Archived from the original on 7 July 2007. Retrieved 21 August 2007.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: archived copy as title (link)
  6. ^ "Carbon Offset Markets 👉 Market Size, Controversy and Major Trends". Carlos Sanchez. 2021-11-24. Retrieved 2021-12-09.

|}

Some npv work needed?[edit]

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

I agree with you. I've made some corrections there. Also I've moved this now to a new section called "critique" (or is "problem areas" better? "Challenges"?). This section needs to be expanded; I see it as very important for this article There is also some good content at the German Wikipedia which could be utilised, as least for inspiration (Google Translate works well).
I've removed some of those outdated figures about carbon footprint of sectors or products; this kind of detail is all at greenhouse gas emissions (this article didn't exist yet when the carbon footprint article was created). I think the structure that is used at the German Wikipedia is useful for guidance. They also don't have those detailed figures on CO2 emissions there. EMsmile (talk) 22:43, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for all your work! I think a separate "Critique" section works well - and I'll have a look around later and see if I can find some sources for material to add. Just as there are green critics, I'm sure there are "light green" groups who think it's a useful concept for people who engage only lightly with environmental issues or not at all - people who might try to "reduce their carbon footprint" but wouldn't care to "reduce their greenhouse gas emissions". So a balanced summary of the pros and cons of the concept, from different angles might be useful?
Also, you have touched on the problematic overlap between "greenhouse emissions" and "carbon footprint", but there is also the newer concept of "net zero" (which, on Wikipedia, redirects to Carbon_neutrality. All these articles overlap/repeat to a very unhelpful degree. 45154james (talk) 07:40, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've added a couple of quotes to the Critique section to illustrate different, balanced viewpoints. Geoffrey Supran seems to be a leading proponent of the "carbon footprint is a tactic to deflect blame from fossil fuel interest" school of thought. I found one other balancing view - and I'm sure there are others. There are numerous green groups with carbon footprint calculators (such as WWF). Please feel free to expand/delete/shuffle around as you see fit! 45154james (talk) 07:35, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Would "Controversies" work well? I think its just a controversial aspect and thats why the information is notable, it isn't notable as a confirmed critique. Thoughts? Nickleback007 (talk) 18:02, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Review by content expert (April 2023)[edit]

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

  • Just to highlight some of the edits: The section on Products is an excerpt from an older article; however I have added information from IPCC’s 6ARWGIII for the By Sector section, which has some overlap. I’ve added in several news sub-sections under Definitions and also updated the Calculations with IPCC 6ARWGIII information from the Introduction/framing including a nice figure/image (have copied across the full caption as background). So see the hyperlinks for the sources, you can accept changes or click ‘edit hyperlink’ over the relevant section for background.
  • I have not focused much on the individual carbon footprint but rather put more effort into the industry/government carbon footprint because these comprise most global GHGs so it is really systemic issues and whole-of-society responses (rather than individual action) that are the critical lever in slashing the global carbon footprint and therefore addressing climate change.
  • Carbon footprinting is hugely important and it’s likely that soon companies globally will have to report on their carbon emissions i.e. footprint – this is the key to stopping climate change but it needs to be scope 3, not just a local footprint that doesn’t include much of the emissions.
  • Carbon footprinting isn’t just popular in the media, it’s also increasingly popular with governments and businesses. The term is used interchangeably to mean the footprint of GHGs, which is carbon dioxide or equivalent emissions, carbon being the main tone. Footprinting includes indirect impacts, extending to scope 3 emissions along the extended supply chain, which is expected to become increasingly mandated.
  • (When asked about the term "climate footprint" which redirects to here:) Climate footprint isn’t a common term but where I have seen a climate footprint done recently was in UN-hosted Sustainable Consumption and Production Hotspot Analysis Tool (SCP-HAT). In one of the sections, you can compare different footprints like GHGs, water, biodiversity and also the footprint for short-term and long-term climate change.
  • In the last par of the first section, I would update/add a bit of information about scope 3 emissions being ‘difficult’ to calculate because they’re not with input-output analysis, the methodology my research group uses, which is widely used worldwide. I.e. in this explainer I wrote with my supervisors Google and Amazon misled about their carbon footprint we explain: “software does exist that can routinely quantify scope-3 emissions [and] there are also consultants and researchers who model global sustainability footprints.”
  • You could update the article further by adding in the latest big thing in carbon accounting globally, the International Sustainability Standards Board (ISSB), which is brining together many of the leading carbon accounting programs and groups together; the first tranche is for scope 3 emissions reporting and next is expected to be other material sustainability issues i.e. perhaps modern slavery. EMsmile (talk) 13:05, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Update in June 2023[edit]

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

I've also made some changes to the article today. I have restructured it a bit. I wanted to move the content that is specific to carbon footprinting (e.g. the critique section), to the front of the article, and leave the part that is not unique and that is identical to content at greenhouse gas emissions, climate change mitigation and so forth to the second half of the article. There might be even scope for further condensing here.
Some further comments:
  • It seems to me that the content about Scope 1, 2 and 3 is a bit repetitive. I am not sure if it really fits so well under "definitions" or should be moved to "calculations". (update: I have changed that now)
  • Can we come up with better images for carbon footprint? I feel that we have a lot of images and graphs about GHG emissions which again seems to imply that carbon footprint = GHG emissions but doesn't make it clear why it's its own Wikipedia article that is unique.
  • I have taken out a few mentions of "new" and "recent" and "now" as those words will age quickly if they are not specified with a particular year.
  • I have changed terms to italics rather than quotation marks.
  • The section on "calculations" still seems a bit messy and the logical flow is missing a bit. (update: I've re-arranged these sections a bit but it's still not great) EMsmile (talk) 13:31, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, the lead contained content that was not in the main body of text. I have moved that now. Once we are happy with the structure and content of the article we need to revisit the lead and ensure it's a good summary of the article, about 400-500 words long.EMsmile (talk) 15:50, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

History of carbon footprint calculators[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

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


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


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


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

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

Proposing a new first sentence[edit]

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

P.S. I also checked with Chat-GPT but didn't get a better first sentence from it. EMsmile (talk) 16:19, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have been discussing with User:VivhD some alternative options for the first sentence. I am putting her suggestions here for further brainstorming (at this stage, I like the current sentence better but am open for discussion):
  1. “The carbon footprint (or greenhouse gas footprint) is the headline indicator for climate change” or
  2. The carbon footprint is, put simply, the greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions resulting from economic activity. Carbon and carbon-dioxide equivalent emissions/GHGs can be footprinted for goods and services and for geographical areas locally or globally. EMsmile (talk) 22:33, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  3. The carbon footprint (or greenhouse gas footprint) is a concept to quantify and compare the amounts of greenhouse gases emitted directly or indirectly related to the production or consumption of goods or services?
I think it’s better if the first sentence starts with “is a concept for”, or is a “measurement technique to”, or “is a policy approach that” or "is a policy framework to" or something like that. EMsmile (talk) 22:33, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
New proposal: The carbon footprint (or greenhouse gas footprint) serves as an indicator to compare the amount of greenhouse gases emitted for the entire production or consumption of goods or services.. I thought about using yardstick instead of indicator but perhaps indicator is better. EMsmile (talk) 07:02, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Compare also with the first sentence of the entry in the German Wikipedia (translated with Deepl): The carbon footprint is a measure of the total amount of carbon dioxide emissions caused directly and indirectly by activities or generated during the life stages of a product. EMsmile (talk) 07:02, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, where is everyone, it feels like I am talking to myself here. :-) So the first sentence is currently: The carbon footprint (or greenhouse gas footprint) serves as an indicator to compare the amount of greenhouse gases emitted for the entire production or consumption of goods or services. Viv suggested this to me by e-mail but I think it's too complex for a first sentence. The carbon footprint (or greenhouse gas footprint) is an externality of human activities and serves as an indicator to compare the amount of greenhouse gases emitted over the entire life cycle from the production of a good or service along the supply chain to its final consumption. Readers won't know what "externality of human activities" is meant to mean. This could rather be explained in a follow up sentence? But what do others think? But the second part is probably good, so I have changed that accordingly now. But does this make the first sentence now too long and complicated? It's now: The carbon footprint (or greenhouse gas footprint) serves as an indicator to compare the amount of greenhouse gases emitted over the entire life cycle from the production of a good or service along the supply chain to its final consumption. EMsmile (talk) 08:54, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have now once more changed the first sentence and have in fact broken it into two. This is because I showed the article to a reviewer (Christian Berg) and he said: "this actually jumps immediately (at least implicitly) into the PRODUCT Carbon Footprint (by the word life cycle). In my opinion, the carbon footprint definition should initially be limited to establishing that it is about the totality of the climate-damaging gases associated with an activity, organization or product. Carbon footprints of companies/organizations are also calculated (then often per time unit) - the life cycle does not necessarily make sense there." (translated from German by using Deepl)
So I have changed the beginning of the lead to this: The carbon footprint (or greenhouse gas footprint) serves as an indicator to compare the total amount of greenhouse gases emitted from an activity, product, service, company or country. For a product, its carbon footprint includes the emissions for the entire life cycle from the production along the supply chain to its final consumption.. - What do you think? EMsmile (talk) 13:30, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies, I just edited the start of the article without checking if there was already a discussion, I'm fine with my edits being reversed or replaced, my alternative first sentence was "A carbon footprint (or greenhouse gas footprint) is a measurement of emissions of carbon dioxide or CO2-equivalent amounts of other greenhouse gases in tonnes of emissions per unit of comparison. These measurements make it possible to compare the total amount of greenhouse gases emitted from an activity, product, company or country." My reason for doing so was that I didn't feel starting the article with "The carbon footprint (...) serves as an indicator" matched the style seen in other articles, which usually start with defining the topic, usually with wording like "[x] is...". I should have realised the start of the article was already being discussed on the talk page.
Also, my own usage of the indefinite article over the definite one wasn't something I consciously thought about heavily, it might not be a suitable usage of the word. Alozenge (talk) 04:05, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, User:Alozenge and welcome to Wikipedia! I appreciate your thoughtful words. I think it is useful to explain the first sentence what this is all about, i.e. whether this is a concept, entity, index, or what it is. So I have changed it to A carbon footprint (or greenhouse gas footprint) is a calculated value or index that makes it possible to compare the total amount of greenhouse gases that an activity, product, company or country adds to the atmosphere.. I also think it's important to stress that we are talking here about comparisons. I like your proposed "a" instead of "the" for the starting sentence. I have avoided the term "emission" as it might be difficult to understand. I've replaced it with "added to the atmosphere". EMsmile (talk) 12:57, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Why is it necessary to emphasize "comparing"? a metric exists on its own. Whether you use a metric to compare or not is irrelevent to it's definition. Mass, Volume, Length, Velocity, Density, all these metrics are just metrics, they can certainly compare things to eachother but that isn't integral to what they are. Nickleback007 (talk) 17:43, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Changes to the definition section[edit]

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

Main image[edit]

(moved from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Climate Change)

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

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

References

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

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

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

Improvements in July[edit]

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

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

+++

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

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

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

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

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

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

Difference between country, organisation and person?[edit]

So if I understand the article right:

the carbon footprint of a country includes its upstream emissions but not its downstream emissions

the carbon footprint of an organisation includes both its upstream and downstream emissions

the carbon footprint of a person includes their upstream emissions but not their downstream emissions

1) Did I understand right?

2) if I understood right should we say this explicitly?

3) if I understood right then why is the scope different for organisations than people and countries? Maybe the downstream emissions of most people (Satoshi Nakamoto being an exception) are negligable? Maybe no one actually talks about the carbon footprint of a country and if so should we remove countries from the article? If not then why account organisations differently to countries?

Chidgk1 (talk) 19:45, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that is correct. Does it say so in the article? My understanding is that carbon footprint tries to include everything, i.e. upstream and downstream for everything (countries, orgs, products, people). But in practice, I think carbon footprint makes most sense for products, and perhaps for organisations. But not really for people (other than them being the consumers of the products...). And I also wouldn't really use it for countries. For countries we call it "per capita GHG emissions", don't we? Or perhaps some people equate the "per capita GHG emissions" of a country to its footprint... Either way, if this doesn't come out clearly in the article we need to improve on that. (with suitable sources). I was involved in writing a lot of this article, together with an external expert from Sydney. But some of the content seems a bit academic/theoretical to me. So it could do with an overhaul if someone has time! EMsmile (talk) 22:04, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As far as | know “per capita GHG emissions” do not include downstream. To avoid confusion I propose that all mention of countries is removed from this article and a hatnote added referring the reader to Greenhouse gas inventory for discussion of countries. Chidgk1 (talk) 10:41, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This sounds OK to me but I just don't know if the literature supports this. I have the feeling that in the literature, carbon footprint is also used for countries. Or perhaps the term is thrown around so freely that it's hard to decide what's what... EMsmile (talk) 22:08, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Comparison"[edit]

Is including in the lead that this metric is exclusively useful for "comparing" necessary? The article on "Debt" doesn't include that you can use a persons personal debt to compare to others. The article on "GDP" doesn't mention you should use it to compare between countries. I don't think I find the value of comparing to be super important in describing what it is. It is just a metric, explain how it is measured, later in the article it can mention potential uses, such as consumers using it to make informed decisions, etc. "is a calculated value or index that makes it possible to compare the total amount of greenhouse gases that an activity, product, company or country" Nickleback007 (talk) 17:38, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The lead doesn't say it's exclusively useful for comparing but it stresses its usefulness for comparisons. The actual figures of carbon footprint mean very little to the average person (is 2 tons of CO2 per 1000 km travelled a lot? Not a lot?) but when you use it to compare different modes of travelling, it becomes useful. Also, the comparison aspect is important because we have to compare apples for apples: how much of the upstream and downstream activities are included in the calculated footprint value for each product or process etc. EMsmile (talk) 18:36, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Right, the page for "Mass" which is another metric doesn't explicitly mention comparing even though Mass is used to compare almost all the time. I don't think comparison is important enough to be at the front of the article. Why should comparing be at the intro of the article? Nickleback007 (talk) 17:17, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The actual figures of carbon footprint mean very little to the average person (is 2 tons of CO2 per 1000 km travelled a lot? Not a lot?)
Who's to say that it is a lot? are we qualifying UNqualified people to use this metric to COMPARE things to eachother? Knowing that it can be used for comparison seems trivial and should be included later. Nickleback007 (talk) 17:19, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
" but it stresses its usefulness for comparisons"
Is "stressing" something an encyclopedic tone? Nickleback007 (talk) 17:38, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Editing in Class[edit]

Over the course of the next many weeks I will be making frequent and bold edits as well as engaging with the Talk Page and the community around this article. I am editing as a part of a Technical Editing Class and am excited to do some reading and contributing. I will be making edits in line with organization, structure, cleaning up, and just making sure things make sense. I have already made a few suggestions and am excited to hear some feedback. Nickleback007 (talk) 17:55, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia but please don't be too bold, given that you are a newbie and a student. Best to discuss your proposed changes on the talk page first. Many of us experienced editors are happy in theory when students are contributing to Wikipedia articles but in practice, a lot of their edits have to be undone because the students don't follow the rules properly or are not adding value (e.g. by using outdated references, too many primary sources, not secondary sources etc.). I find it particularly frustrating when the student's lecturers/professors make no effort in mopping up / checking the student's work but leaving that all up to the community. So please make only small incremental changes to start with and use the talk page a lot. EMsmile (talk) 18:33, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am excited to join this GLOBAL community of editors from all walks of life and varied levels of experience! It's so exciting to contribute to the Wikipedia Editor's mission to "Make Bold Edits"! As I mentioned I won't be adding content, just cleaning up. Your concern is noted! Thanks for the welcome! Nickleback007 (talk) 17:40, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Education assignment: Small Group Communication[edit]

This article is currently the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 30 January 2024 and 9 May 2024. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Logan T. Jones (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Mollyabell1 (talk) 18:40, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Carbon_footprint&oldid=1216742363"