Talk:Overconsumption (economics): Difference between revisions
high |
Update Environment, Society, and Culture assignment details |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{environment|class=start|Sustainability task force = yes|importance=high}} |
{{environment|class=start|Sustainability task force = yes|importance=high}} |
||
{{WikiProject Sociology|class=start}} |
{{WikiProject Sociology|class=start}} |
||
{{dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment | course = Wikipedia:Wiki_Ed/Linfield_College/Environment,_Society,_and_Culture_(Spring) }} |
|||
==Coal== |
==Coal== |
||
Revision as of 21:17, 3 February 2017
 | Environment Start‑class High‑importance | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
 | Sociology Start‑class | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page.
Coal
Coal, in particular, is the main cause of global warming. This sounds unlikely. One possibilty is that coal burning in the past has caused most of the greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere, but it seems more likely that 'coal' is here used to mean carbon-based fuels (as I also noticed in another article). DirkvdM 06:15, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
- I reworded the statement in question to be less general. I made it based more on the over-consumption of energy from combustable natural resources instead of specifically "coal causes global climate change". --Howrealisreal 15:40, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
NPOV
this article reads like a neocon pamphlet, all but stating that "the term is used by freaky lefties to who hate the free world". Since the term does have a valid, well-defined meaning, you should discuss that first, and possible polemic use of the term further down. dab (ᛏ) 12:31, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Tagged NPOV and Wikify. The semantics in the article are incorrect (for example: a word is coined, a "concept" isn't). References to neologisms like "affluenza" as if they were statements of fact are clearly NPOV. "Overconsumption" itself is generally spelled without a hyphen. I think a well-written article on overconsumption would be great, but this article presents no balance of viewpoints, for example, that "overconsumption" is responsible for a high standard of living that, given a choice, most people prefer. Joseph N Hall 04:46, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
Economic Growth Section
In the article, I changed the summary from the Worldwatch Institute report. It said that China and India are "planetary powers that are shaping the global biosphere". It also included the US in the "three planetary powers". I hope the result (of the changes) is OK.
Chimin 07 (talk) 04:21, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
NPOV II
I didn't look at what this article used to be like. But it is incredibly bad right now. Maybe there were some big battles here in the past or something because this is some really nasty backwater of wikipedia now. Seriously this needs to be improved. The references are awful. I might try reverting it because the only other alternative is to basically start from scratch :-( 31.185.234.130 (talk) 23:39, 15 February 2016 (UTC)