Talk:2012 United Nations Climate Change Conference

Carbon consumed
Guardian published in 2011 Consumption emissions including imported and exported goods. Would this not be the best measure to tackle the problem. Is it discussed? All contributing factors (aviation, building, land use, methane, population growth) should also be included and the country specific emission history considered not to allow free riders. Is this discussed? We can not expect China to stop using coal if we buy the coal products, can we? Watti Renew (talk) 15:59, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
 * great point. We do talk about challenges with agreeing on metrics in the politics of global warming page. I'm sure these topics are debated about this at the conference.  If we get the details in an outcome of the conference we can add.  I did note that some of the data sets were from 2001 and the article doesn't expose it's methodology and formulas so dont think we can back up the use.  if we had a nature paper from a phd with the current data we might. This topic is very politically charged so we should exercise care and keep WP:NPOV strictly in mind. --Justanonymous (talk) 02:26, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I slept on it and was thinking about your charts on emissions that you mention here. I think we can add a section to the political economy of climate change page and Treat the topic There. I've been meaning to clean up that page up and I think this type content on metrics, if we can get it backed up solidly with a bit of research could live there.--Justanonymous (talk) 13:54, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Climate change science
Climate change science deserves place in the article. Watti Renew (talk) 16:00, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
 * No objections here but it should be short and only as context because this article is about the conference and UNFCCC process, it should be strictly NPOV - not activist, and point to the global warming page or global warming controversy page. I did go look at the historical entries and they do not have a climate science section though.  For the last couple of years the pages have been rather consistent but they don't have a climate science section.  the 2009 page appears to be a mess, a lot of hands in that conference and that yielded a disorganized article.  We should try to clean that up.  Overall, this conference is about climate change.  If you want to put in a small paragraph on this topic matter linkint to global warming, that should be fine.  Let's make it better.Justanonymous (talk) 17:22, 5 December 2012 (UTC)


 * I do apologize Watti, there has been a lot of activism and POV laden spam injected into this article over the last few days which is making the article not flow the way it's supposed to. The commentary you added I read as POV and not complying with WP:NPOV.  So I moved it to the comments section, which is a release valve for activists to put content into without disrupting the article.  If we can get a more NPOV entry into the article that would be fine but it needs to be high level enough that the reader understands the breadth of the issue.  Simply alerting them to the low Arctic ice levels in an alarmist way does not do the magnitude of the matter any justice especially in the main background section to the conference that is trying to address this problem at a global level - the comment was too small and narrow (in scope) for this very high level background section.  We need to grab them with overall magnitude and give the reader the tools to go read further on our other pages.  This is what you wrote in the main background section of the UN's biggest yearly climate change conference that I took to be too narrow in scope at the wrong level for the background and POV laden activism (sorry that was my off the cuff analysis when I read it - it was like someone throwing a tree over the train tracks of the article at that level).


 * Do you want me to take a stab at adding something broader and NPOV or do you? I'm with you on describing the problem but it has to not disrupt the flow with the article which is about a conference not climate science, be NPOV, and give the reader a reference to go read further if they so wish. I sincerely want us to get your very important point across here in a way that adds to the article.Justanonymous (talk) 17:41, 5 December 2012 (UTC)


 * I fixed the quotation. There is additional scientific data of this available. Watti Renew (talk) 15:57, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

How about this:

I think this might be more comprehensive. I imagine someone else will show up and start wordsmithing it a bit but it's neutral enough as it is. I'll go ahead and insert it after the first sentence in the background and push the existing second sentence to the second paragraph for flow. I think that's where your statement should naturally live and there it won't interfere with the flow of the conference organization which is described right after the second paragrah. We'll see how it looks. Thank you for the help. Feel free to tweak and be bold as needed.Justanonymous (talk)


 * Thanks, in a hurry I point out that Global Carbon Project Carbon Budget 3.12.2012 estimated a 4-6 C temperature rise by 2099 and year 2011 CO2 emissions were 54 % higher than in 1990. Year 2012 rise was 2.6 %. Emissions of China are over 25 % of the world total. Watti Renew (talk) 13:55, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Criticisms of the conference and UNFCCC Process
The subsection 'Criticisms of the conference and UNFCCC Process' has the four paragraphs below. I moved these paragraphs to other articles so the sources were not lost from wikipedia. Justanonymous has reverted the edits and invited me to discuss the edits. So here we are.

The four paragraphs below appear to me to be not directly about the page's subject '2012 United Nations Climate Change Conference'. They also appear to me to be essay-writing and therefore I have tagged the section as essay-like And in my opinion it's also overly-detailed.

There are several pages about different UNFCCC annual meetings (Cancun, Durban, Copenhagen, Bali etc) and while these differ a fair bit in length and style, none of them include paragraphs seeking to provide an overall summary or synthesis or critique of the whole UNFCCC process. The 'better' place for such material is the UNFCCC page and the Views on the Kyoto Protocol page. So I am of the view that these paragraphs should be deleted.

"1) The overall umbrella and processes of the UNFCCC and the adopted Kyoto Protocol have been criticized by some as not having achieved its stated goals of reducing the emission of carbon dioxide (the primary culprit blamed for rising global temperatures of the 21st century). " I moved this paragraph to the page 'Views on the Kyoto Protocol' which appeared and still appears to me to be the logical place.

"2) At a speech given at his alma mater, Todd Stern — the US Climate Change envoy — has expressed the challenges with the UNFCCC process as follows, “Climate change is not a conventional environmental issue...It implicates virtually every aspect of a state’s economy, so it makes countries nervous about growth and development. This is an economic issue every bit as it is an environmental one.” He went on to explain that, the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change is a multilateral body concerned with climate change and can be an inefficient system for enacting international policy. Because the framework system includes over 190 countries and because negotiations are governed by consensus, small groups of countries can often block progress. "

I moved the Todd Stern quote to UNFCCC page which I still think is the right place for it.

"3) The failure to achieve meaningful progress and reach effective-CO2 reducing-policy treaties among the parties over the past eighteen years have driven some countries like the United States to never ratify the UNFCCC's largest body of work — the Kyoto Protocol, in large part because the treaty didn't cover developing countries who now include the largest CO2 emitters. It has also led Canada to withdraw from the Kyoto Protocol out of a desire to not force its citizens to pay penalties that would result in wealth transfers out of Canada. Canada formally withdrew from the Kyoto Protocol in 2011. Both the US and Canada are looking at Voluntary Emissions Reduction schemes that they can implement internally to curb carbon dioxide emissions outside of the Kyoto Protocol."

I deleted this paragraph as Canada's withdrawal from the Kyoto Protocol doesn't fit under the subject '2012 United Nations Climate Change Conference' It is adequately summarised on the Kyoto Protocol page.

"4) The perceived lack of progress has also led some countries to seek and focus on alternative high-value activities like the creation of the Climate and Clean Air Coalition to Reduce Short-Lived Climate Pollutants which seeks to regulate short-lived pollutants such as methane, black carbon and hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs) which together are believed to account for up to 1/3 of current global warming but whose regulation is not as fraught with wide economic impacts and opposition."

I moved this to Climate and Clean Air Coalition page which I think is the right place. Mrfebruary (talk) 11:09, 19 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Disagree with the esteemed editor's edits which were labeled minor and have restored the section. As rationale, the UNFCCC and the conference process is highly contentious and political.  There is criticism. The criticism is being documented in the article.  It is well sourced and NPOV, but it is the criticism expressed by the parties (small islands, environmental groups, developed countries, etc), the criticism has precipitated some alternatives which are also documented.  Editors with conflicts of interest should not edit this politically complex topic.  Help to make it better welcome but we cannot in good faith water it down and remove the criticism section.Justanonymous (talk)


 * I fear we are talking past each other. I am not trying to suppress criticism. I have no problem with the sources provided. I moved 3 paragraphs to what I thought were more suitable pages in terms of subject. I did not delete them. Yes the the UNFCCC and the conference process is highly contentious and political. Isn't this the COP18 page? Not the "Views on the UNFCCC conference process" page? Shouldn't this page focus on criticisms (amongst other material) of the December COP 18 conference. Wikipedia pages are not meant to be essay-like. So I have put back the tag "essay-like". Anyway, lets get some other opinions.Mrfebruary (talk) 04:27, 20 December 2012 (UTC)


 * It looks like the disputed text is now at United_Nations_Framework_Convention_on_Climate_Change. I agree, this is a better place for it. And since I've now edited the text here, the two versions are diverging, which is bad. How about we reduce the text here to a single summary para, and see-main over there? William M. Connolley (talk) 09:19, 20 December 2012 (UTC)


 * That's a good idea William M. Connolley, let's have the main criticism of the UNFCCC process live at the UNFCCC page with summaries in these other pages with a main link back to UNFCCC. Partially agree with Mrfebruary, the UNFCCC conference is a conference under UNFCCC, I propose that we have a summary of the criticism here but it should not in good faith only be criticism of the one conference, it's a bigger topic under a very big umbrella.  I can try to rework in the next few days.  I'll take silence as agreement, otherwise input and help welcome. Let's make this better.Justanonymous (talk) 12:34, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Who is responsible?
This deserves place, since it is the core of the negotiations : Watti Renew (talk) 17:59, 19 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Watti Renew, agree, let's find a place for it. I can help.Justanonymous (talk)


 * Thanks. Help is wellcomed. In regard to the core facts I recommend the both-and  -solution instead of the either-or -solution. I do not oppose to include the data in several pages or update the data to more reacent statistics, if available. Even if we would not have the latest year data available, these lists with the energy use statistics give a good idea of the issue. As statistics I find relevant all the historic emissions. Ideally this would be updated in 2012 and calculate the influence to the present climate contribution. Major change is probably a bigger share of China based on its large coal energy use.


 * In the cumulative emissions between 1850 and 2007 the top emitors were: 1. US 28.8%, 2. China: 9.0%, 3. Russia: 8.0%, 4. Germany 6.9%, 5. UK 5.8%, 6. Japan: 3.9%, 7. France: 2.8%, 8. India  2.4%, 9. Canada: 2.2% and 10. Ukraine 2.2%. Which nations are most responsible for climate change?
 * Watti Renew (talk) 17:54, 20 December 2012 (UTC)


 * James Hansen (Feb. 2009) pointed out that the effect of greenhouse gas emissions on climate is determined not by current emissions, but by accumulated emissions over the lifetime of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. Different from previous data he argued that by this measure, the U.K. would be the largest single cause of climate change, followed by the US and Germany, while current emissions are highest by China. Watti Renew (talk) 15:51, 21 December 2012 (UTC)


 * James Hansen (2008) Hansen called for putting fossil fuel company executives on trial for crimes against humanity and nature", on the grounds that these and other fossil-fuel companies had actively spread doubt and misinformation about global warming, in the same way that tobacco companies tried to hide the link between smoking and cancer. Watti Renew (talk) 15:53, 21 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Climate change in Europe: In Europe the climate change caused in 2003: 70,000 deaths and in 2010:  55,000 deaths.  Watti Renew (talk) 13:59, 22 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Polluter pays principle is widely supported. The negotiations would be different if all polluters would pay their contributions in the global warming expenses. What stops this rational core decision? Stern report points out that expenses are higher that act to stop climate change. The polluters should be made responsible for the expenses in all sectors. Watti Renew (talk) 15:40, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
 * But was it discussed in the conference, and was it reported to have been discussed in the conference? — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 17:55, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

What is negotiated?
Climate change kills people and animals and plants spieces. Climate change in Europe killed 55,000 person in 2010 and 70,000 person in 2003. According to Universal Declaration of Human Rights no one has right to kill another person based on economical benefits no matter rich or poor, or what is the nationality or religion. What is negotiated? Watti Renew (talk) 18:26, 21 February 2013 (UTC)


 * According to David Dodman London School of Economics financing should be based on Polluter pays principle. The costs are based rather on responsibility than wealth. Worldwatch instituutti Maailman tuila 2009 Ilmastonmuutos suosii selviytyjää David Dodeman Jessica Ayers and ja Saleemul Huq London School of Economic´s page 192: Rahoituksen tulisi perustua Saastuttaja maksaa periaatteelle. Kustannukset jaetaan pikemminkin vastuun kuin maksukyvyn perusteella. Watti Renew (talk) 18:29, 21 February 2013 (UTC)


 * James Hansen has pointed that the issue should be solved in the international coart of justice. Watti Renew (talk) 17:58, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on 2012 United Nations Climate Change Conference. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121124232018/http://gulf-times.com/site/topics/article.asp?cu_no=2&item_no=545924&version=1&template_id=57&parent_id=56 to http://www.gulf-times.com/site/topics/article.asp?cu_no=2&item_no=545924&version=1&template_id=57&parent_id=56
 * Added tag to http://unfccc4.meta-fusion.com/kongresse/cop18/

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 01:30, 20 June 2017 (UTC)