Talk:Carbon accounting

message: Already earlier in 2011, people argued against simply listing carbon accounting software here: "This is really not a Wikipedia article at all, just a list of adverts. There's even a link to "Follow Us on Twitter" on one of the entries!". So, instead of putting such links here, an overview on them might be more suitable. Any opinions? Ingmar.lippert (talk) 12:22, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I created a new list article, and merged the data from this article to that one: List of carbon accounting software. The new list article is discriminate, focused, structured and specific to carbon accounting software. Northamerica1000(talk) 14:16, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Carbon Accounting Software

message: *I propose to expand the article by providing an explanation of carbon and accounting; using work by Donald MacKenzie as a reference. I would also explain some of the standards used for carbon accounting. Ingmar.lippert (talk) 23:05, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggestions 

message: It currently says "Carbon accounting is the accounting process undertaken to measure the amount of carbon dioxide equivalents that will not be released into the atmosphere as a result of Flexible Mechanisms projects under the Kyoto Protocol."
This definition seems very restricted and especially does not correspond how it is used in practice for at least two significant reasons: a) carbon accounting often refers to how many emissions are actually produced/emitted. thus, carbon accounting for emission reductions is simply a specific part of carbon accounting. b) carbon accounting relating to the Kyoto Protocol is also only one of many reasons why an organisation (like a government or a corporation or even an individual) may perform carbon accounting.  If nobody reacts to this, I will rewrite the current formulation accordingly.Ingmar.lippert (talk) 23:05, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems all right at this time, in which the wording is, "One form of Carbon accounting is...", which states the Kyoto Protocol as an example (one form). Northamerica1000(talk) 14:35, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion of the main definition

message: Somebody proposed merging the page Enterprise carbon accounting with Carbon accounting. As both pages cover similar territory, this seems to make sense. Currently the two pages present quite different approaches to the topic. It would benefit the reader to have one page that reviews the technicalities and controversies around enterprise/corporate and non-corporate carbon accounting. Ingmar.lippert (talk) 19:48, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merging article with "Enterprise carbon accounting" 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Carbon accounting. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140509060302/http://ecometrica.com/products/our-impacts/ghg-accounting/ to http://ecometrica.com/products/our-impacts/ghg-accounting
*Added archive https://archive.is/20130103173826/http://www.mandatorycarbonreporting.com/ to http://www.mandatorycarbonreporting.com/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:44, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Carbon accounting. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090518102342/http://www.groomresearch.com/ to http://www.groomresearch.com/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:44, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I propose to merge Carbon emissions reporting into Carbon accounting. I think that the content in the Carbon emissions reporting article can easily be explained in the context of Carbon accounting, and the Carbon accounting article is of a reasonable size that the merging of Carbon emissions reporting will not cause any problems as far as article size is concerned. Chidgk1 (talk) 16:36, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merger proposal 

message: Last week I contacted four experts in the field to obtain their thought and suggestions for improving on the outline above. Below are their comments.
- - - -
Comments from an expert requesting to be anonymous-12/1
Corporate/Regulatory Drivers section 
* Along with mentioning SEC disclosure requirements, add the EU Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive, Japan FSA’s Climate Risk Disclosure regulations, and the International Sustainability Standards Board  proposed disclosure rules.
* Include a mention of procurement related drivers, specifically: UK 2021 government procurement regulations and the US - Federal Supplier Climate Risks and Resilience Proposed Rule.
* Mention SBTI as a driver,and note that under these guidelines there are restrictions on the use of offsets.
Reporting Frameworks section
Corporate Reporting Subsection
* The Greenhouse Gas Protocol is commonly referred to as GHG Protocol.
* Remove the discussion of the GLEC framework in the corporate accounting subsection.
* Note that the GHG Protocol is developing a Land Sector and Removals Standard for its corporate reporting guidelines.
Project accounting subsection
* For the bullet regarding the GHG Project protocol - clarify that the focus is on core accounting principles and impact quantification, rather than the programmatic, transactional aspects of carbon credits. It’s not per se an issue of being less prescriptive.
Effectiveness and Limitations section
Limitations subsection
* Add concerns about the quality of carbon credits as an issue. 
Future Directions section
* Second bullet - can eliminate the “For project accounting” clause, as this is a broader issue.
- - -
Comments from Derek Broekhoff, SEI – 12/6
*Suggest changing title of article to "Greenhouse gas accounting"
History and Drivers Section
*Highlight TCFD as a driver
*Consider a more prominent mention of of emission inventory accounting as an important early form of attributional accounting
Reporting Frameworks section
*Consider attributional/consequential as an organizing principle for this section, as described by Brander 2022.
*Include mention of GHG protocol Policy and Action Standard and Mitigation Goals Standard.
*Mention SBTI as an offshoot of GHG protocol, note that offsets are excluded.
*Mention ISO Carbon Neutrality standard - Combines elements of both attribution/consequential methods.
*Consider how standards in voluntary market are evolving, with new entrants coming in.
Effectiveness and Limitations section
*Include concept that Carbon offset quality exists along a continuum.
*Consider highlighting that additionality is also subjective and exists on a continuum. SEI 2020 Chapter 4 discussion of project specific and standardized criteria for evaluating is worth highlighting, along with other aspects of Chapter 4.
*Consider including concept that in order to manage Scope 3 emissions, when looking at value chain partners, it’s hard to get good data. Chains are opaque with poor traceability (transparency).
Future Directions section
*Discuss efforts to upgrade CDM protocols to be consistent with Article 6.4. COP 26, including a pathway for transitioning credits.
*How to address perennial concerns about quality of carbon - ICVCM - offshoot of Taskforce for Scaling Carbon Markets – need to shore up integrity to boost confidence and help scale up markets.
*Future trends - Describe mechanisms where company might invest in mitigation upstream i.e. a food processing company investing in sustainable ag, even if they are not sure they are getting the food from the facilities they are supporting.
*Mention carbon credit rating agency startups – not same as auditors who verify credits.
- - -
Comments from Lynn Lopucki, University of Florida-12/6
History and Drivers Section
*Include mention of renewable energy certificates per p.419-420 of Lopucki 2022.
*Highlight reporting and ranking, investor demand, and imminent regulation as drivers.
*Competition with EU regulatory program (SEC mentions this) – EU directive will effect 5-10% - competition amongst these programs to define market. Look at SEC and EU standards – competition as to who is being the most controlling.
*Materiality - single materiality (investors), and double materiality (public) – EU clarifies double materiality.
Effectiveness/Limitations Section
*Importance of ranking – Stakeholder Takeover Project.
*Include mention of World Benchmarking Alliance.
*Carbon disclosure project – not public information – for investors only - not transparent
*SASB and IFRS want to limit reporting to what is relevant to investors.
Future Directions section
*STP brand search app – help consumers be more knowledgeable and provide feedback to companies. My note – has there been a news article reviewing this app/program?
- - -
Comments from Michael Gillenwater – Greenhouse Gas Management Institute-12/9
History/Drivers Section
*Note the specific role of the IPCC Guidelines as a model for current protocols.
Reporting Frameworks section
*Use attribution/consequential paradigm as an organizational approach for this section. In more lay terms, attributional involves allocating emissions to responsible parties and tracking them over time, measuring what is happening. Consequential can be considered to include various interventions and decisions to change emissions.
Future Directions section
*Note the continued need to clarify what GHG accounting metrics are appropriate for what purposes.
*Integration of remote sensing and other “big data” approaches with traditional GHG inventory methods for verification purposes – Vulcan, Climate TRACE.
Dtetta (talk) 20:47, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Subject Expert Comments on Outline

message: I suspect some readers might be confused by the word “mitigates” but I don’t have a better idea for the first sentence. What do you think? Chidgk1 (talk) 10:06, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree. Maybe “. . . an organization emits or mitigatestakes actions to reduce? Dtetta (talk) 14:38, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: great Chidgk1 (talk) 12:19, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Can the first sentence be improved? 

message: I briefly defined 1 and 2 but brackets are not ideal. Perhaps moving history section to bottom would also help. Chidgk1 (talk) 12:21, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I just noticed they are in a graphic but that text is very small so I missed it first time - other readers may too Chidgk1 (talk) 12:25, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggest scope 1 2 and 3 definitions moved higher up 

message: I suspect some of the further reading could be deleted but not sure which Chidgk1 (talk) 06:26, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I had the same thought. In fact, I would delete all of it. I find "further readings" in general not all that useful when it comes to the fast changing topics of climate change. If they're good publications, they should rather be cited as in-line sources. Perhaps in general the "further reading" sections in Wikipedia article are a bit of a "left over" from the days when not all content was getting in-line citations? Not sure. EMsmile (talk) 12:02, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I think those are good suggestions. From a cursory review, the only reference from that list that I would keep is the GHG protocol, which is already cited. The input-output issue described in some of these references is briefly mentioned in a few of the citations in the article itself. But it seemed a bit too detailed to be included in the text. Let's wait and see if there are any objections to this proposal in the next few days, and, if not, I will just go ahead and delete the list. Dtetta (talk) 17:55, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
replies: text:  I've deleted the list now as there were no further comments or objections in the last 5 days. EMsmile (talk) 12:56, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Trim further reading? 

message: Hello @Dtetta,
Once the above rename request has been done (or rejected) I think you could nominate it per Wikipedia:Good article nominations/Instructions. I know you want to do a bit more but a reviewer is not likely to start for months and even if they started tomorrow it is past the “quick fail” stage.
I think the main advantage of this is that the reviewer probably won’t be in the climate change project. Thus they will almost certainly pick up a lot of readability issues which we would not be able to spot because of our prior knowledge. 
And you get a lovely green plus for all your hard work and 6 hours of fame on Wikipedia:Did you know Chidgk1 (talk) 07:16, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for that suggestion  - I will try to get that started later this week:) Dtetta (talk) 17:47, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: If I remember right the rename guidelines say to wait at least a week for comments so I won’t rename until next week. It will be easier for you to wait until after rename before submitting Chidgk1 (talk) 06:36, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Understand - thanks! Dtetta (talk) 06:45, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: @Dtetta As it was not renamed I think you should nominate it for good article now. As the article is extremely dry I doubt anyone will review it any time soon unless they are seeking a cure for insomnia! Chidgk1 (talk) 15:02, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think it's perhaps still a bit too early for that. We don't want the reviewers to tell us things that we already know. In this case, I think the article needs some images (by the way, I don't understand why you have added that one at the end now; the caption is unclear to me). About one image per visible page would be awesome. Also the article could do with readability improvements. It's currently very hard to understand due to the use or jargon, technical terms, long sentences. - It's a fascinating topic. I currently don't have time to involve myself deeply in this. Just wanted to caution to jump to a GA review process too hastily. What could be gained from approaching reviewers already now? Or are you saying you would start the process now but while waiting for a reviewer to become available (could be weeks, months?), one continues to improve the article oneself? EMsmile (talk) 18:02, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: The latter. Chidgk1 (talk) 19:37, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks everyone for that good discussion. Looked through Wikipedia:Good article criteria, and it seems like this article is in pretty good shape, except for the Illustration criterion. Plan to go ahead and initiate the nomination process as  suggests, and will work on getting a better image for the top of the article that covers Scopes 1, 2 and 3 at the same time. Dtetta (talk) 16:19, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggest nominate as good article 

message: I noticed that the German Wikipedia version has a different first sentence in the lead (translated):  This is quite different to our first sentence of  Which source do we use that limits the definition of carbon accounting to just organizations? Might be useful to add that source to the first sentence (leads don't have to use in-line citations, although I think more and more they do use inline citations - those are also useful when leads are transcribed by use of excerpts). This lead currently uses only one in-line citation. EMsmile (talk) 13:08, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Done Chidgk1 (talk) 18:09, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for doing that ! I think I noted in my post “ Notes on Current Revision (1/1/23)” that I still had work to do on citations and the lead. Agree that there are probably some additional citations needed for the lead - so far my focus there has been on readability. Plan to work on that over the next couple of days. And although it's nice to get a perspective from other language versions (I had proposed in my outline a link to a google translate version of the WP.de article on Greenhouse Gas protocol), that particular sentence has a Flesch-Kincaid reading level of over 20-Yikes! Dtetta (talk) 22:32, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

text: The GHG protocol Corporate standard also uses the work "organization" repeatedly, but Chidgk1's citation works fine in this instance.  Dtetta (talk) 14:50, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
replies: text:  Just a minor point: I am a little bit surprised surprised you added a new publication, User:Chidgk1 rather than be able to reuse one that had already been used in the article. Is the one that you added really a highly reliable source (secondary preferred)? If so, I am surprised it is only cited once in the article. Just wondering. Interestingly, it is the only ref in the list now that mentions "carbon accounting" whereas all the others mention "greenhouse gas accounting". EMsmile (talk) 13:07, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

text:  Secondly: does that mean that the intro sentences in the German Wikipedia (which does not limit it to organisation) is wrong? It says there (after translation to English with Google Translate; bolding added by me):  Or is it possible that different definitions have been used in the literature? I see on Google that most of the hits limit it to organisations (or even just products) but occasionally the definition given includes also "organisations and countries". If there are different definitions in the literature then I would recommend to add a new section called "definitions" where this is explained. I find that quite useful. We did that also for the climate change mitigation article, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change_mitigation#Definitions_and_scope. EMsmile (talk) 13:07, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I don’t think it’s wrong, it just sidesteps that aspect. Dtetta (talk) 16:24, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Question about the first sentence of the lead

message: Like I mentioned above (see the section Notes on Current Revision (1/1/23)), the page numbers should be added with the rp-template, e.g. . As far as I can see, this is becoming the standard for all articles with the long citation style. The long citation style is also becoming more common than the short citation style, at least within WikiProject Climate Change (see also here). It overcomes the problem of having to list the same ref several times in the article. So I think it should be implemented now. EMsmile (talk) 12:52, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree strongly - I think the rp snippet approach is a poor choice. I used it for the ocean acidification article, and was very dissatisfied with the way the text looked.  I don’t know how we can expect a reader to easily understand the reference page being referred to when there is an adjacent, small, unclear page number next to the citation number. I certainly wouldn’t understand what that meant if I just came upon it when reading an article, and I read a lot of wikipedia articles. I don’t see this done in any scientific literature that I have read. For the time being, I think a much better way to deal with paginated reports that are used multiple times is to use short cites, with a “reports cited” section at the bottom of the article, as is done on the main climate page article, and other GA articles (as was pointed out in the Wikipedia talk:IPCC citation/AR6 discussion you referred to). Longer term, this seems like a WP tech support (or village pump) issue. The WP techies should be able to create a citation bot (they already have several) that can look at two long form report citations that are identical except for page number, and create some type of Ibid format where the citation in the reference list just shows the title and year (with a link of course), and then the page number. Dtetta (talk) 16:08, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
replies: text:  The rp syntax seems to be the recommended way that Wikipedia offers for the long ref style. I am surprised you dislike it so much. Readers are free to click on it or to ignore it. They can hover over it to find out what it is. Until the tech people come up with a different solution, it's the only way that avoids repeating the same ref multiple times in the ref list. The short ref style has its own disadvantages which I've written about earlier but can repeat: it's very very difficult to use for newbies. It does not work well when text blocks are moved from one article to another. I remember now that we had a discussion about it here already. There seemed to be no objections to using the rp style there. If you want, we can try to re-start the discussion there? Could be good to reach consensus so that the climate change articles follow a consistent style.  EMsmile (talk) 16:19, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

text:  I've now written on the talk page of WikiProject CC about this as I see it as a broader issue, not specific to this article. Would be nice to be consistent across climate change articles. Let's see if anyone else has an opinion about it. EMsmile (talk) 16:23, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

text:  By the way, there are lots of articles that use the rp syntax, see e.g. climate change mitigation, climate change adaptation. A tool tip appears when people hover over it. And Wikipedia is not the same as a scientific publication so just because scientific publications don't do it like this is not an issue, in my opinion. EMsmile (talk) 16:26, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: It’s clear you have talked about it and used it a number of times (including on those pages you mention), but I don’t see broad support for it. The Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Climate change link you referred in saying we discussed it wasn’t really a discussion, it was just a number of posts by you, with me adding one point of reference. That was before I began using it for the OA article. I now regret that choice. It will be interesting to see if you get any responses on WikiProject Climate to support your proposal. Dtetta (talk) 16:40, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
replies: text:  That may be so. However, my experience with trying to start discussions amongst Wikipedians is this: if they don't reply to an invitation to discuss something then they don't feel strongly about it, or at least don't object to it. Meaning in this case: they don't object to me using the standard rp syntax style. Let's see if a consensus emerges and see what others think. Until the IT team comes up with a different solution, I think the rp syntax is the only workable solution we have for the long ref style. Having multiple entries for the same ref in a ref list is not elegant in my opinion. EMsmile (talk) 17:04, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't have a strong opinion, but just wanted to say that the rp citation variant is not the recommended variant. In fact, it's much less used than sfn.  In case of disagreement about the citation style, the old status quo is to be followed (WP:CITEVAR). —Femke 🐦 (talk) 17:56, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
replies: text:  The old status quo for this article is to use the long ref style (at least going back to say 2015, or how far back does one have to check?)? So as per WP:CITEVAR, we continue to use long ref style, right? And in long ref style, the page numbers should be added with the rp citation variant, or am I mistaken? Perhaps there is another method on how to add page numbers that I am not aware of? Currently the page numbers are added in the references list which leads to the same publication being shown multiple times in the ref list. That's what I find problematic. The rp syntax would avoid this.  EMsmile (talk) 18:29, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: As I recall, the article citations in the earlier version were almost all referencing web sites or journal articles, where a long form citation is certainly appropriate and easier. I don’t think any of them cited different pages in a paginated report to cite different parts of the text (and they certainly did not use the rp code snippet approach), so I don’t think they are a useful reference for going forward on this topic. The Citing multiple pages of the same source subsection of WP:CS lists two realistic options for taking a reader to different pages in a document where that document is used multiple times: 1)the rp code approach, which, as I have mentioned above, creates strange looking, hard to understand citations, like current citation 19 in the Ocean Acidification article (which I unfortunately created, but would not do again); and 2)short cites. As part of applying for GA status for this article, my suggestion is to convert those instances where multiple pages of a report are cited in different text locations to short cites. It would be nice if the WP tech group could create a bot that would resolve this in an Ibid type fashion when you are copying long cites and just changing the page number, but in the mean time I believe short cites would better comport with GA standards, as Femke previously noted at Wikipedia talk:IPCC citation/AR6. Dtetta (talk) 19:51, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

text: I also see that WP:CS mentions rp only twice, once in the context I mentioned above, and another in the context of linking to a google books source. There is nothing in this guidance, as far as I can tell, that would suggest it as a general practice for citations. Dtetta (talk) 06:05, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
replies: text:  My understanding of WP:CITEVAR is that it should be either all short refs or all long refs but not a mixture of both (just like with WP:ENGVAR); see also a comment by Femke here which I interpreted to say that (Femke said: "The long-style is already the default in the article. No need to post on talk to tidy up the single citations that's in a different style."). There is no guidance anywhere that a "good article" needs to use short ref style. Anyway, I guess Femke is telling us we should not worry too much about it. If you don't like the rp syntax then don't use it. I will continue to use it as I like it. People are different. For the carbon accounting article, we can leave things as it is. Of the repeated refs there is Fong 2021 six times, Bhatia four times, Rich and Bhatia three times etc. Doesn't matter, I don't think our readers will really care that much. So I am happy to agree to disagree on this one and move on. EMsmile (talk) 11:36, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Adding page numbers 

message: This is likely down to personal preference but I personally would prefer to either move the history section towards the end of the article (as I find it less important) or to rename it to something like "Origin", "Development" or "Rationale" (in which case it could stay there, I guess): 
* I find "history" is more for something that goes back decades or centuries and does not need to occupy the glory spot of being the first thing a reader finds after the lead. I think the reader should straight away be presented with "what is it" (definition, components), "what is it used for", "what are problems with it" and towards the end "who developed it and when". Compare also with the other climate change articles, most of which don't have such a dedicated history section at the very start of the article (the ones mentioned below might be exceptions to the rule, and could also be changed; we might be better off comparing with WP:GA or WP:FA articles in the climate change grouping; they can be accessed here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Climate_change#Metrics).  
* Noting previous comment by Chidgk1 above who said "Perhaps moving history section to bottom would also help." And comment by Dtetta who said 
Like I said, it might be down to personal preference. Happy to receive further inputs and thoughts on this. EMsmile (talk) 13:20, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Appreciate your citing my reasons for keeping it at or near the top, which remains my recommendation. Another option would be to reword “History” to focus more clearly on just those events that are most clearly tied to how the current standards and frameworks come to be the way they are. Dtetta (talk) 16:11, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
replies: text:  With that, do you mean changing the section title from "History" to something else? That would also be my recommendation. But not sure if I understood you correctly? EMsmile (talk) 16:14, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I would support some of the other wording options you’ve suggested. Again, in analogous situations “History” is used, but I’m fine with considering other word choices, such as “Origin” or “Development”. Dtetta (talk) 16:21, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: And I see I wasn’t clear in my earlier comment - I meant that one option to resolve this issue would be to edit the contents of the history section to make the connection between events since 1995 and the current features of the present standards more apparent, and perhaps edit out some tangential information. Dtetta (talk) 06:15, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

text: An example would be to address a concern I believe Chidgk1 mentioned, which would be to highlight the Scope 1, 2 and 3 features of the standards more prominently in the history (or at least earlier in the article). Dtetta (talk) 06:20, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

text: Your new text is better than before I think Chidgk1 (talk) 15:49, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes, I agree with Chidgk1 and would say just go ahead and implement those. What still confuses me a little bit is this sentence: "were done largely at the national level", perhaps you could clarify the wording - I guess it's supposed to mean taking all the businesses in the entire country? Later it talks about "community participation" - you could maybe give some examples for that. Are you referring to efforts by NGOs to make organisations more accountable? EMsmile (talk) 09:55, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Regarding the term “national level”, the second sentence I think pretty much explains that term. Can’t think of a better way of phrasing it, but if you have a better phrasing for that clause, feel free to make that edit once I post this text. Regarding the use of the word “communities”, I think that’s a good observation. However, both the Global Protocol for Community-Scale Greenhouse Gas Inventories, as well as the ICLEI Community protocol, use the term community. Have spent some time thinking about it, and I agree with you that it’s a somewhat vague term, but that is the language that those protocols are using, so I’m being true to that and using that word in this section as well as in the main text of the article. In the heading for this part of the article I use the term cities/communities. So I could change to that in the lead as well, I guess, but that would not be my first choice. What these protocols are referring to is sub national (in particular sub state) governments like cities and counties in the US. Once you get to the state level and above, the approach is typically more of a top down one, as is done with national inventories. As I understand it, the terms local governments, cities, and  communities  are used interchangeably in this context. Dtetta (talk) 15:52, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Placement of history section 

message: and  - Looked at ways of modifying the history section to remove extraneous information and focus it more on the key events that led to current standards. Below is a strikeout/underline presentation of the text revision I would propose. In addition to cutting out some of the text, I included a brief description of Scopes 1, 2, and 3. This revision covers the first three paragraphs. 
Nothing jumped out at me in the fourth paragraph merited taking out, but I think the last paragraph (about the growth to the present of GHG accounting and reporting)  could be moved into the “Future trends” section, with that section then retitled “Recent trends” perhaps. Let me know if you think this addresses your concerns, if you think other text could be removed to still focus it more, or if you would still rather see this section placed further down in the article. Thanks. Reference numbers are the same as what’s in the current article.
- - - -
HistoryOrigins
Initial efforts to create greenhouse gas (GHG) accounting methods were done largely at the national level. In 1995 the Framework Convention on Climate Change (FCCC) required Annex 1 (generally developed) countries to report annually on their emissions for six industrial categories. That same year the FCCC piloted a program where countries could experiment with carbon offset projects. In 1997 the Kyoto protocol created a carbon offset program called the Clean Development Mechanism, and alsodefined the greenhouse gases that are the central focus of greenhouse gas accounting methods: carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide, sulfur hexafluoride, nitrogen trifluoride, hydrofluorocarbons and perfluorocarbons. These actions raised awareness about the importance of accurate GHG emission estimates and the need for measuring the amount of GHG reductions from offset projects.[4][5]
In 1998 the “Safe Climate Sound Business: An Action Agenda” challenged businesses to measure, track and openly report greenhouse gas emissions from their operations. That year the World Resources Institute (WRI) and World Business Council for Sustainable Development (WBCSD) initiated a multi stakeholder process to develop a protocol to support this goal. The first edition of the Greenhouse Gas Protocol was published in September 2001, and included over 200 organizations in its development.[6] It establishes a comprehensive, global, standardized framework for measuring and managing emissions from private and public sector operations, value chains, products, cities, and policies.[7] The protocol divides an organization’s emissions into three different categories. Scope 1 emissions include direct emissions from facilities. Scope 2 covers indirect emissions from electricity use, and Scope 3 covers other indirect emissions. [45]p25
Other initiatives since that time  NGOs have also played a role in driving corporate and community participation in GHG accounting. The Carbon Disclosure Project (CDP) was founded in the UK in 2002, and started with 35 investors signing a request for environmental information, and  245 companies responding. It is now a multinational organization with thousands of organizations companies disclosing their GHG emissions, along with other data.[8] The Science Based Targets Initiative (SBTi) was formed in 2015 as a collaboration between CDP, WRI, the World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF), and the United Nations Global Compact (UNGC). Its with the goal is to establish science-based environmental target setting as a standard corporate practice. It has continued the trend of incorporating GHG accounting protocols into broader efforts to reduce emissions. [9]
- - - -
If you do still want it further down, IMO we would need to rethink the intro - starting with GHG accounting Drivers seems abrupt to me, but you all might see it differently. Dtetta (talk) 14:54, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Your new text is better than before I think Chidgk1 (talk) 15:49, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes, I agree with Chidgk1 and would say just go ahead and implement those. What still confuses me a little bit is this sentence: "were done largely at the national level", perhaps you could clarify the wording - I guess it's supposed to mean taking all the businesses in the entire country? Later it talks about "community participation" - you could maybe give some examples for that. Are you referring to efforts by NGOs to make organisations more accountable? EMsmile (talk) 09:55, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Regarding the term “national level”, the second sentence I think pretty much explains that term. Can’t think of a better way of phrasing it, but if you have a better phrasing for that clause, feel free to make that edit once I post this text. Regarding the use of the word “communities”, I think that’s a good observation. However, both the Global Protocol for Community-Scale Greenhouse Gas Inventories, as well as the ICLEI Community protocol, use the term community. Have spent some time thinking about it, and I agree with you that it’s a somewhat vague term, but that is the language that those protocols are using, so I’m being true to that and using that word in this section as well as in the main text of the article. In the heading for this part of the article I use the term cities/communities. So I could change to that in the lead as well, I guess, but that would not be my first choice. What these protocols are referring to is sub national (in particular sub state) governments like cities and counties in the US. Once you get to the state level and above, the approach is typically more of a top down one, as is done with national inventories. As I understand it, the terms local governments, cities, and  communities  are used interchangeably in this context. Dtetta (talk) 15:52, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposal for revised start of article

message: Have not heard back from WRI regarding their image. I also found an image for the top of the article (that does a good job of focusing on Scopes 1, 2, and 3) at:https://www.news.uct.ac.za/article/-2020-04-22-uct-carbon-footprint-report-2018
At the bottom of the page it states:"This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License." I am having trouble figuring out if this is an acceptable Creative Commons license for uploading based on the criteria at:Wikipedia:File copyright tags. ,  or  - can either of you provide some insight here? Dtetta (talk) 17:46, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you squatting this article? You seem to have assumed directorial powers based on your work life rather than experience as a wiki editor. 98.4.112.204 (talk) 21:43, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I find the subject extremely dry so am happy Dtetta is improving the article. I would welcome your opinion at “Requested move 3 January 2023” above and feel free to edit the article. I expect being less familiar with the article you will be able to improve readability or tag sentences which need clarifying for the general reader. If you have any disagreement with @Dtetta you can ping me or anyone else for a 3rd opinion. Chidgk1 (talk) 06:22, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

text:  @98.4.112.204: Your comment here seems completely misplaced and disruptive. Please be kinder to other editors. EMsmile (talk) 11:47, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks  and  for that support. This has been a heater lift than I thought it would be! Dtetta (talk) 15:04, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

text: Sorry no idea. There is a copyright helpdesk somewhere on Wikimedia or Wikipedia. I forget where but they seem knowledgable and quick to answer Chidgk1 (talk) 06:13, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
replies: text:  A licence with ND is unfortunately not compatible, see here: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Licensing EMsmile (talk) 11:46, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks  for that info, guess I will have to work with the folks at UCT to go through the licensing template that WP provides, if they are willing. Dtetta (talk) 15:04, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Another possible image for the top of the page 

message: I am just putting this here as part of a quarry of ideas which could perhaps be addressed at some point in the future (it's certainly not urgent at this point). It might be useful to include an examples section to make this whole concept more tangible:
* One example could be water and sanitation: I thought of that while working on the WASH article, where I was adding info on GHG emissions and how they are grouped into the three scopes. I came across a good publication by IWA from 2022 which explains a bit on how carbon accounting is used in the WASH sector. The publication is here. 
* The other example could be biomass/bioenergy. We had a quick discussion about that here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Biomass#Too_much_detail_on_carbon_accounting_aspects? You (Dtetta) wrote there "I will also look for ways to mention biomass accounting methods within the Project accounting subsection of the Carbon accounting article" which I think could be useful. But maybe in a dedicated examples section, rather than inside of the Project accounting subsection. EMsmile (talk) 13:08, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possible example section 

message: A very minor little question: We have now a section heading called "Other uses". I guess that means that the section called "Frameworks and standards" is the "main uses" of carbon accounting? Does that come across clearly for a layperson reader? Or is "other uses" perhaps not quite ideal? It's a very minor point but it's confusing me a little bit at this point. EMsmile (talk) 13:14, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Other uses? 

message: I wonder why the German Wikipedia has two separate articles: one on :de:carbon accounting (= parent article) and one on :de:GHG_Protocol (= sub-article), whereas in the English Wikipedia we treat them both in just one article. Do you see any benefit in splitting of GHG protocol into its own article or is it better to keep it all in one? I think it seems to work to keep them together in one, and the article is not too long, but I am just wondering if there could be any benefits in splitting it off. EMsmile (talk) 13:37, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I do think there should be a separate article for GHG protocol. I’ve mentioned that, and I’m planning on doing that, as part of the SDG 13/SEI  project. But I don’t think this article should be adjusted based on having a separate article on GHG protocol. Just like there are separate main articles for ISO 14064, VERRA, and Gold standard, there can be a separate GHG protocol article that serves as the main article for the GHG protocol portion of this article. The references to GHG protocol here are an important way of highlighting the prominence of that protocol in GHG accounting. Dtetta (talk) 15:16, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Having GHG Protocol as a separate article? 

message: Has the "external links" list already been re-checked in the recent update? I would be inclined to cull it a bit, as fewer external links would be better (and ensuring they are not biased to one particular region, given that this is a global topic). But not sure if someone has already looked at this section and made a very careful choice of links? EMsmile (talk) 22:48, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Have that as a to-do. Dtetta (talk) 19:20, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Has the "external links" list been re-checked in the recent update? 

message: The new image for the lead seems pretty good to me. I've just improved caption but not sure if I got it right, please check. The caption needs to be clear for lay persons. Note that the lead does not explain the Scope 1, 2, 3 but just says something about Scope 3. If the scopes are important, can they be explained better in the lead and introduced better in the main text? Since the lead image now includes mention of Scopes 1, 2, 3 I assume these are quite central for carbon accounting (?), or are they just one example of many? It would be good if this could come out clearly in the caption and in the lead. EMsmile (talk) 08:09, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: -agree - the lead should describe scopes 1, 2 and 3 - thanks for pointing that out! Will also work on the scope description in the main text. I think you caption is also an improvement-made a couple of minor spelling edits to it. Dtetta (talk) 13:57, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  New image for the lead, question about scopes 

message: At this point my future efforts will be mostly focused on responding to any comments that come up during the GA review. However, there are a few items that, IMO, could benefit from additional editing now:
* Provide additional citations for lead text, make discussion of GHG protocol more prominent. 
* Include graphic depiction of accounting process showing the steps in like in this NZ guidance or ICI report?
* include a graphic on consumption based emissions for "Community protocols" subsection
* Clarify distinction between Net Zero discussion in "Other applications" section and Net Zero discussion in "Current trends" section
* In Current Trends - Briefly discuss carbon credit rating agencies, as distinct from auditors who verify credits (Carbon Credits 2022)
Dtetta (talk) 19:11, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggestions for Remaining Tasks (as of March 2023) 

message: :Thanks for doing that ! Dtetta (talk) 00:44, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Did you know nomination

message: - I reverted your deletion of the paragraph on voluntary and regulatory program convergence. The reason for this as for a reversion of a similar deletion edit you made to the Carbon offsets and credit article. See 
 this talk page discussion. Like with that situation, the statements in this paragraph are from a reliable source and are consistent with WP:RS policy. These are not statements that represent scientific assessments, but merely describe programs. So I do not believe the peer review standard is relevant in this situation Dtetta (talk) 21:44, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Except that EWG are not a reliable source. Guy (help! - typo?) 17:00, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: You mean EDF, correct? That is the source that is cited for that paragraph. Dtetta (talk) 17:06, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reverting Edit Deletion of Paragraph on voluntary-regulatory program convergence