Talk:Climate emergency

Changed to redirect

Just some rationale (in addition to the edit comment): Some media organisations (such as the Guardian) are using the term as a synonym to "Climate change", so I think a redirect there is more appropriate. (Plus this articles content is a halfway house between disambiguation, redirect, and duplication of the "Climate emergency decleration" page - never a good state!) Regards, Sean Heron (talk) 18:46, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

I agree but note this is another place where Wikipedia's use of "climate change" and "global warming" requires explanation. But rather than repeat that here, please see the abundant discussion of scope and article name of "climate change" and "global warming" at Talk:Climate change. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:15, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

I agree with Sean Heron that this should be a redirect, and not a separate page. I'm not fussed about whether this should redirect to global warming or less appropriately, but better than current state, climate emergency declaration. Btw, the definition is not supported by the given source: the word slogan is not in BBC article. @Prokaryotes, again the request to edit with more care. Femke Nijsse (talk) 11:56, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

I did not add the word slogan. It was added by a different editor, if you take issue with it, you should ask that editor. Besides, clearly also a slogan, but really we should first establish if we merge articles before we talk details. prokaryotes (talk) 20:00, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Sorry I accused you wrongly of adding that word. I had not seen that there were multiple editors and should have checked more carefully. Femke Nijsse (talk) 21:27, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

CNN Pence

So CNN's Tapper is asking Pence about climate emergency. But is what people are calling a climate emergency, is it a threat? Do you think it is a threat, man-made climate emergency is a threat? https://edition.cnn.com/2019/06/24/politics/mike-pence-climate-crisis/index.html prokaryotes (talk) 19:39, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Merge

Because climate emergency is not always mentioned in relation to a declaration I rather merge climate emergency declaration into this article. In fact the broader term climate emergency is much more common. For more context see this BBC article(What is a climate emergency?). Basically we only have to move the declaration article into this one and make it more clear in the lede. Ping related article authors, 分液漏斗, BorisAndDoris, Graeme Bartlett, Aldaron, Rodw, Aldaron, NewsAndEventsGuy, Paora, Schwede66, Sean Heron, Matthiaspaul, Javiermes, Cosmicseeds, Kaltenmeyer, OliverEastwood, J 1982, Konard, Frietjes, EdmundT prokaryotes (talk) 20:07, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

I think "climate emergency" and "climate emergency declaration" are two different things. The second one will very likely see considerable expansion in the future, first because there is more stuff to be translated from the article in the German WP, and second, because many more cities and countries will declare such a state - and I think we should try to keep track of this because this may become historically important.

I'm not sure, however, if "climate emergency" should be an article in its own or just a redirect to global warming, where it is explained (although the concept of "global warmling" as is might be a bit too generic to cover "climate emergency", so perhaps there is another place in another article where this could redirect too). At least "climate emergency" is not a neologism, the term has been in use at least since 2009 (not 2019 as the previous article suggested). --Matthiaspaul (talk) 20:40, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for this reply, it is indeed a bit complicated, also when you have the term climate emergency getting more attention in the news - more broadly discussed, and with various people discussing it, and on the other hand people calling explicit for a declaration or governmental bodies declaring one. But just redirecting to global warming, then reading that brief paragraph on it while on point seems too short. I can see how this will create edit discussions down the road there because the article is so extensively. The discussion is also how to address this emergency, responses will be different, so there is a lot to cover. I would also agree to redirect this article to the declaration page, then adjust the article scope there, but however then this article space here appears more accurate. prokaryotes (talk) 20:57, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Redirecting to climate emergency declaration seems much more useful than to global warming. The term "Climate emergency' is used to evoke an emotional response, and also attempt to result in quick action. The difference with declaration would be that not all uses of "Climate emergency" are very formal uses, and not all made by elected politicians, but also by lobbyists. However the two articles are very close in topic, and redirecting them (either way) (or moving) would be much better than a claim the intention is to destroy the oil and coal industry. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:48, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

We seem to have valid arguments this article should not be its own separate article, valid arguments for redirect to global warming (it's a POV term for the former), valid arguments for redirect to climate emergency declaration (some people use those as near-dynonyms). Isn't the logical solution a disambiguation page? Femke Nijsse (talk) 06:50, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

So my argument is not valid then? Some cite the German article version, which btw is located at Klimanotstand, equates to climate emergency. It is also pretty much irrelevant if this is a synonym, an emotional term or not, because this is the terminology usually used in discussions, the declaration terminology is an official document, or often tied to law. prokaryotes (talk) 07:26, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

I've only skimmed the debate, but I agree with Femke Nijsse, that with good arguments to be made for both pages, a disambig page seems the obvious choice. I'll be bold and make that change later today, I think (happy to further discuss here, but I think that would address most issues for the moment). Regards Sean Heron (talk) 11:00, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Just a small remark regarding the German WP title "Klimanotstand". While formally you are correct that this can be translated to "Climate emergency", it can just as well be translated to "Climate emergency declaration" or "status" because "Notstand" already implies something formal (in the sense that some "authority" must have successfully checked the diverse experiences and emotions described by individuals as "Not" against some more formal catalog of conditions), so many Germans would skip adding something even more formal like "Notstandsgesetz", "Notstandsverfügung", "Notstandsverordnung" etc., although these forms are found also. Actually, "Stand" (as a short form of "Zustand") can be translated to "status" or "state" as well. Speaking of "climate emergency" in an informal way, most Germans would just call it "Klimanot", "Klimakrise" or similar. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 19:32, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

• Big new idea

This began with my failure to write RS-based NPOV draft disambig text to propose here. Parliamentary procedure is one thing. AGW is something else. Try as I might, I could not convince myself that "climate emergency" is likely to be confused with a Joint Resolution of Congress, for example. Then the light dawned (actually its been on the whole time, running up my carbon impact) that the real issue at play, if we're honest, is a rebranding effort. Well fine... let's report on the rebranding efforts by everyone in an organized NPOV RS based way

(A) merge

A part 1, any text about declarations should merge to Climate emergency declaration

A part 2, any text about renaming efforts should be Merged to a new section at an existing article Politics of global warming#Renaming efforts, where we also include ::: * Frank Lutz' US-GOP effort to rebrand from "global warming" to "climate change",

* Guardian's recent decision to rebrand to "climate crisis"

* Calls by Extinction Rebellion and others to rebrand to "climate emergency" and in that section include a cross link to climate emergency declaration

NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 16:28, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Broader issue at hand

Addendum: Three things - First, I've been pretty busy last two days, so I've not followed whats been happening with my Wikiproject suggestion - apologies!

Now taking a step back here for perspective: I think that, second, there are broader issues here underlying the disagreement, and I reckon those issues need to be provided with adequate space for discussion if we want to address them properly. I'm referring to "space" in a double sense here - both "physical" space, that is a spot for discussion that is not the talk page of an article that may end up as a redirect or disambiguation page, but somewhere people can and will see it (so, eg the Task-Forces talk page, or at the Wikiproject). I also mean "space" in the sense of non-adversatorial discussion of viewpoints (or perhaps before that even - description of views!).

Third, and I'll keep that short here (for above reasons), I reckon the underlying issue is the question of what proportion of articles on Anthropogenic Global Warming/ Climate Change is to be given to which aspect --> You have the Science of Climate Change, but also the economics, the politics and cultural side, and then of course impacts (and probably more). Those all belong to climate change, but how you proportion and weigh them in an overview article is a difficult question I think. I hope to join you people in discussing that - somewhere else preferably :P.

Regards, Sean Heron (talk) 11:40, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Related article Climate movement. prokaryotes (talk) 12:48, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

A discussion like this could be held at the climate change task force. Do make sure the discussion is sufficiently on point: in which article do we have a questionable balance and which type of discussion is fruitful to work towards restoring a proper balance.

Recently, I've changed the focus of the global warming article slightly more towards the social science, in line with how the different IPCC analyses have done it, the NCA analyses and PBL ones. This is a strategy we should always be following: look at how comprehensive sources divy up space between the different fields. Discussion in my opinion should rely heavily on those comprehensive sources, which makes it a) more structured and b) less adversarial. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Femkemilene (talk • contribs)

Aside from the content dispute, see this. Anyone can chime in if you want, but to be clear I'm not asking anyone to do so.NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 17:26, 25 June 2019 (UTC)