text:
Emissions trading

Emissions trading is a market-based approach to controlling pollution by providing economic incentives for reducing the emissions of pollutants. The concept is also known as cap and trade (CAT) or emissions trading scheme (ETS). One prominent example is carbon emission trading for and other greenhouse gases which is a tool for climate change mitigation. Other schemes include sulfur dioxide and other pollutants.

In an emissions trading scheme, a central authority or governmental body allocates or sells a limited number (a "cap") of permits that allow a discharge of a specific quantity of a specific pollutant over a set time period. Polluters are required to hold permits in amount equal to their emissions. Polluters that want to increase their emissions must buy permits from others willing to sell them.

Emissions trading is a type of flexible environmental regulation that allows organizations and markets to decide how best to meet policy targets. This is in contrast to command-and-control environmental regulations such as best available technology (BAT) standards and government subsidies.

Introduction
Pollution is a prime example of a market externality. An externality is an effect of some activity on an entity (such as a person) that is not party to a market transaction related to that activity. Emissions trading is a market-based approach to address pollution. The overall goal of an emissions trading plan is to minimize the cost of meeting a set emissions target. In an emissions trading system, the government sets an overall limit on emissions, and defines permits (also called allowances), or limited authorizations to emit, up to the level of the overall limit. The government may sell the permits, but in many existing schemes, it gives permits to participants (regulated polluters) equal to each participant's baseline emissions. The baseline is determined by reference to the participant's historical emissions. To demonstrate compliance, a participant must hold permits at least equal to the quantity of pollution it actually emitted during the time period. If every participant complies, the total pollution emitted will be at most equal to the sum of individual limits. Because permits can be bought and sold, a participant can choose either to use its permits exactly (by reducing its own emissions); or to emit less than its permits, and perhaps sell the excess permits; or to emit more than its permits, and buy permits from other participants. In effect, the buyer pays a charge for polluting, while the seller gains a reward for having reduced emissions.

Emissions Trading results in the incorporation of economic costs into the costs of production which incentivizes corporations to consider investment returns and capital expenditure decisions with a model that includes the price of carbon and greenhouse gases (GHG).

In many schemes, organizations which do not pollute (and therefore have no obligations) may also trade permits and financial derivatives of permits. In some schemes, participants can bank allowances to use in future periods. In some schemes, a proportion of all traded permits must be retired periodically, causing a net reduction in emissions over time. Thus, environmental groups may buy and retire permits, driving up the price of the remaining permits according to the law of demand. In most schemes, permit owners can donate permits to a nonprofit entity and receive a tax deductions. Usually, the government lowers the overall limit over time, with an aim towards a national emissions reduction target.

There are active trading programs in several air pollutants. An earlier application was the US national market to reduce acid rain. The United States now has several regional markets in nitrogen oxides.

History
The efficiency of what later was to be called the "cap-and-trade" approach to air pollution abatement was first demonstrated in a series of micro-economic computer simulation studies between 1967 and 1970 for the National Air Pollution Control Administration (predecessor to the United States Environmental Protection Agency's Office of Air and Radiation) by Ellison Burton and William Sanjour. These studies used mathematical models of several cities and their emission sources in order to compare the cost and effectiveness of various control strategies. Each abatement strategy was compared with the "least-cost solution" produced by a computer optimization program to identify the least-costly combination of source reductions in order to achieve a given abatement goal. In each case it was found that the least-cost solution was dramatically less costly than the same amount of pollution reduction produced by any conventional abatement strategy. Burton and later Sanjour along with Edward H. Pechan continued improving and advancing these computer models at the newly created U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. The agency introduced the concept of computer modeling with least-cost abatement strategies (i.e., emissions trading) in its 1972 annual report to Congress on the cost of clean air. This led to the concept of "cap and trade" as a means of achieving the "least-cost solution" for a given level of abatement.

The development of emissions trading over the course of its history can be divided into four phases:

 * 1) Gestation: Theoretical articulation of the instrument (by Coase, Crocker, Dales, Montgomery etc.) and, independent of the former, tinkering with "flexible regulation" at the US Environmental Protection Agency.
 * 2) Proof of Principle: First developments towards trading of emission certificates based on the "offset-mechanism" taken up in Clean Air Act in 1977. A company could get allowance from the Act on a greater amount of emission when it paid another company to reduce the same pollutant.
 * 3) Prototype: Launching of a first "cap-and-trade" system as part of the US Acid Rain Program in Title IV of the 1990 Clean Air Act, officially announced as a paradigm shift in environmental policy, as prepared by "Project 88", a network-building effort to bring together environmental and industrial interests in the US.
 * 4) Regime formation: branching out from the US clean air policy to global climate policy, and from there to the European Union, along with the expectation of an emerging global carbon market and the formation of the "carbon industry".

In the United States, the acid rain related emission trading system was principally conceived by C. Boyden Gray, a G.H.W. Bush administration attorney. Gray worked with the Environmental Defense Fund (EDF), who worked with the EPA to write the bill that became law as part of the Clean Air Act of 1990. The new emissions cap on NOx and gases took effect in 1995, and according to Smithsonian magazine, those acid rain emissions dropped 3 million tons that year.

Economics
It is possible for a country to reduce emissions using a command-and-control approach, such as regulation, direct and indirect taxes. The cost of that approach differs between countries because the Marginal Abatement Cost Curve (MAC)—the cost of eliminating an additional unit of pollution—differs by country.

Coase model
Coase (1960) argued that social costs could be accounted for by negotiating property rights according to a particular objective. Coase's model assumes perfectly operating markets and equal bargaining power among those arguing for property rights. In Coase's model, efficiency, i.e., achieving a given reduction in emissions at lowest cost, is promoted by the market system. This can also be looked at from the perspective of having the greatest flexibility to reduce emissions. Flexibility is desirable because the marginal costs, that is to say, the incremental costs of reducing emissions, varies among countries. Emissions trading allows emission reductions to be first made in locations where the marginal costs of abatement are lowest (Bashmakov et al., 2001). Over time, efficiency can also be promoted by allowing "banking" of permits (Goldemberg et al., 1996, p. 30). This allows polluters to reduce emissions at a time when it is most efficient to do so.

Equity
One of the advantages of Coase's model is that it suggests that fairness (equity) can be addressed in the distribution of property rights, and that regardless of how these property rights are assigned, the market will produce the most efficient outcome. In reality, according to the held view, markets are not perfect, and it is therefore possible that a trade-off will occur between equity and efficiency (Halsnæs et al., 2007).

Trading
In an emissions trading system, permits may be traded by emitters who are liable to hold a sufficient number of permits in system. Some analysts argue that allowing others to participate in trading, e.g., private brokerage firms, can allow for better management of risk in the system, e.g., to variations in permit prices (Bashmakov et al., 2001). It may also improve the efficiency of system. According to Bashmakov et al. (2001), regulation of these other entities may be necessary, as is done in other financial markets, e.g., to prevent abuses of the system, such as insider trading.

Incentives and allocation
Emissions trading gives polluters an incentive to reduce their emissions. However, there are possible perverse incentives that can exist in emissions trading. Allocating permits on the basis of past emissions ("grandfathering") can result in firms having an incentive to maintain emissions. For example, a firm that reduced its emissions would receive fewer permits in the future (IMF, 2008, pp. 25–26). There are costs that emitters do face, e.g., the costs of the fuel being used, but there are other costs that are not necessarily included in the price of a good or service. These other costs are called external costs (Halsnæs et al., 2007). This problem can also be criticized on ethical grounds, since the polluter is being paid to reduce emissions (Goldemberg et al., 1996, p. 38). On the other hand, a permit system where permits are auctioned rather than given away, provides the government with revenues. These revenues might be used to improve the efficiency of overall climate policy, e.g., by funding energy efficiency programs (ACEEE 2019) or reductions in distortionary taxes (Fisher et al., 1996, p. 417).

In Coase's model of social costs, either choice (grandfathering or auctioning) leads to efficiency. In reality, grandfathering subsidizes polluters, meaning that polluting industries may be kept in business longer than would otherwise occur. Grandfathering may also reduce the rate of technological improvement towards less polluting technologies (Fisher et al., 1996, p. 417).

William Nordhaus argues that allocations cost the economy as they cause the under utilisation an efficient form of taxation. Nordhaus argues that normal income, goods or service taxes distort efficient investment and consumption, so by using pollution taxes to generate revenue an emissions scheme can increase the efficiency of the economy.

Form of allocation

The economist Ross Garnaut states that permits allocated to existing emitters by 'grandfathering' are not 'free'. As the permits are scarce they have value and the benefit of that value is acquired in full by the emitter. The cost is imposed elsewhere in the economy, typically on consumers who cannot pass on the costs.

Market and least-cost
Some economists have urged the use of market-based instruments such as emissions trading to address environmental problems instead of prescriptive "command-and-control" regulation. Command and control regulation is criticized for being insensitive to geographical and technological differences, and therefore inefficient; however, this is not always so, as shown by the WWII rationing program in the U.S. in which local and regional boards made adjustments for these differences.

After an emissions limit has been set by a government political process, individual companies are free to choose how or whether to reduce their emissions. Failure to report emissions and surrender emission permits is often punishable by a further government regulatory mechanism, such as a fine that increases costs of production. Firms will choose the least-cost way to comply with the pollution regulation, which will lead to reductions where the least expensive solutions exist, while allowing emissions that are more expensive to reduce.

Under an emissions trading system, each regulated polluter has flexibility to use the most cost-effective combination of buying or selling emission permits, reducing its emissions by installing cleaner technology, or reducing its emissions by reducing production. The most cost-effective strategy depends on the polluter's marginal abatement cost and the market price of permits. In theory, a polluter's decisions should lead to an economically efficient allocation of reductions among polluters, and lower compliance costs for individual firms and for the economy overall, compared to command-and-control mechanisms.

Measuring, reporting, verification and enforcement
In some industrial processes, emissions can be physically measured by inserting sensors and flowmeters in chimneys and stacks, but many types of activity rely on theoretical calculations instead of measurement. Depending on local legislation, measurements may require additional checks and verification by government or third party auditors, prior or post submission to the local regulator.

Enforcement methods include fines and sanctions for polluters that have exceeded their allowances. Concerns include the cost of MRV and enforcement, and the risk that facilities may lie about actual emissions.

Pollution markets
An emission license directly confers a right to emit pollutants up to a certain rate. In contrast, a pollution license for a given location confers the right to emit pollutants at a rate which will cause no more than a specified increase at the pollution-level. For concreteness, consider the following model.

 * There are $$n$$ agents each of which emits $$e_i$$ pollutants.
 * There are $$m$$ locations each of which suffers pollution $$q_i$$.
 * The pollution is a linear combination of the emissions. The relation between $$e$$ and $$q$$ is given by a diffusion matrix $$H$$, such that: $$q = H\cdot e$$.

As an example, consider three countries along a river (as in the fair river sharing setting).

 * Pollution in the upstream country is determined only by the emission of the upstream country: $$q_1 = e_1$$.
 * Pollution in the middle country is determined by its own emission and by the emission of country 1: $$q_2 = e_1 + e_2$$.
 * Pollution in the downstream country is the sum of all emissions: $$q_3 = e_1 + e_2 + e_3$$.

So the matrix $$H$$ in this case is a triangular matrix of ones.

Each pollution-license for location $$i$$ permits its holder to emit pollutants that will cause at most this level of pollution at location $$i$$. Therefore, a polluter that affects water quality at a number of points has to hold a portfolio of licenses covering all relevant monitoring-points. In the above example, if country 2 wants to emit a unit of pollutant, it should purchase two permits: one for location 2 and one for location 3.

Montgomery shows that, while both markets lead to efficient license allocation, the market in pollution-licenses is more widely applicable than the market in emission-licenses.

International emissions trading
The nature of the pollutant plays a very important role when policy-makers decide which framework should be used to control pollution. CO2 acts globally, thus its impact on the environment is generally similar wherever in the globe it is released. So the location of the originator of the emissions does not matter from an environmental standpoint.

The policy framework should be different for regional pollutants (e.g. SO2 and NOx, and also mercury) because the impact of these pollutants may differ by location. The same amount of a regional pollutant can exert a very high impact in some locations and a low impact in other locations, so it matters where the pollutant is released. This is known as the Hot Spot problem.

A Lagrange framework is commonly used to determine the least cost of achieving an objective, in this case the total reduction in emissions required in a year. In some cases, it is possible to use the Lagrange optimization framework to determine the required reductions for each country (based on their MAC) so that the total cost of reduction is minimized. In such a scenario, the Lagrange multiplier represents the market allowance price (P) of a pollutant, such as the current market price of emission permits in Europe and the US.

Countries face the permit market price that exists in the market that day, so they are able to make individual decisions that would minimize their costs while at the same time achieving regulatory compliance. This is also another version of the Equi-Marginal Principle, commonly used in economics to choose the most economically efficient decision.

Prices versus quantities, and the safety valve
There has been longstanding debate on the relative merits of price versus quantity instruments to achieve emission reductions.

An emission cap and permit trading system is a quantity instrument because it fixes the overall emission level (quantity) and allows the price to vary. Uncertainty in future supply and demand conditions (market volatility) coupled with a fixed number of pollution permits creates an uncertainty in the future price of pollution permits, and the industry must accordingly bear the cost of adapting to these volatile market conditions. The burden of a volatile market thus lies with the industry rather than the controlling agency, which is generally more efficient. However, under volatile market conditions, the ability of the controlling agency to alter the caps will translate into an ability to pick "winners and losers" and thus presents an opportunity for corruption.

In contrast, an emission tax is a price instrument because it fixes the price while the emission level is allowed to vary according to economic activity. A major drawback of an emission tax is that the environmental outcome (e.g. a limit on the amount of emissions) is not guaranteed. On one hand, a tax will remove capital from the industry, suppressing possibly useful economic activity, but conversely, the polluter will not need to hedge as much against future uncertainty since the amount of tax will track with profits. The burden of a volatile market will be borne by the controlling (taxing) agency rather than the industry itself, which is generally less efficient. An advantage is that, given a uniform tax rate and a volatile market, the taxing entity will not be in a position to pick "winners and losers" and the opportunity for corruption will be less.

Assuming no corruption and assuming that the controlling agency and the industry are equally efficient at adapting to volatile market conditions, the best choice depends on the sensitivity of the costs of emission reduction, compared to the sensitivity of the benefits (i.e., climate damage avoided by a reduction) when the level of emission control is varied.

A third option, known as a safety valve, is a hybrid of the price and quantity instruments. The system is essentially an emission cap and permit trading system but the maximum (or minimum) permit price is capped. Emitters have the choice of either obtaining permits in the marketplace or buying them from the government at a specified trigger price (which could be adjusted over time). The system is sometimes recommended as a way of overcoming the fundamental disadvantages of both systems by giving governments the flexibility to adjust the system as new information comes to light. It can be shown that by setting the trigger price high enough, or the number of permits low enough, the safety valve can be used to mimic either a pure quantity or pure price mechanism.

Comparison with other methods of emission reduction
Cap and trade is the textbook example of an emissions trading program. Other market-based approaches include baseline-and-credit, and pollution tax. They all put a price on pollution (for example, see carbon price), and so provide an economic incentive to reduce pollution beginning with the lowest-cost opportunities. By contrast, in a command-and-control approach, a central authority designates pollution levels each facility is allowed to emit. Cap and trade essentially functions as a tax where the tax rate is variable based on the relative cost of abatement per unit, and the tax base is variable based on the amount of abatement needed.

Baseline and credit
In a baseline and credit program, polluters can create permits, called credits or offsets, by reducing their emissions below a baseline level, which is often the historical emissions level from a designated past year. Such credits can be bought by polluters that have a regulatory limit.

Pollution tax
Emissions fees or environmental tax is a surcharge on the pollution created while producing goods and services. For example, a carbon tax is a tax on the carbon content of fossil fuels that aims to discourage their use and thereby reduce carbon dioxide emissions. The two approaches are overlapping sets of policy designs. Both can have a range of scopes, points of regulation, and price schedules. They can be fair or unfair, depending on how the revenue is used. Both have the effect of increasing the price of goods (such as fossil fuels) to consumers. A comprehensive, upstream, auctioned cap-and-trade system is very similar to a comprehensive, upstream carbon tax. Yet, many commentators sharply contrast the two approaches.

The main difference is what is defined and what derived. A tax is a price control, while a cap-and-trade system is a quantity control instrument. That is, a tax is a unit price for pollution that is set by authorities, and the market determines the quantity emitted; in cap and trade, authorities determine the amount of pollution, and the market determines the price. This difference affects a number of criteria.

Responsiveness to inflation: Cap-and-trade has the advantage that it adjusts to inflation (changes to overall prices) automatically, while emissions fees must be changed by regulators.

Responsiveness to cost changes: It is not clear which approach is better. It is possible to combine the two into a safety valve price: a price set by regulators, at which polluters can buy additional permits beyond the cap.

Responsiveness to recessions: This point is closely related to responsiveness to cost changes, because recessions cause a drop in demand. Under cap and trade, the emissions cost automatically decreases, so a cap-and-trade scheme adds another automatic stabilizer to the economy—in effect, an automatic fiscal stimulus. However, a lower pollution price also results in reduced efforts to reduce pollution. If the government is able to stimulate the economy regardless of the cap-and-trade scheme, an excessively low price causes a missed opportunity to cut emissions faster than planned. Instead, it might be better to have a price floor (a tax). This is especially true when cutting pollution is urgent, as with greenhouse gas emissions. A price floor also provides certainty and stability for investment in emissions reductions: recent experience from the UK shows that nuclear power operators are reluctant to invest on "un-subsidised" terms unless there is a guaranteed price floor for carbon (which the EU emissions trading scheme does not presently provide).

Responsiveness to uncertainty: As with cost changes, in a world of uncertainty, it is not clear whether emissions fees or cap-and-trade systems are more efficient—it depends on how fast the marginal social benefits of reducing pollution fall with the amount of cleanup (e.g., whether inelastic or elastic marginal social benefit schedule).

Other: The magnitude of the tax will depend on how sensitive the supply of emissions is to the price. The permit price of cap-and-trade will depend on the pollutant market. A tax generates government revenue, but full-auctioned emissions permits can do the same. A similar upstream cap-and-trade system could be implemented. An upstream carbon tax might be the simplest to administer. Setting up a complex cap-and-trade arrangement that is comprehensive has high institutional needs.

Command-and-control regulation
Command and control is a system of regulation that prescribes emission limits and compliance methods for each facility or source. It is the traditional approach to reducing air pollution.

Command-and-control regulations are more rigid than incentive-based approaches such as pollution fees and cap and trade. An example of this is a performance standard which sets an emissions goal for each polluter that is fixed and, therefore, the burden of reducing pollution cannot be shifted to the firms that can achieve it more cheaply. As a result, performance standards are likely to be more costly overall. The additional costs would be passed to end consumers.

Trading systems
Apart from the dynamic development in carbon emission trading, other pollutants have also been targeted.

Sulfur dioxide
An early example of an emission trading system has been the sulfur dioxide (SO2) trading system under the framework of the Acid Rain Program of the 1990 Clean Air Act in the U.S. Under the program, which is essentially a cap-and-trade emissions trading system, SO2 emissions were reduced by 50% from 1980 levels by 2007. Some experts argue that the cap-and-trade system of SO2 emissions reduction has reduced the cost of controlling acid rain by as much as 80% versus source-by-source reduction. The SO2 program was challenged in 2004, which set in motion a series of events that led to the 2011 Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR). Under the CSAPR, the national SO2 trading program was replaced by four separate trading groups for SO2 and NOx. SO2 emissions from Acid Rain Program sources have fallen from 17.3 million tons in 1980 to about 7.6 million tons in 2008, a decrease in emissions of 56 percent. A 2014 EPA analysis estimated that implementation of the Acid Rain Program avoided between 20,000 and 50,000 incidences of premature mortality annually due to reductions of ambient PM2.5 concentrations, and between 430 and 2,000 incidences annually due to reductions of ground-level ozone.

Nitrogen oxides
In 2003, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) began to administer the Budget Trading Program (NBP) under the  State Implementation Plan (also known as the "NOx SIP Call"). The Budget Trading Program was a market-based cap and trade program created to reduce emissions of nitrogen oxides (NOx) from power plants and other large combustion sources in the eastern United States. NOx is a prime ingredient in the formation of ground-level ozone (smog), a pervasive air pollution problem in many areas of the eastern United States. The NBP was designed to reduce NOx emissions during the warm summer months, referred to as the ozone season, when ground-level ozone concentrations are highest. In March 2008, EPA again strengthened the 8-hour ozone standard to 0.075 parts per million (ppm) from its previous 0.08 ppm.

Ozone season emissions decreased by 43 percent between 2003 and 2008, even while energy demand remained essentially flat during the same period. CAIR will result in $85 billion to $100 billion in health benefits and nearly $2 billion in visibility benefits per year by 2015 and will substantially reduce premature mortality in the eastern United States. NOx reductions due to the Budget Trading Program have led to improvements in ozone and PM2.5, saving an estimated 580 to 1,800 lives in 2008.

A 2017 study in the American Economic Review found that the Budget Trading Program decreased  emissions and ambient ozone concentrations. The program reduced expenditures on medicine by about 1.5% ($800 million annually) and reduced the mortality rate by up to 0.5% (2,200 fewer premature deaths, mainly among individuals 75 and older).

Volatile organic compounds
In the United States the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) classifies Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs) as gases emitted from certain solids and liquids that may have adverse health effects. These VOCs include a variety of chemicals that are emitted from a variety of different products. These include products such as gasoline, perfumes, hair spray, fabric cleaners, PVC, and refrigerants; all of which can contain chemicals such as benzene, acetone, methylene chloride, freons, formaldehyde.

VOCs are also monitored by the United States Geological Survey for its presence in groundwater supply. The USGS concluded that many of the nations aquifers are at risk to low-level VOC contamination. The common symptoms of short levels of exposure to VOCs include headaches, nausea, and eye irritation. If exposed for an extended period of time the symptoms include cancer and damage to the central nervous system.

China
In an effort to reverse the adverse consequences of air pollution, in 2006, China started to consider a national pollution permit trading system in order to use market-based mechanisms to incentivize companies to cut pollution. This has been based on a previous pilot project called the Industrial emission trading pilot scheme, which was launched in 2002. Four provinces, three municipalities and one state-owned enterprise were involved in this pilot project (also known as the 4+3+1 project). They are Shandong, Shanxi, Jiangsu, Henan, Shanghai, Tianjin, Liuzhou and China Huaneng Group, a state-owned company in the power industry.

In 2014, when the Chinese government started considering a national level pollution permit trading system again, there were more than 20 local pollution permit trading platforms. The Yangtze River Delta region as a whole has also run test trading, but the scale was limited. In the same year, the Chinese government proposed establishing a carbon market, focused on CO2 reduction later in the decade, and it is a separate system from the pollution permit trading.

Following these regional efforts, China established its national Emissions Trading System in 2017.

A 2021 study in PNAS found that China's emissions trading system effectively reduced firm emissions despite low carbon prices and infrequent trading. The system reduced total emissions by 16.7% and emission intensity by 9.7%.

Linked trading systems
Distinct cap-and-trade systems can be linked together through the mutual or unilateral recognition of emissions allowances for compliance. Linking systems creates a larger carbon market, which can reduce overall compliance costs, increase market liquidity and generate a more stable carbon market. Linking systems can also be politically symbolic as it shows willingness to undertake a common effort to reduce GHG emissions. Some scholars have argued that linking may provide a starting point for developing a new, bottom-up international climate policy architecture, whereby multiple unique systems successively link their various systems.

In 2014, the U.S. state of California (which is the world's fifth largest economy if it were a nation, between Germany and the United Kingdom in size) and the Canadian province of Québec successfully linked their systems. In 2015, the provinces of Ontario and Manitoba agreed to join the linked system between Quebec and California. On 22 September 2017, the premiers of Quebec and Ontario, and the Governor of California, signed the formal agreement establishing the linkage.

Renewable energy certificates
Renewable Energy Certificates (occasionally referred to as or "green tags"), are a largely unrelated form of market-based instruments that are used to achieve renewable energy targets, which may be environmentally motivated (like emissions reduction targets), but may also be motivated by other aims, such as energy security or industrial policy.

Distributional effects
The US Congressional Budget Office (CBO, 2009) examined the potential effects of the American Clean Energy and Security Act on US households. This act relies heavily on the free allocation of permits. The Bill was found to protect low-income consumers, but it was recommended that the Bill be made more efficient by reducing welfare provisions for corporations, and that more resources be made available for consumer relief. A cap-and-trade initiative in the U.S. Northeast caused concerns it would be regressive and poorer households would absorb most of the new tax.

Effectiveness
Faure and Peeters cautiously endorse the effectiveness of emissions trading in practice: "Notably for the greenhouse gas emissions problem, emissions trading seems to be very much suited to reaching the necessary reductions in a cost-effective way."

title: Emissions trading


text:
Metin Kaçan

Metin Kaçan (15 November 1961 – 6 January 2013) was a Turkish author, who is best known for his novel Ağır Roman (Cholera Street), which was translated into German (Kaçan 2003), and a movie (Ağır Roman), directed by Mustafa Altıoklar (1999), was based on it.

Literary career
Besides Ağır Roman, Kaçan is also the author of the novel Fındık Sekiz, a collection of short stories, "A ship to the Islands" (Adalara Vapur, Kaçan 2002), and a book written in a mixed style between prose and poetry, entitled "The Tiger at Withdrawal" (Harman Kaplan, Kaçan 1999).

Much of Kaçan's writings deals with life in Istanbul, in particular its poor quarter Dolapdere (not far from Taksim Square). To Dolapdere, he sarcastically gave the name "Cholera" (Kolera in Turkish) in Ağır Roman, thereby recalling both its shabbiness and the fact that the great Polish poet Adam Mickiewicz died there from the cholera in 1855. Mickiewicz Museum at Dolapdere, still open to visitors today, figures in "Ağır Roman". The title of this novel plays ingeniously with the polysemy of the Turkish word Roman, which means both "gypsy" and "novel". Also, together with the adjective ağır, which means "heavy" or "slow" in Turkish, Roman is the designation for a special kind of street music, played by some of the novel's protagonists.

Ağır Roman tells the tragic story of a young hero, who grows up in Cholera quarter but finally fails and commits suicide. His failure parallels the failure of the quarter itself, whose ancient structures as well as its multi-ethnic and multi-religious composition disintegrate.

Fındık Sekiz tells a story about two cars, that appear sometimes as personified figures, and that take the semi-autobiographical protagonist Meto on a mystical journey. At the same time, Meto's conflict with a woman, who manages to have him thrown into prison through fraudulent statements, is related, which might reflect some of Kaçan's own experiences.

Kaçan's style is heavily imbued with Turkish slang. This choice gives his writings a non-conformistic, frequently vulgar, but overall extremely vivid and creative tone, which has been hailed, among others, by Yıldız Ecevit. Other characteristics of his writing are the personification of natural phenomena and inanimate items such as cars (in particular in Fındık Sekiz), autobiographical details (Kaçan grew up in Dolapdere), the blurring of the limitations of poetry and prose, and references to mysticism, in particular Muslim mysticism (Sufism). His best-selling novel, Ağır Roman was translated into French by Actes Sud in 2010.

Rape conviction
In 1995, Kaçan was arrested for torturing and raping his ex-girlfriend. He was released on bail pending the outcome of the trial, which ended five years later with a prison sentence of eight years and nine months. The appeals court upheld Kaçan's conviction. In 2006, he was caught by the police in his hometown while attending the funeral of a relative and sent to prison to serve his sentence. After spending close to four years in prison, the remainder of his sentence was commuted.

Death
Kaçan committed suicide by jumping from the Bosphorus Bridge on 6 January 2013. On that day, he took a cab in Esenler on the European side of Istanbul and requested to be driven to Üsküdar on the Asian side. He asked the driver to stop on the bridge so that he could take photographs. He got out of the vehicle, ran to the edge of the bridge, and threw himself off. His brother confirmed the suicide on 8 January. His body washed ashore on 18 January, twelve days after his disappearance, on the coast of Marmara Sea at Beylikdüzü. Kaçan was 51 years old.

Literature by Metin Kaçan

 * Jaklaban-Andante Graffiti (1989) Istanbul, Joker Yayınları
 * Kaçan, Metin et Kemal Aratan İstedikleri Yere Gidenler (1991) Istanbul, Joker Yayınları
 * Kaçan, Metin Ağır Roman (1995) Istanbul, Can Yayınları.
 * Kaçan, Metin Fındık Sekiz (1997) Istanbul, Can Yayınları
 * Kaçan, Metin Harman Kaplan (1999) Istanbul, Can Yayınları
 * Kaçan, Metin Adalara Vapur (2002) Istanbul, Can Yayınları
 * Kaçan, Metin Cholera Blues (2003) Berlin, Dağyeli
 * Kaçan, Metin Cervantesin Yeğeni (2005) Istanbul, Can Yayınları
 * Kaçan, Metin Haselnuss 8 (2008) Berlin, Dağyeli

Literature about Metin Kaçan

 * Hess 1998a. Hess, Michael Reinhard: Ağır Roman. Istanbuler Almanach 2 (1998). 64–66.
 * Hess 1998b. Hess, Michael Reinhard: A Glance at the Wilder Side of Turkey: Ağır Roman. Orientalia Suecana 67 (1998). 55–67.
 * Ecevit 2004. Ecevit, Yıldız: Türk Romanında Postmodernist Açılımlar [Postmodern Tendencies in the Turkish novel]. 3rd ed. Istanbul: Iletisim Yayınları.
 * Hess 2005. Hess, Michael Reinhard: The Turkish Car Novel on a Trip: fındık sekiz by Metin Kaçan. Wiener Zeitschrift für die Kunde des Morgenlandes 95 (2005). 87–118.

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Metin Kaçan


text:
Talk:Medieval Warm Period

Winemaking
We seem to have lost the old arguments that winemaking in medieval times proved the MWP, but a useful source covers the 2017 situation: Maybe worth citing. . . dave souza, talk 18:41, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Well we should note that the commonly cited claim that the Romans grew vineyards in England and that this is not possible today would be a surprise to the thriving British wine industry which has circa 700 vineyards as far North as Yorkshire and over 140 commercial wine producers! 213.205.194.181 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:26, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

 * Apparently studies of the Medieval Warm Period are now considered "off-message", as the findings must should a permanently cold period followed by warmth following industrialisation. However the Renaissance of the 12th century was helped along by warmer weather.78.16.91.213 (talk) 09:28, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: No one has suggested that there was "a permanently cold period followed by warmth following industrialisation". This misrepresents the discussion completely, which is: was the MWP a global event or not.  The very considerable empirical evidence seems to suggest that it wasn't. BobBadg (talk) 13:24, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Also the use of weasel words "off-topic" is implying, pretty blatantly, that research is biased to find some answers and suppress others. It would be more honest to say "I am a climate change denialist" and have no belief in the objectivity of science". BobBadg (talk) 13:31, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Medieval Warm Period. 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060630212731/http://geology.er.usgs.gov/eespteam/Atlantic/GPCabs.htm to http://geology.er.usgs.gov/eespteam/Atlantic/GPCabs.htm

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 21:17, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Improvements
I remember this article as being pretty good, i came back to it as part of a project and i find that it has been blasted into a mishmash of quotes such as 'evidence does not support globally synchronous periods...' seriously? including these quotes does not help, they need to be paraphased in simpler terms; intermingled with an attempt to expand the article to cover a worldwide view with no real research to support any such attempt. It is fairly obvious that this is a mostly European weather event (its in the IPCC reports), but it has been half-dragged into some climate/global warming debate, to the detriment of article quality. also the graph used in no way illustrates the topic, it merely serves to show how hot we are now globally with confusing lines that make it hard to see whats going on, compare this to the chart that has been left on the talk page, more specific to greenland (which is also not really illustrative). note how greenland was much hotter during this climate/long-term weather event, whereas global warming has not affected greenland as much (because global warming is a pervasive global event rather than a localised pattern. there is no doubt that greenland was hotter, but the world was colder). a more suitable graph would be for a longer time period, with smoothing adjustments, covering European average yearly temperature. this is separate to the issue of whether 'climate change' is real or not, this article is supposed to be neutral. i wont go into the details of the debate but basically this article can show the data without being biased, but is not currently succeeding. i propose to remove and disallow all references and mentions of climate change or events after 1900 from this article completely. instead write the article based on comparison to prior events, and perhaps a bit on the affects it had on winemaking/northern trade/culture/greenland could be added. A Guy into Books (talk) 22:14, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

There's a couple largely unreferenced broad claims in here that should be refined and sourced. At the beginning, "Modern knowledge of the Medieval Warm Period is uncertain, especially for the period prior to c. 1600 for which there is limited climate data." No source, in addition to the claim just not being intuitive scientifically (why wouldn't we have data in that gap). Similar issue in the next sentence, "It is thought that between c. 950 and c. 1100 was the Northern Hemisphere's warmest period since the Roman Warm Period." Needs some follow up and citation there.

Secondly, the discussion is a bit biased towards discussion of North America and leaves the other continents largely bare of info. There may be a weighted distribution of research on this period in other places, but nonetheless this section can be expanded.

Nrchristman (talk) 00:43, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Well basically this was written by Americans, most the research is American, and the research on this topic is so insanely contradictory (even from the same reports) that writing anything is difficult. There is not as much climate data for pre 1600, because it is harder to find trees, ice etc to extract the data from that have remained untouched from that period. It is generally known that this event did not effect most of the world, only Europe and North America. The lack of references is because this contentious topic is often hijacked by climate change deniers and global warming doom activists alternately. each claiming each others work is fringe BS. Dysklyver 14:54, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Source for timing not synchronous

 * | access-date=11 August 2019}} discusses three studies, including one covering this topic. The first reference is shown below, can add others on request. . . dave souza, talk 10:47, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
 * – don't have access, but Johnson is clear that it's on-topic. . . dave souza, talk 10:47, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Disputed: Misquote from AR6?
The page claims that "In August 2021, the 6th IPCC report indicated that global temperature was 4°C– 10°C warmer during the MCO than 1850-1900.[21]". This is in direct contradiction to the figure at the top of the page, which shows more like a 0.1° difference. Therefore I am pretty sure that this new statement about AR6 is completely wrong. Unfortunately, the citation is only to AR6, and since that is nearly 4000 pages long, I can't search for where this 4-10°C number is supposed to come from. I suggest deleting this! 85.4.149.121 (talk) 16:39, 6 September 2021 (UTC)Martin

 * I was looking for the same thing. Can anyone provide a more specific citation here, or edit the page to reflect that a more specific citation is needed? Gralgrathor (talk) 14:14, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

I actually found the quote, and the reason for the totally wrong number. AR6 uses a lot of abbreviations, one of which is MCO, which is defined as "Miocene climatic optimum**(MCO)" on page 2-11 (or 440 of the pdf) of the technical report. This is "16.9-14.7 Ma" ago, so millions of years ago. In contrast, "Mid-Holocene (MH)", "6.5-5.5ka" ago is where "Middle of the present interglacial when the CO2 concentration was similar to the onset of the industrial era, but the orbital configuration led to warming and shifts in the hydrological cycle, especially NH monsoons. Approximate time during the current interglacial and before the onset of major industrial activities when GMST was highest." (still on page 440 of the pdf). On page 462 of the pdf (or page number 2-33) there is the statement "AR5 did not assess the GMST for the MCO. Reconstructions based on data from multiple study sites include estimates of about 4℃ (uncertainty range not specified; You et al., 2009) and 5°C–10℃ (2 standard error range; Goldner et al., 2014) warmer than 1850–1900. Together, these studies indicate that GMST was 4°C–10°C warmer during the MCO (medium confidence)." The author of the disputed misquote must have taken MCO to refer to medieval climate optimum rather than miocene climate optimum. Having found this, I will delete the erroneous information from the article! Oops, can't, someone already did 4 days ago! Martin

 * Thanks for finding the source of confusion. I rm'd the text William M. Connolley (talk) 18:45, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

 * Mea culpa, thanks for fixing it. Forich (talk) 15:27, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Don't worry I forgive you :-) William M. Connolley (talk) 16:38, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

title: Talk:Medieval Warm Period


text:
United Nations Foundation

The United Nations Foundation is a charitable organization headquartered in Washington, D.C., that supports the United Nations and its activities. It was established in 1998 with a $1billion gift to the United Nations by philanthropist Ted Turner, who believed the UN was crucial for addressing the world's problems. Originally primarily a grantmaker, the UN Foundation has evolved into a strategic partner to the UN, mobilizing support to advance the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), and help the UN address issues such as climate change, global health, gender equality, human rights, data and technology, peace, and humanitarian responses. The UN Foundation's main work occurs through building public-private partnerships, communities, initiatives, campaigns, and alliances to broaden support for the UN and solve global problems. The UN Foundation has helped build awareness and advocate for action on, among others, antimicrobial resistance, regional action on climate change, local implementation of the SDGs, as well as global campaigns such as Nothing But Nets against malaria, the Measles & Rubella Initiative, the Clean Cooking Alliance, Girl Up, Shot@Life, and the Digital Impact Alliance, among others. In March 2020, the UN Foundation was also a key founder of the COVID-19 Solidarity Response Fund on behalf of the World Health Organization (WHO), helping to raise over $200million USD within the first six weeks to support the global response to the COVID-19 pandemic.

The UN Foundation was founded with the intent to build support for UN causes and to advocate for the United States to honor its financial commitments to the UN. Since then, the UN Foundation and its U.S. advocacy sister organization, the Better World Campaign, have built advocacy campaigns, provided grants, connected experts, advocates, and decision-makers, and driven public awareness in order to support the UN and its priorities and programs worldwide. The UN Foundation is now supported by a variety of philanthropic, corporate, government, and individual donors, and it continues to serve as a substantial source of private funding to the United Nations. In conjunction with the UN, it established the United Nations Fund for International Partnerships to serve as the UN counterpart to the Foundation.

The UN Foundation has made a cumulative disbursement of more than $1.5billion in grants to the UN system. The UN Foundation also works with UN partners in order to provide policy, advocacy, event, and communications recommendations and support. The UN Foundation's budgetary breakdown in 2019 was $95.8million to program services, $5.7million to fundraising, and $8.9million going to management and overhead.

History
In 1998, Ted Turner, an American media proprietor, producer, and philanthropist, announced his decision to make a $1billion contribution to the United Nations at the annual United Nations Association of the USA gala dinner, with then UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan present. This $1billion donation was used to establish the United Nations Foundation.

Beyond his philanthropy work, Turner is best known for founding cable television network CNN, as well as the Turner Broadcasting System (TBS) and Turner Entertainment Company. Turner chose to donate to the UN and create the UN Foundation because he was a prior donor to similar causes and felt strongly that the UN was critical to solve the world’s most pressing challenges. Turner’s gift was also inspired by the fact that the UN was underfunded at the time because the U.S. government had not met its allocated financial contribution to the UN due to a lack of sufficient appropriations in the federal budget. Prior to his $1billion donation to the UN, Turner was already an active philanthropist and had been a proponent for the protection of the environment, especially in combating global warming. Turner believed that his $100million per year donation over the course of 10 years would make a difference to the United Nations, and that he could use this donation to encourage other wealthy members of society to make financial contributions to the work of the UN. In 1996, Turner was worth $3.2billion due to his shares in Time Warner (which had bought TBS that year). By giving away nearly a third of his wealth while still living, Ted Turner became a noted participant in the Giving Pledge movement.

Leadership
The UN Foundation is led by President and Chief Executive Officer Elizabeth Cousens, who stepped into the role in January 2020 after serving for four years as Deputy CEO. Prior to her time at the UN Foundation, Cousens served as U.S. Ambassador to the UN Economic and Social Council, and Alternate Representative to the UN General Assembly where she led U.S. negotiations on the SDGs. Kathy Calvin, the former President of AOL Time Warner Foundation, served as the UN Foundation’s prior President and CEO from 2013 through 2019. Timothy E. Wirth, a former United States Congressman, U.S. Senator, and the first Undersecretary of State for Global Affairs in U.S. President Bill Clinton's administration, served as the UN Foundation's first President from 1998 to 2013. Ted Turner serves as the chairman of the board. Other current board members include Queen Rania Al-Abdullah of Jordan, former Deputy Secretary-General of the UN Mark Malloch-Brown, Founder and Chairman Emeritus of Infosys N. R. Narayana Murthy, Master of University College Oxford Valerie Amos, CEO of Verizon Communications Hans Vestberg, Former Prime Minister of Norway Gro Harlem Brundtland, Nobel Peace Prize winner Muhammad Yunus, President of the University of Miami Julio Frenk, Chairman of Endeavor Brazil Fábio Colletti Barbosa, Senior Partner of the Southbridge Group Dr. Frannie Léautier, Chair of the Captain Planet Foundation Laura Turner Seydel, and former UN Foundation Presidents Timothy E. Wirth and Kathy Calvin.

Background of Foundation's involvement with the UN
When the UN Foundation was founded, it was created to assist the UN with a variety of key issues, and bring attention to particular global problems. A top priority was to build upon previously-successful UN programs, including children's health, population and family planning issues, global environmental agreements, and the safe removal of land-mines. Additionally, it aimed to work with the private sector to raise funding for UN causes, and to raise awareness of the UN and its programs amongst the American population.

The UN Foundation has had a close relationship with the UN and its leadership from the beginning in order to set goals and provide funding for particular programs. Over time, the UN Foundation evolved from being a simple funding conduit to creating and fostering its own initiatives and communities, which enabled it to support UN priorities more deeply and diversely. At present, it continues to build and expand its role as a strategic partner to the UN across multiple sectors. The UN Foundation’s current main issue areas include the UN’s Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), gender equality, climate and environment, global health, and enhancing global cooperation. The Foundation has also continued working in areas of US-UN engagement and advancing data and technology for the SDGs.

Sustainable Development Goals
One of the UN Foundation’s overarching goals is to share awareness, advance progress, understand critical gaps, and activate communities in support of the Sustainable Development Goals. The SDGs, a set of 17 interlinked goals designed to be a "blueprint to achieve a better and more sustainable future for all," were adopted in 2015 by the United Nations General Assembly as a successor to the Millennium Development Goals. While all of the UN Foundation’s programs connect to at least one SDG (and often multiple), the Foundation also works to foster awareness and support of the SDGs among civil society, the private sector, academia, and engaged communities. The Foundation is also a key partner in Global Goals Week, which runs parallel to the UN General Assembly week and engages diverse partnerships for the SDGs. The Foundation also houses the Business Council for the United Nations, which creates connections between the private sector and the UN in support of the UN’s priorities and the SDGs.

Global Health
Global health, often with a focus on women and children, has been one of the UN Foundation’s key global issue areas. Over the Foundation’s first 20 years, 72% of grants fell under the issue area of global health. The Foundation works closely with private sector partners and UN agencies in order to address a variety of health issues including universal health coverage, antimicrobial resistance, and the response and recovery from COVID-19. In addition, the UN Foundation has built partnerships and campaigns to address issues such as measles and rubella, childhood vaccination, and malaria.

The Measles & Rubella Initiative, launched in 2001, is a partnership between the UN Foundation, the American Red Cross, UNICEF, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), and the World Health Organization (WHO) in order to provide measles vaccinations to children across the African continent. This campaign not only focuses on vaccinating children, but also putting into place health infrastructure, and promoting better access to health-care across the continent. In ten years, the initiative has protected more than 5.5billion children from measles.

The UN Foundation also runs the Nothing But Nets Campaign, which is targeted at reducing malaria across the African continent. This campaign originally started when Sports Illustrated writer Rick Reilley published an article asking his readers to donate money to a campaign to buy mosquito nets for those in Africa suffering from malaria. With support from the UN Foundation, Reilley's project got off the ground, and has to-date provided over 13million nets across Africa. Today, the campaign also encourages Americans to learn about, advocate for, and donate to malaria eradication efforts.

The UN Foundation's Shot@Life campaign educates, connects and empowers Americans to champion vaccines as one of the most cost-effective ways to save the lives of children in developing countries. The campaign encourages Americans to learn about, advocate for, and donate vaccines to decrease vaccine-preventable childhood deaths. As of 2019, Shot@Life had protected over $4.1billion in U.S. funding for global childhood immunization programs and helped provide more than 82million vaccines through direct grant support to UN partners.

The UN Foundation is a communications and advocacy partner for the Global Polio Eradication Initiative, a partnership that includes Rotary International, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, UNICEF, CDC, and WHO. The initiative is dedicated to globally eradicating polio through vaccinations and has protected 2billion children from polio.

Every Woman Every Child was launched by UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon during the United Nations Millennium Development Goals Summit in 2010 and aims to save and improve the lives of millions of women, children and adolescents around the world by 2030. It is a global effort to mobilize international and national action by governments, multilaterals, the private sector and civil society to address health challenges facing women and children around the world.

In March 2020, at the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, the UN Foundation launched the COVID-19 Solidarity Response Fund in partnership with the Swiss Philanthropy Foundation to raise funds for WHO’s COVID-19 response. The fund raised over $200million within six weeks, which went toward WHO’s efforts to track and understand the spread of the virus, to mobilize protective equipment to frontline health workers, and to develop vaccines, tests, and treatments. Beneficiaries of the fund were later expanded to include UNICEF, the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations (CEPI), the World Food Programme (WFP), the UN Refugee Agency (UNHCR), and the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA). The foundation also helped raise funds for the Access to COVID-19 Tools Accelerator campaign by accepting donations through the ACT Together Fund.

In September 2020, the UN Foundation launched its Unite for Health campaign, focused on the need for global collaboration amidst the disruption of health systems and services due to COVID-19, and the rollback of global health progress it brought.

Girls and Women
Gender equality is another one of the Foundation’s key issue areas. The Foundation has several campaigns and initiatives that address gender issues; their work includes girls’ leadership and empowerment, family planning and contraceptive access, maternal health, and gender data. All its work on gender equality is represented by the Equal Everywhere brand and campaign that calls for all levels of society to make equality the reality of every girl and woman.

The UN Foundation launched the Girl Up campaign in September 2010. This "for girls, by girls" campaign offers leadership development and education opportunities for adolescent girls. Through Girl Up's support, girls create middle school, high school, or campus clubs, which then plan events to raise money and awareness for the importance of women's issues. Money raised by the clubs is often used to support girls in developing countries so that they have the opportunity to become educated, healthy, safe, counted, and positioned to be the next generation of leaders.

The Universal Access Project works to achieve universal access to reproductive health care by convening donors and advocates to protect and strengthen global sexual and reproductive health and rights. Its goal is to increase and maintain the U.S. involvement and funding for global family planning by protecting key investments.

Family Planning 2020, an outcome of the 2012 London Summit on Family Planning, addresses the policy, financing, delivery and socio-cultural barriers to women accessing contraceptive information, services and supplies. Led by an 23-member Reference Group, operated daily by a Secretariat, and hosted by the United Nations Foundation, FP2020 is based on the principle that all women, no matter where they live should have access to lifesaving contraceptives.

Data2X, a collaborative technical and advocacy platform, was formed after former U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton called for its creation in a policy speech in July 2012 and cited the lack of reliable and regular data on the lives of women and girls. Through research, advocacy and communications, Data2X works to improve the availability, quality, and use of gender data to make a practical difference in the lives of women and girls worldwide.

Climate and Environment
The UN Foundation’s priorities include tackling global climate change, advancing climate diplomacy and negotiations, building cross-issue intersections, and communicating climate science to the public. The Foundation’s climate team works with partners in the NGO sector, the UN, governments, and private corporations to come up with solutions and provide funding to programs related to this issue. The UN Foundation also advocates for the Paris Agreement on climate change, particularly in the United States where it supports the U.S. Climate Alliance, a bipartisan coalition of states and unincorporated self-governing territories that are committed to upholding the objectives of the 2015 Paris Agreement.

The UN Foundation also fosters the Clean Cooking Alliance, an initiative supporting large-scale adoption of clean and safe household cooking solutions as a way to save lives, improve livelihoods, empower women, and reduce climate change emissions. The alliance works with public, private, and non-profit partners to overcome market barriers that hamper the production, deployment, and use of clean cookstoves and fuels in the developing world. It works to develop standards for cleaner stoves and to increase public and policymaker awareness of the health and environmental benefits of improved stoves.

List of campaigns, alliances, initiatives, and communities

 * +SocialGood, a global community of changemakers who connect with each other and the UN, share ideas, and advance solutions to achieve the SDGs in their communities.
 * 3D Program for Girls and Women, a program addressing gender equality among local governments and through civil society and private sector partnerships.
 * ACT Together Fund, a fundraising initiative to increase donations to the Access to COVID-19 Tools Accelerator program.
 * Better World Campaign, the UN Foundation’s sister organization that advocates for Congress to ensure that the US maintains its financial and bipartisan support of the United Nations.
 * Business Council for the United Nations, an initiative that connects forward-thinking companies with the UN to collaborate and solve global challenges.
 * Clean Cooking Alliance, an alliance supporting the large-scale adoption of clean and safe household cooking solutions as a way to save lives, improve livelihoods, empower women, and reduce climate change emissions.
 * Data2X, a platform working to improve the quality, availability, and use of gender data.
 * Digital Impact Alliance, an alliance that identifies digital solutions to achieve the Sustainable Development Goals.
 * Family Planning 2020, an initiative that works to expand global access to family planning and sexual and reproductive health resources.
 * Girl Up, a campaign that provides leadership training, education, and opportunities for girls to get involved in organizing, advocacy, fundraising, and communication activities.
 * Global Partnership for Sustainable Development Data, a network working to improve data to monitor and achieve the Sustainable Development Goals.
 * Measles & Rubella Initiative, an initiative focusing on eradicating measles and rubella worldwide.
 * Nothing But Nets, a campaign raising awareness and funding to fight malaria.
 * Peace on Purpose, a partnership with lululemon to support the mental health and wellbeing of frontline workers through mindfulness.
 * Shot@Life, a campaign raising awareness and funding to ensure that children around the world have access to lifesaving vaccines.
 * United Nations Association of the United States of America, an association of U.S. based chapters that promote political and public support for the United Nations among Americans.
 * The U.S. Climate Alliance, a bipartisan coalition of states and unincorporated self-governing territories in the U.S. that are committed to upholding the objectives of the 2015 Paris Agreement on climate change.
 * Universal Access Project, an initiative that convenes U.S. foreign aid donors and non-governmental organizations to protect and strengthen global sexual and reproductive health and rights.

title: United Nations Foundation


text:
Talk:Potsdam Conference

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 1 September 2020 and 11 December 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Microwavemade.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 02:37, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 27 August 2018 and 8 December 2018. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Peteweil31.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 07:03, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Previously unsectioned comments
As we have come to expect when people post texts here, the 'Partial text' of the Potsdam conference is poorly handled. Question 1 - Why should anyone ever believe that an editable text is accurate? Anyone can, after all, 'edit this page right now' and insert whatever vandalism or personal weirdness they like. Question 2 - Even if the text were accurate and stable, why is the text of the agreement here rather than an article on the conference, its effects, etc. The text is not helpful in the absence of a serious article. Texts like this should remain external links and people can go read them if they like. Wikipedia should be a collection of original entries about texts, not a collection of texts. Based on these objections I have cut the 'Partial Text' and left the entry which preceded it. --MichaelTinkler — Preceding unsigned comment added by MichaelTinkler (talk • contribs) 15:51, 30 January 2002 (UTC)

This text was put on this site some months ago, to read. No one took it off. It was from the british-forces.com, but the site is closed by now. I do not believe that the complete text should stay. H.J. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.47.62.xxx (talk) 15:51, 25 February 2002 (UTC)

The decision to drop the atomic bomb was not made at the conference and was not mentioned to Stalin at any time during the conference. Stalin would not agree to its use as he did not want US influence in Far East — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.46.255.16 (talk) 20:08, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Dates of atomic bomb droppings on Japan are wrong
Under Participants, it states that the two atomic bombs were dropped on August 8 and 11, when it was actually AUGUST 6 AND AUGUST 9 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.110.208.165 (talk) 12:18, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Info on Poland
The sentence was changed and is not the same as in the other section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Team Poland (talk • contribs) 19:23, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

"Japan's conditional surrender"
Regarding, "...after rejecting Japan's conditional surrender...", can we get a citation for that? I do not know if Japan actually did conditionally surrender, but if they did it seems too important to leave uncited. P g chris (talk) 22:38, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Results
Under results the first sentence seems to be, well wrong, when it says 17,000 heads of government. I'm not sure if this is a mistake, vandalism or a case of the wrong terms.
 * -IkonicDeath —Preceding undated comment was added at 11:31, 17 December 2008 (UTC).

China, France, Poland
Since the article clearly states at the beginning that it was a meeting between the big three, which does not include any of these countries it seems redundate to mention that they were not present later. The way it is currently worded it suggests that the three should have been invited, which may be true, but this is an encyclopedia article- meaning we don't pass judgement we merely report. Further more if you read any article on any other website or from an academic journal they do not mention the exclusion of these three from the meeting. Text that refers to them not attending the conference should be removed because it is irrelevant, suggests some sort of conspiracy or judgement, and make this article seem rather amateurish along with some other things. This topic is too important to have major flaws in it at this point in the life of wikipedia. Flashdornfeld (talk) 19:50, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Weasel
Removed weasel. Instead, place template in section to which it applies, or better yet, use weasel-inline. This will be a better indication to editors as to the portions which need improvement. — MrDolomite • Talk 19:41, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Stalin, who had known of its existence long before Truman ever knew, through espionage, encouraged the usage of any weapon that would hasten the end of the war. Please source this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.237.246.128 (talk) 02:13, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

More neutrality
First, the words like "Stalin's troop" sounds like a propaganda. It was the USSR's Red Army that occupied Europe. Second, the sentence "Soviet troops had expelled the armies of the Third Reich from country after country in Eastern Europe, but instead of withdrawing his troops Stalin had left them there." is odd: it is ridiculous to expect victorious army's troops to withdraw immediately after the hostilities had ended. Of course, would Stalin be a normal leader he had to withdraw the Soviet troop within few years. However, by the moment Potsdam conference started there was nothing unusual in the presence of Soviet troops in Eastern Europe. British and American troops also weren't withdrawn from continent immediately after the war ended. Third, the atomic bomb was tested by the US not "the Allies".--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:23, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Agreement not treaty
It is m understanding that the Conference ended with an "agreement" rather than a legally binding treaty as had been envisaged at the start of the Conference. I think this is very important as this "disagreement" is indicative of the post war mistrust between the Soviets and The West leading to the partition of Germany into the Bundesrepublik and the DDR.

Can someone who is better informed of the details then me add this aspect of the Potsdam Conference to his Wiki page?

Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Timdownie (talk • contribs) 20:53, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

 * The assertions in this article are indeed rather strange and should perhaps be corrected, especially as the suggested final character of "agreements on borders" is concerned. Churchill for instance currently stressed the preliminary character of those "border agreements", stating that he, as a representative of a democratic state, has not the legal right to agree in behalf of his country to  border shifts.  As a matter of fact, the agreements were taken  with the proviso that a final settlement on borders should be achieved by means of  a future peace treaty. In this context it should also be noted that today Poland's Eastern border fairly precisely runs along there, where according to the Western Allies it should have run along already in the year of 1919, namely along the Curzon Line. Between the end of World War I and about 1923,  Poland under Pilsudski moved its Eastern border by military force and under disregard of the Curzon Line by some 100 kilometers toward the East. In these newly conquered territories the Polish population was in the minority, varying locally between about 5 percent and 25 percent of the total local population. -- Ziegenspeck (talk) 11:13, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Michael W. Zwierzanski
I have deleted the rather strange paragraph about "Polish diplomat and politician Michael W. Zwierzanski" I can't find anything about this man (is he Michal Rola-Zymierski?) or his proposed "Flim Test". This information was added by an anonymous editor from a Syrian IP address (User:66.198.41.24) on the 20 April 2009.--Payo (talk) 11:30, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Said paragraph has returned---I'll delete it again. -- Spireguy (talk) 15:38, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Introduction?
The intro doesn't say WHAT the conference was about until 2 paragraphs later... Wouldn't it be more concise if the article stated what the conference was for, when it took place, and who was involved? saumaun (talk) 13:14, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

I second this complaint strongly. What WAS the Potsdam Conference? Why did these people assemble in the first place? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.152.162.89 (talk) 15:37, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Vietnam
Although a marginal issue during the Conference, the division of Vietnam at the 16th parallel as agreed to by the Allied leaders had disastrous consequences and ought to be mentioned in this article. Chattanougat (talk) 21:17, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

In fact I find a lot of major discrepancy in someone trying to avoid implications of USA Unilateral changes to suit a later SFPT of 1951 incompatibilities. Here for example I am altering the wording"Allied Chiefs of Staff at the Potsdam Conference decided to temporarily partition Vietnam at the 17th parallel (just south of Da Nang) for the purposes of operational convenience." is simply incorrect.

to read correctly North of Hue Refer Wikipedia :-(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vietnamese_Demilitarized_Zone) "Geography ~ The Vietnamese Demilitarized Zone ran from east-west near the center of present-day Vietnam (spanning more than a hundred kilometers) and was a couple of kilometers wide. It ran along the Ben Hai River for much of its length, and an island nearby was controlled by North Vietnamese forces during the Vietnam War. Although it was nominally described as being at "the 17th parallel," almost all of the zone lies to the south of the parallel, with only a small portion of the zone near the eastern shore actually including the parallel. It was around a hundred kilometers north of the city of Huế.--113.187.0.140 (talk) 10:00, 2 December 2013 (UTC)Corrected --Robbygay (talk) 10:06, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Learn to spell Truman's name correctly.
There is no period following the middle initial S. S stands for nothing because his parents couldn't agree on the name. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikalac (talk • contribs) 13:35, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Relationships amongst the leaders > Point 3
In Relationships amongst the leaders, Point 3 needs a rewrite since the first half paints Truman as someone gullible who believes Stalin is an honorable man and will not annex countries if only all his demands are agreed with and to not ask Stalin for anything in return. But almost a sentence later Point 3 goes into detail as to Truman's almost paranoid distrust of Stalin, the whole while suspicious of anything to do with communism - carefully analyzing Stalin's motives unlike his trusting predecessor Roosevelt.

Thanks Meishern (talk) 03:06, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Spain
I think it's worth mentioning that Stalin wanted the Allies to invade Spain, remove Franco from government, and reestablish the Second Spanish Republic. However, US and UK did not agree as they were afraid of the influence USSR would have in the new Spanish government. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 148.87.19.222 (talk) 22:23, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
 * A citation is needed for that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.79.29.112 (talk) 14:16, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

What about Korea ?
The Korean War article states : "At the Potsdam Conference (July–August 1945), the Allies unilaterally decided to divide Korea[65]—without consulting the Koreans—in contradiction of the Cairo Conference" but this article does not mention Korea. We need articles to be mutually consistent and complimentary. Rcbutcher (talk) 11:15, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Soviet Hostilities Against Japan
In the Aftermath section, the following statement is controversial and possibly factually incorrect: "The justification was that both cities were legitimate military targets, to end the war swiftly, and preserve American lives; however, the early timing suggests that Truman did not want Stalin, who was set to invade China August 15 to remove Japanese occupation, involved in the terms of Japan's surrender." Rather than saying that "the early timing suggests" a more neutral phrasing is preferable.

Also I believe that Stalin promised to declare war against Japan by the end of September, not August 15. In mid-August Stalin was still transferring his intended invasion force east. It has been argued that the dropping of the atomic bomb on Hiroshima forced Stalin to accelerate his invasion plans. Hence, absent firm evidence for the August 15 date, the questionable time reference was deleted.

Hence my replacement text: "The justification was that both cities were legitimate military targets, to end the war swiftly, and preserve American lives. However, to some the timing has suggested that Truman did not want Stalin involved in the terms of Japan's surrender." Wsjacobs (talk)

 * "To some" is classic weasel wording. You need to say who, with an appropriate cite, and since this is hotly debated, you need to cite the rebuttals by (for example) Frank and Maddow. --Yaush (talk) 21:19, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

 * If you know a specific reference, please feel free to supply it. Replace my text "To some" with text such as "To some (e.g., Frank and Maddow) ..."  If you do so, provide your specific reference.  Wsjacobs  — Preceding undated comment added 18:48, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Gathered to decide...
This phrase in the lead sounds odd: "...gathered to decide how to administer punishment to the defeated Nazi Germany...", especially because the word 'punishment' appears exactly once in the article, and that's in the lead. Perhaps the original meaning was "...gathered to decide how to administer the defeated Nazi Germany..." Any objections to changing to what I have in the latter instance? K.e.coffman (talk) 07:38, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

'"orderly and humane" expulsions' versus 'ethnic cleansing and forced removals'
Since I fear an edit war, I think it appropriate to explain why the former is preferable. This article is about the Potsdam Conference. This section summarizes what was agreed to at the Potsdam Conference. It is true, and can be discussed in the section on the consequences of the Potsdam Conference, that the actual subsequent Soviet actions amounted to ethnic cleansing and forced removals. But this is not what the Western Powers agreed to at the conference; they agreed to "orderly and humane" expulsions, with the quoted language coming directly from the agreement. The distinction may seem meaningless in retrospect, but would have been important to Churchill and Roosevelt at the time.

Quoting the language of the agreement, and subsequently pointing out how the Soviets interpreted it, is not a whitewash. --Yaush (talk) 14:02, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

De Gaulle and the other Allied Leaders
It is a commonplace (but nevertheless true) that deteriorating US relations with France in general (and De Gaulle in particular) represented a more severe problem in the immediate post-war government of Germany than did the counterpart deterioration of relationships between the US and the Soviet Union. So there must be an explanation in the 'leaders' section as to why one of the four key Allied leaders wasn't invited to Potsdam. I have cited the reverted material (no shortage of supporting references) and restored it. TomHennell (talk) 14:34, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

DeGaulle wasn't the true "key" fourth Allied Leader. That would have been William Lyon Mackenzie King, the Canadian PM. But the Canadians refused to participate in the occupation of Germany. Canada contributed a lot more to winning the War than France did. But the French military had expanded considerably by 1945 and the major Allies expected France to resume its prewar position as a major power.Pascalulu88 (talk) 04:00, 12 August 2023 (UTC)Pascalulu88

Dates
I’m not sure what’s going on: but the BBC’s On This Day pice gives the conference’s start date as the 16th July.

Is it possible to do some double checking and revision?

Thanks.

Cuddy2977 (talk) 08:00, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

 * IWM site has 17th https://www.iwm.org.uk/history/how-the-potsdam-conference-shaped-the-future-of-post-war-europe TomHennell (talk) 09:13, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

title: Talk:Potsdam Conference


text:
User:Trimalchio

Geez. Only Fritz Swanson uses this account.

/scientists that appear in many famous scientists by Edward Kraus

OLD ENTRY
/coursepack

The below is out of date, but quaint.

Sara and I got married, and now we have a son. Some day, he will contribute articles to Wikipedia, possibly about teleportation or noodles.

-- trimalchio

Wikipedian Entry: Name: Fritz Swanson

(Sometimes this account is used by Fritz's girlfriend, Sara Schneider who is from Cadillac, Michigan)

Advice that I need to read everyday before entering into Wikipedia: Forget about myself. Forget about authorship. Write more articles. Make Wikipedia good.

Editor of Poor Mojo's Almanac(k) http://www.poormojo.org Lecturer at the University of Michigan Classes taught: Creative Writing and Composition

Articles I am reading:

 * phoenician

Sections that I am interested in and involved with:

Subjective Cultural Articles:
 * false document
 * fantasy fiction
 * White trash
 * Folklore
 * Personal experiences
 * short story
 * Literature
 * Beowulf

Concrete Articles:
 * Paul Bunyan
 * Hadrian
 * Michigan, and all of the cities and counties therein.
 * University of Michigan
 * United States
 * Old U.S. 12
 * WikiProject
 * WikiProject U.S. States
 * Augustus
 * Washington Irving
 * Nathaniel Hawthorne
 * Jackson, Michigan
 * Parma, Michigan

More generally, Fritz worries about the existential nature of the Wikipedia.

Entries that Sara works on:

 * Michigan
 * Cadillac, Michigan
 * Mackinac Bridge
 * Upper Peninsula of Michigan
 * Lower Peninsula of Michigan
 * Toledo War
 * Toledo Mudhens
 * Newfoundland English
 * Wicca
 * Dianic Wicca
 * Neopaganism and homosexuality
 * Wicca/broom
 * handfasting
 * skyclad
 * jumping the broom
 * witch
 * Fructarianism
 * marriage
 * midwifery

 * Talk
 * The Fritz List so I don't lose this one again.

title: User:Trimalchio


text:
Arabic calligraphy

Arabic calligraphy is the artistic practice of handwriting and calligraphy based on the Arabic alphabet. It is known in Arabic as khatt (خَطّ), derived from the words 'line', 'design', or 'construction'. Kufic is the oldest form of the Arabic script.

From an artistic point of view, Arabic calligraphy has been known and appreciated for its diversity and great potential for development. In fact, it has been linked in Arabic culture to various fields such as religion, art, architecture, education and craftsmanship, which in turn have played an important role in its advancement.

Although most Islamic calligraphy is in Arabic and most Arabic calligraphy is Islamic, the two are not identical. Coptic or other Christian manuscripts in Arabic, for example, have made use of calligraphy. Likewise, there is Islamic calligraphy in Persian or the historic Ottoman language.

Arabic alphabet
The Arabic alphabet is one of the most widely used scripts in the world. Many scholars believe that the alphabet was created around the 4th century CE. The alphabet consists of 28 letters written from right to left. Each letter can be written in four ways, depending on where the letter is placed in a word. These four locations are also known as initial, medial, final and isolated.

Implements
The pens used for Arabic calligraphy vary from Latin calligraphy. The tools used for calligraphy are different assortments of pens and calligraphy ink. The most common calligraphy pen used is Qalam.

Khamish pen
The Khamish pen also known as a reed pen is used by Arab, Turkish, and Iranian calligraphers. The reed of the pen is grown along rivers. Although this pen has been used for over 500 years, preparing the pen is a lengthy process.

Java pen
The Java pen is known for the tool's hardness and ability to create sharp edges. The pen is good to use for small scripts.

Handam pen
The Handam pen consists of the same strength that the Java pen has. The pen is good to use for all kinds of scripts.

Celi pen
The Celi pen is used for large writing in Arabic calligraphy. These pens are made from hardwood and cut and drilled.

Popular scripts
The two most popular scripts used for Arabic calligraphy are Kufic and Naskh. Kūfic was derived from Iraq and initially used for inscription on stone and metal. Naskhī originated from Mecca and Medina. The script is used as a cursive script, for example on papyrus and paper.

Other scripts
The Thuluth and Nasta'liq and Diwani script are other scripts used for Arabic scripting.

The Thuluth script used during the medieval times is known as one of the oldest scripts to exist. The script was used on mosques and for Quranic text due to the appearance of the text.

The Nasta'liq script is used more for Persian than Arabic scripting. Because of the upward slant to the left, the script is seen as different from the other scripts. The cursive look creates an elegant look when creating.

The Diwani Script was created during the Ottoman era. The lining and lettering of this script creates a sense of closeness when writing. Due to this reason, it's difficult to read since the letters intertwine.

List of calligraphers
Some classical calligraphers:

Medieval

 * Ibn Muqla (d. 939/940)
 * Ibn al-Bawwab (d. 1022)
 * Fakhr-un-Nisa (12th century)

Ottoman era

 * Shaykh Hamdullah (1436–1520)
 * Hamid Aytaç (1891-1982)
 * Seyyid Kasim Gubari (d. 1624)
 * Hâfiz Osman (1642–1698)
 * Mustafa Râkim (1757–1826)
 * Mehmed Shevki Efendi (1829–1887)

Contemporary

 * Hasan Çelebi (b. 1937), Turkey
 * Ali Adjalli (b. 1939), Iran
 * Wijdan Ali (b. 1939), Jordan
 * Hashem Muhammad al-Baghdadi, Iraq
 * Everitte Barbee (b. 1988), United States of America
 * Mohammad Hosni Syria
 * Shakkir Hassan Al Sa'id (1925-2004) in Iraq
 * Madiha Omar Iraqi-American
 * Hassan Massoudy Iraqi-French (b. 1944)
 * Sadequain Naqqash (1930-1987), Pakistan
 * Ibrahim el-Salahi (b. 1930), Sudan
 * Mouneer Al-Shaarani (b. 1952), Syria
 * Mahmoud Taha (b. 1942), Jordan
 * Mohamed Zakariya (b. 1942), United States of America
 * Uthman Taha (b. 1934), Syria
 * Shafiq-Uz-Zaman Khan Pakistan

Type design and type setting
Arabic calligraphy serves as a major source of inspiration for Arabic type design. For example, the Amiri typeface is inspired by the Naskh script used at the Amiri Press in Cairo.

The shift from Arabic calligraphy to Arabic typefaces presents technical challenges, as Arabic is essentially a cursive script with contextual shapes.

Art
EL Seed, a French-Tunisian graffiti artist, makes use of Arabic calligraphy in his various art projects, in a style called calligraffiti.

The Hurufiyya (الحروفية letters) movement, since its beginnings in the early 20th century, uses the artistic manipulation of Arabic calligraphy and typography in abstraction.

Taking Shape: Abstraction From the Arab World, 1950s-1980s, a 2020 installation at New York University's Grey Art Gallery, explored how Arabic calligraphy, with its ancient presence in visual art, influenced abstract art in the Arab world. For Madiha Omar, the Arabic alphabet was a means of expressing a secular identity and appropriating Western painting, while Omar El-Nagdi explored the inherent divinity of Arabic calligraphy.

title: Arabic calligraphy