Talk:Carbon neutral

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Carbon neutral article.
Article policies

Contents

[edit] Merger proposal

The content on the climate neutral page is mainly about carbon neutrality, so I propose relavant content should be merged onto the carbon neutral page. Rakerman 23:04, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

i agree —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.194.98.58 (talk) 15:09, 31 January 2008 (UTC) >


i disagree. A convention already exists for the term "carbon neutral/neutrality". Knowledge bases should not used to define terminology in use, but reflect it, because there is no authority held in wiki or the author of the Climate Neutral page, that gives it any credence over the well established usage of Carbon Neutral.

Furthermore, carbon neutrality specifically refers to greenhouse gases. Climate Neutral however, implies a range of climate affecting factors (such as dust particles, ozone, soot, and a other non-CO2e pollutants/activities). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.165.150.230 (talk) 14:09, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

If you are using "wiki" as a synonym for Wikipedia in general or the English Wikipedia in particular, that is not correct. Wikipedia is merely one of thousands of wikis. While at the moment the English Wikipedia is, for many people, the only wiki they are aware of, that seems likely to change in the relatively near future as the whole wiki movement is growing rapidly. You are correct that Wikipedia does not create facts, we merely report such facts as we can reliably source. Also see WP:NOR. On Wikipedia we do not impose terminology on the rest of the world; instead we try to conform to the world's terminology. However, determining the "proper" names for things can be difficult, especially in new fields where different groups of people use different terms for the same things. Sometimes a Google test can be useful for determining which terminology is the most common or used by the most authoritative people. --Teratornis (talk) 21:08, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the merger. The problematic misunderstandings surrounding carbon neturality and carbon offsetting are very much reflected in this article. The topic later in this discussion "Are people who sell carbon offsets themselves carbon neutral?" reflects this as well. In my opinion Carbon Neutral, Carbon Negative and Carbon Positive pages should reflect the only the definitions by the natural sciences, i.e. the transfer of carbon between bio-,hydro-,atmo- and limno-sphere, and not the muddled terms used with respect to carbon offsetting. Longer articles on these topics including the realtion to carbon offsetting, like the current one, will have neutrality problems as well since different special interests seek to define the terms differently depending on their particular role in the more general global warming debate. The three proposed articles belong, category wise, to the more scientifically grounded, and less debate grouded, Carbon Cycle and carbon flux articles.85.226.60.168 (talk) 10:55, 15 May 2008 (UTC) Above comment was by me, I keep getting logged out for some reasonMorphriz (talk) 10:57, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Not a reliable source of information on carbon neutrality

This page contains many misstatements regarding greenhouse gas accounting that it should not be used as a reference by those concerned about the issues and looking for definitions. There is much ongoing work and debate on this topic going on within the expert community on this topic an many unresolved issues. In particular the description here of neutralizing indirect emissions is highly flawed in this article. --Michael Gillenwater (talk) 12:40, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

See WP:SOFIXIT. I agree that the article in its current form is a bit disheveled. If you can improve the article, please do. Sometimes when an article is really screwed up, it helps to start a user subpage where you can list all your criticisms of the article, and then chip away at each one at your leisure. Trying to improve a messy article in place may be difficult, particular as other editors may jump in and change things before you finish the reorganization you have in mind. --Teratornis (talk) 21:25, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, i am a bit embarassed by only criticizing without being constructive. Unfortunately, it is not feasible now for me to work on this article. Possibly in the future, or maybe some generous soul will attack it for us. But for now, it is unfortunately, too flawed to be of much use. --Michael Gillenwater (talk) 16:25, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Are people who sell carbon offsets themselves carbon neutral?

When I read about corporations buying carbon offsets for their fossil fuel use, I have to wonder: do the people who sell carbon offsets take on the carbon non-neutrality of their customers? For example, suppose Joe Wind Farm generates 10 GWhr of wind energy, which he sells to local consumers. If Bob Corporation buys carbon offsets from Joe Wind Farm to cover all the petroleum-power business travel his executives do, does that mean the people who actually consume the wind farm output are effectively no longer "green"? It seems to me the only way to really become carbon neutral is to actually stop consuming fossil fuels. A renewable energy project which is itself merely carbon-neutral could not compensate for someone else's carbon emissions. Only a project that is actually carbon negative could do that. I don't see how planting trees is carbon negative, since the trees will eventually die and release all the carbon they sequester. In particular, as long as the exponential growth of world population continues, no forest can remain safe indefinitely. Eventually humans will have to occupy all the land which can grow trees, and do something more productive with it. --Teratornis (talk) 21:25, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Benefits

This article could use a Benefits section. Any suggestions? Dfrg_msc 07:05, 29 May 2008 (UTC) Something like:


Benefits include:

  • Savings in money, resulting in saving in energy expenditure.
  • Helping the bottom-line allows for re-investment
  • Increased awareness and recognition
  • Increased enthusiasm, empowerment and creativity in designing solutions to further reducing emissions


I agree, but only if there's a source for these claims. -FrankTobia (talk) 15:08, 29 May 2008 (UTC)