Talk:Climate change mitigation

message: The arrangement happened in the section of ===Deep ocean===. Thanks for your attention. ThomasYehYeh (talk) 02:29, 27 May 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: @ThomasYehYeh Sorry I don’t understand your question - can you explain in more detail? Chidgk1 (talk) 07:07, 27 May 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: It looks that the author seems to mean ocean alkalinity enhancement and ocean acidification are the same. But is it right? ThomasYehYeh (talk) 09:14, 27 May 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: @ThomasYehYeh Still can’t see it. Exactly which sentence(s) need clarifying please? Chidgk1 (talk) 14:25, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: In sentenses of "These options focus on the carbon that can be stored in ocean reservoirs. They include ocean fertilization, ocean alkalinity enhancement or enhanced weathering." The expression of ocean alkalinity enhancement looks like the author tried to mean Ocean acidification equals ocean alkalinity enhancement. ThomasYehYeh (talk) 23:37, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think I understand what you mean now. I have corrected the wikilink now: from ocean alkalinity enhancement there is a redirect to the section of "ocean alkalinity enhancement" within ocean acidification. So they are not the same thing. But when you hover over ocean alkalinity enhancement it look as if the wikilink is going to ocean acidification (but it's going to a particular section within that Wikipedia article). EMsmile (talk) 21:45, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  I'm wondering why using Ocean acidification for ocean alkalinity enhancement？ 

message: One 2018 estimate stated that temperature increase can be limited to 1.5 °C for 1.7 trillion dollars a year. According to this study, a global investment of approximately $1.7 trillion per year would have been needed to keep global warming below 1.5°C. I find it difficult to treat "1.7 trillion dollars a year" and "investment of approximately $1.7 trillion per year" as 1 matter or 2 matters. Can anybody help? Thanks. ThomasYehYeh (talk) 08:09, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps we should just remove those sentences as too old? A lot has happened since 2018. Chidgk1 (talk) 14:27, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree with you and have removed that sentence now. Also removed a bit more from that section, see edit summaries on the history page. EMsmile (talk) 21:38, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Needs clarification in section of Cost

message: This graph on the right, which is part of this article, doesn't seem to have a unit for the y-axis, neither is the unit mentioned in the caption. Is that on purpose? Pinging User:Efbrazil. The graph is quite popular and appears in the following English Wikipedia articles, apart from this one: Renewable energy, Climate change, Energy transition, World energy supply and consumption. EMsmile (talk) 11:58, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Lack of Y axis is on purpose, as the measurement is exajoules, which isn't going to mean anything to people. I clarified the description on the graphic (not here, but on wikimedia). Efbrazil (talk) 16:06, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unit missing from energy consumption graph? 

message: I noticed that the article uses the term "we" quite often now, about 19 times. I believe some of the "we"'s were added by User:Jonathanlynn in an effort to convert passive voice to active voice. I just wonder if "we" is really suitable for encyclopedic articles? Who is "we"? Is it too casual? Should it not be "citizens", "people", "decision makers" etc. Example sentences that are now in the article (bolding added by me) "We can conserve energy by reducing wastage and losses. We can improve efficiency by upgrading technology, and improving operations and maintenance.", "How we produce, transport and process a fuel has a significant impact on lifecycle emissions", "As we integrate larger amounts of solar and wind energy into the grid, we must change energy system to ensure that the supply of electricity matches demand." What does everyone and Jonathanlyann think about this? EMsmile (talk) 21:48, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. In most writing, active voice is considered preferable. But here, passive voice is acceptable, and it is preferable if it is more objective. —RCraig09 (talk) 22:35, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: This is tricky, as all the tools for measuring readability penalise use of the passive voice. Of course, these tools may not be the last word, and they may not apply in every case, but presumably they are based on research that shows greater difficulty in understanding text in the passive. Unfortunately English cannot use an active construction with the subject "one" to avoid the passive, as French does with "on" and German with "man" etc. It sounds stilted and unnatural in English. "we" is a more colloquial alternative here in English. (For what it's worth, in current colloquial French "on" is starting to replace "nous" to mean "we" as well...) We could replace the mentioned examples with passive constructions, but it will certainly reduce the readability score, and probably the actual readability. Jonathanlynn (talk) 10:14, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks for these inputs. I am against passive voice (if we can avoid it). Would it work to replace "we" with specific nouns such as "citizens", "consumers", "politicians", "decision-makers" and so forth (choosing in each case which noun would be the most correct)? And is there any Wikipedia policy about the usage or non-usage of "we"? I haven't found one yet. EMsmile (talk) 10:49, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text:  While not strictly policy, MOS:WE states that "we" is acceptable in scientific writing, but also notes passive voice may be preferable. I enjoy the readability of the article, though it does seem that some of the substitutions suggested by  can be used to preserve active voice. I don't feel too strongly about the use of we in general, but there are some cases that could be weaselly or otherwise vague. For example, in , might this generalized "we" imply perhaps erroneously that all grids globally (wherever the reader may be reading from) are integrating larger amounts of solar/wind energy? –TheAustinMan(Talk ⬩ Edits) 16:46, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text:  I've now changed all the "we" sentences to other wording, without changing to passive voice. This might have lowered the reading ease scores a little bit (because in some instances I now used multi-syllable nouns) but I think it's better. Interestingly, there are 7 instances of "we" remaining but they are all in the titles of the references. EMsmile (talk) 09:37, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Usage of the term "we"? 

message: References are lacking throughout. 2600:1700:2E10:A80:684B:ED49:AD8B:5620 (talk) 01:55, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: What do you mean? EMsmile (talk) 20:14, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title: References

message: I've just carried out the merger from Co-benefits of climate change mitigation. This has made the section on co-benefits a bit too long probably. I've already looked for ways of condensing. Please help with condensing this further (if you think it ought to be condensed). We are actually so lucky that CC mitigation has so many co-benefits. Imagine if it didn't, how much harder it would then be to push it through... EMsmile (talk) 08:33, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merged [[Co-benefits of climate change mitigation]]