Talk:Fossil fuel phase-out

Middle East

No mention of the role of the Middle East is found in the article. What would or could be there experience, and how could Middle Eastern nations participate in the abolition or total phase-out of all fossil fuels (and the transformation to a fully clean, renewable energy economy)? Of course, the term MENA - Middle East North Africa - is the term for that general region which includes 19 to 28 nations.

MENA has no standardized definition; different organizations define the region as consisting of different territories. The Wikipedia article on MENA lists the 19-28 commonly included countries and territories of the Middle East and North Africa. Sometimes, we see the terms MENAT (the 19 or more nations PLUS Turkey); sometimes we see the term MENAP (closer to the full 28 nations by including Palestine).

Without discussing MENA (about 350 million human residents, according to the World Bank) or of MENAT (or MENAP), how exhaustive or balanced can any article's discussion of the topic be?

See also: Economy of the Middle East

The MENA region has vast reserves of petroleum and natural gas that make it a vital source of global economic stability. According to the Oil and Gas Journal (January 1, 2009), the MENA region has 60% of the world's oil reserves (810.98 billion barrels (128.936 km³)) and 45% of the world's natural gas reserves ( 2,868,886 billion cubic feet (81,237.8 km³) ).

As of 2011, 8 of the 12 OPEC nations are within the MENA region. MaynardClark (talk) 03:22, February 22, 2015‎ (UTC)

Refs for this section

References

Do we need the hydro, solar, nuclear and biomass sections?

I think they should be deleted as out of scope or replaced with excerpts - what do you think? Chidgk1 (talk) 18:52, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

It's does seem to be unbalanced. Would be good if it were rewritten with sources about a fossil fuel phase-out, rather than a random collection. I guess we'll only need 4 paragraphs total. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 17:26, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

Someone has just picked up my GAN on another article so no doubt I will be busy for some time fixing all the faults they find and won’t have time for this. If I remember right the predictions for the next couple of decades (that is before fusion becomes commercial if it ever does) are that most new generation capacity will be solar - so if people agree maybe someone could drastically shorten all the other non-fossil generation technologies for example by excerpting fewer paragraphs. And maybe solar could be a biggish excerpt. Chidgk1 (talk) 17:42, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

I had forgotten about this. Have boldly replaced the non-fossil sources with an excerpt from Sustainable energy as that is a featured article.

Anyone - feel free to undo and discuss here further Chidgk1 (talk) 15:05, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

I've just made some improvements on the structure of the article, and took out some content that I regarded as overly detailed and digressing into other topic areas. This important article needs some further tender, love and care though! EMsmile (talk) 22:09, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

Should the energy efficiency section be deleted?

The graphs don’t seem to be about energy efficiency so if needed should probably be moved to another section.

Apart from the graphs the cites are all from 2007, so how do we know that energy efficiency is still needed for fossil fuel phase out (apart from the efficiency gain which comes anyway with electrification)? Chidgk1 (talk) 19:01, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

I agree with you and have deleted that section now. EMsmile (talk) 10:40, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

What needs reorganizing?

@Rannios - please could you explain why you tagged. Chidgk1 (talk) 19:14, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

Hey, sorry it was maybe not the appropriate box to put. The long list following "A study by Rice University Center for Energy Studies suggested the following steps for countries" could be in a paragraph format and would need deeper explanation. Rannios (talk) 07:57, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

have retagged Chidgk1 (talk) 18:47, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

That numbered list doesn't seem very encyclopedic to me. Is it too much a "how to" which we are not meant to do? (WP:NOTHOWTO). Maybe delete or condense? I mean this list:

"A study by Rice University Center for Energy Studies suggested the following steps for countries:

1. Countries should commit to a specific time frame for a full phaseout of implicit and explicit fossil fuel subsidies.
2. Clarify the language on subsidy reform to remove ambiguous terminology.
3. Seek formal legislation in affected countries that codifies reform pathways and reduces opportunities for backsliding.
4. Publish transparent formulas for market-linked pricing, and adhere to a regular schedule for price adjustments.
5. Phase-in full reforms in a sequence of gradual steps. Increasing prices gradually but on a defined schedule signals intent to consumers while allowing time to invest in energy efficiency to partially offset the increases.
6. Aspire to account for externalities over time by imposing a fee or tax on fossil energy products and services, and eliminating preferences for fossil fuels that remain embedded in the tax code.
7. Use direct cash transfers to maintain benefits for poor segments of society rather than preserving subsidised prices for vulnerable socioeconomic groups.
8. Launch a comprehensive public communications campaign.
9. Any remaining fossil fuel subsidies should be clearly budgeted at full international prices and paid for by the national treasury.
10. Document price and emissions changes with reporting requirements." EMsmile (talk) 09:29, 6 June 2024 (UTC)