![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | → | Archive 5 |
Why do you immediately criticize Bush (that's the clear subtext!) without even saying what the protocol is? Sheesh! Also, it was never ratified by the U.S. Congress, so the fact is that the U.S. simply does not endorse it (presidents cannot sign treaties without the consent of Congress, I think). -- Larry Sanger
I'll definitely add more information about the details about the protocol, but I'm in favor of adding stubs for the time being instead of perhaps adding a perfect article in half a year.
If I would criticize Bush I'd use much more scathing prose. As far as I can tell, this is pretty much objective. The US is the major producer of greenhouse gases, and the current administration doesn't seem to care. Remember, this is a view from outside the US.
The wording about the signing should probably be changed, though, to make it clear that Clinton only performed the first phase. My understanding is that the normal way for this kind of thing is for the president to sign and afterward get Congress to ratify it. It's also possible for a president to get "advance ratification" of some sort from Congress, but this wasn't done in the Kyoto case. I'm sure some American can specify this in more detail (but this perhaps isn't the right place).
The point is, you seem to have added the article not in order to say what the Kyoto Protocol was about, but in order to say who is stopping it from getting through, which you think it obviously should.
Please do not write on any more partisan topics, if you think this is unbiased. You really don't understand what the neutral point of view is, if you think it is unbiased. It might be "objective" if your opinions are correct, but unbiased it most certainly is not.
As to the name, see: http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/1997/global.warming/stories/treaty/
-- LMS
As I said, more information will be added (and indeed, has been added). The reason for the protocol has been at the top of the article all along.
I can agree that much of the current text would fit under a "History" heading, but I can't say that what is here isn't factual. What is a problem as of now is that the text about Bush takes up too much space, relatively, making him look more important in this than is really the case. Feel free to change this, of course, if you don't feel like waiting for me doing it.
-- Pinkunicorn
The article says: "It was negotiated in Kyoto, Japan in December 1997, opened for signature on March 16, 1998, and closed on March 15, 1999." but the List of Kyoto Protocol signatories says: "The following non-annex-I countries have signed ... 2001: Argentina..." so, um, signing closed in '99, but still being signed in 2001?? Contradiction?
so if a country signs and ratifies the protocol but then exceeds the limits it has agreed to what would happen?
What are the Treaty's enforcement mechanisms? If a nation wishes to comply, it will cost millions or even billions of dollars. Unless the costs of not complying are greater, a nation has no real incentive to comply. What are these costs of non-compliance? How are they imposed? The treaty purports to be "legally binding" - how are these legal binds enforced? These are essential questions. They are not answered in the article, or in any media reports I have seen. I begin to suspect they have no answers. TimShell 03:46, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Can I suggest this page be named back to Kyoto protocol (or better yet to Kyoto Protocol) -- calling it 'Climate Change-Kyoto Protocol' isn't its common name, or even its official name -- its an abbreviation used by the CIA World Factbook. -- Simon J Kissane
Does anyone know the names of the 2 countries that have ratified the Kyoto Protocol?
Also, why have so many countries signed but not ratified the Kyoto Protocol? Are they waiting for a critical number of signees, or what?
-- Ed Poor
-- 69.212.98.139 22:54, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Hey, one thing that might sound like a stupid question to some, but please don't dismiss it as rhetoric, because I really don't know the answer:
Supposing enough countries ratify the protocol, i.e., 55 countries responsible for 55% of the covered emissions. Does the treaty apply only to those countries that have ratified it? Or does it apply also to countries that abstain?
I ask this because the international criminal court that was instituted this year claims jurisdiction over the US even though the US did not ratify the treaty that created the court.
What will happen if (A) the US were to stay out of Kyoto, while (B) Kyoto's 55% provision kicked in and it became "binding"? That is, on whom would it be binding? What are the enforcement mechanisms?
I'm not debating: I really want to know. Tell me, so I can add it to the article (or better yet, just add it). Ed Poor, Friday, June 14, 2002
I know that various sub-national bodies have approved of the Kyoto protocol in some way, such as Montreal. Can someone think of a good way to word this? - montréalais
The Sierra Club said (9/4/02 [1]),
and
So which is it: China has ratified or will ratify it?
China's Ambassador to the United Nations Wang Yingfan deposited the instrument of approval of the Kyoto Protocol with the UN secretary-general on August 30. [2]
Is that the same as ratification? Should we add China to the list of countries (of which 55 are needed for Kyoto to take effect)? -- Ed Poor
This is quite a long article and yet I still don't know what the protocol is or on which countries it has effect. I see that it won't affect India, China and Indonesia - are any other contries exempt? And what would they be exempt from? Are their any actual provisions? I'm confused. --rmhermen
Anonymous removed this qualifier:
Does this mean the Kyoto Protocol will become some sort of international law, which applies to nations like America which refuse to ratify it? -- Ed Poor
Countries that have ratified it haev to obey by it. Countires that have not signed are urged tro sign it in the earth summit 2002 (the only good thing that came out of the whole thing) - fonzy
I thought Australia hadn;t singed it? The dirty 3 as greenpeace called it: USA, AUSTRALIA, CANADA (which has now signed it and ratityfying it i know) - FONZY
Norway is one of the first industrialised countries to ratify the Kyoto Protocol on reductions in emissions of greenhouse gases. Ratification took place on 30 May 2002. [3] -- Ed Poor
SEWilco 08:01, 8 Nov 2003 (UTC): The UNFCCC site has the current ratification status (see the "full text" link at bottom of Kyoto Protocol)
This goal may be achieved if Russia ratifies it. I don't Russia alone will suffice; the treaty requries 55 ratifiers, and Russia would only increase the number from 18 to 19. -- Ed Poor
[5] says that 51 countries have ratified, with 37.1% of emissions. -- Ed Poor
"For those States that ratify, accept or approve the Convention or accede thereto after the date of entry into force, the Convention shall enter into force on the ninetieth day after the date of the deposit by such State of its instrument of ratification, acceptance, approval or accession." (UNFCCC [6])
Does this mean Kyoto already has a high enough number of countries? Because it includes "accession" as well as ratification?
-- Ed Poor
Ed: I think you've got a slight misunderstanding: the Protocol requires that countries with 55 percent of the world's pollution have to ratify. Not that 55 countries have to ratify. Of course, with the USA having 38% of the pollution and not wishing to ratify, this is a challenge... ;-) Martin
Martin, about the 'slight misunderstanding' you mentioned above:
-- Uncle Ed
I don't have a clue what this means! It sounds like an irrelevance, since Dubya is unlikely to create regulation for a Protocol which he dislikes.... Martin
I've just removed that section, pending someone explaing what the heck the point is. Martin
Can someone back that up? is the 15 an estimate of some kind? Martin
I've changed the claim for China from "China has reduced" to "China has claimed to have reduced" because if there's one thing I've learned from living in China it's that you can't trust any claims the Chinese government makes until you check them out in person. Keep in mind how little SARS there was in China until a military doctor blew the whistle.... -- MTR (严加华) 19:24, 6 Aug 2003 (UTC)
moved to Talk:United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change
I'm guessing Ed, that you disliked "greenhouse gas emissions, which are generally believed to aggravate global warming". I'm going to claim that that's an undisputed fact: Kyoto opponents accept that greenhouse gases aggravate global warming. Certainly, there is some dispute over the size of the effect, and there is some dispute over the correct reaction to the effect. In any case, can we stick to facts first? Martin 19:14, 4 Sep 2003 (UTC)
Greenhouse gases cause global warming. Aggravate suggests there is something wrong with it. Everyone agrees that Earth's temp would be below the freezing point of water. There is disagreement about everything else. (Ed is on vacation from Global Warming, so I'm just guessing as to his reasons.) SEWilco 10:51, 7 Sep 2003 (UTC)
Anon is annoying me. No scientists dispute a link between greenhouse gases and global warming. Equally, no scientists dispute a link between solar activity and global warming. The debate is over the size of the effect, over predictions, over the dominant cause, and the correct response. The basic link is not disputed. Period. Martin 19:13, 11 Nov 2003 (UTC)
In turn, the money to pay for these credits is assumed to come from corporate taxes, providing an incentive to companies to upgrade to cleaner equipment.
Re: the recent addition, can we clarify the offset? The leakage rate he attributes (Smith 1994) is only 30%. Graft 15:56, 12 Sep 2003 (UTC)
I don't know why we were calling the US "the world's largest polluter" in the section on ratification.
I'd rather see "world's largest emitter of CO2" (an undisputed fact), but I'd even settle for "world's largest emitter of greenhouse gases". -- Uncle Ed 20:35, 26 Sep 2003 (UTC)
Ed, you've been here for years and have a longer edit history than 99.9% of the people on Wikipedia. So you can't possibly be ignorant of what Neutral Point of View means - WHY would you insert this text?
It contains almost no information - doesn't mention who the individuals are, and so I'd be hard-pressed to confirm or deny whether the second half is true, because I have no way of looking up said dismissals. In fact, about the only thing it DOES serve to do is to create a negative association, "Look at those Democrats and Greens who refuse to engage in reasonable debate with scientists."
If you're going to include this text, please refactor it to contain some useful information and avoid the smearing? Graft 15:27, 29 Oct 2003 (UTC)
I removed the above because I don't understand how a collapsed economy would help meet Kyoto commitments. The Russian Federation is an Annex I country, so it would have spend to control emissions (except it is a "transition" country). Its economy should not benefit, including because is not an Annex II country, so it does not have to pay other countries, and as an Annex I country it won't get much money (unless a transition country gets additional payments). SEWilco 07:59, 8 Nov 2003 (UTC)
I reinstated with an explanation. A quick web search should find you plenty of details on this. Martin 19:27, 8 Nov 2003 (UTC)
Reference, please, to a statement where Bush takes that position.
The latter. I though that Bush accepted the reality of global warming, et al, but questioned whether Kyoto was the fairest/most effective/best response. By "the science of Kyoto", do you mean the IPCC? Or is this saying that Bush stated that there are scientific problems with Kyoto (a subtly different thing to say). Martin 21:29, 10 Nov 2003 (UTC)
( William M. Connolley 16:44, 10 Nov 2003 (UTC)) The page references various experts quoted in a letter on dalys website: http://www.john-daly.com/guests/openletter.htm. One of them, K Green, is described as: "Dr. Kenneth Green, Chief Scientist, Fraser Institute, Vancouver, BC - expert reviewer for the IPCC 2001 Working Group I science report.". I can't find any evidence for this. Does anyone know what chapter he is supposed to be?
( William M. Connolley 19:30, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)) For interest... this page is Tim lamberts choice when looking up Kyoto http://cgi.cse.unsw.edu.au/~lambert/cgi-bin/blog/2004/10#razor
( William M. Connolley 19:51, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)) SEW just added a bit of skeptic-science type stuff to the russian ratification decision. This can't go unbalanced, but rather than fight the greenhouse science wars on this page I would rather remove the text entirely (if it stays, the obvious counters are: the institutes clearly aren't that influential; and the "science" they are basing their views on has not been revealed).
SEWilco 20:11, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC) Then you'll have to add a lot more about the political pressures which caused the decision, to show that the decision was purely political rather than simply stating that it was.
( William M. Connolley 20:36, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)) I don't understand you. You added the assertion that the decision was PP - why should I be obliged to support it?
I wrote in a sentence about Kyoto Ratification being the price Russia paid to the EU for support in its bid to enter into the WTO. Before someone bashes this as idle speculation: I have it on very good authority, from a negotiator from one of the EU's member states. Ovvldc 09:28, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)
( William M. Connolley 18:13, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)) I think that the Russia section has accreted material as time has gone by and their position has shifted. Now that they have ratified (in all but name) I suggest greatly shortening the section (and removing all the scientific argument, which belongs either in GW or CL Ch), to:
I'm not sure whether the Ukranian stuff belongs along with Russia: The Ukrainian economy, like the Russian economy, is such that meeting Kyoto commitments should initially be easy, and Ukraine is expected to ratify the protocol.. Ukraine appears to have ratified already: [9].
( William M. Connolley 17:15, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)) I've now done this.
The first line claims that the Protocol is a form of fascism, which is not a term to be bandied around lightly, and it does not support the statement that the protocol *is* fascism. So, someone want to defend it? EDIT: It was fixed. Nevermind
Anyone have a global climate map, or an average temperature map to replace the generic globe? (or a project oceanfront map, should West Antartica collapse?) 132.205.15.42 18:06, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)
( William M. Connolley 12:55, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)) I think the article is essentially correct in what it says, but I believe that russia has to actually depose the relevant documents with the approriate agency (un?) before the 90 day clock starts.
I think we should make it clear that Kyoto Protocol is aimed at 6 greenhouse gases (ghg). Saying Kyoto wants to reduce CO2 and other ghg gives the impression that Kyoto governs all ghgs, including water vapors. __earth 07:31, Nov 6, 2004 (UTC)
Something like Kyoto Protocol signatories?
I've taken countries from the main page and put in list-form, but if someone who edits this page wants to decide if it's accurate, and whether to link to it?
Of the two conditions, the "55 parties" clause was reached some time ago.
Can anyone be more specific than "some time ago"?
Brianjd 06:10, 2004 Nov 7 (UTC)
Can someone please tell me why Brazil is not listed here?
[...] Brazil has traditionally demonstrated its commitment to the objectives of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. The country hosted the United Nations Conference on the Environment and Development ("Earth Summit" or Rio 92), when the said convention was signed, Brazil being its first signatory. [...]
[...] With regard to the Kyoto Protocol, the country has been making a systematic contribution to its success. CDM, for example, was the result of a Brazilian suggestion for setting up a Clean Development Fund, under which any country that did not achieve its reduction targets would become liable to a kind of financial penalty, with the resulting funds being invested in developing countries. [...]
( William M. Connolley 22:28, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)) On 12 Nov 2004, 140.247.123.226 added:
Oddly enough, said anon also added [10] to Lubos Motl. What a strange coincidence, no? Even weirder, the address resolves to Cambridge, MA.
( William M. Connolley 15:15, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)) In an edit comment, Lumidek wrote:
Firstly, no, I don't want you to re-enter the text: it was silly. But could you clarify whether you deny or admit to have added the text as anon 140.247.123.226? As to secret agencies, it seems to me that I have been quite open whereas someone has been adding silly comments secretly/anonymously.
The Kyoto Protocol article really should distinguish between ghg's that it aims to regulate, and those it plans to take charge of later or just ignore altogether.
Other questions:
What's with 2012? Does Kyoto lapse in 2012? __earth 04:16, Dec 18, 2004 (UTC)
( William M. Connolley 19:28, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)) Someone changed the caption on Al Gore to add "former". This is a bit ambiguous. He is now former. He wasn't when he gave the speech. You wouldn't add "deceased" to pictures of George Washington. There must be a policy on this.
Should the "agreement will come into force" part be changed since the treaty has now been enforced? The Nameless 10:39, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
The third paragraph under the "Emissions trading" header could use some work. For one thing, it cites a report by "Washington D.C.-based NGO"; is this the Natural Resources Defense Council or a different NGO? The rest of the paragraph is scattered and seems incomprehensible to me. Could someone who knows what it's talking about please clean it up? -- LostLeviathan 15:35, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
( William M. Connolley 21:34, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)) I've just removed "(a reduction of 0.15 Celsius degrees by 2100, out of a projected total change of 1.4 to 5.8 >!--from Intergovernmental_Panel_on_Climate_Change article--< Celsius degrees)". The reason is (apart from it being unsourced) that it must be wrong, because it has to be a range of values, since the climate sensitivity isn't known exactly. That leaves the article describing the effects as "very small", which is probably OK.
If you were to look at Geological records, there is evidence that the Earth has experienced global warming several times and they are followed by a glaciation period where the tempurature drops and glaciers form again.
Now eventually the earth will experience a global warming at a rate that will return it to prehistoric times, but the current pattern shows that it is still in the on-again, off-again glaciation period.
BRO_co03 22:06, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)
Agree. Pre-historic times were not affected by our industries. Now we are pumping more C02 and other gases faster than nature can disintegrate them. It will eventually build up and melt the ice down in Antarctica.
However, I don't actually mind earth being a little warmer. Universe as a whole is dead cold, which seems kinda bleak for the outlook if you don't believe in God. :P 142.58.181.84 20:09, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Why was the term 'Kyoto Protocol' changed to 'Kyoto Protocols'? It seems to me that there is only one Protocol, and the term is used in the singular throughout the article. Tkessler 16:30, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)
I think that the photo of Earth is from Apollo 8, rather than Apollo 17. Can anyone confirm which flight it was?
There should be a source cited for this recent edit: "Opponents and sceptics believe that at an estimated cost of $100 trillion to lower the average global temperature by less than 1°C over 45 years it is not an intelligent solution to the threat from greenhouse gas emissions." Tkessler 05:46, Feb 21, 2005 (UTC)
This page contains that claim, and it's certainly published by a sceptic: http://junkscience.com/MSU_Temps/Kyoto_Count_Up.htm It doesn't seem to be a real scientific claim (at least no source is cited), but is simply a linear extension of a certain projected cost/benefit ratio. -starwed
Marco, you were concerned about the phrase talking about how greenhouse gasses "are believed to cause global warming". This statement is not intended to suggest that someone has proved that greenhouse gasses don't cause global warming, just that what is being discussed is theory rather than fact. For example, you might have a theory that I am an American based on my writing style and spelling of words like "color" or "liter". Your theory might indeed be correct and it might be very convincing. There might even be a broad consensus of people who all agree that I must be an American. But it is still just a theory. You couldn't state with absolute authority that I was an American unless you, for example, saw a copy of my passport and verified that it was mine. So, when discussing your theory, you would write: "Jon Gwynne, who is believed to be an American, edited the wikipedia article on the Kyoto Protocol in February of 2005." Just because you're saying that, it doesn't mean that there is necessarily anyone who thinks I'm not an American, just that you don't have absolute proof that I am. Whether I am American cannot be absolutely determined by you with the information you have. Whether I edited the article in wikipedia can be determined as an absolute fact and reported as such.
With that in mind, it is more accurate to write "greenhouse gasses are believed to contribute to global warming", not because there is any proof that they don't, but because the view that they do is a theory and not a proven fact. Scientific consensus cannot be substituted for conclusive proof. It is still possible for a majority to be wrong.
I point this out because I have had (and given) extensive training in, among other things, journalism and reporting. One of the most difficult things for people to do (not just here on wikipedia) is to clearly and accurately distinguish between fact and opinion in objective writing. Make no mistake, what we are doing here in wikpedia is reporting. Every single article should be written as though it were a news report, with the facts and opinions clearly separated and accurately characterized.
I hope this helps. -- JonGwynne 17:14, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
The article says:
What did this letter say? If the PM didn't respond, is it relevant? Peter Robinett 22:20, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | → | Archive 5 |
Why do you immediately criticize Bush (that's the clear subtext!) without even saying what the protocol is? Sheesh! Also, it was never ratified by the U.S. Congress, so the fact is that the U.S. simply does not endorse it (presidents cannot sign treaties without the consent of Congress, I think). -- Larry Sanger
I'll definitely add more information about the details about the protocol, but I'm in favor of adding stubs for the time being instead of perhaps adding a perfect article in half a year.
If I would criticize Bush I'd use much more scathing prose. As far as I can tell, this is pretty much objective. The US is the major producer of greenhouse gases, and the current administration doesn't seem to care. Remember, this is a view from outside the US.
The wording about the signing should probably be changed, though, to make it clear that Clinton only performed the first phase. My understanding is that the normal way for this kind of thing is for the president to sign and afterward get Congress to ratify it. It's also possible for a president to get "advance ratification" of some sort from Congress, but this wasn't done in the Kyoto case. I'm sure some American can specify this in more detail (but this perhaps isn't the right place).
The point is, you seem to have added the article not in order to say what the Kyoto Protocol was about, but in order to say who is stopping it from getting through, which you think it obviously should.
Please do not write on any more partisan topics, if you think this is unbiased. You really don't understand what the neutral point of view is, if you think it is unbiased. It might be "objective" if your opinions are correct, but unbiased it most certainly is not.
As to the name, see: http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/1997/global.warming/stories/treaty/
-- LMS
As I said, more information will be added (and indeed, has been added). The reason for the protocol has been at the top of the article all along.
I can agree that much of the current text would fit under a "History" heading, but I can't say that what is here isn't factual. What is a problem as of now is that the text about Bush takes up too much space, relatively, making him look more important in this than is really the case. Feel free to change this, of course, if you don't feel like waiting for me doing it.
-- Pinkunicorn
The article says: "It was negotiated in Kyoto, Japan in December 1997, opened for signature on March 16, 1998, and closed on March 15, 1999." but the List of Kyoto Protocol signatories says: "The following non-annex-I countries have signed ... 2001: Argentina..." so, um, signing closed in '99, but still being signed in 2001?? Contradiction?
so if a country signs and ratifies the protocol but then exceeds the limits it has agreed to what would happen?
What are the Treaty's enforcement mechanisms? If a nation wishes to comply, it will cost millions or even billions of dollars. Unless the costs of not complying are greater, a nation has no real incentive to comply. What are these costs of non-compliance? How are they imposed? The treaty purports to be "legally binding" - how are these legal binds enforced? These are essential questions. They are not answered in the article, or in any media reports I have seen. I begin to suspect they have no answers. TimShell 03:46, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Can I suggest this page be named back to Kyoto protocol (or better yet to Kyoto Protocol) -- calling it 'Climate Change-Kyoto Protocol' isn't its common name, or even its official name -- its an abbreviation used by the CIA World Factbook. -- Simon J Kissane
Does anyone know the names of the 2 countries that have ratified the Kyoto Protocol?
Also, why have so many countries signed but not ratified the Kyoto Protocol? Are they waiting for a critical number of signees, or what?
-- Ed Poor
-- 69.212.98.139 22:54, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Hey, one thing that might sound like a stupid question to some, but please don't dismiss it as rhetoric, because I really don't know the answer:
Supposing enough countries ratify the protocol, i.e., 55 countries responsible for 55% of the covered emissions. Does the treaty apply only to those countries that have ratified it? Or does it apply also to countries that abstain?
I ask this because the international criminal court that was instituted this year claims jurisdiction over the US even though the US did not ratify the treaty that created the court.
What will happen if (A) the US were to stay out of Kyoto, while (B) Kyoto's 55% provision kicked in and it became "binding"? That is, on whom would it be binding? What are the enforcement mechanisms?
I'm not debating: I really want to know. Tell me, so I can add it to the article (or better yet, just add it). Ed Poor, Friday, June 14, 2002
I know that various sub-national bodies have approved of the Kyoto protocol in some way, such as Montreal. Can someone think of a good way to word this? - montréalais
The Sierra Club said (9/4/02 [1]),
and
So which is it: China has ratified or will ratify it?
China's Ambassador to the United Nations Wang Yingfan deposited the instrument of approval of the Kyoto Protocol with the UN secretary-general on August 30. [2]
Is that the same as ratification? Should we add China to the list of countries (of which 55 are needed for Kyoto to take effect)? -- Ed Poor
This is quite a long article and yet I still don't know what the protocol is or on which countries it has effect. I see that it won't affect India, China and Indonesia - are any other contries exempt? And what would they be exempt from? Are their any actual provisions? I'm confused. --rmhermen
Anonymous removed this qualifier:
Does this mean the Kyoto Protocol will become some sort of international law, which applies to nations like America which refuse to ratify it? -- Ed Poor
Countries that have ratified it haev to obey by it. Countires that have not signed are urged tro sign it in the earth summit 2002 (the only good thing that came out of the whole thing) - fonzy
I thought Australia hadn;t singed it? The dirty 3 as greenpeace called it: USA, AUSTRALIA, CANADA (which has now signed it and ratityfying it i know) - FONZY
Norway is one of the first industrialised countries to ratify the Kyoto Protocol on reductions in emissions of greenhouse gases. Ratification took place on 30 May 2002. [3] -- Ed Poor
SEWilco 08:01, 8 Nov 2003 (UTC): The UNFCCC site has the current ratification status (see the "full text" link at bottom of Kyoto Protocol)
This goal may be achieved if Russia ratifies it. I don't Russia alone will suffice; the treaty requries 55 ratifiers, and Russia would only increase the number from 18 to 19. -- Ed Poor
[5] says that 51 countries have ratified, with 37.1% of emissions. -- Ed Poor
"For those States that ratify, accept or approve the Convention or accede thereto after the date of entry into force, the Convention shall enter into force on the ninetieth day after the date of the deposit by such State of its instrument of ratification, acceptance, approval or accession." (UNFCCC [6])
Does this mean Kyoto already has a high enough number of countries? Because it includes "accession" as well as ratification?
-- Ed Poor
Ed: I think you've got a slight misunderstanding: the Protocol requires that countries with 55 percent of the world's pollution have to ratify. Not that 55 countries have to ratify. Of course, with the USA having 38% of the pollution and not wishing to ratify, this is a challenge... ;-) Martin
Martin, about the 'slight misunderstanding' you mentioned above:
-- Uncle Ed
I don't have a clue what this means! It sounds like an irrelevance, since Dubya is unlikely to create regulation for a Protocol which he dislikes.... Martin
I've just removed that section, pending someone explaing what the heck the point is. Martin
Can someone back that up? is the 15 an estimate of some kind? Martin
I've changed the claim for China from "China has reduced" to "China has claimed to have reduced" because if there's one thing I've learned from living in China it's that you can't trust any claims the Chinese government makes until you check them out in person. Keep in mind how little SARS there was in China until a military doctor blew the whistle.... -- MTR (严加华) 19:24, 6 Aug 2003 (UTC)
moved to Talk:United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change
I'm guessing Ed, that you disliked "greenhouse gas emissions, which are generally believed to aggravate global warming". I'm going to claim that that's an undisputed fact: Kyoto opponents accept that greenhouse gases aggravate global warming. Certainly, there is some dispute over the size of the effect, and there is some dispute over the correct reaction to the effect. In any case, can we stick to facts first? Martin 19:14, 4 Sep 2003 (UTC)
Greenhouse gases cause global warming. Aggravate suggests there is something wrong with it. Everyone agrees that Earth's temp would be below the freezing point of water. There is disagreement about everything else. (Ed is on vacation from Global Warming, so I'm just guessing as to his reasons.) SEWilco 10:51, 7 Sep 2003 (UTC)
Anon is annoying me. No scientists dispute a link between greenhouse gases and global warming. Equally, no scientists dispute a link between solar activity and global warming. The debate is over the size of the effect, over predictions, over the dominant cause, and the correct response. The basic link is not disputed. Period. Martin 19:13, 11 Nov 2003 (UTC)
In turn, the money to pay for these credits is assumed to come from corporate taxes, providing an incentive to companies to upgrade to cleaner equipment.
Re: the recent addition, can we clarify the offset? The leakage rate he attributes (Smith 1994) is only 30%. Graft 15:56, 12 Sep 2003 (UTC)
I don't know why we were calling the US "the world's largest polluter" in the section on ratification.
I'd rather see "world's largest emitter of CO2" (an undisputed fact), but I'd even settle for "world's largest emitter of greenhouse gases". -- Uncle Ed 20:35, 26 Sep 2003 (UTC)
Ed, you've been here for years and have a longer edit history than 99.9% of the people on Wikipedia. So you can't possibly be ignorant of what Neutral Point of View means - WHY would you insert this text?
It contains almost no information - doesn't mention who the individuals are, and so I'd be hard-pressed to confirm or deny whether the second half is true, because I have no way of looking up said dismissals. In fact, about the only thing it DOES serve to do is to create a negative association, "Look at those Democrats and Greens who refuse to engage in reasonable debate with scientists."
If you're going to include this text, please refactor it to contain some useful information and avoid the smearing? Graft 15:27, 29 Oct 2003 (UTC)
I removed the above because I don't understand how a collapsed economy would help meet Kyoto commitments. The Russian Federation is an Annex I country, so it would have spend to control emissions (except it is a "transition" country). Its economy should not benefit, including because is not an Annex II country, so it does not have to pay other countries, and as an Annex I country it won't get much money (unless a transition country gets additional payments). SEWilco 07:59, 8 Nov 2003 (UTC)
I reinstated with an explanation. A quick web search should find you plenty of details on this. Martin 19:27, 8 Nov 2003 (UTC)
Reference, please, to a statement where Bush takes that position.
The latter. I though that Bush accepted the reality of global warming, et al, but questioned whether Kyoto was the fairest/most effective/best response. By "the science of Kyoto", do you mean the IPCC? Or is this saying that Bush stated that there are scientific problems with Kyoto (a subtly different thing to say). Martin 21:29, 10 Nov 2003 (UTC)
( William M. Connolley 16:44, 10 Nov 2003 (UTC)) The page references various experts quoted in a letter on dalys website: http://www.john-daly.com/guests/openletter.htm. One of them, K Green, is described as: "Dr. Kenneth Green, Chief Scientist, Fraser Institute, Vancouver, BC - expert reviewer for the IPCC 2001 Working Group I science report.". I can't find any evidence for this. Does anyone know what chapter he is supposed to be?
( William M. Connolley 19:30, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)) For interest... this page is Tim lamberts choice when looking up Kyoto http://cgi.cse.unsw.edu.au/~lambert/cgi-bin/blog/2004/10#razor
( William M. Connolley 19:51, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)) SEW just added a bit of skeptic-science type stuff to the russian ratification decision. This can't go unbalanced, but rather than fight the greenhouse science wars on this page I would rather remove the text entirely (if it stays, the obvious counters are: the institutes clearly aren't that influential; and the "science" they are basing their views on has not been revealed).
SEWilco 20:11, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC) Then you'll have to add a lot more about the political pressures which caused the decision, to show that the decision was purely political rather than simply stating that it was.
( William M. Connolley 20:36, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)) I don't understand you. You added the assertion that the decision was PP - why should I be obliged to support it?
I wrote in a sentence about Kyoto Ratification being the price Russia paid to the EU for support in its bid to enter into the WTO. Before someone bashes this as idle speculation: I have it on very good authority, from a negotiator from one of the EU's member states. Ovvldc 09:28, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)
( William M. Connolley 18:13, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)) I think that the Russia section has accreted material as time has gone by and their position has shifted. Now that they have ratified (in all but name) I suggest greatly shortening the section (and removing all the scientific argument, which belongs either in GW or CL Ch), to:
I'm not sure whether the Ukranian stuff belongs along with Russia: The Ukrainian economy, like the Russian economy, is such that meeting Kyoto commitments should initially be easy, and Ukraine is expected to ratify the protocol.. Ukraine appears to have ratified already: [9].
( William M. Connolley 17:15, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)) I've now done this.
The first line claims that the Protocol is a form of fascism, which is not a term to be bandied around lightly, and it does not support the statement that the protocol *is* fascism. So, someone want to defend it? EDIT: It was fixed. Nevermind
Anyone have a global climate map, or an average temperature map to replace the generic globe? (or a project oceanfront map, should West Antartica collapse?) 132.205.15.42 18:06, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)
( William M. Connolley 12:55, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)) I think the article is essentially correct in what it says, but I believe that russia has to actually depose the relevant documents with the approriate agency (un?) before the 90 day clock starts.
I think we should make it clear that Kyoto Protocol is aimed at 6 greenhouse gases (ghg). Saying Kyoto wants to reduce CO2 and other ghg gives the impression that Kyoto governs all ghgs, including water vapors. __earth 07:31, Nov 6, 2004 (UTC)
Something like Kyoto Protocol signatories?
I've taken countries from the main page and put in list-form, but if someone who edits this page wants to decide if it's accurate, and whether to link to it?
Of the two conditions, the "55 parties" clause was reached some time ago.
Can anyone be more specific than "some time ago"?
Brianjd 06:10, 2004 Nov 7 (UTC)
Can someone please tell me why Brazil is not listed here?
[...] Brazil has traditionally demonstrated its commitment to the objectives of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. The country hosted the United Nations Conference on the Environment and Development ("Earth Summit" or Rio 92), when the said convention was signed, Brazil being its first signatory. [...]
[...] With regard to the Kyoto Protocol, the country has been making a systematic contribution to its success. CDM, for example, was the result of a Brazilian suggestion for setting up a Clean Development Fund, under which any country that did not achieve its reduction targets would become liable to a kind of financial penalty, with the resulting funds being invested in developing countries. [...]
( William M. Connolley 22:28, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)) On 12 Nov 2004, 140.247.123.226 added:
Oddly enough, said anon also added [10] to Lubos Motl. What a strange coincidence, no? Even weirder, the address resolves to Cambridge, MA.
( William M. Connolley 15:15, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)) In an edit comment, Lumidek wrote:
Firstly, no, I don't want you to re-enter the text: it was silly. But could you clarify whether you deny or admit to have added the text as anon 140.247.123.226? As to secret agencies, it seems to me that I have been quite open whereas someone has been adding silly comments secretly/anonymously.
The Kyoto Protocol article really should distinguish between ghg's that it aims to regulate, and those it plans to take charge of later or just ignore altogether.
Other questions:
What's with 2012? Does Kyoto lapse in 2012? __earth 04:16, Dec 18, 2004 (UTC)
( William M. Connolley 19:28, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)) Someone changed the caption on Al Gore to add "former". This is a bit ambiguous. He is now former. He wasn't when he gave the speech. You wouldn't add "deceased" to pictures of George Washington. There must be a policy on this.
Should the "agreement will come into force" part be changed since the treaty has now been enforced? The Nameless 10:39, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
The third paragraph under the "Emissions trading" header could use some work. For one thing, it cites a report by "Washington D.C.-based NGO"; is this the Natural Resources Defense Council or a different NGO? The rest of the paragraph is scattered and seems incomprehensible to me. Could someone who knows what it's talking about please clean it up? -- LostLeviathan 15:35, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
( William M. Connolley 21:34, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)) I've just removed "(a reduction of 0.15 Celsius degrees by 2100, out of a projected total change of 1.4 to 5.8 >!--from Intergovernmental_Panel_on_Climate_Change article--< Celsius degrees)". The reason is (apart from it being unsourced) that it must be wrong, because it has to be a range of values, since the climate sensitivity isn't known exactly. That leaves the article describing the effects as "very small", which is probably OK.
If you were to look at Geological records, there is evidence that the Earth has experienced global warming several times and they are followed by a glaciation period where the tempurature drops and glaciers form again.
Now eventually the earth will experience a global warming at a rate that will return it to prehistoric times, but the current pattern shows that it is still in the on-again, off-again glaciation period.
BRO_co03 22:06, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)
Agree. Pre-historic times were not affected by our industries. Now we are pumping more C02 and other gases faster than nature can disintegrate them. It will eventually build up and melt the ice down in Antarctica.
However, I don't actually mind earth being a little warmer. Universe as a whole is dead cold, which seems kinda bleak for the outlook if you don't believe in God. :P 142.58.181.84 20:09, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Why was the term 'Kyoto Protocol' changed to 'Kyoto Protocols'? It seems to me that there is only one Protocol, and the term is used in the singular throughout the article. Tkessler 16:30, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)
I think that the photo of Earth is from Apollo 8, rather than Apollo 17. Can anyone confirm which flight it was?
There should be a source cited for this recent edit: "Opponents and sceptics believe that at an estimated cost of $100 trillion to lower the average global temperature by less than 1°C over 45 years it is not an intelligent solution to the threat from greenhouse gas emissions." Tkessler 05:46, Feb 21, 2005 (UTC)
This page contains that claim, and it's certainly published by a sceptic: http://junkscience.com/MSU_Temps/Kyoto_Count_Up.htm It doesn't seem to be a real scientific claim (at least no source is cited), but is simply a linear extension of a certain projected cost/benefit ratio. -starwed
Marco, you were concerned about the phrase talking about how greenhouse gasses "are believed to cause global warming". This statement is not intended to suggest that someone has proved that greenhouse gasses don't cause global warming, just that what is being discussed is theory rather than fact. For example, you might have a theory that I am an American based on my writing style and spelling of words like "color" or "liter". Your theory might indeed be correct and it might be very convincing. There might even be a broad consensus of people who all agree that I must be an American. But it is still just a theory. You couldn't state with absolute authority that I was an American unless you, for example, saw a copy of my passport and verified that it was mine. So, when discussing your theory, you would write: "Jon Gwynne, who is believed to be an American, edited the wikipedia article on the Kyoto Protocol in February of 2005." Just because you're saying that, it doesn't mean that there is necessarily anyone who thinks I'm not an American, just that you don't have absolute proof that I am. Whether I am American cannot be absolutely determined by you with the information you have. Whether I edited the article in wikipedia can be determined as an absolute fact and reported as such.
With that in mind, it is more accurate to write "greenhouse gasses are believed to contribute to global warming", not because there is any proof that they don't, but because the view that they do is a theory and not a proven fact. Scientific consensus cannot be substituted for conclusive proof. It is still possible for a majority to be wrong.
I point this out because I have had (and given) extensive training in, among other things, journalism and reporting. One of the most difficult things for people to do (not just here on wikipedia) is to clearly and accurately distinguish between fact and opinion in objective writing. Make no mistake, what we are doing here in wikpedia is reporting. Every single article should be written as though it were a news report, with the facts and opinions clearly separated and accurately characterized.
I hope this helps. -- JonGwynne 17:14, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
The article says:
What did this letter say? If the PM didn't respond, is it relevant? Peter Robinett 22:20, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)