Talk:Climate change policy of the United States/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Koch again

In the section "Attempts to undermine U.S. and state efforts", the first sentence attributed to the New Yorker article is off-topic (and not tied together by later comments), the Wichita Eagle "article" URL is a blog entry, and the second reference to the New Yorker doesn't support the sentences preceding it. There is probably something relevant that can be said just from the New Yorker article, but the Tea Party cannot be tied in to climate change denial without a single source tying up the loose ends. Basically, all we have in that regard is that Koch (brothers, and Industries, and probably Family Foundation) supports AFP, which funded some Tea Party organization. We can't tie AFP's funding of the TP to climate change denial, and I don't see a clear statement even that AFP supports climate change denial. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:47, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Rubin. I was able to search the New Yorker article. In ten pages, there is one reference to "denial" and that is not the New Yorker calling the company deniers, but a brief excerpt of a quote in which Greenpeace makes the claim. That's not enough to support the claim—at best, it supports a claim that someone made a claim, but that's pretty thin gruel. This claim needs far better sourcing than has been provided so far.--SPhilbrickT 13:40, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

POV Tag

This article is entirely ridiculous. (Until I edited it) It leaves out the Byrd-Hagel resolution, acts as if the Cap and Trade bill passed, and treats liberal blogs as the most reliable sources out there. POV Tag 05:02, 9 January 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Seniortrend (talk • contribs)

What about Cap and dividend &/or "Cap and Share" ?

What about Cap and dividend &/or "Cap and Share" ? 99.181.148.166 (talk) 03:50, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Or

The Cantwell-Collins bill (S. 2877), also called the Carbon Limits and Energy for America's Renewal (CLEAR) Act, directs the Secretary of the Treasury to establish a program to regulate the entry of fossil carbon into commerce in the United States, to promote renewable-energy jobs and economic growth. The bill is bipartisan with Susan Collins, a Republican from Maine, and the Washington (state) Democrat Cantwell. 99.181.135.251 (talk) 19:45, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Why not? It's false that the bill is "bipartisan", but I suppose we can include it if someone actually said it was. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:26, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Sources ... http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=s111-2877 http://cantwell.senate.gov/issues/CLEARAct.cfm http://www.grist.org/article/2009-12-14-defending-the-cantwell-collins-clear-act

99.119.128.141 (talk) 19:37, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

By "someone", I mean "a reliable source other than the proponents". You don't have one yet. For that matter, you don't have a reliable source for the real content of the bill rather than the primary source (govtrack, or thomas). — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:29, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Add March 2011 the Republicans submit a bill to the U.S. congress that would permanantely make the Environmental Protection Agency unable to regulate pollution emissions.

March 2011 the Republicans submit a bill to the U.S. congress that would permanantely make the Environmental Protection Agency unable to regulate pollution emissions. http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/03/04/us-epa-emissions-bill-idUSTRE7226UJ20110304 Reuters 99.190.83.246 (talk) 02:45, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

I fixed to to say what the article really says about the bill, which isn't that. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 09:45, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Source of reference: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Portal:Current_events/2011_March_3&diff=417218760&oldid=417175669 99.19.45.48 (talk) 03:52, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

It's wrong there, also. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 05:16, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

To be precise, it quotes the title of the article there, but the statement does not appear in the article. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:35, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Add Why Are Americans So Ill-Informed about Climate Change? from Scientific American

• Why Are Americans So Ill-Informed about Climate Change? from Scientific American —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.190.86.252 (talk) 07:15, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Why not in Public opinion on climate change. Oh, it's already there. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 12:03, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Do I detect an attempt at a sarcastic joke? 108.73.112.139 (talk) 01:50, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Most of your proposed edits are jokes. I thought I'd try a new technique to see if I can write something that you can understand and act on. It appears to be another failure. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 10:00, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

More insulting "Arthur", please refrain? Doing it for the lulz, User:Arthur Rubin? ... Wikipedia:Don't take the bait ... 99.181.146.135 (talk) 02:31, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Relate with Energy conservation in the United States?

Relate with Energy conservation in the United States? 99.181.150.162 (talk) 04:14, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Restore Rolling Stone reference ...

The Bush administration implemented an industry-formulated disinformation campaign designed to actively mislead the American public on global warming and to forestall limits on "climate polluters," according to a report in Rolling Stone magazine which reviews hundreds of internal government documents and former government officials.

"'They've got a political clientele that does not want to be regulated,' says Rick S. Piltz, a former Bush climate official who blew the whistle on White House censorship of global-warming documents in 2005. 'Any honest discussion of the science would stimulate public pressure for a stronger policy. They're not stupid.'

"Bush's do-nothing policy on global warming began almost as soon as he took office. By pursuing a carefully orchestrated policy of delay, the White House blocked even the most modest reforms and replaced them with token investments in futuristic solutions like hydrogen cars. 'It's a charade,' says Jeremy Symons, who represented the EPA on Dick Cheney's energy task force, the industry-studded group that met in secret to craft the administration's energy policy. 'They have a single-minded determination to do nothing—while making it look like they are doing something.'

99.181.144.93 (talk) 03:57, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Readded, for potential discussion. 97.87.29.188 (talk) 23:47, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Tagged with the minimum tags associated with the controversial statement:

{{refimprove-section}}

{{importance-section}}

{{pov-section}}

{{accuracy-section}}

Please do not remove the tags without removing the Rolling Stone section. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:59, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Add news from Portal:Current events/2011 April 6: defeat of ban on EPA regulating greenhouse gas emissions.

The U.S. Senate defeated a measure that would have banned the Environmental Protection Agency from regulating greenhouse gas emissions. The regulations began being applied early this year effects polluters such as power plants and oil refineries, as a climate change mitigation attempt. http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/04/07/us-climate-congress-idUSTRE7357HU20110407 Reuters ... make polluters be air pollution? 209.255.78.138 (talk) 17:40, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Still seriously overlinked, and not quite supported by the article, but some parts are appropriate in this article. United States Senate is a perfectly good wikilink; there's no need to divide it in half, and "climate change mitigation" is a conclusion, requiring a separate source. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:38, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Might you suggest a specific sentence? 209.255.78.138 (talk) 19:53, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure where it should appear, but

"The United States Senate defeated a measure that would have would have banned the Environmental Protection Agency from regulating greenhouse gas emissions. The regulations, which began being applied early this year, effects CO₂ emitters such as power plants and oil refineries." — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:08, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

That clears out most of the overlinking, removes the unsourced commentary that it's a climate change mitigation attempt, and removes the pejorative word "polluters". Some rational people still don't define greenhouse gas emission to be "pollution". It should also be paired with the House bill which the Senate is refusing to agree to. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:08, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

A New York Times article: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/07/us/politics/07epa.html?_r=1 Senate Rejects Bills to Limit E.P.A.’s Emissions Programs by John M. Broder (Published: April 6, 2011) 99.190.86.149 (talk) 01:18, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

wp:NOR, in the sources greenhouses gases, including carbon dioxide (in excess), are pollution, Air Pollution, also per the current Clean Air Act (United States) (cited in the references. 99.35.13.61 (talk) 02:58, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Still WP:OR; (1) greenhouses gases are regulated by the EPA as pollution; it doesn't mean they are pollution. (2) The clean air act (United States) is only associated with this (in the references) in a press release by the Obama administration, not in the journalistic voice. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 04:51, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

(1) If something is defined as something, it is something. That is how words work, no? We are not attempting to write ourselves that far out-of-the-box, we are only human. (2) See "Portal talk:Current events/2011 April 6". 209.255.78.138 (talk) 21:03, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

(1) No. If the EPA (with or without legal justification) defines greenhouse gas emissions to be pollution, it doesn't mean that they are pollution. (2) you haven't countered that finding at all; the phrase "clean air act" is only spoken by the Obama administration. Furthermore the "clean air act" is not "regulations", it's a law, so the wikipipe is an easter egg. You could support "regulations under the clean air act", if you added a source for that statement, such as the Washington Post article. "Mitigation of global warming" is almost justified, although a reasonable interpretation would be that the regulations are intended to appear to deal with global warming, rather than to deal with global warming. Both the original articles contain more information to support that than to support an actual attempt at mitigation of global warming.— Arthur Rubin (talk) 05:34, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

(1) Yes. There is legal "justification" in this case (United States Supreme Court). Humans decide what words mean, and words only have the meaning we give them; otherwise they are just sounds (or writing). You or I are not is a position to define the legality (words definitions and enforcement). (2) See Portal talk:Current events/2011 April 6, and previously added references. 97.87.29.188 (talk) 22:19, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Add wikinews Bloomberg and Clinton create green alliance, Sunday, April 17, 2011

{{sister|project=wikinews |text=[[Wikinews]] has news on this topic *[[n:Bloomberg and Clinton create green alliance|Bloomberg and Clinton create green alliance]], Sunday, April 17, 2011 }} 99.112.213.4 (talk) 02:46, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Why? Perhaps a link to the appropriate subject on Wikinews, but not a specific article? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 13:34, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

How would that be done, and why is it different Mr. Rubin? The article was quite interesting Special:Contributions/99.112.213.4, Thank you. 209.255.78.138 (talk) 19:52, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

There are any number of Wikinews articles which would be appropriate to this article. However, Wikinews doesn't have restrictive enough categories to select it. Most news articles in all three of the wikinews categories Climate change, United States, and Politics and conflicts should be relevant here. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:05, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

It should also be noted that the referenced article isn't so characterized on Wikinews, being in category Environment rather than Climate change. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:40, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Interesting, thank you for the post User:Arthur Rubin. 99.56.122.135 (talk) 01:26, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Also interesting for the Politics is Michael Bloomberg has been "a Democratic (until 2001), a Republican (2001–2007), and is now an Independent (2007–present)", just an observation. But then he is only just the Chair of the Large Cities Climate Leadership Group (C40). 99.181.155.158 (talk) 03:38, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

How would Environment and Climate change be added to this article? 97.87.29.188 (talk) 21:39, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

It is now currently in Categories: April 17, 2011 | Environment | Published | Michael Bloomberg | Bill Clinton | New York, New York | New York | United States | North America | Politics and conflicts | Climate change | Science and technology | and Weather. 99.190.85.25 (talk) 22:31, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Still, sister links to Wikinews should be to categories, rather than to individual news items. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:14, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Did you intend http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Portal:Environment the Wikinews Portal for Environment? 99.119.131.205 (talk) 01:48, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

No. Wikinews doesn't have a fine enough portal for this page to connect to. Environment should connect to n:Category:Environment, but probably very few other articles should link to those Wikinews portals. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:56, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Add related information from the IPCC article ...

From section

Main article: Hockey stick controversy

The appearance of MBH99 in the Third Assessment Report was widely construed as demonstrating that the current warming period is exceptional in comparison to temperatures between 1000 and 1900. Criticism of the graph in a much disputed paper by Soon and Baliunas was picked up by US Republican senator James Inhofe. He called global warming a "hoax" in a Senate speech, and this became a focus of political debate. The methodology used to produce the "hockey stick graph" was criticized in a paper by Stephen McIntyre and Ross McKitrick.

for example. 99.190.85.25 (talk) 23:08, 22 April 2011 (UTC) Also include Global warming controversy and Global warming conspiracy theory. 99.190.85.25 (talk) 23:12, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

More ...

More ...

Various criticisms have been raised, both about the specific content of IPCC reports, as well as about the process undertaken to produce the reports. On 13 March 2010, an open letter, signed by over 250 scientists in the United States, was sent to U.S. federal agencies that "None of the handful of mis-statements (out of hundreds and hundreds of unchallenged statements) remotely undermines the conclusion that 'warming of the climate system is unequivocal' and that most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-twentieth century is very likely due to observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations." In 2010, an independent investigation into the IPCC recommended that the body focus more on explaining the science behind any changes in global temperature, and less on lobbying activities.

99.119.128.170 (talk) 23:25, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Some of that relates to US politics:

1. Obviously James Inhofe's comments are politics, but Soon/Baliunas and McIntyre/McKitrick should only be in list of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming, unless they've recanted. Inhofe's comments also fit well with global warming conspiracy theory. I have doubts about global warming controversy, but I could probably be convinced if you provided information about a politician doubting the details of global warming, but not the overall trends.
2. The "open letter" is a primary source, and cannot be used unless reliable sources comment on it. (The AGU is not a reliable source on the matter.) I think it fits better in "individual and political action on climate change" than in this article.
3. The "Telegraph" article supports IPCC being listed in politics of global warming as acting politically, but doesn't really support an addition to this article.

— Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:46, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Why Obviously James Inhofe's comments are politics? Why just his, why not others? What makes it obvious? What kind of politics? 99.181.156.137 (talk) 04:28, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Why? Because Inhofe is a United States Senator? Why is it not obvious? (And for that matter, why is it not obvious that Soon/Baliunas and McIntyre/McKitrick are not politics? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 05:20, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Why not others politics? Obvious is a content-free answer. 99.112.214.0 (talk) 21:00, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Are you saying all human action is politics? In that case, this article is misnamed. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:43, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

What are you suggesting? 99.181.142.47 (talk) 02:04, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, what? 97.87.29.188 (talk) 22:36, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Add Wikinews Category:Global warming|Global warming and climate change}}

Add {{Wikinews|Category:Global warming|Global warming and climate change}} 99.181.137.215 (talk) 04:47, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Why? Why this article and not all the articles in Category:Global warming? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 09:58, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

That will take some time ... why don't you get started on improving Wikipedia instead of playing "tag"? 97.87.29.188 (talk) 19:36, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Tag team 99.181.133.112 (talk) 21:09, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

I was just pointing out the absurdity of it. Unless you can provide criteria for which articles should be linked to those newsfeeds, none should, as all is absurd. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:26, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

What kind of Absurdism? 99.181.140.200 (talk) 22:14, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Do you see this as a Purist (Splitting (psychology))? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.181.140.200 (talk) 22:17, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Ironically "Absurdity" implies Extremism ... à la Paul Collier's book The Plundered Planet. Painfully phunny. 99.181.146.194 (talk) 23:00, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Reorganization proposal

There was a discussion above about the relationship between this article and Global warming in the United States, which did not quite reach a resolution. I propose the following reorganization:

• Move this article from Politics of global warming (United States) to Climate change policy of the United States, as a more standard title.
• Split the "Regional initatives" section and part of the "Emissions trading" section of Global warming in the United States into a new article, Regional climate change initiatives in the United States.
• Move the "Policy" section and the rest of the "Emissions trading" section of Global warming in the United States to this article. Import a new summary of the policy article in summary style to replace the one moved out.

This should unite all the policy-related topics in this article, and leave the non-policy topics in the other one. Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 06:16, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Currently Climate change policy in the United States redirects here, so you could just rename this article if there is any difference... doesn't seems "a more standard title" though. 97.87.29.188 (talk) 18:08, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Nearly all of the public policy articles on Wikipedia have the form "X policy of Y", for example, Science policy of the United States. Also, parentheses should only be used for disambiguation of articles which would have the same title, rather than specifying a child article of a larger topic. Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 21:12, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Now that this article is Climate change policy of the United States, are you planning on changing Politics of global warming to "Climate change policy" (a redirect) or Global climate change policy or something else? Note: The USA still appears to be the only country with a seperate article. 209.255.78.138 (talk) 20:02, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Some nice additions User:Antony-22, such as List of climate change initiatives#North America. 108.73.114.19 (talk) 01:52, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Those are useful. I think they are best used to expand Regional climate change initiatives in the United States. Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 05:06, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Add EPA delays rules (Clean Air Act (United States)) on oil refineries, chemical plants, paper mills and other factories.

From Portal:Current events/2011 May 17 add The Environmental Protection Agency delays its proposed rules for the United States for cutting pollution from industrial boilers used at oil refineries, chemical plants, paper mills and other factories. (Marketwatch)(WSJ) It is more current than Portal:Current events/2011 April 6 info. If of further interest, see Political activities of the Koch family and Koch Industries subsidiaries, and Energy Industries subsidies discussion 99.109.124.16 (talk) 20:18, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

What specifically? Was this about Mercury (element)? 209.255.78.138 (talk) 19:04, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

I heard mercury and others discussed per the Charlie Rose tv show. 97.87.29.188 (talk) 20:00, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Mercury from burning Coal I'd assume. 97.87.29.188 (talk) 16:43, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Global warming controversy = "emphasized the uncertainties" in the global warming issue.

... emphasized the uncertainties in the global warming issue." 99.181.140.154 (talk) 00:06, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Easter egg. As it's unsourced and improbable, may I suggest you rewrite the sentence to include an expression which really resembles "global warming controversy"; then, only the {{cn}} tag (and probably {{undue}}) would remain. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 03:29, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Piped link. 99.181.135.38 (talk) 04:40, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

For efficiency, any suggestions? 99.181.156.9 (talk) 18:42, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Delete the entire sentence until a source can be provided? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:16, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Done. Clinton also refused to submit the treaty for ratification, and speculating on the reasoning without a source is a clear WP:BLP violation. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:37, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

You talking (writing) with yourself is confusing, please refrain. 99.35.12.107 (talk) 22:13, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Please learn to read.

1. I was following up on my previous comment, rather than replying to.
2. You, on the other hand, as 99.181.156.9, were replying to 99.181.135.38. We all know you're the same.

— Arthur Rubin (talk) 04:50, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Already cited in article(s) ... ?

Already cited in article(s) ... ?

Former President of the United States, George W. Bush, did not submit the treaty for ratification, believing the treaty would strain the economy and emphasized the uncertainties in the global warming issue.

99.181.128.80 (talk) 03:24, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Cite? Reference? We know that both Bush and Clinton did not submit the treaty for ratification. Details as to reasons why the treaty was not submitted for ratification could be of interest in the article, but....

Kyoto Protocol#Views on the Protocol specifies a different reason, and an WP:UNDUE excerpt from Views on the Kyoto Protocol#U.S. History with the Protocol notes the first clause, and a version of the second clause inconsistent with the statement, and further notes that Clinton, Bush, and Obama did not submit the Protocol for ratification. (It also notes that the Senate specified it was the "sense of the Senate" that the US was not a signatory of the Protocol. That seems better placed in this article than speculation as to the reasons the Protocol was not submitted for ratification.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 05:22, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Why not add them also? 99.190.85.197 (talk) 05:23, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Because it will create edit warring about your interpretation of what few reliable sources we have. "Former President of the United States, George W. Bush, did not submit the treaty for ratification, believing the treaty would strain the economy." is acceptable, but we should also note that the Senate was opposed before (if ever) Clinton submitted it for ratification, and Obama also refused to submit it for ratification. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:14, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Please add citations. 97.87.29.188 (talk) 17:08, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, User:Arthur Rubin where are your references? 99.181.155.61 (talk) 21:08, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

You first. We have text with sources in Views on the Kyoto Protocol#U.S. History with the Protocol that Bush did not submit the protocol for ratification, "believing" the treaty would strain the economy, and that Obama did not submit the treaty for ratification, noting " It set very ambitious—and costly—targets for the United States while allowing emissions from the developing world to continue to rise unchecked." (Sorry, it wasn't Obama that noted that. Views needs to be edited to match the actual sources.) And the Senate voted 95-0 against the protocol before Clinton had a chance to submit it for ratification. (The sources we have do not show whether Clinton actually submitted it for ratification, although that should be easy to determine.) We do not have a source for "emphasizing the uncertainties" (in global warming), or for linking that to global warming controversy. Not everything I wrote has a source presently in related Wikipedia articles, but very little of what you wrote does. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:07, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Mr. Rubin, why don't you just add past President's Administration activities beyond just "Undue" comments? 99.181.159.117 (talk) 03:03, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Wrong with references?

1. http://www.websters-online-dictionary.org/definitions/Kyoto+Protocol?cx=partner-pub-0939450753529744%3Av0qd01-tdlq&cof=FORID%3A9&ie=UTF-8&q=Kyoto+Protocol&sa=Search#922
2. http://www.scribd.com/doc/35237743/Kyoto-Protocol-Its-Impact-on-Global-Climate-Change-and-the-Philippines
3. http://www.springerlink.com/content/n242431l30624661/

99.181.159.117 (talk) 03:01, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

None of them support the statements written. There may be some way those references can be used for the Kyoto Protocol, but there are no references to US policy. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 06:03, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Please read at least some of these before commenting Mr. Rubin. From first reference alone, an excerpt:

United States See also: Energy policy of the United States ... The United States (U.S.), although a signatory to the Kyoto Protocol, has neither ratified nor withdrawn from the Protocol. The signature alone is symbolic, as the Kyoto Protocol is non-binding on the United States unless ratified. The United States was, as of 2005, the largest single emitter of carbon dioxide from the burning of fossil fuels.[62] On July 25, 1997, before the Kyoto Protocol was finalized (although it had been fully negotiated, and a penultimate draft was finished), the U.S. Senate unanimously passed by a 95–0 vote the Byrd-Hagel Resolution (S. Res. 98),[63][64] which stated the sense of the Senate was that the United States should not be a signatory to any protocol that did not include binding targets and timetables for developing as well as industrialized nations or "would result in serious harm to the economy of the United States". On November 12, 1998, Vice President Al Gore symbolically signed the protocol. Both Gore and Senator Joseph Lieberman indicated that the protocol would not be acted upon in the Senate until there was participation by the developing nations.[65] The Clinton Administration never submitted the protocol to the Senate for ratification. The Clinton Administration released an economic analysis in July 1998, prepared by the Council of Economic Advisors, which concluded that with emissions trading among the Annex B/Annex I countries, and participation of key developing countries in the "Clean Development Mechanism" — which grants the latter business-as-usual emissions rates through 2012 — the costs of implementing the Kyoto Protocol could be reduced as much as 60% from many estimates. Other economic analyses, however, prepared by the Congressional Budget Office[citation needed] and the Department of Energy[citation needed], Energy Information Administration (EIA)[66], demonstrated a potentially large loss to GDP from implementing the Protocol of up to 4.2% (EIA). The current President, George W. Bush, has indicated that he does not intend to submit the treaty for ratification, not because he does not support the Kyoto principles, but because of the exemption granted to China (the world's largest emitter of carbon dioxide[67]). Bush also opposes the treaty because of the strain he believes the treaty would put on the economy; he emphasizes the uncertainties which he believes are present in the climate change issue.[citation needed] Furthermore, the U.S. is concerned with broader exemptions of the treaty. For example, the U.S. does not support the split between Annex I countries and others. Bush said of the treaty: This is a challenge that requires a 100% effort; ours, and the rest of the world's. The world's second-largest emitter of greenhouse gases is the People's Republic of China. Yet, China was entirely exempted from the requirements of the Kyoto Protocol. India and Germany are among the top emitters. Yet, India was also exempt from Kyoto … America's unwillingness to embrace a flawed treaty should not be read by our friends and allies as any abdication of responsibility. To the contrary, my administration is committed to a leadership role on the issue of climate change … Our approach must be consistent with the long-term goal of stabilizing greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere."[68] In June 2002, the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) released the "Climate Action Report 2002". Some observers have interpreted this report as being supportive of the protocol, although the report itself does not explicitly endorse the protocol.[citation needed] At the G-8 meeting in June 2005 administration officials expressed a desire for "practical commitments industrialized countries can meet without damaging their economies". According to those same officials, the United States is on track to fulfill its pledge to reduce its carbon intensity 18% by 2012.[69] The United States has signed the Asia Pacific Partnership on Clean Development and Climate, a pact that allows those countries to set their goals for reducing greenhouse gas emissions individually, but with no enforcement mechanism. Supporters of the pact see it as complementing the Kyoto Protocol while being more flexible, but critics have said the pact will be ineffective without any enforcement measures.[citation needed] The Administration's position is not uniformly accepted in the U.S. For example, Paul Krugman notes that the target 18% reduction in carbon intensity is still actually an increase in overall emissions.[70] The White House has also come under criticism for downplaying reports that link human activity and greenhouse gas emissions to climate change and that a White House official, former oil industry advocate and current Exxon Mobil officer, Philip Cooney, watered down descriptions of climate research that had already been approved by government scientists, charges the White House denies.[71] Critics point to the Bush administration's close ties to the oil and gas industries. In June 2005, State Department papers showed the administration thanking Exxon executives for the company's "active involvement" in helping to determine climate change policy, including the U.S. stance on Kyoto. Input from the business lobby group Global Climate Coalition was also a factor.[72] In 2002, Congressional researchers who examined the legal status of the Protocol advised that signature of the UNFCCC imposes an obligation to refrain from undermining the Protocol's object and purpose, and that while the President probably cannot implement the Protocol alone; Congress can create compatible laws on its own initiative.[73]

bolding is mine. 99.190.81.142 (talk) 03:29, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm not saying these are great references, but your attempted counter-arguments are self-destructive wastes of wikipedia and other's limited resources. Please find a more constructive use of your potential talents. 99.190.81.142 (talk) 03:34, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

That's not in my copy, and I have some doubts about the reliability of references 1 and 2. Even so, singling out Bush is inappropriate for this section. If that's correct, we should say Presidents Clinton, Bush, and Obama have not submitted the treaty for ratification, rather than singling out Bush and putting words into his mouth (no matter how tempting, considering how often he puts his foot in his mouth). — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:49, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

An accurate and unbiased statement appears there, now. Unless all three gave the same justifications, the reasons had best be left to more detailed articles. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:00, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Content removed by User:Arthur Rubin's edits ...

Former President of the United States, George W. Bush, did not submit the treaty for ratification, stating the treaty would strain the economy, and questioning the validity of the science behind global warming.

99.119.128.251 (talk) 18:18, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

A much better summary is, as I replaced it: Presidents Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, and (as of now) Barack Obama did not submit the treaty for ratification. The specific reasons for each President's refusal should be in the text, if any are. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:36, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Restored reference, any specific issues?

Former President George W. Bush stated the treaty would strain the economy and questioning the validity of the science behind global warming.

One of the references, http://www.amazon.com/Republican-War-Science-Chris-Mooney/dp/B000WCNU44/ref=cm_cr_pr_product_top/187-8412201-1377026 is specifically The Republican War on Science. 99.181.139.6 (talk) 06:23, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

WP:UNDUE on two points:

1. It ignores Clinton and Obama's refusals.
2. It ignores other sourced reasons by Bush; in particular, that even if the US eliminated all greenhouse gas emissions, China's projected increase would still increase global greenhouse gas emissions.

— Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:16, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Useful comments, Mr. Rubin, why don't you add that content, instead of deleting what is there and sourced? 99.181.158.237 (talk) 04:38, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

There are several problems. For references you have a blog, a dictionary definition, two Amazon links to buy the books, and two questionable left leaning sources. It would appear that you cobbled all of these together in a poor attempt at original research (particularly the dictionary souce and the two amazon sources). Your "specifcially" reference also violate linkspan violations because you are linking to a site to purchase the book. Arzel (talk) 14:33, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Why not delete those specifically or modify those with better sources? 99.181.158.237 (talk) 04:38, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

It is not my job to fix your original research in order to make it not original research. Nore is it my job to search for reliable sources which probably don't exist in order to meet basic WP policies. Why don't you sign up for an actual account and stop using multiple IP's? Arzel (talk) 04:42, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

As in Debate over China's economic responsibilities for climate change mitigation Mr. Rubin? (your deletion) The previous edit was made by the 99.* IP, most of whose edits show a lack of knowledge of the English language.

You may have a point, there. It's indirect, and should be in the appropriate subarticle of Kyoto Protocol, rather than here, but you may have a point. It would make more sense if you made that point first, though. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:13, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Clarification: It was your point, see above, "China's projected increase would still increase global greenhouse gas emissions", and you deleted it from the article. 99.19.46.246 (talk) 18:30, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

On the contrary, it should still be in the relevant subarticle of Kyoto Protocol, first. And it's indirect, although our article does seem related to that topic. On the other hand, the detailed reasoning of the three Presidents in question probably shouldn't be in this article, and, if not, the link shouldn't. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:40, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

That is a False dilemma, as wp articles are build over time, not all-or-nothing. 99.181.135.85 (talk) 06:54, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

References

Add "The United States Supreme Court rejects 8-0 a lawsuit ..." from Portal:Current events/2011 June 20.

Add the United States Supreme Court decision from Portal:Current events/2011 June 20.

Wiki is not a news aggegator

The United States Supreme Court rejects 8-0 a lawsuit against five big power utility companies, brought by U.S. states , New York City, and Land trusts, attempting to force cuts in greenhouse gas emissions. The decision favors the Environmental Protection Agency over U.S. courts regarding global warming and the United States Clean Air Act. http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=supreme-court-rejects-global-warmin Reuters via Scientific American with Editor Will Dunham http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/06/20/us-usa-climate-lawsuit-idUSTRE75J3JR20110620 Reuters The utilities -- American Electric Power Co Inc, Southern Company, Xcel Energy Inc and Duke Energy Corp, along with the federal government-owned Tennessee Valley Authority -- account for about 10 percent of U.S. carbon dioxide emissions (see Greenhouse gas emissions by the United States). The states of California, Connecticut, Iowa, New York, Rhode Island and Vermont said their citizens have been harmed by global warming and wanted their lawsuit to proceed to trial. "The Clean Air Act and the Environmental Protection Agency action the Act authorizes, we hold, displace the claims the plaintiffs seek to pursue," Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said for the court. The ruling involved the most important climate change case to reach the Supreme Court since its landmark 2007 ruling that authorized the EPA to regulate greenhouse emissions. Although the EPA has found that greenhouse pollution poses a health hazard, it has yet to impose regulations on the power plants in the face of opposition from Republicans in the United States Congress. Peter Keisler, who argued for the power companies, said he was pleased the decision held that states and private parties should look to Congress, not the courts, to set policies on climate change and greenhouse gas regulation. American Electric Power spokesman Pat Hemlepp said power companies that emit greenhouse gases "can continue to operate in accordance with environmental regulations without worrying about the threat of incurring substantial costs defending against climate change litigation." David Doniger, policy director of the Climate Center at the Natural Resources Defense Council environmental group, said, "Today's ruling reaffirms the Environmental Protection Agency's duty under the nation's 40-year-old Clean Air Act to safeguard public health and welfare from dangerous carbon pollution. Now the EPA must act without delay." The Supreme Court case is American Electric Power v. Connecticut, No. 10-174. http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20072702-503544.html CBS News When Republican governors took over in New Jersey and Wisconsin, those states withdrew from the case. The targets were five of the biggest greenhouse gas emitters in America. Four of them are part of the Edison Electric Institute, a major industry group. Institute lawyer Bill Fang praises the ruling, saying "you can't have plaintiffs running into federal court and suing not just utility defendants but any number of industrial and business defendants on nuisance grounds. It's back door way to regulate greenhouse gas emissions. " Companies, he says, can't operate if they have to face different climate change regulations in each state. "They need certainty and a set of federal standards is obviously better than having 50 states try to regulate." The Obama administration favors stronger measures to limit global warming. Even so, it sided with the power companies in this case, to protect federal authority. Environmentalists are disappointed. David Doniger of the Natural Resources Defense Council says, "Now the EPA must act without delay." He complains that power plant "pollution is driving dangerous heat waves and smog, stronger storms, floods and droughts. http://www.mlive.com/environment/index.ssf/2011/06/post_62.html MLive.com "We hold that the Clean Air Act and the EPA actions it authorizes displace any federal common law right to seek abatement of carbon-dioxide emissions from fossil-fuel fired power plants." American Electric Power Co. v. Connecticut, No. 10-174 (USSC, June 20, 2011; Ginsburg, J.). On June 20, 2011, the United States Supreme Court issued an 8-0 opinion, which reversed the Second Circuit Court of Appeals decision[1] that allowed numerous plaintiffs to pursue a nuisance claim against several power companies and the Tennessee Valley Authority for their greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions (Justice Sotomayor did not take part in the decision). As I anticipated in an earlier Green Blawg entry, the Supreme Court focused its decision on whether the Clean Air Act displaces any lawsuit based on federal common law claims. The Supreme Court concluded that it does. Under federal law, the Supreme Court has recognized that states may have a cause of action under federal common law when seeking to abate air and water pollution that is created in other states (see http://supreme.justia.com/us/451/304/index.html). However, these federal common law claims cease to exist when there is federal legislation that regulates the same activity. Once the Supreme Court ruled that the Clean Air Act governed GHG emissions in Massachusetts v EPA [2], and that EPA could regulate such emissions, whatever private claims under federal common law that may have existed were no longer viable. Justice Ginsburg wrote, "were EPA to decline to regulate carbon-dioxide emissions altogether at the conclusion of its ongoing §7411 rulemaking, the federal courts would have no warrant to employ federal common law of nuisance to upset the agency's expert determination." Thus, the Court would honor EPA's rulemaking, at least with respect to challenges based on federal common law, even if EPA decided not to regulate GHG emissions. The balancing between what is environmentally achievable, this country's energy needs, and the economic cost of regulating rests entirely with EPA's discretion under the Clean Air Act, subject to administrative challenges. Another interesting item coming from the decision is that although the decision was unanimous, Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas issued a concurring opinion that still puts the future of the decision in Massachusetts v EPA in play. The concurrence made plain that while they agreed that the Clean Air Act displaced federal common law nuisance claims in this instance, they concurred with the majority only assuming for the sake of argument that Massachusetts v. Environmental Protection Agency was correctly decided, as the merits of that opinion were not at issue in the appeal. In short, both concurring Justices left room for reversing Massachusetts v EPA and offered no opinion on whether that decision was correctly decided. The final decision rests in the hands of EPA, subject to alterations in the Clean Air Act by legislation[3]. Of course, states are still free to impose regulations and enter into compacts regulating such gases, as the Clean Air Act only sets a floor of regulation, allowing states to impose stricter regulations if they choose (see http://supreme.justia.com/us/427/246/). http://content.usatoday.com/communities/greenhouse/post/2011/06/supreme-court-backs-obama-epa-states-climate-change/1 USA Today Justice Sonia Sotomayor recused herself, because she had sat on the appeals court panel that heard the case. Ginsburg also said the states and conservation groups can go to federal court if they object to the EPA's eventual rules. In December, the EPA said it will issue new regulations this year to reduce power plants' emissions of the primary greenhouse gas, carbon dioxide. Yet the EPA's authority has been questioned by many lawmakers in the GOP-controlled[4] House of Representatives, which passed a bill to bar the agency from moving forward. The lawsuit began in 2004 when eight states said electric utilities were major polluters and sought to have a federal judge order them to cut their emissions of carbon dioxide. At the time, the Bush administration doubted the EPA's authority to regulate greenhouse gases. http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/10pdf/10-174.pdf Analysis on PBS NewsHour by National Law Journal's Marcia Coyle. (http://www.pbs.org/newshour/updates/law/jan-june11/scotus_06-20.html) The ruling stemmed from a 2004 lawsuit claiming the five electric utilities have created a public nuisance by contributing to climate change. 99.190.87.46 (talk) 22:38, 20 June 2011 (UTC) More ... The Atlanta Journal-Constitution The Obama administration has already started controlling heat-trapping pollution from automobiles and from some of the largest, and most polluting, industrial plants. But the administration's actions have come under criticism in Congress, where the Republican-controlled House has passed a bill to strip the EPA from using the Clean Air Act to regulate global warming gases. The measure failed in the Senate, but a majority there indicated they would back reining in EPA in some way. In pushing to curtail EPA's work, Republicans have accused the administration of acting unilaterally after failing to get a bill passed to deal with the problem. The administration has said the overwhelming scientific evidence has compelled them to act under existing law. California Attorney General Kamala Harris said her state, one of those that sued, would be watching the EPA closely. The "decision reaffirms the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's responsibility to regulate dangerous carbon pollution," Harris said. The decision reversed a ruling by the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New York. The situation was very different when eight states banded together to sue in 2004. At that time, a lawsuit looked like the only way to force action on global warming. The Bush administration and the Republicans in charge of Congress doubted the EPA's authority to regulate greenhouse gases. The private defendants in the suit beside Southern are American Electric Power Co. of Ohio, Cinergy Co., now part of Duke Energy Corp. of North Carolina; and Xcel Energy Inc. of Minnesota. The high court did not rule on some potential state-law claims. Ginsburg said those are best addressed by lower courts. 99.181.135.108 (talk) 03:21, 21 June 2011 (UTC) And from the Huffington Post ... http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/06/20/supreme-court-climate-change-lawsuit-ruling_n_880340.html ... EPA says it will decide by next year whether to order utilities to cut emissions of carbon dioxide, a greenhouse gas. ... The states' lawsuit is the second climate change dispute at the court in four years. In 2007, the court declared that carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases are air pollutants under the Clean Air Act. By a 5-4 vote, the justices said the EPA has the authority to regulate those emissions from new cars and trucks under that landmark law. The same reasoning applies to power plants. 99.181.135.108 (talk) 03:26, 21 June 2011 (UTC) It doesn't really seem significant, in spite of Reuters' — unique — interpretation of the decision. Wikipedia:NOTNEWS. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 06:51, 21 June 2011 (UTC) Arthur, the Reuters quotation is not unique, most if not all the references mention the significance of this decision. 216.250.156.66 (talk) 00:27, 22 June 2011 (UTC) Here is the current version ... The United States Supreme Court overturned 8-0 a U.S. appeals court ruling against five big power utility companies, brought by U.S. states , New York City, and Land trusts, attempting to force cuts in United States greenhouse gas emissions regarding global warming. The decision gives deference to reasonable interpretations of the United States Clean Air Act by the Environmental Protection Agency. http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=supreme-court-rejects-global-warmin (Scientific American), http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20072702-503544.html (CBS News), http://content.usatoday.com/communities/greenhouse/post/2011/06/supreme-court-backs-obama-epa-states-climate-change/1 (USA Today), http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/06/20/us-usa-climate-lawsuit-idUSTRE75J3JR20110620 (Reuters), http://www.mlive.com/environment/index.ssf/2011/06/post_62.html (MLive.com), http://www.pbs.org/newshour/updates/law/jan-june11/scotus_06-20.html (PBS NewsHour) 99.109.124.69 (talk) 04:12, 23 June 2011 (UTC) That's an acceptable sentence, but most 9-0 and 8-0 United States Supreme Court decisions are not notable. We would need a specific source on why that one is notable, especially when it states it covers no new ground. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:23, 23 June 2011 (UTC) Did you read all the reference completely? What "no new ground", it doesn't go to the Supreme Court if not new ground. 99.181.141.190 (talk) 05:46, 24 June 2011 (UTC) One way a controversy can get to the Supreme Court is that if an appellate court violated a clear mandate of the Supreme Court. That seems to be the basis for this ruling. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 05:50, 24 June 2011 (UTC) And I didn't originate the statement that the decision covered no new ground. The decision asserts that it covers no new ground. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 05:51, 24 June 2011 (UTC) Please point to the exact quote, Mr. Rubin. 99.181.135.203 (talk) 02:14, 25 June 2011 (UTC) It appears I made a mistake. They said that a previous decision (Milwaukee II) recreating federal common law didn't apply to this case, setting a different standard for preemption of "federal common law" than the Appellate Court chose. They didn't comment as to whether the standard selected by the Appellate Court was unjustified, just that it was wrong. If they said the standard was unjustified, we would have a good basis for "no new ground". I still don't think it's relevant in this article. In addition, the decision does not put a final resolution to the case, as they remanded for consideration of whether state common law might apply. If they had simply ruled that the Federal courts didn't have jurisdiction over a political question, that really wouldn't have been new, but they divided 4-4 on that issue. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 03:12, 25 June 2011 (UTC) It is curious that when asked to quote your "sources" you either don't or it was a "mistake" ... 97.87.29.188 (talk) 20:32, 25 June 2011 (UTC) Yes, it is Art. 99.181.131.237 (talk) 06:23, 10 July 2011 (UTC) Lack of source in Talk:Climatic Research Unit email controversy too, I see. 97.87.29.188 (talk) 21:08, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

These IP threads lack specific ideas for improving the article, which is the sole purpose of this talk page

Resource: EPA to Require New Pollution Cuts: Power Plants Will Need to Sharply Curtail Soot and Smog; Rule Draws Fire From GOP, Businesses. Resource: EPA to Require New Pollution Cuts: Power Plants Will Need to Sharply Curtail Soot and Smog; Rule Draws Fire From GOP, Businesses. in WSJ by Ryan Tracy and Tennille Tracy within the past 24 hours. 97.87.29.188 (talk) 19:40, 8 July 2011 (UTC) Comment ... *Why Black Carbon and Ozone Also Matter, in September/October 2009 Foreign Affairs with Veerabhadran Ramanathan and Jessica Seddon Wallack. (From Climate change mitigation). 99.112.213.202 (talk) 01:45, 10 July 2011 (UTC) See Black carbon. 99.56.123.175 (talk) 06:30, 28 July 2011 (UTC) Also see Ozone, Ozone depletion and Planetary boundaries. 97.87.29.188 (talk) 16:06, 28 July 2011 (UTC) Resource reference Overrun by Chinese Rivals, U.S. Solar Company Falters by Russell Gold via WSJ 17.August, 2011; introduction excerpt ... Evergreen Solar Inc., once a darling of the U.S. solar industry, filed for bankruptcy protection this week, saying it couldn't compete with Chinese competitors without a reorganization—a sign of the difficulty in creating "green" U.S. manufacturing jobs amid bruising competition across the globe. The market for solar panels is expanding world-wide. But the key thing driving demand is increasingly lower prices, which is forcing U.S. firms into a cutthroat cost-cutting war with rivals in China and elsewhere. ... 99.181.138.215 (talk) 01:23, 18 August 2011 (UTC) Is there a reference for this removed section? On August 17, 2011, Rick Perry - one of the Tea party candidents for the 2012 presidential election and currently the Governor of Texas - said theat he belives that global warming hasn't been caused by humans and if he bcomes president he won't support the United States government spending money to help prevent global warming. 99.35.12.88 (talk) 03:10, 27 August 2011 (UTC) Some potential sources for references ... Rick_Perry#Environmental_issues ... Perry does not believe there is valid scientific proof of anthropogenic global warming. He has said several times that there is no scientific consensus on the issue.[183] In a September 7, 2007, speech to California Republicans, Perry said, "Virtually every day another scientist leaves the global warming bandwagon. ... But you won't read about that in the press because they have already invested in one side of the story."[184] Perry has stated that he feels that there are "a substantial number of scientists who have manipulated data so that they will have dollars rolling in to their projects".[185] Perry's views were criticized for their inaccuracy; surveys showed that more that 97% of climate scientists believed that global warming was anthropogenic. [186][187] 99.35.12.88 (talk) 03:18, 27 August 2011 (UTC) Or from Rick_Perry_presidential_campaign,_2012#Announcement ... On August 13, 2011, in a speech at Charleston, South Carolina, Perry officially announced that he would be a candidate for the Republican nomination.[8] On August 17, 2011, Perry said that he belives that global warming hasn't been caused by humans and if he becomes president he will not support the United States spending money on things to help prevent global warming. 99.35.12.88 (talk) 03:21, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

"congress" section needs big improvement or deletion

Seems like the section labeled "Congress" is presently worthless. A heap of bills - frequently representing polar opposite policy positions of other introduced bills - are floated in congress each session but none of them represent policy (the subject of this article) until they become law. As it currently exists, the "congress" section simply lists a bunch of failed proposals, and IMO that doesn't say a whit about what our policy actually is. I suppose the fact that they failed implies something like "no policy" but we're not supposed to be making inferences of that sort WP:OR. Anyone have ideas for improving this section, or alternatively an argument why it should be preserved the way it is?NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 21:20, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

resource in current issue of Environment (Vol. 53, 5, Sept/Oct 2011)

Resource in current issue of Environment (Volume 53, Number 5, September/October 2011)

http://www.environmentmagazine.org/

Article Legislating Climate Change on a National Level by Terry Townshend, Sam Fankhauser, Adam Matthews, Clément Feger, Jin Liu, and Thais Narciso. 99.181.150.29 (talk) 01:55, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

On page 9's table, President Obama's Executive Order 13514 of Oct. 5, 2009., regarding such items as Zero-Net-Energy USA Federal Buildings (whose construction and operation is to create zero net emissions of greenhouse gases). 99.19.47.31 (talk) 23:38, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Only primary sources; it might be notable, and relevant, if reliable secondary sources report on it. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:50, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

• http://www.whitehouse.gov/assets/documents/2009fedleader_eo_rel.pdf
• http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/President-Obama-signs-an-Executive-Order-Focused-on-Federal-Leadership-in-Environmental-Energy-and-Economic-Performance

99.119.128.169 (talk) 01:16, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Still primary sources. Any source that it's a notable or important climate change policy? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:42, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

• http://www.environmentmagazine.org/Archives/Back%20Issues/2011/September-October%202011/climate-change-full.html previous
• http://www.good.is/post/obama-s-secret-climate-adaptation-plan/ per Good (magazine)
• http://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2011/03/09/2011-5405/instructions-for-implementing-climate-change-adaptation-planning-in-accordance-with-executive-order per Federal Register

99.181.131.7 (talk) 03:42, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

OK, you've got a point. That's one secondary source, one unreliable, and one primary. If you use a secondary source to support it, it might go, but it still shouldn't have a red Wikilink. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 05:13, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Be more clear in your suggestions, please. 99.190.80.8 (talk) 05:22, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Here are some news articles ...

• White House to Go Solar in 'Clean Energy' Push by Emily Yehle of Greenwire, published October 5, 2010 in The New York Times, excerpt

  The symposium marked the one-year anniversary of Obama's Executive Order 13514, which directed the federal government to lead by example and reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Nancy Sutley (chairwoman of the White House Council on Environmental Quality), Energy Secretary Steven Chu, Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack and biomimicry expert Janine Benyus kicked off the event with speeches today at the Lisner Auditorium at George Washington University.

• Feds Hope to Be Role Model for Private Sector on Sustainability by Emily Yehle of Greenwire, published October 22, 2010 in NYT; excerpt ...

  Titled "A Peek at Progress -- Federal Sustainability One Year Later," the NCPC event celebrated the one-year anniversary of President Obama's Executive Order 13514, which tasked the federal government with leading the sustainability effort. Since then, federal agencies have released extensive sustainability plans that pledge to decrease greenhouse gas emissions through steps such as infrastructure improvement and fuel efficiency.

• Contractors Advised to Look at Carbon Footprint as Agencies Strive for Sustainability from Daily Environment Report™ by Andrew Childers in Bureau of National Affairs September 13, 2011; excerpt ...

  Executive Order 13,514, issued in 2009, requires agencies to meet a series of targets for cutting energy and water use and reducing waste and pollution. It also requires 95 percent of new contracts to qualify as energy-efficient, water-efficient, or otherwise be environmentally beneficial.

• http://denver.dbusinessnews.com/viewnews.php?article=bwire/20100528005177r1.xml

  Boulder, Colorado (BUSINESS WIRE)--The United States government is one of the largest consumers of energy and is expected to spend almost $29 billion on energy in 2010, as it occupies nearly 500,000 buildings, operates more than 600,000 vehicles, employs over 1.8 million civilians, and purchases more than $500 billion in goods and services each year. Following President Obama's Executive Order 13514 and the mandatory reporting rule by the U.S. Department of Energy, the federal government also has very aggressive goals for reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions.

99.190.85.146 (talk) 08:23, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

There's probably one more reliable secondary source among those, although there are clearly some which aren't reliable. You may have a point. However, try writing an article, first, before creating links. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 11:44, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Also in Table 1 Flagship Legislation is the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 for the US, stating "authorizes a stimulus package that supports new and existing renewable energy and energy efficiency programs to teh value of USD 18.6 billion." The Table lists 16 major world economies, including G8+5 as well as Indonesia, South Korea , and the EU; covering 155 laws, regulations, policies and decrees of comparable status. 97.87.29.188 (talk) 20:41, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

See Executive Order 13514. 22:38, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

See Executive order for background. 99.190.86.93 (talk) 05:33, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

References

"climate remediation" geoengineering resource in the NYT

Group Urges Research Into Aggressive Efforts to Fight Climate Change by Cornelia Dean, published October 4, 2011 in The New York Times, excerpt ... <removed as probable copyright violation>

Also cited are the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory. the Task Force on Climate Remediation Research and the Office of Science and Technology Policy (http://www.whitehouse.gov/administration/eop/ostp), climate expert at Stanford University and a panel member Ken Caldeira, fellow at the Center for American Progress and influential Climate Progress blogger Joe Romm, Royal Society in Britain, Government Accountability Office, John Holdren and the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, U.S. Global Change Research Program (http://www.globalchange.gov/about/overview), and former chief climate negotiator Frank E. Loy. 97.87.29.188 (talk) 20:26, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Wikilinks from currently deleted quotation (by Special:Contributions/Arthur Rubin) ... extreme engineering techniques, Tipping point (climatology), Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Environmental Protection Agency, ozone, Obama administration.

The Task Force on Climate Remediation of the Bipartisan Policy Center (http://www.bipartisanpolicy.org/ founded by four senators Democrats and Republicans), a 18-member panel, included David Keith (Harvard and the University of Calgary), David Goldston (of the Natural Resources Defense Council and former chief of staff of the House Committee on Science); who say research is already under way in Britain, Germany and possibly other countries, as well as in the private sector.

99.19.47.14 (talk) 05:25, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

This topic has been covered in other sources ...

• New Report Urges U.S. to Fund Research on Geoengineering - ScienceInsider by Daniel Strain in Science (journal)
• So you want to manipulate the Earth’s climate 4.October.2011 The Washington Post by Brad Plumer
• "Geoengineering Goes Legit" by Jeff Goodell in The Rolling Stone
• Geoengineering task force recommends White House look into "climate remediation" by Torie Bosch on Slate.com
• The Stratospheric Particle Injection for Climate Engineering experiment, known as SPICE ... http://www2.eng.cam.ac.uk/~hemh/SPICE/SPICE.htm
• SPICE put on ice in Nature (journal) 30.Sept.2011
• The Problem With Geoengineering: What if It Works? by Rebecca J. Rosen, in the 3.October.2011 The Atlantic.

Linked in those sources are Rio+20 and the European Parliament http://news.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/2011/10/new-report-urges-us-to-fund-rese.html?ref=hp

Previously, reference to Convention on Biological Diversity Ban ... [ Geoengineering faces ban] on 2.November.2010 in Nature (journal)

Eli Kinitcch; Q&A: Geoengineering Is ‘A Bad Idea Whose Time Has Come’ by Alexis Madrigal March 23, 2010 on Wired.com

List of Task Force panel members: http://www.bipartisanpolicy.org/news/press-releases/2011/10/blue-ribbon-task-force-climate-remediation-releases-report-calling-feder

99.19.40.148 (talk) 06:12, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Per policy, we do not Wikilink within quotes, so your statement about "Wikilinks from currently deleted quotation" is an oxymoron. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:42, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Here is some more ...

• Panel recommends US geoengineering research program October 04, 2011 in Nature (journal) by Rosalind Peterson of the Agriculture Defense Coalition
• The voice of science: let's agree to disagree by Daniel Sarewitz October 05, 2011 in Nature (journal) 478, 7 (2011) doi:10.1038/478007a

97.87.29.188 (talk) 21:38, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Other panels members currently with wp articles: Richard E. Benedick and Stephen Rademaker. 99.109.127.58 (talk) 23:21, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Here is the quotation without most wikilinks per another editor's comment (see View History) ... Earth, http://www.bipartisanpolicy.org/, Washington, Democrats and Republicans

99.190.87.183 (talk) 04:34, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Removed all but the wikilinks, of the quotation deleted by Special:Contributions/Arthur Rubin (see View History(s)) 97.87.29.188 (talk) 20:19, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

How is that necessary (or even appropriate by wp guidelines)? Seems to be setting-the-bar too low. 99.35.15.199 (talk) 01:28, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

An example of private is Intellectual Ventures (Bill Gates and Nathan Myhrvold). 99.190.81.110 (talk) 05:48, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

See Presidential Executive Order. 99.119.131.17 (talk) 03:10, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

??? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:19, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

potential resource on politics of global warming (United States) in particular

Capitalism vs. the Climate; What the right gets - and the left doesn't - about the revolutionary power of climate change. by Naomi Klein November 9, 2011. This article appeared in the November 28, 2011 edition of The Nation (pages 11-21). 99.181.147.59 (talk) 05:45, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Add candidates positions?

Add candidates positions for United States presidential election, 2012? 99.181.134.134 (talk) 07:26, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Wait until two major party candidates left? 99.181.142.231 (talk) 06:32, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Why were these sections removed?

In the August 2010 The New Yorker, Jane Mayer writes that "As their fortunes grew, Charles and David H. Koch (of the privately held company Koch Industries) became the primary underwriters of hard-line libertarian politics in America."

Also, in the Wichita Eagle, she wrote an article about the political spending of David and Charles G. Koch. The articles state the Koch brothers are major funders of the U.S. Tea Party movement, giving money to organizations disabling mitigation of global warming legislation, and underwriting a vast network of foundations, think tanks, and groups mounting opposition campaigns against Obama Administration policies.

The movement is associated with active climate change denial through Koch family's Koch Industries funding. The editorial cites Charles Lewis, the founder of the Center for Public Integrity as saying, "The Kochs are on a whole different level. There’s no one else who has spent this much money. The sheer dimension of it is what sets them apart. They have a pattern of lawbreaking, political manipulation, and obfuscation. I’ve been in Washington since Watergate, and I’ve never seen anything like it. They are the Standard Oil of our times."

See Political activities of the Koch family 99.181.153.207 (talk) 00:04, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

You really should find a way so that the references appear here, rather than pointing off into the sunset. In any case, noting the failed verification, and the statements which are clearly opinion by a partizan, and the absence of relevance to this article, there's no reason they should be there. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 04:09, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Here are the naked links:

• http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2010/08/30/100830fa_fact_mayer
• http://blogs.kansas.com/weblog/2010/08/koch-article-a-talker/

99.181.142.87 (talk) 08:17, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

The second quote isn't supported by the URL either, although it may be accurate, and there may be an article somewhere that supports it. The first one might be correct, but it's relevance to this article is questionable. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 09:16, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

The blog is not a reliable source. The first paragraph is saying that the Koch brothers are libertarians. That is not relevant to this article. There is no link to the Wichita Eagle article and even if there was, that information is not very relevant either. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 16:30, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

References

Upheld by Federal Appeals Court added

• Court Backs E.P.A. Over Emissions Limits Intended to Reduce Global Warming June 26, 2012
• “This is how science works” on global warming, court rules June 26, 2012 Skeptic (U.S. magazine)

^ references 99.181.141.52 (talk) 00:21, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

URL tampering? reference 2 is NOT to a PDF, but is instead the EDF site

URL tampering? reference 2 is NOT to a PDF, but is instead the EDF site

This is not acceptable, as the fer 2 CLEARLY shows a PDF label.

Cannot this not be validated automatically at WP, i.e., the bogus URL does not lead to a PDF resource so is almost certainly not a PDF download link

The reference FORMAT is bogus IN THAT SECTION. This is a dangerous practice if not robo-validated, IMHO.

the link takes you to https://www.edf.org/climate/climate-change-impacts

The reference CONTEXT states plainly that this is a PENTAGON report from 2003.

In a section on International Law, for a WP article at an en. site that is ENGLISH, i.e., not American, but used by UK, AUS, NZ, Canada etc, this is outrageous.

My concerns ARE International Law and Climate Change, but this is so utterly unacceptable as a reference to a US military risk assessment internet resource via URL.

99.251.239.140 (talk) 11:52, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Climate change policy of the United States. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20060218033501/http://climatechoices.org:80/CA_Policies_Fact_Sheet.pdf to http://www.climatechoices.org/CA_Policies_Fact_Sheet.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• 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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 23:25, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Looks OK--S Philbrick(Talk) 16:32, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Climate change policy of the United States. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20071210073501/http://ctclimatechange.com:80/ExecutiveSummary.html to http://ctclimatechange.com/ExecutiveSummary.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090320104451/http://ctclimatechange.com/documents/ExecutiveSummary_CCCAP_2005_000.pdf to http://ctclimatechange.com/documents/ExecutiveSummary_CCCAP_2005_000.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• 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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 04:19, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Climate change policy of the United States. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20121019045906/http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=supreme-court-rejects-global-warmin to http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=supreme-court-rejects-global-warmin

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

• 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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 22:42, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Climate change policy of the United States. 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 {{dead link}} tag to http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070118/ap_on_go_co/congress_global_warming_6
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090805213620/http://oversight.house.gov/documents/20070130113153-55829.pdf to http://oversight.house.gov/Documents/20070130113153-55829.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081225094640/http://apps1.eere.energy.gov:80/news/news_detail.cfm/news_id=12144 to http://apps1.eere.energy.gov/news/news_detail.cfm/news_id=12144
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.westernclimateinitiative.org/WCI_Documents.cfm
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.law.stanford.edu/program/centers/enrlp/pdf/GlobalWarmingLit_CourtsReport.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• 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) 13:28, 26 November 2016 (UTC)