Talk:Climate justice

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 11 January 2022 and 28 April 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): LuckyDatLlama (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): Acs08 (article contribs).

Let's improve the reading ease score

The articles still has far too many long sentences. I think long sentences are generally a no no for Wikipedia articles. There is usually always a way to break a long sentence into two without losing any of its meaning. Remember we are writing for the general public, not our peers. If you want them to read and understand we need to keep the Reading Ease Score high. Currently the score of the main text is only 26 (with this tool). The lead is slightly better with 28. I think we should at least bring it up to 35 as an aim. (I could have a go at shortening sentences but I first wanted to reach consensus regarding those textblocks that I removed, or that I proposed for removal) EMsmile (talk) 08:06, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

@EMsmile: You won't need that agreement to deal with issues in the remainder of the text. Also, you should enumerate which sections still have unresolved debates about the removals.

I agree with the cut of the "Systemic issues" section, which was unclear and gave undue weight to a single publication.

The cut to the "Political approaches towards climate justice" and the creation of the "Objectives" section was definitely a positive move for improving neutrality, though the new section is still hard to read for reasons you just described. However, I agree with your perspective that "Objectives" does require background information about the urgent situation of the global climate. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 14:49, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

Since this comment was posted, the Flesch–Kincaid reading ease score has improved to 49.1, based on your tool, but that is still insufficient. The Coleman–Liau index, which measures the U.S. grade level of the text and uses different metrics than the Flesch–Kincaid grade level, also stands at 13.8, equivalent to a first-year college student. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 15:00, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

Hi, I don't understand what you meant with "However, I agree with your perspective that "Objectives" does require background information about the urgent situation of the global climate." Was there a "not" missing in this sentence? In any case, your comment inspired me to do a bit more work on this section. Let me know what you think. It's still a bit weak. I think it would be good to include any other definitions of "climate justice" there or any other publications that explain its objectives well. EMsmile (talk) 09:09, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Don't think the US example fits

I've removed this recently added section as I think it doesn't fit into a high level article. It's more like a news item, see WP:NOTNEWS; it might fit in a country specific article, like climate change in the United States.

By country

United States

In November 2023 Biden's administration, activated a program named "The Community Change Grants" allocating 2 billion dollars for climate and environmental justice. The funds must be used by November 2024. The money should go to climate resilience and fighting air pollution in low income communities. This is the biggest spending on environmental justice so far, and it is part of the Inflation Reduction Act spendings. Republicans are against such spendings. EMsmile (talk) 22:10, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

References

EMsmile (talk) 22:10, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

Removed confusing paragraph on ‎public political support

I've removed this paragraph that was written in highly academic language; not clear how this relates to climate justice. Bits of it could go back in but it needs to be less rambling. The section heading used to be "‎Public political support" but I think it can be merged with the previous section on societal disruption.

++++++++++++

Citizens often form their opinions based on peer opinions, the media and according to their personal short-term interests. Endorsements of policies – which historically have often been highly suboptimal – that come from an untrusted source may lower citizens' policy support and competing political campaigns and outreach, a key mechanism of politics, as well as online misinformation may further exploit early public discontent with policies, especially when combined ubiquitously with other grave imperfections and ignorance of relevant political parties. The dilemma that links this problem to the concept of climate justice is that interests – in particular extrapolated interests based on scientific data and projections – of hypothetical yet-unborn generations are not suitably represented and considered in today's climate policy-making, which is further complicated in that the already living young generations that will suffer most from climate change receive a politically equal voice and that large shares of voters generally do not have a good quality understanding of the projected likely effects of climate change and other relevant conditions. Public support could also be decreased by decisions for large financial transfers for the purpose of achieving climate justice, making this a challenging task including in cases where this money largely comes from taxing the general population rather than more select subgroups.

References

EMsmile (talk) 23:25, 21 March 2024 (UTC)