![]() | 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 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | → | Archive 9 |
Something important was left out of the discussion of costs and benefits, the fact that all costs are essentially 'sunk' costs. The countries of the Protocol seem to be dividable into two groups, the 'no action needed' group, and the 'business as usual' group.-- CorvetteZ51 02:19, 14 July 2006 (UTC) In other words,none of the annex I countries are going to do anything because of Kyoto, so cost are effectively zero.-- CorvetteZ51 07:56, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
Take a look at Emissions Trading Brusegadi 16:11, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
Something needs to said about the obligations of indiviual EU countries. For example, Spain, Italy and the UK have essentially blown off the treaty, and are expected to show big increases from the 1990 baseline. The deal is that these countries could, if offered,count other countries' underemission, toward their own totals. But that doesn't necessarily mean they will have that offer. 207.53.228.88 08:52, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
How are emissions measured? Are they calculated or actually physically measured from samples? - postglock 13:53, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the reply. Makes sense with the calculated half; I didn't really think of that! I am really curious as to how one would go about working out the other sources of emissions though... - postglock 13:57, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
Some countries by hapenstance will need to do nothing, to meet their target.Some countries will do nothing, and miss their target. Some countries have no target. Some countries/groupings, like the EU,will pretend to do something... their CO2 trading scheme, for example, and miss their target.-- CorvetteZ51 11:05, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
Yes, didnt we see that already happen in Germany, where the coal industry got 'exceptions' to some of the carbon targets last year? And the EU expects the US to enter into Kyoto? 74.131.64.178 15:02, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
Aaronantrim added: " KyotoUSA is a grassroots effort to encourage U.S. cities and their citizens to take action to address global warming."
I removed it because if you click on the link the first sentence reads :
"KyotoUSA is a grassroots effort to encourage U.S. cities and their citizens to take action to address global warming." which is exacly the sentence the user wrote in the wiki article.
I feel that to include it we should provide some more information about this organization, otherwise it looks much like spam. Lets try to make it look like kyoto NOW sponsored by Cornell.
It seems like the economist is publishing an edition dealing with the economic implications of GW. Here is a link to an opinion piece in it. [4] I do not know much about it, but I will buy the magazine and if there is anything good, I'll see if I can add it to the cost-benefit section. If it is fine, of course. Brusegadi 16:50, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
The article about Australia isn’t particularly NPOV. For example, the first line basically says "Australia emits a lot, but they get away with it cause they argued with people" Kiran90 02:24, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
The first paragraph of the Position of Australia is totally irrelevant! The Federal Government absoultey CAN make laws relating to international treaties such as this and this is provided for by s51 (xxix) of the Constitution. See the Tasmanian Dams case for more details. That it is traditionally not an area that the Feds can legislate for is not relevant to this discussion: if Australia ratified, then the Federal Government could make laws to implement the ratification. Also, the reference to s52 is obscure and also quite irrelevant.-- Mikenosilly 01:13, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
the U.S. economy does not want to earn a pedestal (deceased) position. CorvetteZ51 11:35, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
This current text is not clear whether China supports Kyoto or not.
Kent Wang 22:12, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
I agree, the China paragraph needs to be expanded and cited. The emissions per capita arguement should be expounded upon. 74.131.64.178 14:58, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
Members of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles are in the process of doing a re-review of current Good Article listings to ensure compliance with the standards of the Good Article Criteria. (Discussion of the changes and re-review can be found here). A significant change to the GA criteria is the mandatory use of some sort of in-line citation (In accordance to WP:CITE) to be used in order for an article to pass the verification and reference criteria. Currently this article does not include in-line citations. It is recommended that the article's editors take a look at the inclusion of in-line citations as well as how the article stacks up against the rest of the Good Article criteria. GA reviewers will give you at least a week's time from the date of this notice to work on the in-line citations before doing a full re-review and deciding if the article still merits being considered a Good Article or would need to be de-listed. If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact us on the Good Article project talk page or you may contact me personally. On behalf of the Good Articles Project, I want to thank you for all the time and effort that you have put into working on this article and improving the overall quality of the Wikipedia project. Agne 23:11, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
The Kyoto committment period ends in six years. Perhaps the successor treaty should be discussed. Keep in mind that there were ten years between the Kyoto conference and the beginning of the committment period. Perhaps a longer delay should be implimented. There would be less opposition if the numerical targets would take effect in 2100. I mean, who doesn't want to save the planet for the people of the 22nd C. CorvetteZ51 09:49, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
No legislation in sight. LOL. Keep in mind this isn't 1997 any more, with Kyoto taking effect ten years in the future, for anything to work by 2008, painful legislation would have to take effect very soon, politicians are unlikely to do that. [5] CorvetteZ51 11:17, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
The Kyoto deadbeats, led by the EU and includes the rest of the developed world except the United States, Australia, and Russia, need to hurry up and pass enacting legislation, none have done so. CorvetteZ51 14:21, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
is there any reasons for Asia Pacific Partnership on Clean Development and Climate to have its own section in this article? It is not part of Kyoto. I would suggest it should be briefly mentioned in the opposition to Kyoto section instead. This article is too long IMHO anyway.-- NHSavage 08:45, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
Under Description heading, third bullet:
Any Annex 1 country that fails to meet its Kyoto target will be penalized by having its reduction targets decreased by 30% in the next period.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyoto_Protocol
Correct me if I am wrong, but should not the reduction targets be increased by 30%? Since reducing the target would in effect not be penalizing the country.
The targets are emission levels (not reductions of emission levels), so reducing them means you have to emit less, which is a penalty. Not very intuitive, as we normally expect a bigger target to be "better". yandman 08:24, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
There are a number of inaccuracies and NPOV problems in this section. I will discuss them here first before making any changes.
"Rona Ambrose, who considers the emission trading concept to be flawed..." Actually Rona Ambrose has said more positive than negative things about emission trading. The position of the Conservative party about federal government purchases of credits from countries like Russia, which do do result in actual cuts, is clearly negative. But other types of emission trading, especially domestic but also foreign, are not contrary to their stated policies.
"Inheriting the ineffective policies of the previous government" has NPOV problems. Of the programs where evaluations of effectiveness have been released, most were shown to be effective. However, it is factual to say that the current government claims they were ineffective. "The Liberal federal government had spent 3.7 billion dollars on Kyoto programmes, resulting in CO2 emissions 35 per cent above 1990 levels." I don't think we can say that the spending was the cause of the increase, especially since the 35% figure (the correct number is 26.6%) comes from measurements made before that money was spent. Tono-bungay 17:55, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
The 'position of Canada' section is clearly biased, making no mention about the recent international backlash against Canada ( Rona Ambrose goes from Ottawa to Nairobi, but can't shake her critics, all the while criticizing the previous government. There is little if any mention of the government programs that were (albeit belatedly) functioning until they were cancelled by the new government. This section should be re-written by someone who doesn't work in the oil industry.
Comments from a political centrist: Now wait a minute. Many people criticize Rona Ambrose only because she is representative of the current government but let’s look at the facts. The Chrétien/Martin Liberals were professional politicians who made promises to the public but never kept them. What this means is that Rona Ambrose didn’t do in 12 months what Stephane Dion didn’t do in 30. Now I believe that Ambrose was only carrying out her party’s policies on this issue, and that these policies were still evolving with time. The Harper Conservatives have listened to scientists, as well as the Canadian people, and have wisely changed their party’s position on global warming. So let’s see if they can follow up their announcements with action. -- Neilrieck 11:36, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
Should be added to this section as of February 14, 2007: A private members bill (bill number not known) introduced in April, 2006, by Liberal backbencher Pablo Rodriguez, was passed today (February 14, 2007) by a vote of 161-113 in parliament. This obligates the current government to develop a plan, within 60 days, describing how Canada will lower its greenhouse-gas emissions to attempt to meet the Kyoto Protocol. All Conservative MPs present voted against the bill, which had the support of NDP and Bloc Québécois. See cbc.ca 134.117.72.140 00:32, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
Just a question. So has Canada singed it or not? I know on the diagram it says we have signed it but then from other resources I have found on the net says we have signed part of the Agreement but not all. I am sorry but the site address of the website is unknown to me, this piece of info may or may not have changed. Judging from wht is happening now, Harper seems to be following what the US is doing. Again I do not have any amount of certainty on anything written here, but could someone comfirm...?-- 72.137.205.70 00:26, 13 March 2007 (UTC)Johanna
This section talks about Alberta's oppostion to Kyoto but mentions nothing of other provinces, in particular Ontario. With its automotive manufacturing there must surly be some opposition coming from there. Kc4 05:03, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
The words "exception" and "opposed" seem to be against the fact that the US and Australia SIGNED the Kyoto Protocol.
Australia for one, is not "opposed" to the treaty. It signed the treaty, and was part of the COPs that negotiated the Protocol, and has stated publicly that it will indeed comply with the Protocol's target! That can't really be defined as opposition to anything apart from ratification. This is their official position:
- "The Government has decided not to ratify the Kyoto Protocol because, while it has some positive elements, it does not provide a comprehensive or environmentally effective long-term response to climate change. There is no clear pathway for action by developing countries, and the United States has indicated that it will not ratify. Without commitments by all major emitters, the Protocol will deliver only about a 1% reduction in global greenhouse gas emissions."
It seems most sensible to simply say that the US and Australia have signed the treaty (which implies they were not necessarily "opposed" to it) but merely chose not to ratify it, for domestic reasons. --
Mikenosilly
01:59, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
"Estimates indicate that even if successfully and completely implemented, the Kyoto Protocol will reduce that increase by somewhere between 0.02 °C and 0.28 °C by the year 2050 (source: Nature, October 2003)."
I've looked through Nature for that month and couldn't find an appropriate article or news item. I've also looked at reference #3, which has a different range than above for the extent to which Kyoto might reduce global warming if signatories were all to meet their targets. Would it be possible to see a more complete citation or a link?
Also noting that the position of the European Union could be updated using the recent documents from the Commission of the EU at http://europa.eu/press_room/presspacks/energy/index_en.htm.
207.216.19.218 21:10, 17 January 2007 (UTC)Bob Wilson
The article states under the Emissions Trading heading that 131 US mayors have pleged to meet the Kyoto guidelines, under the United States Position heading it says 194. Which is it? DougRWms 06:27, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
more truthful would be something like, 'changes in emission-levels during the Kyoto era.", as the whole world maintains a business as usual policy. CorvetteZ51 14:46, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
I don't think it's misleading, I thinkn it's fine. But that;'s just me, you can change it if you want , I'm just giving my opinion on this. I found just what I was looking for under that title but...-- 72.137.205.70 01:45, 13 March 2007 (UTC)Johanna
The editors should really invest a lot more time here. There are numerous studies that could be cited that are critical of the Stern Report. There are numerous policy papers put out by tax payer advocates and freedom advocates that are critical of Kyoto and take a very different view of its potential economic costs and benefits. Why do you only see fit to discuss the opposition to Kyoto in the most general terms? How about citing some of the criticism and the studies on cost and benefit that dispute Stern? How about putting more effort into balancing this article . . . or do you consider your buddy Al Gore to be right when he says "the science is settled"? Again . . . I want to assume good faith. I've tried . . . but evidence mounts that political views and agendas are on display. 216.215.144.201 18:28, 2 February 2007 (UTC)jawnybnsc
Various reports from the IPCC have fairly detailed and interesting material on things like spill over effects from Annex I and non Annex I countries, both in terms of C02 industry relocation and GDP. In particular in the Mitigation report and in certain questions of the synthesis report (talking about the TAR here, since these aren't out for AR4 yet). Would it be an idea for someone to go through the reports and have a summary on what it says on various aspects of the Kyoto protocol in this article? I think that could be helpful, although it would be a bit of work. And I don't know if anyone has already done this anywhere already; having someone else's summary might be helpful in making our own summary here. Thoughts? -- Codemonkey 09:25, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
Where is the citation for:
Canada and Japan will establish their own internal markets in 2008, and it is very likely that they will link directly into the EU ETS. Canada’s scheme will probably include a trading system for large point sources of emissions and for the purchase of large numbers of outside credits. The Japanese plan will probably not include mandatory targets for companies, but will also rely on large-scale purchases of external credits.
I must dispute the fact that it says that Canada is planning its own internal markets for 2008. As a Canadian citizen I know that this is not the case ans it is not being planned out for ANY time, let alone next year. If you have some citation that would substantiate that Canada is planning ANY type of trading mechanism then please put the citation in.
Aswell Canada no longer is planning on buying emissions credits and teh fund for such has been redirected per the last budget. If you have any coroberating information please detail then add in from that.
134.117.187.19Deepthinker February 11, 2007
why is it used thirty times in the Wiki text? somebody, please fix the text. CorvetteZ51 07:11, 8 March 2007 (UTC) and what is wrong with it being used 30 times?-- 72.137.205.70 01:46, 13 March 2007 (UTC)Johanna
I think that should be made clear. CorvetteZ51 11:13, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
It said that once the ice caps of the likes of Greenland had started to melt, there would be no going back and that the process would be irreversible, as surface water absorbs the sun's heat whereas ice reflects it, and that it would eventually wipe out humanity, the irreversable state being reached after only about three degrees celsius rise that can only be prevented if greenhouse gas emissions are cut by 60%. Does Wikipedia have an article on this exact phenomenon?-- h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 21:35, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
The People's Republic of China insists that the gas emissions level of any given country is a multiplication of its per capita emission and its population. China endorses this because of the advantage it would get within the new restrictions.
I'm not exactally a supporter of China but that seems much like someone's opinion (and a someone who doesn't like China at that)...I can't edit the article though; but that statement is a bit POV (if that's the right wikipedia term to use here.) 202.37.62.110 20:52, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
The article said that China's greenhouse emissions will be greater that U.S. in the year 2030. I changed the article to reflect it's source which stated that China's emissions will exceed U.S. emissions in 2009. Jdt2858 01:04, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
Can someone answer this question: why is there no box at the top of the page stating that the article's NPOV has been questioned, since it obviously has? Vegasprof 01:01, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
Coming back to an old topic already discussed when the title was slightly different, I don't think that the title makes much sense. 1/ Kyoto protocol entered into force in February 16, 2005, so one can't really attribute the evolution of GHG emission between 1990-2004 to the treaty, at least not entirely. 2/ Now the stats for China and India have been included, and these countries are exempted from requirements in the protocol. Of course some people could argue that this is a result of the treaty, because it does not impose caps for their emission. But most probably, their increase in emissions was similar before the treaty exist, and they would have been the same without the existence of the treaty. So I guess the title should be changed to something not necessarly implying connection between Kyoto and these numbers, except that these numbers represent the starting point for the race. -- Galahaad 19:19, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
The introductory Description section states a range from 8% reductions to 10% increases, which is false given EU policies of setting up individual target for its member states (besides the fact that the adjective "national" to refer to the EU is incorrect). I just fixed it, but the statement as it was in the previous version is repeated almost verbatim (and equally unaccurately) in the following Details of the Agreement section, with a long quote from a UN statement. It seems like this redundancy should be removed somehow.
The treatment of the EU is, I'd say, badly structured, and incomplete. There is a specific section on the EU which basically seems to be saying that while a strong nominal supporter of the treaty, it may be sort of cheating (by adding Eastern Europe and East Germany). Whether this is true or not can in principle be checked with current quotas for each member state, considering the reductions obtained by the states who were members of the EU at the time of signature and/or ratification, etc. So these comments are at least outdated and not properly supported. The criticism about its position in the negotiations (15% uniform reduction) seems to me to be also outdated, and should probably be removed or rephrased as a historical remark. If the agreement was 8% for the EU, it was 8%, period. Further, there is no discussion about the policy of setting up different national targets within the EU, which should probably be the main part of this section. And then there are sections on Germany and the UK... Can´t these be made subsections of the EU section? Finally, it so happens that it is in the later section "Increase in GHG emission since 1990" where these quotas are mentioned without any explanation . Bad structure again, I'd say.
Finally, the article is tagged somwehere as being pretty long. I'd suggest shortening it mainly by making much briefer the individual country positions on Kyoto in this article, and expanding on their positions in indiviual articles for each country.
However, I'm too new to wikipedia editing, and not knowledgeable enough on the topic, to engage in such modifications myself. Alvaro —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 89.6.78.13 ( talk) 04:51, 18 April 2007 (UTC).
It's obvious that the United States Senate will never ratify the Kyoto Protocol, but the issue (raised above on this page) is whether the United States, having signed but not yet ratified the Kyoto Protocol, is obliged, under the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, not to obstruct it. There is a long (140 page) paper of this issue at [6]. I'll admit that I only scanned parts of it briefly, but the summary makes it clear that the issue is murky. The United States has not ratified the Vienna Convention, but the issue of whether the United States is bound by it is itself murky, and that some people might believe the signature on the Kyoto Protocol imposes an obligation, even if the government doesn't. The paper states that this ambiguous situation is the fault of the United States' careless handling of the issue of withdrawal of its signature on the Kyoto Protocol, which the paper claims has happened before (although it doesn't list unratified treaties, it refers to them as " ... host of other signed-but-not ratified agreements," implying that there are lots of them). The paper refers to the " ... looming risks we encourage through the cumulative body of signed treaties, ratified and otherwise," and recommends that the Executive Branch or Congress take definitive action to clarify what obligations the United States acknowledges. Vegasprof 22:15, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
there is some kind of a discrepency going on, there are big differences being reported in Aus's 'current emission ratio'. The numbers are, either 108, or 125, of the 1990 baseline. I'm guessing, but there is also some controversy as to...can Aus use 'land-use-emittted-carbon', ie slash-and-burn land clearing, in the 1990 baseline.,,as to the reason that two numbers are given. any comment welcome. CorvetteZ51 12:37, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
http://www.guardian.co.uk/china/story/0,,2106999,00.html the article needs to be updated CorvetteZ51 00:40, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
Check out these babies as well: [8] [9] [10] Prester John 01:50, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
The article should discuss the recent finding that Kyoto projects harm the ozone layer. [11] RonCram 14:03, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
I'm adding the emissions targets for the US and Australia (-7% and +8%) in Kyoto_Protocol#Increase_in_greenhouse_gas_emission_since_1990 with a note indicating they didn't ratify the treaty. I think it makes the overview more complete and is more useful than just putting "N/A". Please revert if you think it's not appropriate and sorry if this has already been discussed. -- Kaicarver 19:44, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
"A private member's bill,[34] was put forth by Pablo Rodriguez, Liberal, aiming to force the government to "ensure that Canada meets its global climate change obligations under the Kyoto Protocol." With the support of the Liberals, the New Democratic Party and the Bloc Québécois, and with the current minority situation, the bill passed the House of Commons on 14 February 2007 with a vote of 161-113,[35] and is now being considered by the Senate. If passed, the bill would give the government 60 days to form a detailed plan of action. The government has flatly refused to abide by the bill, which may spark a constitutional crisis, lawsuit, or non-confidence motion once the bill becomes law, as is expected.[36]"
The Kyoto Protocol Implementation Act was given royal assent, and 60 days later the minority Conservative government controversially simply re-published their earlier environment plan.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/LAC.20070822.NATS22-4/TPStory/National
Tories' Kyoto response could spark fight
CP
August 22, 2007
Ottawa -- The Conservative government has thumbed its nose at the opposition's legislative attempts to force compliance with the Kyoto Protocol, simply republishing its own greenhouse-gas reduction plan as an official response.
http://www.canada.com/topics/news/politics/story.html?id=b2149e4f-e4a0-4512-bac9-d7cbb637f4d7&k=63430 http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/LAC.20070823.KYOTO23/TPStory/National 99.245.173.200 08:25, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
![]() | This page 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. |
![]() | 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 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | → | Archive 9 |
Something important was left out of the discussion of costs and benefits, the fact that all costs are essentially 'sunk' costs. The countries of the Protocol seem to be dividable into two groups, the 'no action needed' group, and the 'business as usual' group.-- CorvetteZ51 02:19, 14 July 2006 (UTC) In other words,none of the annex I countries are going to do anything because of Kyoto, so cost are effectively zero.-- CorvetteZ51 07:56, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
Take a look at Emissions Trading Brusegadi 16:11, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
Something needs to said about the obligations of indiviual EU countries. For example, Spain, Italy and the UK have essentially blown off the treaty, and are expected to show big increases from the 1990 baseline. The deal is that these countries could, if offered,count other countries' underemission, toward their own totals. But that doesn't necessarily mean they will have that offer. 207.53.228.88 08:52, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
How are emissions measured? Are they calculated or actually physically measured from samples? - postglock 13:53, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the reply. Makes sense with the calculated half; I didn't really think of that! I am really curious as to how one would go about working out the other sources of emissions though... - postglock 13:57, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
Some countries by hapenstance will need to do nothing, to meet their target.Some countries will do nothing, and miss their target. Some countries have no target. Some countries/groupings, like the EU,will pretend to do something... their CO2 trading scheme, for example, and miss their target.-- CorvetteZ51 11:05, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
Yes, didnt we see that already happen in Germany, where the coal industry got 'exceptions' to some of the carbon targets last year? And the EU expects the US to enter into Kyoto? 74.131.64.178 15:02, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
Aaronantrim added: " KyotoUSA is a grassroots effort to encourage U.S. cities and their citizens to take action to address global warming."
I removed it because if you click on the link the first sentence reads :
"KyotoUSA is a grassroots effort to encourage U.S. cities and their citizens to take action to address global warming." which is exacly the sentence the user wrote in the wiki article.
I feel that to include it we should provide some more information about this organization, otherwise it looks much like spam. Lets try to make it look like kyoto NOW sponsored by Cornell.
It seems like the economist is publishing an edition dealing with the economic implications of GW. Here is a link to an opinion piece in it. [4] I do not know much about it, but I will buy the magazine and if there is anything good, I'll see if I can add it to the cost-benefit section. If it is fine, of course. Brusegadi 16:50, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
The article about Australia isn’t particularly NPOV. For example, the first line basically says "Australia emits a lot, but they get away with it cause they argued with people" Kiran90 02:24, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
The first paragraph of the Position of Australia is totally irrelevant! The Federal Government absoultey CAN make laws relating to international treaties such as this and this is provided for by s51 (xxix) of the Constitution. See the Tasmanian Dams case for more details. That it is traditionally not an area that the Feds can legislate for is not relevant to this discussion: if Australia ratified, then the Federal Government could make laws to implement the ratification. Also, the reference to s52 is obscure and also quite irrelevant.-- Mikenosilly 01:13, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
the U.S. economy does not want to earn a pedestal (deceased) position. CorvetteZ51 11:35, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
This current text is not clear whether China supports Kyoto or not.
Kent Wang 22:12, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
I agree, the China paragraph needs to be expanded and cited. The emissions per capita arguement should be expounded upon. 74.131.64.178 14:58, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
Members of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles are in the process of doing a re-review of current Good Article listings to ensure compliance with the standards of the Good Article Criteria. (Discussion of the changes and re-review can be found here). A significant change to the GA criteria is the mandatory use of some sort of in-line citation (In accordance to WP:CITE) to be used in order for an article to pass the verification and reference criteria. Currently this article does not include in-line citations. It is recommended that the article's editors take a look at the inclusion of in-line citations as well as how the article stacks up against the rest of the Good Article criteria. GA reviewers will give you at least a week's time from the date of this notice to work on the in-line citations before doing a full re-review and deciding if the article still merits being considered a Good Article or would need to be de-listed. If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact us on the Good Article project talk page or you may contact me personally. On behalf of the Good Articles Project, I want to thank you for all the time and effort that you have put into working on this article and improving the overall quality of the Wikipedia project. Agne 23:11, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
The Kyoto committment period ends in six years. Perhaps the successor treaty should be discussed. Keep in mind that there were ten years between the Kyoto conference and the beginning of the committment period. Perhaps a longer delay should be implimented. There would be less opposition if the numerical targets would take effect in 2100. I mean, who doesn't want to save the planet for the people of the 22nd C. CorvetteZ51 09:49, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
No legislation in sight. LOL. Keep in mind this isn't 1997 any more, with Kyoto taking effect ten years in the future, for anything to work by 2008, painful legislation would have to take effect very soon, politicians are unlikely to do that. [5] CorvetteZ51 11:17, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
The Kyoto deadbeats, led by the EU and includes the rest of the developed world except the United States, Australia, and Russia, need to hurry up and pass enacting legislation, none have done so. CorvetteZ51 14:21, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
is there any reasons for Asia Pacific Partnership on Clean Development and Climate to have its own section in this article? It is not part of Kyoto. I would suggest it should be briefly mentioned in the opposition to Kyoto section instead. This article is too long IMHO anyway.-- NHSavage 08:45, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
Under Description heading, third bullet:
Any Annex 1 country that fails to meet its Kyoto target will be penalized by having its reduction targets decreased by 30% in the next period.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyoto_Protocol
Correct me if I am wrong, but should not the reduction targets be increased by 30%? Since reducing the target would in effect not be penalizing the country.
The targets are emission levels (not reductions of emission levels), so reducing them means you have to emit less, which is a penalty. Not very intuitive, as we normally expect a bigger target to be "better". yandman 08:24, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
There are a number of inaccuracies and NPOV problems in this section. I will discuss them here first before making any changes.
"Rona Ambrose, who considers the emission trading concept to be flawed..." Actually Rona Ambrose has said more positive than negative things about emission trading. The position of the Conservative party about federal government purchases of credits from countries like Russia, which do do result in actual cuts, is clearly negative. But other types of emission trading, especially domestic but also foreign, are not contrary to their stated policies.
"Inheriting the ineffective policies of the previous government" has NPOV problems. Of the programs where evaluations of effectiveness have been released, most were shown to be effective. However, it is factual to say that the current government claims they were ineffective. "The Liberal federal government had spent 3.7 billion dollars on Kyoto programmes, resulting in CO2 emissions 35 per cent above 1990 levels." I don't think we can say that the spending was the cause of the increase, especially since the 35% figure (the correct number is 26.6%) comes from measurements made before that money was spent. Tono-bungay 17:55, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
The 'position of Canada' section is clearly biased, making no mention about the recent international backlash against Canada ( Rona Ambrose goes from Ottawa to Nairobi, but can't shake her critics, all the while criticizing the previous government. There is little if any mention of the government programs that were (albeit belatedly) functioning until they were cancelled by the new government. This section should be re-written by someone who doesn't work in the oil industry.
Comments from a political centrist: Now wait a minute. Many people criticize Rona Ambrose only because she is representative of the current government but let’s look at the facts. The Chrétien/Martin Liberals were professional politicians who made promises to the public but never kept them. What this means is that Rona Ambrose didn’t do in 12 months what Stephane Dion didn’t do in 30. Now I believe that Ambrose was only carrying out her party’s policies on this issue, and that these policies were still evolving with time. The Harper Conservatives have listened to scientists, as well as the Canadian people, and have wisely changed their party’s position on global warming. So let’s see if they can follow up their announcements with action. -- Neilrieck 11:36, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
Should be added to this section as of February 14, 2007: A private members bill (bill number not known) introduced in April, 2006, by Liberal backbencher Pablo Rodriguez, was passed today (February 14, 2007) by a vote of 161-113 in parliament. This obligates the current government to develop a plan, within 60 days, describing how Canada will lower its greenhouse-gas emissions to attempt to meet the Kyoto Protocol. All Conservative MPs present voted against the bill, which had the support of NDP and Bloc Québécois. See cbc.ca 134.117.72.140 00:32, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
Just a question. So has Canada singed it or not? I know on the diagram it says we have signed it but then from other resources I have found on the net says we have signed part of the Agreement but not all. I am sorry but the site address of the website is unknown to me, this piece of info may or may not have changed. Judging from wht is happening now, Harper seems to be following what the US is doing. Again I do not have any amount of certainty on anything written here, but could someone comfirm...?-- 72.137.205.70 00:26, 13 March 2007 (UTC)Johanna
This section talks about Alberta's oppostion to Kyoto but mentions nothing of other provinces, in particular Ontario. With its automotive manufacturing there must surly be some opposition coming from there. Kc4 05:03, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
The words "exception" and "opposed" seem to be against the fact that the US and Australia SIGNED the Kyoto Protocol.
Australia for one, is not "opposed" to the treaty. It signed the treaty, and was part of the COPs that negotiated the Protocol, and has stated publicly that it will indeed comply with the Protocol's target! That can't really be defined as opposition to anything apart from ratification. This is their official position:
- "The Government has decided not to ratify the Kyoto Protocol because, while it has some positive elements, it does not provide a comprehensive or environmentally effective long-term response to climate change. There is no clear pathway for action by developing countries, and the United States has indicated that it will not ratify. Without commitments by all major emitters, the Protocol will deliver only about a 1% reduction in global greenhouse gas emissions."
It seems most sensible to simply say that the US and Australia have signed the treaty (which implies they were not necessarily "opposed" to it) but merely chose not to ratify it, for domestic reasons. --
Mikenosilly
01:59, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
"Estimates indicate that even if successfully and completely implemented, the Kyoto Protocol will reduce that increase by somewhere between 0.02 °C and 0.28 °C by the year 2050 (source: Nature, October 2003)."
I've looked through Nature for that month and couldn't find an appropriate article or news item. I've also looked at reference #3, which has a different range than above for the extent to which Kyoto might reduce global warming if signatories were all to meet their targets. Would it be possible to see a more complete citation or a link?
Also noting that the position of the European Union could be updated using the recent documents from the Commission of the EU at http://europa.eu/press_room/presspacks/energy/index_en.htm.
207.216.19.218 21:10, 17 January 2007 (UTC)Bob Wilson
The article states under the Emissions Trading heading that 131 US mayors have pleged to meet the Kyoto guidelines, under the United States Position heading it says 194. Which is it? DougRWms 06:27, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
more truthful would be something like, 'changes in emission-levels during the Kyoto era.", as the whole world maintains a business as usual policy. CorvetteZ51 14:46, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
I don't think it's misleading, I thinkn it's fine. But that;'s just me, you can change it if you want , I'm just giving my opinion on this. I found just what I was looking for under that title but...-- 72.137.205.70 01:45, 13 March 2007 (UTC)Johanna
The editors should really invest a lot more time here. There are numerous studies that could be cited that are critical of the Stern Report. There are numerous policy papers put out by tax payer advocates and freedom advocates that are critical of Kyoto and take a very different view of its potential economic costs and benefits. Why do you only see fit to discuss the opposition to Kyoto in the most general terms? How about citing some of the criticism and the studies on cost and benefit that dispute Stern? How about putting more effort into balancing this article . . . or do you consider your buddy Al Gore to be right when he says "the science is settled"? Again . . . I want to assume good faith. I've tried . . . but evidence mounts that political views and agendas are on display. 216.215.144.201 18:28, 2 February 2007 (UTC)jawnybnsc
Various reports from the IPCC have fairly detailed and interesting material on things like spill over effects from Annex I and non Annex I countries, both in terms of C02 industry relocation and GDP. In particular in the Mitigation report and in certain questions of the synthesis report (talking about the TAR here, since these aren't out for AR4 yet). Would it be an idea for someone to go through the reports and have a summary on what it says on various aspects of the Kyoto protocol in this article? I think that could be helpful, although it would be a bit of work. And I don't know if anyone has already done this anywhere already; having someone else's summary might be helpful in making our own summary here. Thoughts? -- Codemonkey 09:25, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
Where is the citation for:
Canada and Japan will establish their own internal markets in 2008, and it is very likely that they will link directly into the EU ETS. Canada’s scheme will probably include a trading system for large point sources of emissions and for the purchase of large numbers of outside credits. The Japanese plan will probably not include mandatory targets for companies, but will also rely on large-scale purchases of external credits.
I must dispute the fact that it says that Canada is planning its own internal markets for 2008. As a Canadian citizen I know that this is not the case ans it is not being planned out for ANY time, let alone next year. If you have some citation that would substantiate that Canada is planning ANY type of trading mechanism then please put the citation in.
Aswell Canada no longer is planning on buying emissions credits and teh fund for such has been redirected per the last budget. If you have any coroberating information please detail then add in from that.
134.117.187.19Deepthinker February 11, 2007
why is it used thirty times in the Wiki text? somebody, please fix the text. CorvetteZ51 07:11, 8 March 2007 (UTC) and what is wrong with it being used 30 times?-- 72.137.205.70 01:46, 13 March 2007 (UTC)Johanna
I think that should be made clear. CorvetteZ51 11:13, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
It said that once the ice caps of the likes of Greenland had started to melt, there would be no going back and that the process would be irreversible, as surface water absorbs the sun's heat whereas ice reflects it, and that it would eventually wipe out humanity, the irreversable state being reached after only about three degrees celsius rise that can only be prevented if greenhouse gas emissions are cut by 60%. Does Wikipedia have an article on this exact phenomenon?-- h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 21:35, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
The People's Republic of China insists that the gas emissions level of any given country is a multiplication of its per capita emission and its population. China endorses this because of the advantage it would get within the new restrictions.
I'm not exactally a supporter of China but that seems much like someone's opinion (and a someone who doesn't like China at that)...I can't edit the article though; but that statement is a bit POV (if that's the right wikipedia term to use here.) 202.37.62.110 20:52, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
The article said that China's greenhouse emissions will be greater that U.S. in the year 2030. I changed the article to reflect it's source which stated that China's emissions will exceed U.S. emissions in 2009. Jdt2858 01:04, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
Can someone answer this question: why is there no box at the top of the page stating that the article's NPOV has been questioned, since it obviously has? Vegasprof 01:01, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
Coming back to an old topic already discussed when the title was slightly different, I don't think that the title makes much sense. 1/ Kyoto protocol entered into force in February 16, 2005, so one can't really attribute the evolution of GHG emission between 1990-2004 to the treaty, at least not entirely. 2/ Now the stats for China and India have been included, and these countries are exempted from requirements in the protocol. Of course some people could argue that this is a result of the treaty, because it does not impose caps for their emission. But most probably, their increase in emissions was similar before the treaty exist, and they would have been the same without the existence of the treaty. So I guess the title should be changed to something not necessarly implying connection between Kyoto and these numbers, except that these numbers represent the starting point for the race. -- Galahaad 19:19, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
The introductory Description section states a range from 8% reductions to 10% increases, which is false given EU policies of setting up individual target for its member states (besides the fact that the adjective "national" to refer to the EU is incorrect). I just fixed it, but the statement as it was in the previous version is repeated almost verbatim (and equally unaccurately) in the following Details of the Agreement section, with a long quote from a UN statement. It seems like this redundancy should be removed somehow.
The treatment of the EU is, I'd say, badly structured, and incomplete. There is a specific section on the EU which basically seems to be saying that while a strong nominal supporter of the treaty, it may be sort of cheating (by adding Eastern Europe and East Germany). Whether this is true or not can in principle be checked with current quotas for each member state, considering the reductions obtained by the states who were members of the EU at the time of signature and/or ratification, etc. So these comments are at least outdated and not properly supported. The criticism about its position in the negotiations (15% uniform reduction) seems to me to be also outdated, and should probably be removed or rephrased as a historical remark. If the agreement was 8% for the EU, it was 8%, period. Further, there is no discussion about the policy of setting up different national targets within the EU, which should probably be the main part of this section. And then there are sections on Germany and the UK... Can´t these be made subsections of the EU section? Finally, it so happens that it is in the later section "Increase in GHG emission since 1990" where these quotas are mentioned without any explanation . Bad structure again, I'd say.
Finally, the article is tagged somwehere as being pretty long. I'd suggest shortening it mainly by making much briefer the individual country positions on Kyoto in this article, and expanding on their positions in indiviual articles for each country.
However, I'm too new to wikipedia editing, and not knowledgeable enough on the topic, to engage in such modifications myself. Alvaro —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 89.6.78.13 ( talk) 04:51, 18 April 2007 (UTC).
It's obvious that the United States Senate will never ratify the Kyoto Protocol, but the issue (raised above on this page) is whether the United States, having signed but not yet ratified the Kyoto Protocol, is obliged, under the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, not to obstruct it. There is a long (140 page) paper of this issue at [6]. I'll admit that I only scanned parts of it briefly, but the summary makes it clear that the issue is murky. The United States has not ratified the Vienna Convention, but the issue of whether the United States is bound by it is itself murky, and that some people might believe the signature on the Kyoto Protocol imposes an obligation, even if the government doesn't. The paper states that this ambiguous situation is the fault of the United States' careless handling of the issue of withdrawal of its signature on the Kyoto Protocol, which the paper claims has happened before (although it doesn't list unratified treaties, it refers to them as " ... host of other signed-but-not ratified agreements," implying that there are lots of them). The paper refers to the " ... looming risks we encourage through the cumulative body of signed treaties, ratified and otherwise," and recommends that the Executive Branch or Congress take definitive action to clarify what obligations the United States acknowledges. Vegasprof 22:15, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
there is some kind of a discrepency going on, there are big differences being reported in Aus's 'current emission ratio'. The numbers are, either 108, or 125, of the 1990 baseline. I'm guessing, but there is also some controversy as to...can Aus use 'land-use-emittted-carbon', ie slash-and-burn land clearing, in the 1990 baseline.,,as to the reason that two numbers are given. any comment welcome. CorvetteZ51 12:37, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
http://www.guardian.co.uk/china/story/0,,2106999,00.html the article needs to be updated CorvetteZ51 00:40, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
Check out these babies as well: [8] [9] [10] Prester John 01:50, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
The article should discuss the recent finding that Kyoto projects harm the ozone layer. [11] RonCram 14:03, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
I'm adding the emissions targets for the US and Australia (-7% and +8%) in Kyoto_Protocol#Increase_in_greenhouse_gas_emission_since_1990 with a note indicating they didn't ratify the treaty. I think it makes the overview more complete and is more useful than just putting "N/A". Please revert if you think it's not appropriate and sorry if this has already been discussed. -- Kaicarver 19:44, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
"A private member's bill,[34] was put forth by Pablo Rodriguez, Liberal, aiming to force the government to "ensure that Canada meets its global climate change obligations under the Kyoto Protocol." With the support of the Liberals, the New Democratic Party and the Bloc Québécois, and with the current minority situation, the bill passed the House of Commons on 14 February 2007 with a vote of 161-113,[35] and is now being considered by the Senate. If passed, the bill would give the government 60 days to form a detailed plan of action. The government has flatly refused to abide by the bill, which may spark a constitutional crisis, lawsuit, or non-confidence motion once the bill becomes law, as is expected.[36]"
The Kyoto Protocol Implementation Act was given royal assent, and 60 days later the minority Conservative government controversially simply re-published their earlier environment plan.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/LAC.20070822.NATS22-4/TPStory/National
Tories' Kyoto response could spark fight
CP
August 22, 2007
Ottawa -- The Conservative government has thumbed its nose at the opposition's legislative attempts to force compliance with the Kyoto Protocol, simply republishing its own greenhouse-gas reduction plan as an official response.
http://www.canada.com/topics/news/politics/story.html?id=b2149e4f-e4a0-4512-bac9-d7cbb637f4d7&k=63430 http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/LAC.20070823.KYOTO23/TPStory/National 99.245.173.200 08:25, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
![]() | This page 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. |