Talk:Kyoto Protocol/Archive 5

Costs of the Protocol are sunk costs
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)
 * In the right words, that is a completely unsupported claim. Most Western European countries do go to significant effort to reduce emissions. Of course, they might be doing so even without Kyoto, but on the other hand, maybe not, or maybe less. --Stephan Schulz 08:32, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Europe,along with everyone else, will do nothing.The European mmissiontrading system, covers half of Europe's emmissions. Besides that, there are no cuts. Industry just asked for as many emmission credits as they wanted. Otherwise, they would start screaming. Noone's behvvior changes, because of Kyoto. Kyoto --> no consequences,no effect, no costs, no anything. Under the target --> do nothing. Over the tvrget --> do nothing. Show me something that reduces emmissions. With that said, I suppose most countries have v budget for the environment ministry,that will spend money on this and that.
 * Nice crystal ball reading. However, your crystal ball is misadjusted on the time line. Europe already has done several things. Off the top off my head, and for Germany only:
 * The EEG ("Renewable Engergy Law") was passed in 2000. It forces electrical grid operators to buy back electricity generated decentralized by renewable means (wind, solar, biomass, geothermic) at a predictable price for the next 20 years. Cost is passed on to consumers (increasing electricity cost by 0.05 to 0.1 Eurocent per KwH, or about 0.5% in the worst case).
 * The Gesetz zum Einstieg in die ökologische Steuerreform and followup laws tax energy consumption, both electricity and fuels. Of course the federal gouvernment needs the money anyways, but now they taxed energy usage instead of something else.
 * The various government levels offer a wide mix of tax breaks, direct subventions, and cheap credits to create renewable enery facilities. A famous case was the 100000 roofs program that lead to the installation of about 300MW worth of solar cells on private roofs.
 * Note the complete lack of black helicopter goons going around sealing electrical outlets and hot water taps...
 * --Stephan Schulz 07:41, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
 * The cost of not complying with Kyoto, is obviously zero.
 * This is obviously only true if you have a very naive cost function that only counts immediate and direct costs.
 * The cost of complying, if no action is taken,is zero.
 * But then actions are necessary and are being taken.
 * OK, what about the European Trading system. Is that a cost? The system only applies to certain industries, companies will get all the credits they ask for. Is that a cost?
 * You do happen to have a reliable source for these claims, right? Carbon emission rights are being traded in Europe, so someone is paying real money there...
 * Suppose the Enviornment Ministry hands out, research contracts,subsidies, the usual stuff, the only difference from the past, 'Kyoto' is part of the title.Is that a cost?--CorvetteZ51 08:19, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Ummm...if your crystal ball tells you that nothing changes due to the treaty, then of course the cost is zero. I just don't believe in crystal balls. --Stephan Schulz 22:41, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
 * concerning European carbon trading, the limits currently apply only to certain industries. Germany has exempted its coal industry. If/when new industries are included, it makes sense to exempt them. Let's face reality,no country is going to penalize its own industry. In theory,complying with Kyoto has a cost,in certain cases.In reality, although people will try to claim credit for situations that would have happened anyway, nobody is going to change their behavior.My assupmtion is that speculators are buying EU emission rights,as emitters have more than enough. For example,if aviation was included in the EU system, Lufthansa would only cooperate politically if they get more than enough credits. as soon as they have to pay, they get angry.The only way I see this working, is for the various EU countris to put an invisible tax on the poor, and that has not happened yet.--CorvetteZ51 09:03, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
 * What you are addressing is one of the common concerns expressed by environmentalist and skeptics alike. However as with Stephan, I don't believe in crystal balls. Also, I don't think you really understand economics or world politics. Countries are actually willing to do things which may cost their industries in the short run for a variety of reasons. It's fairly common that certain measures may add costs to an industry. People in that industry may complain, but ultimately if the politicians and people support these moves there is not much that can be done. These costs will eventually be passed on to the consumer obviously but the consumer may be willing to pay these costs if they regard them as necessary. BTW, I wonder if you're having trouble understanding how the whole emission trading thing works in the first place? While I'm not an expert I believe the way it's supposed to work is to create a market for companies and countries to trade emission. If country A is having trouble meeting their target, they buy emissions from country B which has credits. Country A therefore has to come up with this money in some way. And country B gets the money to use. Remember specifically that the EU is not one country. While the EU may have no problem meeting their target as a group, it seems likely that some countries will not be able to meet their targets invidually without buying credits. Nil Einne 13:30, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
 * the only 'willingness' I see is that Europeans want to hurt the United States. Concerning carbon trading, how about some evidence that Company X has been forced to do something it did not want, that reduced :::::CO2.I an aware that there is a carbon trading market,I believe
 * the market is illegitimate. Nobody is being forced to reduce CO2,as ofnow, but you know IG Farben will start screaming when they have to pay or reduce carbon.CorvetteZ51 08:18, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Take a look at Emissions Trading Brusegadi 16:11, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Positions of the individual EU countiries
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?
How are emissions measured? Are they calculated or actually physically measured from samples? -postglock 13:53, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I strongly suspect it's a mixture. Fossil fuel based emissions can be trivially (and fairly exactly) computed from the fuel consumed. But changes to land use like de- and reforrestation are harder to quantify. --Stephan Schulz 12:56, 3 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)

the Kyoto charade, changes nothing
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)
 * You're welcome to your personal opinions on that but this talk page is not the place to discuss them (nor is anywhere on wikipedia) Nil Einne 12:41, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Canada, nothing...Japan,nothing...Russia,nothing...NZ,nothing...EU, dubious carbon trading system,unrelated to Kyoto....CorvetteZ51 08:42, 25 September 2006 (UTC)


 * How can this possibly work? No politician is going to vote for something that makes a few friends worldwide, but makes lots of enemies at home. The KP will never have any support from a national legislature-parliment. The only thing close to Kyoto-enacting-legislation is the EU trading system. In a time when the EU constitution treaty can't get adopted, how can it be expected to start turning down the screws on its member countries. As soon as the EU system starts to hurt, people will start complaining.CorvetteZ51 08:47, 27 September 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)


 * I find the situation in Germany, difficult to beleive.The European trading system, is in operation to a certain extent.IMO,it 'works' only because, as of now, either enough 'grandfather' credits are given away, or electric companies can raise their price. How much more can screws be turned, without there being political riots? In addition, think of the economic consequences for converting electric production converting from coal to natural gas. Instead of domestic coal that costs next to nothing,Germany must buy gas from Russia for ripoff prices... Its like a 7 cent/kwh tax paid by Germans that goes to Russia.I don't see people accepting that.CorvetteZ51 08:44, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Removed Website
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.

The Economist
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.  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)

Australia
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)


 * Australia 108, stupid Americans 93
 * next time, the U.S. should demand to get the Australia deal.
 * "its cause they argued with people', is essentialy correct. CorvetteZ51 07:51, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
 * You seem to have misunderstood the Australia section. While I agree, it has POV issues, it isn't just the fact they argued a lot. What it's saying is that because it was such a insignificant amount in the first place, even if it was very high per capita, they were able to get away with a lot. The other larger countries were too busy arguing among themselves to really care. The US obviously couldn't and wouldn't be able to do this because they are a really large part of the equation and they are one of the reasons Australia was able to get away with what they did Nil Einne 13:25, 24 September 2006 (UTC)


 * It is difficult to discuss this matter, without politics and opinions creeping in. IMO, the numerical targets were just gibberish from :::::politicians who, speaking in 1997, would be long gone 10 to 14 years :::::later.There is a limit to how much motive, you can attach to, arbitrary, :::::made up, out of this air, arbitrary numbers. Do I need to mention :::::thatthe targets were arbitrary?CorvetteZ51 :::::07:34, 25 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)


 * I read it again, and I decided to remove it. I thought of putting a reference to the Constitutionality of the Protocol somewhere at the end of the section, but it's just not relevant.  You don't see references to how Constitutionaly this Protocol could be implemented in any other coutries that didn't ratify, so I don't see the point.  If someone wants to learn about Australian constituional law, they can look at those articles, let's keep this one about Kyoto.--Mikenosilly 01:20, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Upper Class Kyoto Twit of the Year Contest
the U.S. economy does not want to earn a pedestal (deceased) position. CorvetteZ51 11:35, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Position of China
This current text is not clear whether China supports Kyoto or not.
 * China insists that the emissions level of any given country is a multiplication of its per capita emission and its population. Because China has emplaced population control measures while maintaining low emissions per capita, it should therefore in both the above aspects be considered a contributor to the world environment. China considers the criticism of its energy policy unjust.

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)

GA Re-Review and In-line citations
Members of the 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)
 * can I propose that if we are using footnotes, we should also adopt the use of Citation templates. These make the actual references section look much prettier and also tend to encourage better detail on the refrence.--NHSavage 20:17, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Oh I should say, I am also willing to do some leg work on this. They are harder on the editors but easier on the reader. At present we have footnote which then use URLs without a name - yuck.--NHSavage 20:34, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I have done a big clean up. 3 references (25,26,48) have gone strange. I can't work out why and I am now going to bed. I have also commented out the refs after the footnotes as these are mostly duplicates. I will try and get round to checking them all soon. I will also start using the citation templates if no one objects in about a week.--NHSavage 22:06, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I've sorted the strange references - it seems like the text inside the square brackets was too long! I really will go to bed now...--NHSavage 22:26, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Kudos, you did a great job! --Spiffy sperry 14:11, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Completed the citation formatting pretty much now. There are probably one or two typos etc in there and I have found that a few of the old references at the end are not used in the text so I'll see if I can see where they should slot in. Can I please encourage all editors to use the citation templates from now on. Once you get the hang of them they are not too hard and it means we get a much more useful references list. I'll keep an eye on things and of course even a wrongly formatted reference is better than no refernce.--NHSavage 21:18, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Kyoto follow-on
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)


 * I believe we will leave that to the UNFCCC. No crystal balls here.  --Spiffy sperry 14:41, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Japan, 14 percent over target
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. CorvetteZ51 11:17, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Kyoto deadbeats need to get moving, 2008 is beginning of committment
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)

Asia Pacific Partnership on Clean Development and Climate
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)

Possible error?
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)

Kyoto - Politics or Science?

 * Kyoto-Protocol is an absolute non-sense in toto. Why is it that this Protocol does NOT discuss about automobile emissions ? Automobile Emissions are also green-house-gases. Through Kyoto-Protocol, Nuke-Reactor lobby simply wants to create headache for conventional thermal power-plants. No wonder, John Kerry lost the presidential elections. Funniest part of it is "There are easy methods for absorbing green-house-gases." From : surf2raj@yahoo.com Freesoul111 06:07, 2 April 2007 (UTC)


 * So you want to screw the climate totally because at the moment we have not got all the important emitters included yet?


 * First off, Kyoto is politics not science. You may feel that it pegs climate science, many do not.


 * All treaties are politics not science.


 * I suggest that politics has been a source of problems for as far as I am aware, not a solution to any problem.


 * Second, if CO2 is the problem, it's source is irrelevant. When the original Kyoto accord came out, Mexico and China combined put out more CO2 than the US. Both are Annex II countries. You chaps don't give a hoot about the enviornment by your own standards.


 * I agree that the source does not matter but by your argument Luxemburg (population 425,000) should be allowed to emit as much as the USA.


 * What argument are you assigning me again?


 * In a few short years, Chinese CO2 will exceed US CO2 (assuming the numbers we have now are correct, and I question this). You think the climate impact of Chinese CO2 is somehow mitigated by hyperbole? Do you claim CO2 is a problem or not?


 * And since you folks seem to think "per capita" CO2 is a problem, by what measure would Luxemburg be exempt from this hysteria?


 * I think what was meant is that if only total emissions from each country are important, then each country should be allowed to emit exactly the same amount, clearly nonsense. Even if per capita emissions are irrelevant, then what about total emissions since the industrial revolution?  By this measure, the US and developed countries in general are a long way ahead of the likes of China and India.Bistromathic 17:00, 14 May 2007 (UTC)


 * And what do you know...


 * http://globalis.gvu.unu.edu/indicator.cfm?IndicatorID=199&country=LU#rowLU


 * Luxemburg's per-capita CO2 emissions are higher than the US's. You folks should be demanding that Luxemburg reduce it's per-capita CO2, and you would were you consistant, or if you cared about the enviornment. Instead you joke about it.


 * Yes Kyoto is exceedingly political.


 * Only about 100%.


 * It is far less than we need,


 * It's a massive joke by it's own standards. It let's most of the world emit as much CO2 as they want, at the same time as claiming that it's a major problem. We're all in the same boat no matter where the CO2 comes from. Kyoto is worthless if you claim CO2 is the problem. Do you make such a claim?


 * The longest journey begins with a single step.


 * You may take any journey you wish. The problem is that you are demanding that others take a journey because you say so, regardless of the costs or effects to them. You can lead by example, and I suggest that as soon as you go farther than this, you have overstepped some very important boundaries.


 * but then so was the original Montreal Protocol. That was amended steadily to strengthen it as the science became ever more secure and the political arguments won.


 * You think that politics is based upon science? You are far more naive than I would believe. Politics does dictate what research (and results) are acceptable however. The Meese comission was just the start is using the facade of science to prop up political beliefs (and ignoring that science did not say what was claimed).


 * Kyoto can only be a start if we give a damn about the climate.


 * I don't think you do. If CO2 is the problem as you appear to be claiming, you will be as damned by Chinese CO2 as by American CO2. I don't think it's that simple mind you, but none of the Kyoto advocates I have ever talked to care about the enviornment by their own standards. If they did they would not be defending China's rights under Kyoto to emit unlimited amounts of CO2. And that's exactly what they do.


 * If we begin to get reductions in the developed countries we can start to win the arguments about other countries. If we fiddle and do nothing we cannot.


 * What arguments? No so-called undeveloped country has agreed even in principle to limit or cap emissions. What these countries want to do is become industrialized, and don't you chaps claim that industry source of this problem?


 * Of course if the rights of business to make money trumps everything then we should forget all environmental legislation.--NHSavage 23:02, 9 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep in mind that there are money interests in Kyoto as well. Enviornmentalists are not all pure of heart. 64.172.115.2 23:36, 10 May 2006 (UTC)Rich


 * Please explain. I do not understand this remark.--NHSavage 18:19, 13 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Many are making money because of Kyoto, from selling emission credits to profiting all the government sponsored programs started with Kyoto compliance in mind. All of these businesses have a vested interest in Kyoto (as opposed to the enviornment). California schools became so bad that an industry grew up teaching kids to read, which the schools were not doing. This industry now opposes school reform, as it would destroy their business. This is exactly the issue with any industry created by Kyoto, they have a vested interest not in reducing emissions per se, but in profiting from the situation. 64.172.115.2 16:21, 2 June 2006 (UTC)Rich


 * Amen to that. Gavinthesavage 18:23, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Position of Canada section
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
 * Canada has signed Kyoto and ratified it (there was some opposition to ratifying it at the time) now the Harper govt. is trying to pull out of it. Kc4 05:07, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

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)

Australia and US: 2 major countries that haven't ratified
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)


 * I think its fairly clear that, politically, the current US administration is strongly opposed to Kyoto. However, thats probably a fight for elsewhere, and your new wording looks good to me William M. Connolley 11:44, 3 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, and it is also fairly clear that the United States Senate will never ratify it, and the United States, will not abite by its conditions, either. This will not change under any possible Administration in the forseeable future, whether Republican or Democrat; it's not even an openly debated topic in the upcoming Presidential campaign.  Something that people living outside the US might not know is that there is currently no serious political effort to ratify; in my opinion, because it is obvious to all that such an effort would be hopeless. Vegasprof 10:12, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Impact of Kyoto on temperature and sea level
"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?


 * I couldn't find the paper either. Such a strong statement needs an accurate citation of a serious reference. A scientific paper has a title, author(s), not only a journal and a year/month of publication. If this is not a scientific paper, but news or editorial, I doubt it is appropriate to be quoted here. Moreover, I think the only quantified commitment in Kyoto is for 2012. How can this be compared with estiamtes in T increase for 2050 and 2100? --Galahaad 21:02, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

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

How many mayors?
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)


 * You missed the 3rd entry later in the article, where it says 320! The project is headed by Seattle mayor Greg Nickels, whose website puts the count at 369, as of Jan. 18.  I'll try to update all instances in such a way to make future updates easier.  (change first to "hundreds", change second to "over 180" to match reference, change third to current count)  --Spiffy sperry 14:53, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Results of Kyoto to Date, misleading title
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

Discussion moved from article
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

How about an IPCC section?
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)

Citing
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

the word 'target' does not appear in the treaty
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


 * some people may think the word 'targetis synonomise with'voluntary'. there is nothing 'voluntary' about Kyoto obligations. we need to get rid of weasil wordingCorvetteZ51 11:13, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

the EU ETS is not linked to Kyoto.
I think that should be made clear.CorvetteZ51 11:13, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Read an article in a newspaper today predicting the extreme adverse effects of global warming
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 China Paragraph
"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)

China's Emissions Excede U.S. in 2030?
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)

Why no POV?
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)


 * Obviously? Please detail the points in question and the POV aspects of each. --Skyemoor 14:42, 15 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, obviously. Just read the talk page; you'll see that there are lots of complaints.  I could add my own, but that would be redundant. Not all sections of the article are POV, but some are.  The key thing I'm pointing out is not that the article is POV (it is) but that lots of POV complaints are on the talk page, and no POV box has been put up. Vegasprof 22:03, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I see no serious current POV complaints on the page. Everything older than a few weeks has likely been fixed or was not a problem in the first place. If you have any concrete problem, either fix it or point it out. If you need a POV tag, append it to the smallest possible subsection an explain your problem on talk. --Stephan Schulz 23:35, 15 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the suggestion, Stephan, but I'd rather not, or at least, not right now. Instead, let me point out that the string "POV" occurs 13 times on this talk page, not counting the times in this section.  People who've complained about the POV of the article include CorvetteZ51, "I grow weary, at the European leanings is this article," Lucid-dream (more than one place), Kiran90 in the Australia section, Tono-bungay in the Canada section.  Vegasprof 02:15, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I checked them out - most are several months old and long resolved. POV is not assigned to a topic, but to a (hopefully temporal) state of the article. --Stephan Schulz 07:01, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Results to date
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 2005 date is near meaningless, it has nothing to do with emissions, only the start of the carbon-offset scam. The comittment period begins Jan 08. CorvetteZ51 23:28, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

structure of article and redundancies
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).


 * The EU ETS is only a means to an end, and does not change the fact that ratifying countries have a SEPARATE obligation to the Kyoto Protocol, either as individual EU countries, or under the EU 'bubble'.CorvetteZ51 18:06, 18 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Kyoto Protocol targets are appropriately discussed in this article; EU ETS targets are appropriately discussed in that article. --Skyemoor 10:42, 26 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I didn't intend to sound too critical, sorry if I did. The article is very informative indeed, and of high quality (IMHO). But as for my comments and the responses, I didn't even mention the ETS, but both of you mention it in your replies. Emission trading is, as CorvetteZ51 says, only a means to an end, which is to meet individual emission caps. It's about caps that I was talking about. As pointed out in European Union Emission Trading Scheme, the EU ETS covers only part of the emission caps (e.g. it does not include transport). That the EU has distributed its global ("bubble") cap among its member states is not said anywhere, and can only be inferred implicitly from section "Increase in GHG emission since 1990", but not under the EU section (os that EU info is split among many places in the article). The UN quote that begins the section "Details of the agreement" is still misleading in not taking into account that distribution, which allows for a much greater range of variation.


 * Further, I'd say that it's not quite right (from the pov of structure of the article) to introduce the "bubble" mechanism, whose goal is to refine the cap system, under emissions trading (again, just a mean for that goal). Perhaps a sentence at the end of the introduction to "Details of the agreement" could say "The Kyoto treaty provides a number of flexibility mechanisms to reach the targets, mainly through its "cap and trade" (or emissions trading) system, and also by allowing groups of developed countries (such as the EU) to set overall caps to be distributed among bubble members".


 * I also have some questions out of my ignorance: Is the EU the only bubble? Is it defined as such in the treaty itself? Are the existing bubbles fixed by the treaty, or can new bubbles be defined after ratification? Does the EU bubble (and the EU-ETS) involve just the EU countries, or are there other neighbouring countries associated to these agreements (in particular to the ETS)?. And finally, (and though I didn't mean to imply that each country didn't have a SEPARATE obligation to comply) what are exactly the separate obligations of ratifying EU countries? I mean, does the treaty just define the overall EU target (in which case the EU ratifiers just have a "separate" obligation to "jointly" meet that overall cap, which implies, I guess, the obligation to reach an agreement among the bubble members that meets that cap), or also the individual states's targets? All these issues could pèrhaps be briefly ansewered in the EU section.


 * Anyway, I'm trying to be constructive, from the perspective of someone interested in the topic, but who is in no way an expert on it. Alvaro —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 89.6.78.13 (talk) 19:09, 26 April 2007 (UTC).


 * the purpose of the bubble, in the original document, it was not clear if 'annex 1 non-emerging' countries could do something with surplus allowances CorvetteZ51 02:45, 27 April 2007 (UTC) marlie was here. :D

Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties
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. 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)


 * President Bush has informed the other parties of the UNFCCC that he does not intend to submit the treaty for ratification. As there is no one to take possession of a 'cancel the signature' document, there is nothing left to be done. CorvetteZ51 11:16, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Australia, baseline controversy
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)
 * Due to tricky accounting rules, Australia turns a 26.1% increase into a 5.2% increase, but the US is burdened by having a 15.6% increase somehow morph into a 21.1% increase. Year 1990 to 2004._See for yourself, direct from the UNFCCC. How is this fair?(look at the graphs on the lower right) http://unfccc.int/ghg_emissions_data/items/3800.php CorvetteZ51 12:20, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Its without/with LULUCF (Land use, Land use change and Forestry), thats "direct, human-induced, afforestation, reforestation and deforestation activities" (page 8, 1.1.2). As for "fair" - what do you mean? Its accounting, and is covered in the Kyoto protocol article 3 para 3+4), and known to all parties. If i recall correctly, the reason that this is covered seperately is that its only the emissions without LULUCF that can be traded. --Kim D. Petersen 15:05, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
 * How is it fair, for a certain country to be allowed an 25% increase, while others are obligated to reduce? Looks arbitrary. CorvetteZ51 10:17, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
 * How is it fair that at the baker I get bread, while he only gets money? It's part of the negotiated deal. --Stephan Schulz 10:29, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Would you like it if someone traded your house, for a piece if bread, at gunpoint?...The people negotiating for the U.S., were either naive, or eager-beaver-sellouts. Their clients, resent being soldout. A great disservice was done to humanity. CorvetteZ51 03:07, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Erm... quite a POV statement isn't it? Whats your argument that things where done at "gunpoint" like conditions? And calling US government representatives (who cannot do/accept anything) "naive", "eager-beaver-sellouts" is rather farfetched - and somewhat in the land of the black helicoptors. "humanity" is limited to the US?? (or how should i understand this?)--Kim D. Petersen 14:38, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
 * My opinion, Al Gore(with the support of President Clinton) could be aptly described as an eager beaver, who would take any deal offered, no matter how stupid. My 'gunpoint' analogy, is in response to the 'deal' analogy of Stephan Shultz. There was nothing voluntary about Gore's signing of the KP. the KP clearly defied the Senate, CorvetteZ51 07:46, 7 July 2007 (UTC)


 * see the Kyoto scam in action, go here.http://unfccc.int/ghg_emissions_data/items/3800.php Because of LULUCF, Aus can increase its 'usual'emissions 26%, and still be below its 8% increase-limitation, I suppose they are now torching koala habitat at a slower rate, but should they be rewarded?CorvetteZ51 13:23, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

China passes the US
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:   Prester John 01:50, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
 * See long discussion on [Talk:Global warming#Jumping_the_gun_with_.22China_the_no._1_emitter.22], the report is a preliminary estimate based on trend-analysis of incomplete data. While it may likely be correct (time will tell) its too early to state as fact. Please join the discussion at Talk:Global warming], for further information and/or discussion. --Kim D. Petersen 05:58, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Kyoto Projects Harm Ozone Layer
The article should discuss the recent finding that Kyoto projects harm the ozone layer. RonCram 14:03, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
 * "All" projects or some subset? Specificity is needed, as well as the source, which many Kyoto detractors have long derided. --Skyemoor 02:22, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Targets for Australia and the US in table
I'm adding the emissions targets for the US and Australia (-7% and +8%) in Kyoto_Protocol 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)

Canada private member's bill info out of date
"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)