Jump to content

Talk:Climate policy

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

Do we really need this article?

[edit]

I don't quite understand the rationale for having this article? Won't it always overlap a lot with politics of climate change? It was a disambiguation article until a few months ago. I think that was better. Do you, User:Chigk1, have plans to build this article up? How would it fundamentally differ from politics of climate change? I came here because I was thinking about merging environmental policy and environmental politics and wanted to check how it's done for other topics, i.e. climate change. The disambiguation article used to be simply: 

+++++++

Climate policy may refer to:

-- EMsmile (talk) 12:06, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, it is difficult to see what this article adds. It lacks intellectual structure. An authoritative review reference describing climate policies as a general topic could conceivably serve as an organizational framework. But as it stands, the article reads as a collection of not-very-connected statements flying in close formation.
A good point is the editor found see-also links which should have been in the redirect page, most notably
-- M.boli (talk) 12:58, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well I think it is a bit strange to have Climate change policy of the United States without Climate policy.
By analogy we have Energy policy of the United States and Energy policy.
Having said that as I would find it too difficult to write myself I defer to whatever the consensus of the project is. Chidgk1 (talk) 13:01, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am thinking of an example of the difference between policy and politics.
I suppose here in Turkey we hardly have any climate change politics, but it looks like we will have a policy of creating a Turkish Emissions Trading System because of economics - that is the government sensibly wants to keep the money from carbon emissions for Turkey rather than giving it to the EU through your CBAM. Chidgk1 (talk) 13:15, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Whether this page should exist probably relies on figuring out the exact scope of Politics of climate change, which is a bit of a jumble of ideas. If we have Climate change#Policies and politics and Politics of climate change, it does flow that we would also have Climate policy. CMD (talk) 14:20, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think in theory, if we were to start from a clear slate, then perhaps "climate policy" is sensible but as it is we have an existing ecosystem of climate change Wikipedia articles. And it's entirely unclear what content should be in this article that isn't already in Politics of climate change and Climate change mitigation § Policies.
Having said that, the name Politics of climate change seems odd to me as it reminds of fighting, denial, lobbying and so forth (is that intended?). I'll check on the talk page there if the article title and scope has been discussed there in the past.
In the meantime, I think we should change it back to a disambiguation page. Sentences such as Tax is usually a good policy.[1] or Or not.[2] strike me as odd. It would take a long time to build this article up to a proper article. Instead we should probably turn Politics of climate change into a climate policy article? I think the distinction between policy and politics would be largely academic for our Wikipedia purposes.EMsmile (talk) 14:10, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. Anything worth saving from this stub article could be moved to politics of climate change, right? EMsmile (talk) 14:19, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I do think putting everything on Politics of climate change and then splitting that as it develops is likely to generate the clearest outcome for readers. CMD (talk) 15:07, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good. Do you have a thematic split in mind, i.e. how politics of climate change could be split up at a later stage? I really struggle to understand the difference between policy and politics (for climate change), and think it would be easier to not even try to split that. Rather keep it all together in one article, but rename politics of climate change to something else - see also my proposal on the talk page there. Thanks. EMsmile (talk) 16:08, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keeping significant overlap in mind, I see a difference between the presence of climate change in the court of public opinion, and what actual specific policy actions are taken. CMD (talk) 07:31, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Change back to disambiguation page. It's a ~5-view-per-day article about a vague, amorphous, ambiguous concept—also true about various other articles linked above. There's no need to have yet another article about a vague, amorphous, ambiguous concept. —RCraig09 (talk) 14:51, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As it stands right now, I don't think this article is adding much. I propose, however, that this article turn into History of Climate Policy. I acknowledge that it would take significant work, but am willing to contribute to that project. Delectopierre (talk) 03:59, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Delectopierre, that would be great if you could help. Such an article already exists though (but will need further work): History of climate change policy and politics. Pinging User:Jbeutum who worked on that article (although they seem to have become incative). Note how in that article title, both policy and politics are in the same title. This would speak for changing the Politics of climate change article to Climate change policy and politics maybe? Also pinging User:FeydHuxtable. EMsmile (talk) 11:29, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I wasn't aware. Thank you. A quick skim indicates that article has great 'bones', but I'll give that article a through reading and see if anything from this article ought to move to that article, as well.
I'll also compile a list of potential improvements on the talk page. The first that comes to mind is inclusion of suppression of climate modeling by the oil majors all the way back in the 70s. But that's probably not for this discussion.
If there's anything I can do to help with this article, though, please let me know. Delectopierre (talk) 19:06, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi CMD, what did you mean by "Keeping significant overlap in mind, I see a difference between the presence of climate change in the court of public opinion, and what actual specific policy actions are taken."? Could you please elaborate a little? EMsmile (talk) 11:29, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's the difference between Politics of climate change and Climate change policy of the United States. The first is broadly about how climate change is debated by politicians and how the public views it as a political issue, the second is broadly about how specific governments have taken action in relation to climate change. CMD (talk) 12:53, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ummm, but couldn't the second article equally well be called "Politics of climate change in the United States"? Also, the public view is in this article: Public opinion on climate change, isn't it? My head is spinning from all those similar articles and from that distinction of "CC politics" and "CC policies". At the end of the day we need a structure that is easy and practical to maintain for us editors and where the readers easily find what they're looking for, without getting lost within similar and overlapping articles. EMsmile (talk) 13:27, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Getting hung up on the names is not important, it's the topic of the articles that differ. Public opinion will inform politics, but is not all of politics. CMD (talk) 14:31, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
the content of "how the public views it as a political issue" would be within this article: Public opinion on climate change, wouldn't it? It would cover public opinion on climate change and public opinion on the actions that politicians are taking, or should be taking. EMsmile (talk) 14:36, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's currently in both, which is a very standard WP:Summary style overlap. I'm not following what you're trying to say. CMD (talk) 16:02, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know either - I am confused. But overall, I'm still trying to say that we don't need a separate article on "climate policy" but that we should perhaps adjust the current title and scope of politics of climate change. In its current form, the climate policy article is useless. If someone has a suggestion for the structure of two separate articles (one on policy and one on politics), I would be interested to see that. In that case we could perhaps move existing text blocks from the politics article to the policy article (if the agreement was that we needed two articles; which I doubt at this stage). EMsmile (talk) 17:01, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "Why it's so hard to tell which climate policies actually work". The Economist. ISSN 0013-0613. Retrieved 2024-11-22.
  2. ^ "The US is about to make a sharp turn on climate policy". MIT Technology Review. Retrieved 2024-11-06.
I have now boldly moved the content to politics of climate change with a new section on "climate policy", and have placed a redirect. I think the discussion about the layout of that article, and a possible name change, has not yet concluded and should continue at that article's talk page. Thanks. EMsmile (talk) 09:59, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Climate_policy&oldid=1278455949"