Talk:2015 United Nations Climate Change Conference

Is France that good an example?

Climate Challenge's paeon of praise for France is based exclusively on its electricity production figures. Yet fossil fuels still account for 53% of France's total energy consumption, using the data on the Shift Project that he quotes and its usage of fossil fuels has only gone down 4% since 1990. This compares with a 9% reduction in neighbouring UK and 16% in Germany over the same period. In the same period France's total energy usage has increased whereas those neighbouring countries have decreased.

It is well known that France's dependence on nuclear power was purely the result of its lack of coal, oil and gas reserves and it is therefore fortuitous that it has not contributed so much greenhouse gases. That's no bad thing with hindsight, but I wonder if it makes sense to make such an example of it. It is also well known that the construction (and dismantling) of nuclear power stations is very energy intensive and that it is mainly unattractive for economic reasons. Hence not many people see it as a major part of the solution to the current climate issues.

Given these reasons, is this a balanced treatment? Chris55 (talk) 22:34, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Of course it's a load of nonsense pie in the sky holiday/PR exercise for a bunch of politicians constrained by their 'captains of 'industry.

Example: the UK has simply exported its emissions abroad by importing electricity from France and exporting its industry to the likes of China.

To make matters worse, this conference and article has in no way dealt with the elephant (and the holy cow) in the room: 1 HUMAN OVERPOPULATION and 2 INCREASED METHANE EMISSIONS (farts!) DUE TO THE DRAMATIC INCREASE IN GLOBAL MEAT CONSUMPTION.

1812ahill (talk) 04:03, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Location and participation edit by user "Climate Challenge"

The text below was added to the "Location and participation" section. Why does it keep talking about nuclear power in France? It is written as though it is the opinion of the author. Has there been any official justification or motivation for locating the conference in France, based on its nuclear power? I'm all for nuclear power (due to low CO2 emissions) but this just reads like poorly executed propaganda. Auspicious location? Really?

France is a particularly auspicious location to host the COP21 climate talks because it is the only industrialized country to successfully decarbonize at a pace fast enough to avoid irreversible climate change. As of 2012, France generated over 90% of it’s electricity from zero carbon sources, including nuclear, hydroelectric, and wind. France’s decarbonization is a prime example of a developed country's ability to meet carbon targets while still providing a high standard of living.

France’s advanced technologies, mostly powered by nuclear power systems, have demonstrated the safest track record for an energy system in the world. By producing fewer greenhouse gases through the use of nuclear generation, France helped reduce the number of premature deaths associated with air pollution, which the World Health Organization estimates accounts for nearly 1 in every 7 deaths globally. Since 1990 France's energy sector has avoided the emissions of more than 5 billion metric tonnes of carbon dioxide (CO2) by using nuclear generation over fossil fuel generation, such a coal.

Global nuclear generation provides 11% of all electricity production, displaces the emission of over two billion metric tonnes of CO2 a year, and represents the single biggest technological contribution to climate change mitigation. Nuclear and renewable energy electricity generation mixes in France have helped maintain a low carbon footprint other countries are struggling to achieve, and has served as a prime example of the role nuclear energy can play in reducing CO2 emissions.

83.251.163.199 (talk) 16:23, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

References

I wouldn't include much about French energy policy in this article. Its too off-topic. This article is about the event. - Shiftchange (talk) 03:08, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Another climate conference disrupted

...two weeks prior to the start of talks. This time, by terrorist attacks. Viriditas (talk) 01:31, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Previous climate talks have been served by various state apparatuses. With the increase in police powers, this may be even more a factor in the negotiations. LeeColleton (talk) 20:11, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

40000 participants or delegates

There are many high quality sources for "over 40,000" participants. That would be a *beeping* big diplomatic conference, however there are some parts of the conference that are open to the public (e.g. http://www.cop21.gouv.fr/en/climate-generations-areas-official-opening/), so maybe that is pushing the official attendee/'participant' count up. Some sources use "40,000 delegates" which suggests the 40,000 are attached to state delegations, and is not including open to public parts of the conference. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 12:38, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Vegetarian-diet goals at Paris conference?

Has there been any discussion at the Paris conference regarding encouraging the wide adaption of a plant-based diet? I can't find any references using Google but have not researched the question deeply. In any case, if there has been no discussion of the value of vegetarianism in reducing greenhouse gases, should this lack be mentioned in the article? If there has been discussion, should that be mentioned?

In the draft text of the "Draft Paris Outcome Version 2" there is no mention of vegetarianism that I could find. The word "food" is mentioned in the following two sentences:

Recognizing the fundamental priority of safeguarding food security and ending hunger, and the particular vulnerabilities of food production systems to the adverse impacts of climate change

and

Increase the ability to adapt to the adverse impacts of climate change and foster climate resilience and low greenhouse gas emissions development, in a manner that does not threaten food production

BecurSansnow (talk) 17:16, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Not necessarily a push for vegetarianism, based on what you've quoted. Insects are meat too. The UN's FOA said that insect based diets will be necessary in order to remain sustainable. Entomophagy#Advantages. --BurritoBazooka (talk) 21:03, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

NOT yet ratified

As usual, the mainstream media are bombarding us with news of how wonderful it is that 196 governments have agreed on a document to sign, and that it has about 29 pages or so, without giving us a URL to the document. We are expected to feel good about an allegedly historical document that is still effectively secret. If someone can find a public version, then please link it in at an appropriate place in the article.

Boud (talk) 20:17, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Probably http://unfccc.int/documentation/documents/advanced_search/items/6911.php?priref=600008831 . Boud (talk) 20:19, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

See the new section about the final draft agreement that I just added. It is not binding until the 55 of the world's worst polluters sign it, hopefully in 2016 ... but frankly, some will refuse to do so. Here is a good summary http://www.cnn.com/2015/12/12/world/global-climate-change-conference-vote/ Peter K Burian 20:21, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! I replaced your ref to l09 by a ref to l09r01, i.e. revision 1, based on http://unfccc.int/meetings/paris_nov_2015/meeting/8926.php - which says "NEW! Paris Agreement adopted - FCCC/CP/2015/L.9/Rev.1 - English only, versions in all UN official languages to be made available". As for whether it's binding or not, if it counts as an international treaty, then it's only legally binding after ratification; signing will be or presumably has been done today. Now it's a doubly-cited named reference. The ref details are in the reference section. Boud (talk) 20:43, 12 December 2015 (UTC) (minor edits) Boud (talk) 20:47, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

I.Adoption.2 - I was wrong and you're right - signing will only be from April 2016 to April 2017. Boud (talk) 20:55, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Well, someone did revise the text I added but the gist of it is still ok; agreed "by consensus" (not by a vote) but won't be final until the 55 major polluters ratify it. And that will take months... if it ever happens. Not sure if they achieved any objective per se, especially if the 55 do not all sign and the whole thing falls apart. Peter K Burian 02:38, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Yes, some of the media hyped the "agreement by consensus" to make it sound exciting, like it was a done deal. Of course, it is far from it. I also cannot imagine China signing it! Peter K Burian 02:42, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Is it polluter #1 through 55 consecutively like you imply or just 55 of the 200 or so as long as that adds up to 55% of emissions? That's a big difference. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 03:04, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Of course, any 55 as long as that group produce 55% of the emissions, but as CNN said, that is very likely to be the 55 top polluters: that generate the most emissions. Peter K Burian 03:20, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

This system is exactly the Same as the Kyoto protocol so it Will take some Time.The text was adopted by consensus, Will be signed by (i Guess) 100-150 next year. Ratification Will take longer. I can not imagine entry into force criterion will be met before 2018/19.. L.tak (talk) 07:59, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

What are the key steps required for US signature, adoption, and ratification of this? Does it require congressional action or can the president, EPA, UN delegate or some other authority ratify this? What source do we watch to observe progress toward ratification (by US and by other countries?) Thanks --Lbeaumont (talk) 12:41, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Signature is the prerogative of the President, and he can afterwards propose ratification to the Senate. Only if the Senate approves, the President can deposit its instrument of ratification. Signature and ratification (more precizely the deposit of the instrument of ratification) for all states will be announced by the UN at treaties.un.org, where it will get a page like this one for the Kyoto protocol. L.tak (talk) 14:50, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Interesting information but the bottom line still is this: Unless the Senate ratifies it, the US does not agree to the pact. Period. Peter K Burian 14:19, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Then why did I see a reliable news source (I forgot the name) say international climate law experts believe the President can do this executively, without needing the Senate? That seems unexpected to me too but maybe the EPA has the power to do the things in the agreement anyway despite not ratifying? Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 17:46, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

See the CNN Report for example. Quote: Individual countries now must individually ratify or approve the agreement in their respective countries. .. And the agreement won't enter into force until 55 countries have ratified it. Those nations must account for 55% of total global greenhouse gas emissions. The agreement was adopted by "consensus" during the meeting of government ministers. That doesn't necessarily mean all 196 parties approved it; French Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius, who served as the president of the conference, had the authority to decide if a consensus had been reached. http://www.cnn.com/2015/12/12/world/global-climate-change-conference-vote/ Peter K Burian 20:19, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Someone may not like CNN; ok, here is another citation from a Canadian TV News nework:

The deal now needs to be ratified by individual governments – at least 55 countries representing at least 55 per cent of global emissions – before taking effect. It is the first pact to ask all countries to join the fight against global warming, representing a sea change in U.N. talks that previously required only wealthy nations to reduce their emissions. http://globalnews.ca/news/2396965/negotiators-analyze-final-draft-of-climate-pact-in-paris/Peter K Burian 20:19, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Washington Times: The deal now needs to be ratified by individual governments — at least 55 countries representing at least 55 percent of global emissions — and would take effect in 2020. It is the first pact to ask all countries to join the fight against global warming, representing a sea change in U.N. talks that previously required only wealthy nations to reduce their emissions. http://newsroom.unfccc.int/unfccc-newsroom/finale-cop21/ Peter K Burian 20:19, 14 December 2015 (UTC) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Peter_K_Burian

Is this entire article redundant?

The more I think about 2015 United Nations Climate Change Conference the more I wonder what the content is supposed to be about. Is it about the COP 21 conference in December 2015? I thought so but frankly, Paris Agreement is more relevant to that topic, although the title of that article should mention something about climate change. Peter K Burian 15:43, 14 December 2015 (UTC) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Peter_K_Burian

Solution: Split off anything that's too little about the conference and leave a vestigial agreement paragraph with a section hatnote link. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 17:50, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Indeed. I think there should be a section "Conference outcome", with subsections "Paris Agreement", 100 billion fund, etcetc. L.tak (talk) 18:14, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

I cleaned up the grammar and (some) accuracy of the lede paragraphs, but it's still a little heavy on the nitty-gritty of the actual agreement at the moment. I think some of those details can be culled off and moved to the other locations ("Conference outcome" or Paris Agreement), and a few not-technically-in-the-agreement outcomes put in there as well. —AySz88\^-^ 02:05, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

I came to this article very late in the game so I don't have a good feel as to what it should be about and what should be removed. The Paris Agreement article has been beefed up in the meantime, so perhaps condensing the agreement section here would be fine, as long as readers definitely realized that it was well covered in the other article. And mention of the criticism of the agreements is essential for balanced coverage, and it is well covered in that article. Bottom Line: I would support whatever L.tak proposed for this Conference article. Peter K Burian 03:29, 15 December 2015 (UTC) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Peter_K_Burian

Hidden advertisement to non-relevant organizations

The following two excerpts of text come to a surprise to anyone with a minimal knowledge of the subject, and seem to be there as advertisements to organizations and persons who are not relevant to the subject and to its importance, especially being very close to the top of the article:

1. <<The International Trade Union Confederation>> has called for the goal to be "zero carbon, zero poverty", and the general secretary <<Sharan Burrow>> has repeated that there are "no jobs on a dead planet".

2 - Role of US and China: Think tanks such as the <<World Pensions Council (WPC)>> have argued that the keys to success lie in convincing U.S. and Chinese policy makers: "as long as policy makers in Washington and Beijing didn't put all their political capital behind the adoption of ambitious carbon-emission capping targets, the laudable efforts of other G20 governments often remained in the realm of pious wishes."[11]

A kind proposal to either remove these paragraphs, or move them much lower in the text. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Julioserje (talk • contribs) 11:46, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Eliminate "image_size" parameter?

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

There is no consensus in the discussion. The opinions are to evenly opposed. AlbinoFerret 01:35, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

---

Neutral

Shall the |image_size = parameter be retained or removed from infobox? --George Ho (talk) 02:55, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Non-neutral

Using the image_size is misleading and may violate WP:IUP. The SVG file can still transclude a big size, like 400px, even with details removed or reduced. --George Ho (talk) 23:59, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

Is this about the fair use image at the top? I believe someone suggested that that is not a problem specific to this article, but something for fair-use-svg's in general and to take it up at a different forum, where people more familiar with the matter may be gathered? Shall I look for the diff regarding that suggestion as a way forward? Or is this about a different size parameter for a different image in the article? L.tak (talk) 00:05, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

It is a non-free image. A user can change the thumbnail size preference to 120px minimum or 400px maximum. All users are forced to see 220px, especially when a user chooses a smaller size like 120px or bigger size like 400px. --George Ho (talk) 05:11, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

• User:George Ho asked me to comment here. I looked at the article using my phone and found that the image size was perfect in landscape mode but too large in portrait mode. On the other hand, the image could easier be made larger when accessing the page using my computer.

WP:IMGSIZE recommends users not to specify a pixel count for thumbnails as different users may benefit from differently sized images. I don't see any compelling reason to specify a pixel count, so I would recommend removing the line | image_size = 220px from the infobox template. Depending on your settings, this may or may not affect the size at which the infobox logo displays. --Stefan2 (talk) 15:31, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

In my view, WP:IMGSIZE doesn't address the matter of non-free SVG usage adequately.

In this instance, blanking the parameter would quadruple the image's size for some users. This is undesirable, both because it exceeds the reasonable limits of fair use and because the visual quality at such a resolution has been degraded purposely.

Of course, most users (including those not logged in) would continue to receive the image at 220x396px. —David Levy 20:19, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with the non-free content criteria. The size of an SVG file has nothing to do with the number of pixels in a PNG file which is generated by Mediawiki. If some users go to Special:Preferences and specify a ridiculously large display size, then it is their problem. --Stefan2 (talk) 16:58, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with the non-free content criteria.

The policy applies to both the file and article namespaces. We're simply accustomed to the use of raster graphics, through which compliance within the former extends to the latter automatically.

The size of an SVG file has nothing to do with the number of pixels in a PNG file which is generated by Mediawiki.

To my knowledge, only George Ho was under an impression to the contrary. I'm unclear on the relevance to my comments.

If some users go to Special:Preferences and specify a ridiculously large display size, then it is their problem.

Enabling such an option seems inconsistent with criterion 3b. —David Levy 04:16, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

To my knowledge, only George Ho was under an impression to the contrary. I'm unclear on the relevance to my comments.

You added a pixel parameter to the infobox template in this article. The pixel parameter only affects the number of pixels of the thumbnail generated by Mediawiki but not the size of the SVG file. The size of the SVG file affects whether the file is accurately rendered as a huge PNG file, though.

Enabling such an option seems inconsistent with criterion 3b.

It is only possible to change the pixel count under Special:Preferences, but the pixel count has nothing to do with the size of an SVG file. The setting only affects how Mediawiki displays a file. WP:NFCC#3b says that we should not store more information than necessary, so if the file already is small, the user won't see policy-violating information by changing settings under Special:Preferences. --Stefan2 (talk) 00:16, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

You added a pixel parameter to the infobox template in this article. The pixel parameter only affects the number of pixels of the thumbnail generated by Mediawiki but not the size of the SVG file. The size of the SVG file affects whether the file is accurately rendered as a huge PNG file, though.

I'm aware of that. I added the parameter to prevent the image from being rendered in the article as a huge PNG file. At the time, the level of detail contained within the SVG file had not yet been reduced. Now that it has been, the resultant quality would be poor.

It is only possible to change the pixel count under Special:Preferences, but the pixel count has nothing to do with the size of an SVG file.

I'm not sure that the latter is the only relevant concern.

WP:NFCC#3b says that we should not store more information than necessary, so if the file already is small, the user won't see policy-violating information by changing settings under Special:Preferences.

The wording contains a reference to the avoidance of excessively "high-resolution/fidelity/bit rate". To me, it's unclear that limiting the fidelity is a substitute for limiting the pixel resolution (as opposed to an additional requirement) – particularly when "degrading or modifying it in any way might be considered to tarnish or misrepresent the mark" (as Jheald stated below). —David Levy 18:01, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

• Question Why do we need an {{rfc}} template here? It looks like an unnecessarily bureaucratic solution to a minor typographic dispute. --Stefan2 (talk) 13:40, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

David Levy keeps reinserting it when I removed it. George Ho (talk) 17:25, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

That doesn't explain why a request for comment (as opposed to an ordinary talk page discussion) is needed. —David Levy 20:19, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

I still need attraction. Also, you were the one who reverted my removal, making RFC more necessary than it should have or have not been. George Ho (talk) 20:47, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Firstly, there's no need to cast blame. I could argue that "you were the one who reverted my edit, making this discussion more necessary than it should been", but that would be unfair too. You and I both acted in good faith, reflecting an honest difference of opinion.

Secondly, how does the situation transcend an ordinary content dispute? In other words, why is a normal talk page thread (without an RfC tag) insufficient? —David Levy 23:21, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Actually, the talk page is least frequented before RFC. I just used it to have a bot notify those putting categories on subscription. --George Ho (talk) 05:30, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Pinging David again. George Ho (talk) 05:01, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

You didn't actually ping me in your first attempt. Linking User:<User name> when a message is posted triggers the notification. It doesn't work when the link is added to a preexisting message. —David Levy 20:19, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

• Responding to a notification from User:George Ho of this discussion at WT:NFC:

In general, when considering the resolution of images for the NFC policy, what is relevant is the resolution of the image itself, not how it is displayed on the article. A 2400 px image doesn't get a free pass because it is only displayed at 120 px -- what is relevant (and needs to be justified) is what you can see if you click through.

In my experience, there is therefore no tradition in the NFC policy of forcing a particular image display size on the article: instead the focus should be on the underlying image.

SVG files can of course be displayed at arbitrary sizes, without degradation or pixelation. This has been discussed many times, but (as I read it) the broad view has tended to be that:

(i) the encouragement to use no higher resolution than necessary can be met if the SVG file contains no more vector information than needed to portray the image at low resolution (or more accurately: at the resolution that is needed to achieve the purpose for which the fair use is being claimed). Because it's a vector format, the same level of detail would be displayed cleanly at larger size, however no additional detail would be revealed.

On the other hand, particularly for logo and trademark images, there are also considerations that (ii) the image should accurately reflect the mark as used by the organisation -- degrading or modifying it in any way might be considered to tarnish or misrepresent the mark; and (iii) there is a strong preference to avoid creating any new work that would be a new creation or derivative re-creation of a work; it is preferable instead to circulate only what has already been released and distributed by the company (though re-coding from PDF to SVG format is considered acceptable).

On balance (ii) and (iii) have been considered sufficently strong justifications in the fair-use analysis to give good reason to retain the original vector representation, fulfilling the legal requirement to use no more than is justifiable. Jheald (talk) 12:04, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

@Jheald: Would you give us a simple short explanation. I couldn't tell whether you favor keeping or removing the parameter. George Ho (talk) 17:02, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Sorry if what I wrote wasn't clear. In a nutshell: I don't think there's any reason in NFC policy to require this parameter. If it is upsetting user preferences, or leading to bad page layout on some displays, then it seems to me it should be removed. Jheald (talk) 17:20, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

As I commented above, I don't believe that the policy adequately addresses issues unique to the use of vector graphics (which can lead to far worse page layout issues when the parameter isn't utilized). —David Levy 04:16, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

In general, when considering the resolution of images for the NFC policy, what is relevant is the resolution of the image itself, not how it is displayed on the article.

That's because limiting a raster graphic's pixel resolution in the file namespace affects its display in the article automatically. Obviously, the same isn't true of vector graphics.

A 2400 px image doesn't get a free pass because it is only displayed at 120 px -- what is relevant (and needs to be justified) is what you can see if you click through.

This is among the reasons why Wikipedia's use of non-free SVGs is questionable.

On the other hand, particularly for logo and trademark images, there are also considerations that (ii) the image should accurately reflect the mark as used by the organisation -- degrading or modifying it in any way might be considered to tarnish or misrepresent the mark; and (iii) there is a strong preference to avoid creating any new work that would be a new creation or derivative re-creation of a work; it is preferable instead to circulate only what has already been released and distributed by the company (though re-coding from PDF to SVG format is considered acceptable).

If that's the prevailing view, I suppose that we should revert to the image's original upload; I edited it to remove detail, thereby resulting in significant degradation when it exceeds "an appropriately-limited size" (to quite Anomie's advice, which I may have misinterpreted). I'm unclear on how it would be possible to eliminate detail without such a consequence. —David Levy 04:16, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

The original file was too big and therefore in violation of WP:NFCC#3b, so we can't use that file. It can be debated if the current file is small enough. If there are other reasons to avoid using the current version, then we should neither use the current version nor the original version but a different version.

One problem I'm having with SVG files is that we are storing a vector file, but we are effectively only using a PNG rendition of the vector file as Mediawiki converts all vector files to PNG before displaying them. The purpose of a non-free file is always to use the file in an article, and when the SVG file is converted to PNG, Mediawiki is effectively removing some information. There seems to be little point in storing file data which we are not using anywhere, and the unused file data seems to be redundant and can be removed without affecting how the file is used in the article. The unused file data therefore seems to violate WP:NFCC#3b. --Stefan2 (talk) 00:16, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

The original file was too big and therefore in violation of WP:NFCC#3b, so we can't use that file.

Indeed, that was my understanding.

It can be debated if the current file is small enough.

Agreed.

If there are other reasons to avoid using the current version, then we should neither use the current version nor the original version but a different version.

Yes, it seems that this might be the case.

One problem I'm having with SVG files is that we are storing a vector file, but we are effectively only using a PNG rendition of the vector file as Mediawiki converts all vector files to PNG before displaying them. The purpose of a non-free file is always to use the file in an article, and when the SVG file is converted to PNG, Mediawiki is effectively removing some information. There seems to be little point in storing file data which we are not using anywhere, and the unused file data seems to be redundant and can be removed without affecting how the file is used in the article. The unused file data therefore seems to violate WP:NFCC#3b.

I'm inclined to agree. I also regard our inability to limit the pixel resolution of a MediaWiki-rendered PNG as problematic (given that the result either contains excessive detail or insufficient detail to reflect the non-free material accurately and without noticeable degradation – which arguably is a worse abuse). —David Levy 18:01, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

• Comment: summoned by bot. I think the image as it is now is quite nice, and that making it a little smaller might improve things. That said, I believe you have a win-win situation here. -Darouet (talk) 08:22, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

No mention of indaba?

The consensus decision-making technique would seem quite essential to the conference...

• http://www.reuters.com/article/us-climatechange-summit-indaba-idUSKBN0TT29C20151210
• https://qz.com/572623/this-simple-negotiation-tactic-brought-195-countries-to-consensus-in-the-paris-climate-talks/

 czar 07:32, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on 2015 United Nations Climate Change Conference. 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/20151210193406/http://www.cop21.gouv.fr/en/learn/what-is-cop21/ to http://www.cop21.gouv.fr/en/learn/what-is-cop21/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131112055835/http://unfccc.int/files/meetings/warsaw_nov_2013/application/pdf/cop19cmp9_overview_schedule.pdf to http://unfccc.int/files/meetings/warsaw_nov_2013/application/pdf/cop19cmp9_overview_schedule.pdf
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/2015/cop21/eng/l09r01.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:51, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

"The 1.5 °C goal will require zero emissions sometime between 2030 and 2050, according to some scientists"

We have currently already a one degree C warming. According to the IPCC even a complete emission stop would lead to a further warming of 0,6 degree C. So not "some scientiscs" have this opinion, the IPCC has it. --Hg6996 (talk) 14:00, 17 November 2017 (UTC)