![]() | 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 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | → | Archive 9 |
The little panel at the right says:
The Status of the agreement sections says:
One of them is wrong.(Should be the 1998 one)
I removed the trees-cause-methane bit; its too new. The paper was only published a week or so ago. We shouldn't be adding science that is so new. Secondly, its been wildly over-hyped in the press; see RC for something better [1]. Thirdly, the offsetting stuff is nonsense, as the papers authors have now clarified [2]. William M. Connolley 11:23, 22 January 2006 (UTC).
How about Farming rice creates methane?
Most of the east, the so-called undeveloped nations (one of which is planning to put a man on the moon) have rice as a staple food, they grow an immense amount of it. And it releases one of the top 3 greenhouse gasses, from what I've read.
the first paragraph is completely incorrect. President Bush has withdrawn the US's signature.
Perhaps the author is refering to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, UNFCCC, to which the US is a party {was ratified in the early 1990s}-- CorvetteZ51 09:06, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
WMC, there is often a 'word war' as to the meaning of 'the US administration 'SIGNS' a treaty', and the ambiguous process of unsigning a treaty, not that 'signing' ;a treaty really means anything. The best ref I could find is. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/1248757.stm -- CorvetteZ51 10:39, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
>has neither ratified nor withdrawn from the protocol< Please enlighten me, what steps are necessary for the US to withraw from the protocol? -- CorvetteZ51 12:28, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
I grow weary, at the European leanings is this article. The only power the US president has about treaties, is his plenary power to reject a treaty that is submitted to him, or is pending in the senate. The US is not a signatory, the former Clinton administration is. The only obligation resulting from signing the treaty,is that Clinton administation must act in good faith toward the other 'signatories'. Non-cosequential,is not the same as non-binding. In addition to being non-binding, the 'signature' does not imply that there will be, a Senate vote, any Senate debate, or nnything else. Should it have happened that Gore somehow forgot to sign the treaty, no consequence, President Clinton could still have chosen to send the treaty to the senate. -- CorvetteZ51 09:11, 4 February 2006 (UTC) CorvetteZ51 09:28, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
SS, Why is something that is meaningless, so vitaley important to you?,
unless you are trying to fool people who have only casual
interest in this subject. I restate my point ...
Gore signs, or does not sign. NO DIFFERENCE. Means nothing.
Clinton could {have} still submit the treaty, to the senate.
If the article clearly states that 'signing' is only symbolic,
I think that would be an improvement. Ciao. --
CorvetteZ51
10:31, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
This section cites numbers on CO2 emissions from the US Energy Information Agency for the US and China. I've fixed the numbers and added a note that they are 2003 estimates, but I'd also like to point out that they disagree wildly with the endpoints of the graph Image:Carbon_Emission_by_Region.png that is included earlier in the article. I think the difference is just measuring mass of CO2 versus measuring mass of C (and presumably including CO emissions also?) but it would be nice if someone more knowledgeable clarified the apparent discrepancy. Assuming we keep the reference to the Chinese and US numbers in this section -- the whole paragraph seems argumentative rather than explanatory to me, on both sides. Threlicus 14:38, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
The Image caption says America and Australia have signed it but arnt adhearing to it. Later on, it says they havent signed it. Ref, someone? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 58.162.103.251 ( talk • contribs) September 9, 2006.
The paragraph:
[b]The U.S. government has attempted to suppress reports by experts that find dangerous effects of global warming. A government official blocked release of a fact sheet by a panel of seven scientists at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration that finds that global warming is contributing to the frequency and strength of hurricanes.[/b]
Uses:
^ Schmid, Randolph E.. "Agency Blocked Hurricane Report", Environmental News Network, 2006-09-27. Retrieved on 2006-11-05. http://www.enn.com/today.html?id=11336
As it's source. A link that is broken.
The statement that the US gov't is trying to cover up scientific reports about hurricanes is a strong statement and should have a strong source to back it up - not a broken link.
Corrected some blatant misrepresentation of cost benefit analysis. It's Econ Cost-Benefit Analysis 101. FWBOarticle
where does the money go that is fined to the countries?
The Nature article seems to have lapsed into the website's pay archives, and is inaccessible. Does anyone have a mirror of the original article? If not, I suggest that a more thorough summary of the study be given. Jackson744 01:09, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
One thing about this section, it's totally abstract. No actual dollar amounts for costs and no actual benefits are listed. This is not a cost-benefit analysis, it's an abstract discussion about the difficulties of doing a cost-benefit analysis.
This is bizarre. Kyoto has some very real non-abstract costs. These can be counted.
As for the benefits, it's not clear that there are any unless you are selling emissions credits.
I'll see if I can add some meat to this section. 64.172.115.2 16:47, 2 June 2006 (UTC)Rich
So why are some countries exempt from parts of the Kyoto Protocol? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 161.31.226.45 ( talk • contribs) .
In the section Details of the agreement, it says how emissions need to be cut compared with 1990 levels. But it's not entirely clear what the deadline for cuts is. Is it 2010? The section in brackets "(but note that, compared to the emissions levels that would be expected by 2010 without the Protocol, this target represents a 29% cut)" implies it is.
I'm assuming someone reading this talk page will simply know the answer and be willing to fix it.
Maffew 07:53, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
There is no deadline, only a 'committment period', from 2008-2012. Rules for applying 'emmission credits' for past over-emmissions, are up in the air. -- CorvetteZ51 15:36, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
Garbage. The main greenhouse gas is C02, and the USA produces 30% of the global human-derived C02 via power generation and internal combustion transportation.
The reason countries like Sudan & Kenya are exempt is because, comparitively speaking, they have virtually no emmissions to begin with. - Randall
Moved the per capita statement on emmisions from the Position of the US to the Postion of China section. This is clearly what China's postion on Kyoto is, and not the US's. Do not revert unless you can site where the per capita emmisions arguement was used as a justification for the US not joining the Kyoto Protocal. Each of the "Positions" sections should state the positions of the various countries and the facts used to support each postion. In this way we keep this article balanced and NPOV. If we add counter-arguements to some Positions sections and not others, it becomes NPOV. Lucid-dream 16:54, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
I am reverting your change, as they would create a NPOV position on the countries section and also would create inconsistencies between the postions of the countries. BTW, This passage I moved in was added by an anonymous user several weeks back and without discussion on the talk page. As for the other passage, you are right, that also needs to be moved, and I have done so Lucid-dream 19:00, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
Please refrain from spurious assumptions on my motives. I am trying to make this article more NPOV and balanced. Lucid-dream 15:56, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
After some consideration about the contentious paragraph, I think it ought to be stripped altogether from the positions sections, or at least heavily rewritten. It consists of facts, but the context is that they are facts supporting or opposing the US position, and thus don't feel NPOV. As I said in Position of the US, the feeling is very argumentative, not encyclopedic. I think the Bush statement above it summarizes the US position -- which these facts are arguing about -- quite succinctly. While I do think there is room for some rebuttal of the US position on the page, I don't think sentence-by-sentence 'equal time' is appropriate to an encyclopedia. Compare the way the Position of Europe section is rebutted in the last paragraph. This section is about the US position and so any rebuttal included here should be general criticisms of that position, not point-by-point. The only thing I would regret is losing the citations of the numbers from the EIA, although those links are at the bottom of the page. I haven't made this change, but I'll make it in a day or so (Trying to pull some of the rebuttal out into a last paragraph) unless consensus is against me. Threlicus 18:53, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
I agree, the whole Positions section needs a re-write. Either we state the official postions of each nation (with facts supporting that position) and the rebuttal within that same Position, or we just state the official postion of each country with the rebuttal in OTHER countries positions. Right now it is a mish-mash, with detailed rebuttal in the US position but none in China and other countries. This makes it a very NPOV unbalanced section. Unfortunatley my attempt to have conistency in this section has been vandalized Lucid-dream 15:13, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
Threlicus 16:12, 22 June 2006 (UTC)\
Since the Kyoto Protocol was opened for signature in December 1997, Annex I countries have embraced the protocol by passing/considering national laws ensuring national compliance with their emsission reduction targets.
-- CorvetteZ51 16:31, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goldwater_v._Carter so what are US obligations as a one-time signatory now that President Bush has indicated his wishes to not participate in the Kyoto Protocol?-- CorvetteZ51 16:17, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
The amended treaty is in force, among its signatories. The US is not a party to it, i.e., the U.S. Senate has not ratified Kyoto, so the U.S. is not obliged to follow the Kyoto emissions targets. All the other countries, the ones which ratified the Kyoto Protocol, are bound by international law to abide by the treaty. The U.S. is not, since it "signed" but did not "ratify" the treaty.
The U.S. at this point can:
While Bush remains in office, #2 seems most likely. If the next president is a Democrat and the Senate gets a majority of Democrats, there's a chance of #3 (ratification).
But Americans are probably too selfish to destroy their economy just to lower the earth's temperature by a fraction of a degree. Not with extra carbon dioxide being so good for American agriculture. -- Wing Nut 20:35, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
Despite its refusal to submit the protocol to Congress for ratification, the Bush Administration has taken some actions towards mitigation of climate change.
"Despite its refusal to submit the protocol to Congress for ratification, the Bush Administration has taken some actions towards mitigation of climate change" This is inaccurate, the protocal was submitted to the Senate by Clinton where it was defeated 95-0. This was before the Bush Administration. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 192.146.101.26 ( talk • contribs) 10:39, July 12, 2006.
![]() | 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 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | → | Archive 9 |
The little panel at the right says:
The Status of the agreement sections says:
One of them is wrong.(Should be the 1998 one)
I removed the trees-cause-methane bit; its too new. The paper was only published a week or so ago. We shouldn't be adding science that is so new. Secondly, its been wildly over-hyped in the press; see RC for something better [1]. Thirdly, the offsetting stuff is nonsense, as the papers authors have now clarified [2]. William M. Connolley 11:23, 22 January 2006 (UTC).
How about Farming rice creates methane?
Most of the east, the so-called undeveloped nations (one of which is planning to put a man on the moon) have rice as a staple food, they grow an immense amount of it. And it releases one of the top 3 greenhouse gasses, from what I've read.
the first paragraph is completely incorrect. President Bush has withdrawn the US's signature.
Perhaps the author is refering to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, UNFCCC, to which the US is a party {was ratified in the early 1990s}-- CorvetteZ51 09:06, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
WMC, there is often a 'word war' as to the meaning of 'the US administration 'SIGNS' a treaty', and the ambiguous process of unsigning a treaty, not that 'signing' ;a treaty really means anything. The best ref I could find is. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/1248757.stm -- CorvetteZ51 10:39, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
>has neither ratified nor withdrawn from the protocol< Please enlighten me, what steps are necessary for the US to withraw from the protocol? -- CorvetteZ51 12:28, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
I grow weary, at the European leanings is this article. The only power the US president has about treaties, is his plenary power to reject a treaty that is submitted to him, or is pending in the senate. The US is not a signatory, the former Clinton administration is. The only obligation resulting from signing the treaty,is that Clinton administation must act in good faith toward the other 'signatories'. Non-cosequential,is not the same as non-binding. In addition to being non-binding, the 'signature' does not imply that there will be, a Senate vote, any Senate debate, or nnything else. Should it have happened that Gore somehow forgot to sign the treaty, no consequence, President Clinton could still have chosen to send the treaty to the senate. -- CorvetteZ51 09:11, 4 February 2006 (UTC) CorvetteZ51 09:28, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
SS, Why is something that is meaningless, so vitaley important to you?,
unless you are trying to fool people who have only casual
interest in this subject. I restate my point ...
Gore signs, or does not sign. NO DIFFERENCE. Means nothing.
Clinton could {have} still submit the treaty, to the senate.
If the article clearly states that 'signing' is only symbolic,
I think that would be an improvement. Ciao. --
CorvetteZ51
10:31, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
This section cites numbers on CO2 emissions from the US Energy Information Agency for the US and China. I've fixed the numbers and added a note that they are 2003 estimates, but I'd also like to point out that they disagree wildly with the endpoints of the graph Image:Carbon_Emission_by_Region.png that is included earlier in the article. I think the difference is just measuring mass of CO2 versus measuring mass of C (and presumably including CO emissions also?) but it would be nice if someone more knowledgeable clarified the apparent discrepancy. Assuming we keep the reference to the Chinese and US numbers in this section -- the whole paragraph seems argumentative rather than explanatory to me, on both sides. Threlicus 14:38, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
The Image caption says America and Australia have signed it but arnt adhearing to it. Later on, it says they havent signed it. Ref, someone? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 58.162.103.251 ( talk • contribs) September 9, 2006.
The paragraph:
[b]The U.S. government has attempted to suppress reports by experts that find dangerous effects of global warming. A government official blocked release of a fact sheet by a panel of seven scientists at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration that finds that global warming is contributing to the frequency and strength of hurricanes.[/b]
Uses:
^ Schmid, Randolph E.. "Agency Blocked Hurricane Report", Environmental News Network, 2006-09-27. Retrieved on 2006-11-05. http://www.enn.com/today.html?id=11336
As it's source. A link that is broken.
The statement that the US gov't is trying to cover up scientific reports about hurricanes is a strong statement and should have a strong source to back it up - not a broken link.
Corrected some blatant misrepresentation of cost benefit analysis. It's Econ Cost-Benefit Analysis 101. FWBOarticle
where does the money go that is fined to the countries?
The Nature article seems to have lapsed into the website's pay archives, and is inaccessible. Does anyone have a mirror of the original article? If not, I suggest that a more thorough summary of the study be given. Jackson744 01:09, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
One thing about this section, it's totally abstract. No actual dollar amounts for costs and no actual benefits are listed. This is not a cost-benefit analysis, it's an abstract discussion about the difficulties of doing a cost-benefit analysis.
This is bizarre. Kyoto has some very real non-abstract costs. These can be counted.
As for the benefits, it's not clear that there are any unless you are selling emissions credits.
I'll see if I can add some meat to this section. 64.172.115.2 16:47, 2 June 2006 (UTC)Rich
So why are some countries exempt from parts of the Kyoto Protocol? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 161.31.226.45 ( talk • contribs) .
In the section Details of the agreement, it says how emissions need to be cut compared with 1990 levels. But it's not entirely clear what the deadline for cuts is. Is it 2010? The section in brackets "(but note that, compared to the emissions levels that would be expected by 2010 without the Protocol, this target represents a 29% cut)" implies it is.
I'm assuming someone reading this talk page will simply know the answer and be willing to fix it.
Maffew 07:53, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
There is no deadline, only a 'committment period', from 2008-2012. Rules for applying 'emmission credits' for past over-emmissions, are up in the air. -- CorvetteZ51 15:36, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
Garbage. The main greenhouse gas is C02, and the USA produces 30% of the global human-derived C02 via power generation and internal combustion transportation.
The reason countries like Sudan & Kenya are exempt is because, comparitively speaking, they have virtually no emmissions to begin with. - Randall
Moved the per capita statement on emmisions from the Position of the US to the Postion of China section. This is clearly what China's postion on Kyoto is, and not the US's. Do not revert unless you can site where the per capita emmisions arguement was used as a justification for the US not joining the Kyoto Protocal. Each of the "Positions" sections should state the positions of the various countries and the facts used to support each postion. In this way we keep this article balanced and NPOV. If we add counter-arguements to some Positions sections and not others, it becomes NPOV. Lucid-dream 16:54, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
I am reverting your change, as they would create a NPOV position on the countries section and also would create inconsistencies between the postions of the countries. BTW, This passage I moved in was added by an anonymous user several weeks back and without discussion on the talk page. As for the other passage, you are right, that also needs to be moved, and I have done so Lucid-dream 19:00, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
Please refrain from spurious assumptions on my motives. I am trying to make this article more NPOV and balanced. Lucid-dream 15:56, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
After some consideration about the contentious paragraph, I think it ought to be stripped altogether from the positions sections, or at least heavily rewritten. It consists of facts, but the context is that they are facts supporting or opposing the US position, and thus don't feel NPOV. As I said in Position of the US, the feeling is very argumentative, not encyclopedic. I think the Bush statement above it summarizes the US position -- which these facts are arguing about -- quite succinctly. While I do think there is room for some rebuttal of the US position on the page, I don't think sentence-by-sentence 'equal time' is appropriate to an encyclopedia. Compare the way the Position of Europe section is rebutted in the last paragraph. This section is about the US position and so any rebuttal included here should be general criticisms of that position, not point-by-point. The only thing I would regret is losing the citations of the numbers from the EIA, although those links are at the bottom of the page. I haven't made this change, but I'll make it in a day or so (Trying to pull some of the rebuttal out into a last paragraph) unless consensus is against me. Threlicus 18:53, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
I agree, the whole Positions section needs a re-write. Either we state the official postions of each nation (with facts supporting that position) and the rebuttal within that same Position, or we just state the official postion of each country with the rebuttal in OTHER countries positions. Right now it is a mish-mash, with detailed rebuttal in the US position but none in China and other countries. This makes it a very NPOV unbalanced section. Unfortunatley my attempt to have conistency in this section has been vandalized Lucid-dream 15:13, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
Threlicus 16:12, 22 June 2006 (UTC)\
Since the Kyoto Protocol was opened for signature in December 1997, Annex I countries have embraced the protocol by passing/considering national laws ensuring national compliance with their emsission reduction targets.
-- CorvetteZ51 16:31, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goldwater_v._Carter so what are US obligations as a one-time signatory now that President Bush has indicated his wishes to not participate in the Kyoto Protocol?-- CorvetteZ51 16:17, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
The amended treaty is in force, among its signatories. The US is not a party to it, i.e., the U.S. Senate has not ratified Kyoto, so the U.S. is not obliged to follow the Kyoto emissions targets. All the other countries, the ones which ratified the Kyoto Protocol, are bound by international law to abide by the treaty. The U.S. is not, since it "signed" but did not "ratify" the treaty.
The U.S. at this point can:
While Bush remains in office, #2 seems most likely. If the next president is a Democrat and the Senate gets a majority of Democrats, there's a chance of #3 (ratification).
But Americans are probably too selfish to destroy their economy just to lower the earth's temperature by a fraction of a degree. Not with extra carbon dioxide being so good for American agriculture. -- Wing Nut 20:35, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
Despite its refusal to submit the protocol to Congress for ratification, the Bush Administration has taken some actions towards mitigation of climate change.
"Despite its refusal to submit the protocol to Congress for ratification, the Bush Administration has taken some actions towards mitigation of climate change" This is inaccurate, the protocal was submitted to the Senate by Clinton where it was defeated 95-0. This was before the Bush Administration. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 192.146.101.26 ( talk • contribs) 10:39, July 12, 2006.