Talk:Greenhouse gas emissions by China

Former Agriculture section

I deleted the below because one cite is out of date and the other about India Chidgk1 (talk) 12:37, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

While the consequences of greenhouse gas emissions almost toward all the aspects of lives, the impact on agricultural production is likely to be particularly important. For example, the increment of temperature and decrease of precipitation has caused China a lower production of rice, wheat, and maize. On the opposite, China’s cotton production has increased. All these data technically does not responsible for the new technologies and new policies. “According to the World Resources Institute’s Climate Analysis Indicators Tool, the emission of greenhouse gas from agricultural sources constituted 15.4 percent of China’s total emission in 2005, behind only electricity, combustion, manufacturing, and construction”. The main component of the emission that is coming out of the agricultural industry is nitrous oxide. The main effect of overdosing greenhouse gas emission is the fact that it changes the global temperature causing dramatic climate changes. These changes sometimes can shift the time of season backward or frontward. Season changes can also affect crop productions from time to time. Some crops such as wheat and corn, heavily rely on season changes and temperature variations. With the change in temperature, it is both hard for farmers and crops to grow and harvest. Now the effects of climate change may not seem too obvious, are momentous and have become larger and larger each year.

Impacts

China’s agriculture sector is almost responsible for one-fifth of China’s total greenhouse gas emissions. While it is a significant amount, the main source of agricultural greenhouse gas emission is coming from the application of fertilizer. Other sources include excrement burning or pasture management are not as many as the fertilizer. Another element of causing greenhouse gas emissions in the agricultural sector is methane. It mainly comes from livestock corpse and farm management.

In some studies, accounting for the benefits of CO₂ fertilization reduces the negative impacts of climate change on crop yields in a projected increase in yield. For example. the use of CO₂ fertilization increases the production of most crops. Estimation of climate change's impacts on crop yields differs on a large scale depending on CO₂ fertilization effects. However, this is not always the case. When a considerable CO₂ fertilization effect is taken into account, yields actually increase except some crops such as rice and corn.

China's grassland has faced a higher temperature situation in recent years, hence the drought is becoming more and more severe. The productivity of grassland has been low. In the future years, drought will be developing at a faster pace, and this phenomenon will remain the same or even worse on the farm unless China's government begins to adapt and make changes. Even though CO₂ fertilization aggravates the scenario of greenhouse gas emissions, the method does have a significant impact on the production of crops.

Improvement

In order to improve the situation of pollution and climate change, China has made a huge step toward changing the environment. It will begin implementing projects to prevent agricultural source pollution such as water contamination and soil contamination. What's more, farmers, like the government, can use different methods for their farming system and irrigation system as well.

The original article does not have anything cited after this section so I am not sure where this information is coming from. HYx25 (talk) 04:20, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

Fertilization

The extent of the changes in yields highly depends on crops that are using CO₂ fertilization. Some crops, therefore, increase the production due to the CO₂ fertilization, but the method itself does have some severe impacts on climate change. The crop that relies on natural methods does not get the benefits at all because the climate is affected by CO₂ fertilization. This level of tradeoff and balances depends on the China government and farmers.

References

Hi! After going over the "Former Agriculture section", I think this part deleted about agriculture includes essential information, and the article at the moment is being underrepresented. The fact that agriculture, especially the sector of the application of fertilizers, contributes to 1/5 of the total greenhouse gas emissions in China is from a relatively new and valid source and is worth to be presented in the article. HYx25 (talk) 04:23, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Research Process and Methodology - RPM SP 2022 - MASY1-GC 1260 201 Thu

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 27 February 2022 and 5 May 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Bettyhwt (article contribs).

Wiki Education assignment: Introduction to Policy Analysis

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 28 March 2022 and 30 May 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): HYx25 (article contribs). One of the PDFs in reference 8 and reference 11 are not accessible. HYx25 (talk) 05:03, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

Possible Merger with the many overlapping articles on China and the environment?

Is this article a candidate for merger? There seem to be far too many articles dealing with China environmental topics, many aspects of which are significantly out of date. I'm not an experienced enough editor to know how to approach this. There is an article on Pollution in China. Another for Greenhouse gas emissions by China. There's Debate over China's economic responsibilities for climate change mitigation. And the two best articles of the bunch, Environmental policy in China and Environmental governance in China. For the sake of completeness, I will add this comment to the talk page of each. Hopefully someone more experienced than me can suggest how to streamline. JArthur1984 (talk) 00:11, 17 June 2022 (UTC) JArthur1984.

No, I don't think so but I think the content about "mitigation" ought to be moved to climate change in China, see my proposal just below. EMsmile (talk) 18:36, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

Proposal to move the mitigation content to climate change in China

I am proposing to move all the mitigation content to climate change in China to make it more consistent with the structure we are using for the other climate change in country X articles. Also the climate change in China does have a section about mitigation already, so now we have mitigation content spread over two articles. See also here for the proposed standard structure of the articles in the group "climate change in country X". Pinging User:Chidgk1. EMsmile (talk) 18:35, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

replied at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Climate change/Style guide#Where to put mitigation if there is a “GHG emissions by X” article?Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Climate change/Style guide#Where to put mitigation if there is a “GHG emissions by X” article? Chidgk1 (talk) 14:42, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: ENGW3303 Adv. Writing for the Environmental Professions

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 9 January 2024 and 17 April 2024. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Troublezzz (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Troublezzz (talk) 16:18, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Outdated lede parts

Parts of the lede relating to per-capita stats are sourced from a 2021 Rhodium Group analysis based upon 2019 data, which is now at least five years out of date. The lede portion on per-capita stats ought to be more closely aligned with List of countries by greenhouse gas emissions per capita, which goes up to 2022. Our World in Data's stat here is based upon 2022 data, but it would be good to see if there is anything out there more up-to-date. - Amigao (talk) 14:56, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

MingScribe1368, the Rhodium Group citation does not actually support your edits to the lede. Do you have a WP:RS to back up your edits? - Amigao (talk) 16:03, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

Consensus or further perspectives on per capita emissions first or total emissions first?

@Amigao and I have reverted each other a couple of times on the order in which to list China's per capita greenhouse gas emissions or total greenhouse gas emissions. This is my preferred version, and this is Amigao's.

My view is that per capita is the more meaningful measure and should be listed first. This is the more salient measurement (after all, what does the reader learn by being told that the second most populous country with one of the largest economies has the most emissions? Shrug and say of course?). Per capita actually indicates something more concrete other than 'big country, big emissions'.

Amigao states that equivalent articles list total emissions before per capita. No specific article has yet been offered as an example. WP:OTHERSTUFF reminds us that this is not a strong argument. Indeed, I see it as an invitation to fix those articles as well. Anywhere you go in the world, per capita is a more salient measure of greenhouse gas emissions.

Are there any other editors with views on this point? JArthur1984 (talk) 13:12, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

You might want to first look at similar articles, which all discuss total emissions upfront and followed by discussion of per capita emissions.

• Greenhouse gas emissions by the United States
• Greenhouse gas emissions by Australia
• Greenhouse gas emissions by Russia
• Greenhouse gas emissions by Turkey
• Greenhouse gas emissions by the United Kingdom

Is there truly a convincing reason why this article should be the exception? - Amigao (talk) 13:30, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

It shouldn't be an exception, editors active on those pages should fix them too. JArthur1984 (talk) 13:39, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

The planetary environment doesn't care about per capita emissions. As far as real world effects go, the total emissions is what matters. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 13:51, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Doesn't seem to make sense -- the real world effects don't care about sovereign national boundaries either. JArthur1984 (talk) 14:01, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Every similar article begins with total national emissions (and often how much they contribute to global emissions) before going into per capita emissions for a reason. That's often the most meaningful point when looking at something as globally impactful as greenhouse gas emissions. - Amigao (talk) 19:42, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Interesting discussion. I don't have a clear opinion which should come first. They could come directly after each other. However, it is true that a larger country will always have higher total emissions and therefore "look bad" simply because of its sheer size. Regarding the per capita emissions in China, it could be worth pointing out that these have been rising as well, together with rising living standards... I guess in terms of climate justice, the per capita emissions are possibly more important for our readers to think about, not the total emissions of a country with a large land mass and population. Pinging User:RCraig09 in case it's of interest. EMsmile (talk) 22:10, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

If it's just the ordering of sentences in the lead, then I don't care, though the raw emissions number E is simpler and more direct than emissions per person E/p. Both total and per capita measurements are important for respective reasons, showing the value of this variable-width bar chart which quantifies both. More important: I don't see how China could be 34th in the per capita list; I don't see that justified in the article's body and if that claim is unsourced it should be removed or corrected. —RCraig09 (talk) 22:33, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

Remember that the per capita article table must be sorted. It is 34th as of 2023. JArthur1984 (talk) 22:40, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

I could not find the source listing ~all countries' emissions per person: https://www.iea.org/countries/china/emissions doesn't have such a complete list at all, for 2023 or any other year. —RCraig09 (talk) 22:50, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

The true reason for considering greenhouse gas emissions on a national basis is really to answer questions concerning "climate justice" and the "distribution of burdens", but such questions cannot be fairly answered without considering per capita emissions. Given that the underlying motivation of such articles is usually "distributive justice", the idea that per capita emissions should follow total emissions because the impact of greenhouse gas emissions is global, is complete nonsense.

If "distributive justice" were not a concern, then there would be no reason for even considering emissions on a national basis - but if it is indeed the concern and raison d'etre for such articles, then national per capita emissions is the more informative measure. MingScribe1368 (talk) 04:31, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Yes, per capita emissions are far more meaningful than total greenhouse gas emissions. It would be uninformative to say, without more, for instance, that Monaco produces much less greenhouse gas than France, or that Kiribati has the lowest carbon footprint in the world. Context is necessary. MingScribe1368 (talk) 04:23, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Thanks to User:JArthur1984 for adding a source re China at 34th place GHG/person. 23:57, 11 November 2024 (UTC)