Talk:Climate change in Canada

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Assessment[edit]

I rated this article "C" class today, but it must be close to "B". Somebody should review against the B class criteria. PKT(alk) 12:31, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There are a few things missing though, as illustrated by the 4-5 "expand" templates. I'll put it on my personal todo list... Bouchecl (talk) 23:02, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Change this topic name[edit]

This topic isn't about real climate change, it's ONLY about "Greenhouse gas emission in Canada". Compare topics related to other countries, ex. http://wiki.alquds.edu/?query=Climate_change_in_Australia

First of all, climate chang isn't only about temperature. What about other disasters? Statistics about rainfall and floods, tornadoes, occasional tropical storms, etc. Second of all, any change is measured by real values. Change in temperature should be accurate, mentioned in degrees. Here, information about changes is "measured" in tonnes of CO2 equivalent. This is only one of many elements that may contribute to climate change.

Don't get me wrong. This topic is really great, well written and everything. IMHO, you shouldn't add more information here (to make it tell about whole climate change). It's better to change a name. Sth. around "Greenhouse gas emission" ? Maybe "Greenhouse gas emission contribution to climate change" (a bit long). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.159.131.218 (talk) 09:59, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Other Side of the Equation -- the Contention That Canada Needs Global Warming to Survive[edit]

This is a vital side to the climate change equation which -- incredibly -- has almost never been aired! I have introduced it to the Article here, but it needs to be worked on, elaborated and expanded, -- and NOT deleted, as to do so, under the circumstances that befall Canada, would be nothing short of vandalism at its most extreme.

Could someone please pick up the torch here, of how Canada MUST stave off the imminent ice age; it is a vast and contrasting situation and without it, we have a climate change equation with only one side!

206.45.252.112 (talk) 00:15, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

20:23 CST 4 December 2015.... So who's the Vandal?? Not even the guts to proffer an explanation. Wretched. This para has been reinstated. It is being deleted without explanation by a resident of Arizona....non Canadian.... the very epitome of the people I mention in the para, who don't care for Canada and expect Canadians to go along with their priorities.

Vandal -- DO NOT delete without explanation. If you haven't the brains to argue the point, DO NOT resort to lowness. Reasoned explanations please!!

206.45.252.112 (talk) 02:24, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unless this paragraph can be backed up with research from a reputable, peer-reviewed journal, it has no business being on wikipedia. See: WP:OR, WP:PROVEIT, WP:SOAP. In this case, the burden of proof lies on you to back up your points - not on those dismissing you. "That which is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence." 23.233.110.247 (talk) 19:23, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is, as you well know, ample evidence that the next ice age is imminent. The Milankovitch curves mentioned in the paragraph are well indexed and referenced, as indeed are the ice core results from Antarctica which match the Milankovitch evidence and back it up. And yet, you can dismiss the paragraph as "without evidence"! This attitude is of course a disturbing example of amateurish, loaded and biased reporting at its worst, together with a naive willingness to fall victim to and go along with "Group Think", the present fad being to believe that if we increase the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere from 1 part in 2500 to 1.1 parts in 2500, we will all burn. You are vandalistically deleting an enormous dimension to this overall equation, namely that if Canada, Russia and Northern Europe continue to go along with this, they will probably, not possibly, end up under one mile of ice in the fullness of time. Again the failure to air this enormous dimension is a very disturbing example of simian tribalism and the expectation that it carries, to blindly go along with the present Group Think.

206.45.232.194 (talk) 02:47, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Added the {{Original research section}} at the top. As it stands, the section is a pseudo-scientific conjecture from an anonymous writer somewhere on the internet. It is poorly sourced and highly speculative. Are there any serious researcher supporting this theory in a peer-reviewed paper? If the original contributor can't provide reliable sources, the section should be discarded, plain and simple. Bouchecl (talk) 00:23, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Climate change in Canada. 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:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • 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 IITalk to my owner:Online 01:56, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Climate change in Canada. 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:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • 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 IITalk to my owner:Online 04:07, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Climate change in Canada. 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:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 13:17, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Article has multiple issues[edit]

This article is has various issues with it. Parts of it are misleading, questionably relevant, and written like a news article with uncited facts, opinions and speculation. Another general issue with respect to climate change is the tendency to associate or infer specific events with climate change when that is very difficult to do. Evidence of climate change is based largely if not mostly off statistics, not case studies. Causality is hard to prove for these climate events. For example in the section for BC, flooding, fires and heat waves are noted but without any context. These happen constantly throughout the history of the planet; they haven't started in the last couple years and thus it's misleading and I think almost pointless to mention them other than to give examples as to what could be seen in greater frequency and intensity in the future (statistically speaking).

  • Lacking citations throughout article especially in Lobbying section. For example quoting Bill McKibben.
  • Speculative opinions (without references) (see Emissions section)
  • Sections lacking context eg: Emissions section talks about greenhouse gas emissions in Canada without an introduction on the relationship of greenhouse gases on climate change (or linking to another article which does). Right now, it's only implied that 'emissions' are somehow relevant to climate change.
  • The title "Emissions" should be more specific. Not all emissions are greenhouse gases.
  • Could do with more wikilinks to relevant topics.
  • Quality of some of the references and the information gained from them is poor. eg: "The Science of Climate Change" reference is a presentation which contains a brief summary of information without context from the presenter and more importantly without references. That list of impacts should not be under observed impacts. I suspect that list refers to events which are more likely to be observed as a result of climate change.
  • Climate change by province (specifically BC) lists naturally occurring climate events but doesn't discuss them in respect to climate change (the subject of the article) other than to infer they relate to climate change. Likely it should be removed.
  • Too much detail about greenhouse gas emissions in Canada. eg: the tables, map, heavy discussion throughout). It should be moved to a dedicated page and referenced from here as needed. This has been mentioned #Change this topic name.

I think the "Impacts on forestry" section is well done. I like how it lays out the evidence and (cited) predictions based on that evidence. Then discuss the responses to those predictions (such as assisted migration). The rest of the article might look much better if it were organized in a similar fashion. Devon (talk) 03:22, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Errors[edit]

At present, the article says: "Founder of the movement Bill McKibben, a researcher and academic from university of Victoria, and creator of the webpage 350.org stated"

The fossil fuel divestment movement began with Swarthmore Mountain Justice, though it was later spread by 350.org.

Also, McKibben is Schumann Distinguished Scholar at Middlebury College, not a researcher and academic at uVic.

Generally, this page has a lot of accuracy issues.

Ilnyckyj (talk) 22:29, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Climate change in Canada. 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:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 12:42, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Out of date[edit]

This article is badly out of date as it does not include information on Canada's current climate plan, nor Paris Agreement information. Jamesglave (talk) 21:28, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct! I will update this article. I'm already working on it.TheDoDahMan (talk) 18:39, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Update draft[edit]

I have created a draft of the update for this article. The draft can be viewed at User:TheDoDahMan/subpage. Please review and leave comments on the talk page. Be nice, its my first major edit... TheDoDahMan (talk) 09:39, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Updated to include Trudeau administration[edit]

Please review and comment. I have to update the Ontario section as well, but that will have to wait for now.TheDoDahMan (talk) 14:18, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Draft of update to Ontario to include Doug Ford administration[edit]

Please go to User:TheDoDahMan/draft2, review and comment.TheDoDahMan (talk) 17:43, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Article updated 23 May 2019[edit]

Article is now updated. TheDoDahMan (talk) 08:17, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Suggested changes to headings and structure[edit]

I suggest to change the headings and structure of this article to be in line with the template that has been proposed here for all articles of the nature "Climate change in Country X": https://wiki.alquds.edu/?query=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Climate_change/Style_guide (see also discussion on that page's talk page). Anyone has any objections? If not, who's got time to give it a go? I am slowly working away at this for all the countries but would love some collaborators. EMsmile (talk) 03:12, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hey EMsmile, I just saw this after I made my post below. Indeed, I agree with this proposal, and I'd like to help you out in this. However, most of information we need for this is absent from this article right now: we need to research it. Second, most of the current article is about climate policy. Moving that content as per the proposal in the next section would help declutter this article. Mottezen (talk) 05:38, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Mottezen, great to hear from you and to know that you're also interested in improving this article. I think if we apply the standard structure then this would give clarity on what still needs to be added. Those sections could initially stay almost empty and then be filled over time. Decluttering could perhaps be achieved by condensing information and reducing excessive detail (if there is excessive detail). I am not a great fan of creating sub-sub-articles, e.g. in my opinion the information on emissions should be included in "Climate change in Canada" and not be in a separate article. Those sub-sub-articles get lower and lower view rates. The article on Canada would get a lot of view rates, the article on "climate change in Canada" already a lot less... I haven't checked yet but it's also important that this article gets linked properly from the Canada article, and a few sentences about climate change in Canada are included in the Canada article... (I've had those debates for other country articles (Australia, Bangladesh, India) as well where there has been some opposition; people saying the country articles should just be about history & politics, not about environmental issues and climate change...) EMsmile (talk) 08:18, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ok I see your point. I suggested the creation of the “GHG emissions in Canada” mostly to move the emissions breakdown tables away from this article. I feel that those are too much detail for an article dealing primarily with climate change. I updated them last year, first time in 10 years, and not sure I’ll be motivated to do it again. Regardless, actual prose need to written on Canadian emissions.

Decluttering could perhaps be achieved by condensing information and reducing excessive detail This is missing the point. If we were to implement the new outline immediately without removing any of the information, 2/3 of the article would be in the “governmental effort” section. Most of that prose is good, but belongs to policy-focused articles. Mottezen (talk) 09:23, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think such an "imbalance" would not be problematic at this point, and could get corrected later over time. If you look at the other articles about climate change in specific countries, their level of details for different sections varies a lot (in my dreams, I plan to restructure all of them - hopefully together with many collaborators). I mean all these articles here. And I guess it could be discussed if information about climate change policies should be in this article or in Environmental policy of Canada (an article with very low view rates by the way). Personally, I think people would be more likely to expect it here, because climate change has become a topic of its own and is not just seen as an "environmental issue" anymore; with all the different facets of sustainable development, human health, emissions trading etc. it all goes beyond "environmental policy" in my opinion. - Oh and I see your point about those emissions tables now. My natural instinct would be to move them up to be in the heading "emissions". But I guess they could be off-putting so early in the article. Or create a new article called Greenhouse gas emissions by Canada? There are several like those in existence, see in this category. Often they also include information on mitigation which then would overlap with the article "Climate change in country X" which I find not ideal (but it's probably like that for historical reasons). Maybe only move those tables to there but not much prose, and treat it as a sub-article to "Climate change in Canada"? EMsmile (talk) 13:26, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ok I agree, let's fix this article first, and then start thinking about possible splits. However, I just wanted to let you know that the article "Environmental policy of Canada" has low pageviews mostly because it has few inter wiki links in other articles. This is because it was originally created and developped under another name: Environmental policy of the Harper government. The Wikipedians who wrote the article treated it as this much narrower topic when linking it in other articles. Not much serious work has been done on it since the name change. However, if we were to makes this a great article, we could link it in all related pages and it would get way more page views.
We need to remember, however, that page views are not worth anything if the page is so long or confusing that most people don't read past the lead. Mottezen (talk) 06:49, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I am seeing agreement about implementing the recommended outline for country-based climate change articles, even if a lot gets moved under the heading "Mitigation and Adaptation." I will work on that. In shorter articles, there are examples of "Government Efforts" that seem to both mitigate and adapt to climate change, so it was difficult to make two separate Headings. We could easily separate them later if it seems to make sense.PlanetCare (talk) 13:28, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Article split[edit]

While short in prose, this article is a complete mess. This is mostly because it tries two be too many things at once. The content would make more sense if it was split in these four stand-along articles:

Anybody has any objections or suggestions on this proposal? Mottezen (talk) 05:19, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've replied to you in the section before this one. EMsmile (talk) 08:18, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This article is only 32kB at the moment, but it is a mess. I would suggest rearranging it along those lines within this article first, and see what it looks like from there. For example, the "Climate change by province" section, which repeats the same topics over and over again, should be split among the broad categories above. A lot of the policy information in this article, especially the Trudeau section, seems to be a series of bullet points as sections. It could probably be rewritten as short paragraphs. The views of both governments mentioned feel like they should be subsections of the existing "Public policy" section (equivalent to the "Environmental policy of Canada" mentioned above), which currently just contains Kyoto. CMD (talk) 16:20, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your comments. Indeed, we need to fix this article before thinking of splitting it. The Trudeau section could be an exception though: I want to combine this section with Domestic_policy_of_the_Justin_Trudeau_government#Environment_policy, as part of that existing section or in a new article, keeping only a brief summery here. Mottezen (talk) 06:37, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There's actually not much here, it just looks like a lot. I've shifted the information that was here around to collapse it all. I certainly agree that the detailed bullet points here can go to the more specific page, leaving just the introductory sentences. For example, "Canada has established the following climate change funding programs" can be changed to "Canada has established a number of climate change funding programs" and leave the detail to the other articles. More could go too, but there's clear low-hanging fruit. CMD (talk) 13:43, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Split off greenhouse gas emissions statistics tables?[edit]

Firstly, thanks to User:PlanetCare, User:Mottezen and User:Chidgk1 for your joint collaborative work on restructuring the article! Looks like it is progressing really well. I am just wondering if we should maybe create a separate article called "Greenhouse gas emissions by Canada" and move to there the tables with the emissions which are currently under "statistics" and maybe the table that appears further down called "Greenhouse gas emissions (t CO2Eq) per capita (2016)". I just worry a bit that people might stop reading the article when they get to the big tables, as they are expecting to see prose, not tables. Also the tables will be out of date fairly quickly (who has time & energy to keep updating them...), so I think they might be better off in a separate article. But I wouldn't move any prose to there as I wouldn't want to have the same problem that we have for the two Australia articles where the content on mitigation policy aspects is currently spread haphazardly over two articles (Greenhouse gas emissions by Australia and Climate change in Australia)... EMsmile (talk) 00:06, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:EMsmile We can move it, but I would just copy the prose currently in the article to the new article if we were to do that. An article without this prose and just the table would get deleted. It will also not get out of date, as I will update it every year. I did it two days ago, and it wasn't as hard as last year because i didn't have to write new data for each year and recreate the categories. If you are worried about people stopping o read at this point, we can move the tables back to the bottom, that would do the trick.
Honestly, there is a lot of information missing in this article, especially about the impact of climate change. I would like to work on it a bit more, see how big this article gets, and then think about splitting it again. Mottezen (talk) 02:14, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Mottezen I am also undecided what's best. But I don't think the article would get deleted if it only contained the tables. We would just declare it a "list" type article, similar to this one: List of countries by greenhouse gas emissions. It's by the way interesting to see how it was done for other countries. For example in China, the article Greenhouse gas emissions by China is the bigger one, and Climate change in China is the smaller one. I think it should be the other way around. "Climate change in Country X" should be the parent article; "Greenhouse gas emissions in Country X" should be the sub-article. EMsmile (talk) 04:27, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps shift it to the bottom in a "Statistics" section as suggested by Mottezen for now. Keeps it on this page for greater visibility, but is less disruptive to the prose of the actual article. CMD (talk) 04:32, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure about the new section on "policy assessments"[edit]

Hi User:Mottezen, I see you have added a new Level-2 heading called "policy assessments" for 3 sentences from a report that was recently added to this article (and also to another 8 or so "climate change in country X" articles by USer:אלכסנדר סעודה). I would prefer if that content doesn't get a new Level-2 heading as we have thought long and hard about the Level-1 and Level-2 headings and have put them into a standard template which all articles should adhere to. This is not to stifle the editors but to make it easier for the readers to find what they are looking for. The standard template is here: https://wiki.alquds.edu/?query=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Climate_change/Style_guide#Outline_for_articles_about_specific_countries_or_geographies . If everyone now starts to add new Level-2 headings just for the results from one study then it will become messy again. Also, I would not call the results from this study "policy assessments". For me it's more activism, trying to get governments to set higher targets, right? So I would either move it into an existing Level-2 heading (for activism?) or make it a new Level-3 heading with the aim that more content will be added there in future. And shouldn't the heading be more along the lines of "Critical reception" for government policies or alike? EMsmile (talk) 13:01, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hey EMsmile, I do appreciate the standard headings as they helped organize this previously messy article. However, I disagree with their rigid adherence. If some information does not fit well into it, we can create new level-2, or even level-1 headings for them. The standard headings are there to help the information be better presented, and we can diverge from it when that stops being the case.
On the issue at hand, while the “policy assessment” section is currently pretty small, there are many more assessments of Canadian climate policy that can be included in this section.
On the merits of including this information in an “activism” section, I think this is a great philosophical question. Indeed, the foucauldian view that knowledge is political, and thus that research is activism, is especially relevant in the field of climate science. This study might be shared and cited by climate activists, but then again, don’t they cite the IPCC report as well? Can’t any piece of serious climate science be read as a call to action? While an interesting exercise, Wikipedia shouldn’t think to hard about it. Serious research on climate change and climate policy should be labelled as such, however damning are their conclusion. The activism section should be reserved for actual organizing work to make the changes needed happen. Mottezen (talk) 17:54, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
OK, fair enough, it doesn't fit well under "activism" in that case. But I am still not sure if a Level-2 header called "policy assessments" is ideal or if a better wording could be found. Whose policies are being assessed and by whom? Maybe rather "Independent assessments of government policies"? Also, perhaps you are onto something that should be included in the standard structure layout. Therefore, I am inviting you to write about it on the WikiProject Climate talk page so we can ponder this also for other articles, see here: https://wiki.alquds.edu/?query=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Climate_change/Style_guide. EMsmile (talk) 02:34, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not really familiar with other articles in the Category:Climate change by country. However, I have a hard time seeing any other countries where the second order header "policy assessment" would fit well. Usually, it might have a place as a third-order header under "Policies and legislation", but Canada's substantial decentralization makes it kind of an exception. We already split the "policies and legislation" in two: provincial and federal. However, the way it's set up, their performance can only be assessed together. This is because each order of government has a different role. Under the Pan-Canadian Framework on Clean Growth and Climate Change, the federal government sets the national and regional ghg reduction targets while the provincial government set up the system to reach the targets in practice and technical detail. If a provincial government doesn't have a credible plan to reach the targets, the federal government can step in and impose their own carbon pricing system onto them. These interconnection makes it so that any assessments of climate policy in Canada takes in consideration these two orders of government, or at least compares each provinces' approach. And don't worry, there are plenty of assessments available on the web to fill up that section beyond the current 3 sentences. Mottezen (talk) 07:05, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. In my opinion the best is writing this information within the section about mitigation, in the subsection about policy, without special heading.

--Alexander Sauda/אלכסנדר סעודה (talk) 13:16, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Paris agreement[edit]

Hello! We are three students from the Ecological Effects of Climate Changes course at Uppsala University. We're working on updating the paris agreement in some of the climate change articles as part of our coursework. We're learning and welcome any feedback.--Jojo2952 (talk) 21:14, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Climate_change_in_Canada&oldid=1195087778"