User talk:MynMada/sandbox

Hi there,
So in looking at your sandbox, I'm assuming you're editing/adding to the Ecological Debt page by incorporating the history of it which is a great idea. I see your sandbox is still in a rough draft but I have a few suggestions/investigative questions on how to add information/clarify topics.
- You could potentially add subsections for ecological debt for specific countries
- With the history you can look at the first resources that were depleted on the large scale - fisheries? forestry?
- You could outline the most vulnerable ecosystems/resources that are exploited
- Have any international agreements/treaties developed in response to ecological debt? Are some developed countries more willing to participate than others?
- You write something along the lines of "some developing countries argue rich nations need to make reparations" - it would be very informative to indicate what nations are on either side of this debate- it also provides an opportunity to make more wiki links to other pages

I hope these suggestions/questions are helpful!
Dewmurphy (talk) 16:05, 17 February 2018 (UTC) Adrienne[reply]

Peer Review Section

Article looks good, just a couple of suggestions on the rough draft (some of these may not be applicable if you were already planning on expanding but just haven't had a chance to do so yet): the first sentence of the section "History" seems like it would be better suited in the "Calculations" section rather than the "History" section. Also, you may want to consider removing the descriptive word "remarkable" from the second sentence about the 2008 report, as it doesn't really fit with the unbiased nature of an encyclopaedia article. The third sentence might be better if it were included in a larger paragraph about drafting ecological debt studies or the scales of these studies, as opposed to a standalone statement. Other than that, it looks like you're on your way to an interesting article! Overripe Pear (talk) 19:57, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

More Peer Reviewing...

I'm going to echo the above suggestions. It definitely deserves some expansion, but mostly because you have presented such interesting nuggets of information that I want to know more about! I think a little more specificity and depth is needed, like what climate meetings exactly (maybe links to other wiki-pages). I agree with Dewmurphy, discussing different countries would be an interesting approach. I think you need more sources to substantiate your statements, but I assume you simply haven't tacked them on yet. Anyway, it looks very interesting!! Akenefick (talk) 01:01, 18 February 2018 (UTC)Akenefick Akenefick (talk) 20:01, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Answer to all

Thank you all for your very relevant feedbacks! It is still a draft and I will tend to improve it according to your suggestions. MynMada (talk) 02:33, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jessica's peer review

I think that in general you have a good overview of the material. I think you can simplify your first statement of ecological debt and from what I’ve read ecological debt is more of a concept then something that’s universally recognized. I think you need to include something about north/south in the first line.

I have attached a few references that I found but as far as the structure goes, maybe you can talk about the different definitions that have been proposed for various reasons. Specifically, what is the actual idea behind debt? Is it monetizing nature?

The definition that resonated with me is “ecological debt is the debt accumulated by northern, industrialised countries towards Third World countries on account of resource plundering, unfair trade, environmental damage and free occupation of environmental space to deposit wase” (Martinez-Alier, Simms and Rijnhout 2002). But, this is only one definition of many.

The most useful overview of the concept of ecological debt I found was this book - https://www.researchgate.net/publication/292320194_The_Concept_of_Ecological_Debt_its_Meaning_and_Applicability_in_International_Policy

When you say, “Men in particular through industrialization have viewed themselves as separate from nature and further, they view nature as a tool to profit from, and continually use and abuse without consequences.” Although this mostly true, it sounds like an opinion and it also generalizes men… maybe you could talk instead about the rise of the nature-culture divide that emerged due to rapid industrialization? Or capitalist-elites profiting from over-use of resources?

Maybe you could talk about the multiple definitions of ecological debt and the complexities with choosing one?

You could organize into separate sections: Ecological debt definitions Complexities Environmental justice

I think you need to further define some terms that you’ve used: Historical responsibility (this term is important because it determines when a country can be considered ethically responsible. Ie. there is the argument that a country cannot be held accountable for CO2 emissions prior to 1990 because global warming was only universally recognized at that point. Check out page 35 of this document: http://www.academia.edu/10316481/Ecological_debt._History_meaning_and_relevance_for_environmental_justice Ecological footprint

Look into: Environmental space

Maybe you could have a separate section on “climate debt”? You could speak about the difficulties in assigning historical responsibility due to the choice of start date for responsibility.

There is also the argument about when to start counting climate debt. You can look into this in the following article: Friman, Mathias, and Gustav Strandberg. "Historical responsibility for climate change: science and the science–policy interface." Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change 5.3 (2014): 297-316.

Damon should be Matthews — Preceding unsigned comment added by J hewitt (talk • contribs) 00:27, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]