Talk:Kyoto Protocol/Archive 8

Restructuring and rewrite of negotiations
I've restructured a large part of the first section of the article. I feel that the new ordering of sections is more logical.

I've also rewritten the negotiations section to make it more objective. I felt that the old revision was rather subjective in including various commentaries on the Kyoto targets. I've moved these commentaries to views on the Kyoto Protocol, and explicitly attributed them to the various authors. I've added an internal link to these commentaries at the top of Kyoto Protocol.

Some commentaries are still included in the article, e.g., Grubb's comments on Japan's attempt to "water down" the compliance mechanisms. Hopefully I or someone else will get round to removing these some time. Enescot (talk) 05:21, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Kyoto protocol extension to 2017 ?
I made a minor update to the Views of the Kyoto protocol, and also the sucessor of the Kyoto protocol (see http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kyoto_Protocol&oldid=525515642 ) It seems however that we may need to change the 2012 to 2017 in the lead (Kyoto may ? be extended)

Also, can someone update the map (to include the "dropout countries", it seems unfair to only point the finger to Canada and USA with this map)

109.130.144.44 (talk) 10:05, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

I see my update has been reverted by User:William M. Connolley. Please reinstate the info in some way or another. I agree that it can be made even a bit more objective (ie besides China and India, there are other major pollutors as Brazil, ...) However, we need to include the criticism on this to make people understand what the reasons were why the Kyoto protocol failed, and what can be done with the successor to avoid this. Please review all changes, discuss and then implement them in some way. 109.130.141.70 (talk) 10:46, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Just a technical note: only Canada withdrew from the protocol: see the depositary. So that is different from the others... L.tak (talk) 10:58, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
 * If you've noticed I've cut it, you'll see why. Its best to get this right on the seemain article first, and then make this fit to that William M. Connolley (talk) 15:16, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi. For reference, I've posted your addition to the section on "Views on the Kyoto Protocol" below, which has been reverted:


 * "Later, in 2011, Russia, Japan and Canada effectively dropped out of the Kyoto protocol. This way, to a large extend, also caused by the fact that some of the major CO2-emitters (China, India) were not required to make cuts under Kyoto, and they have even refused to set emissions targets for the future. This meant that in practice, they even never participated in the Kyoto protocol. An additional reason has also been that some countries are completely not on coarse to attaining their emission reduction target. For example, Turkey and New Zealand are emitting way more than even before the Kyoto protocol, meaning that the Kyoto protocol has had no positive effect on these countries whatsoever."


 * I agree with the reversion by WMC. I think the above edit has significant problems. As L.tak has already stated, Russia and Japan have not withdrawn from the Kyoto Protocol – they have declined to take on new targets. This is already mentioned in the article. In your edit, the decision of these countries not to take on new targets because of the policies of other major-emitters is not explicitly attributed to a particular source. Without explicit attribution, i.e., "X stated that their decision was based on...", the statement biased. The assertion that India and China have not taken on commitments to reduce emissions is inaccurate, as is the assertion that they have not participated in the Kyoto Protocol (see, for example, the section on the CDM). The assertion that the Kyoto Protocol has had no effect on Turkey's* and New Zealand's emissions is not supported by the cited source. The fact that a country's emissions have increased does not mean that policies have been ineffective. Emissions reductions are typically measured against a baseline. If, for example, baseline emissions increase by 10% and policies reduce emissions by 3%, then the policies will have had some effect. However, total emissions will still have increased by 7%. *I should note that Turkey does not have a Kyoto target. Enescot (talk) 02:16, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Hartwell Paper
This article is currently part of a proposed blurb for In The News on the mainpage. I'm vetting it for orange dispute tags, because we are not supposed to link articles to the mainpage that have them. Until I removed it just now, the article had a tag relating to discussion of The Hartwell Paper. Reviewing the relevant discussion here, I am of the view that the arguments put there are correct. Views on the Kyoto Protocol is a large subject area because there are a lot of them expressed by a lot of people, and so that section of the article should give a broad overview and not focus unduly on individual papers. I see no evidence that The Hartwell Paper has been generally considered to be a particularly important contribution to discussions about the Protocol, such that a paragraph about it in the article would be warranted in the scheme of things. Thanks. Formerip (talk) 18:42, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Out of date information
This article is on the main page today but there are several issues with it. It's not current:
 * map is out of date it doesn't include all the countries that have not agreed to extension (I don't have access to update the map).Withdrawn or not accepted the extension are:
 * Russia (will not sign up to extention)
 * Ukraine (will not sign up to extention)
 * Belarus (will not sign up to extention)
 * Japan (will not sign up to extention)
 * New Zealand (will not sign up to extension)
 * Canada (withdrew)
 * United States (never ratified treaty)


 * some of the text covers the matter superficially (I've tried to fix some of that) but we need to have a section that covers the limited scope of the treaty at this stage - covering only about 15% of global emissions.

I'm sensitive that this is on the main page today so I don't want to do too much heavy rework but we need to update this article.Justanonymous (talk) 16:18, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
 * What I am not getting clear is what the form of the extension is. Is it a decision by the Conference of Parties? Will it take the form of a protocol? I have the feeling the formal details are not very clearly out there. If they are, I think we need an extra figure on the 2012-2020 period... L.tak (talk) 16:26, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree. At a minimum, we need the original signatories to the treaty (historical) and we need a map that shows the current signatories to the treaty.  It's very confusing at best right now and deceptive at worst.  I need to go read the article under which the extension was made.  It might need ratification by member countries but I'm not sure.  I assume the parties that said "no" are not going to seek ratification so we can update that right away and assume in good faith that the countries that agreed will get this ratified (most don't have commitments under the treaty so it should be a straightforward paper shuffle for them.  Although some countries in Europe might face some pushback from their constituencies.Justanonymous (talk) 16:34, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Some information is available at the UNFCC site here (note that the CMP is the conference of Kyoto Protocol parties). The date-extention should take the form of an amdenment to the Kyoto protocol (article 3). Extentsions are decided on by the Conference of Parties (unanimous or by 3/4 of the vote, Article 20) and are subject to ratification. They enter into force only after 3/4 of the parties has deposited its instrument of ratification (and then: only for those parties). The decision is here, which has the extension indeed and as well some (less important?) changes to appendices (which are approved according to Article 21: which means: opt out--> if a country doesn't complain it is bound by it). What we could do is make a figure regarding the new commitment. However: as I understand it: the parties not approving the change, are still formally parties to the Kyoto protocol (they "just" don't have CO2 oblications anymore)... L.tak (talk) 17:02, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I think that's right. The only parties sitting outside kyoto would be Canada and the couple of countries that never signed up to be a party.  The US is a party but without a ratification.  Technically Russia, Ukraine, Belarus, Japan & New Zealand will constitute a third category of countries that committed and completed the first commitment period but who never agreed to the second commitment period.  I think to keep things clear we probably want to have two maps, one for the first commitment period and one for the second commitment period.  Just thoughtsJustanonymous (talk) 18:48, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I inserted an updated map with the information from this discussion. Please take a look at it and make sure I got it right or if we need to make any nuanced changes to it.  I kept the old map beneath the extension map for history and context for the reader. I also removed the out of date banner.  The map and the outcomes from the Doha meeting were the most glaring out of date items.Justanonymous (talk) 21:53, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Hm, I think it is a good image to use, but this way of placing it on the page is not ideal. The article is about the protocol, and thus the first infobox should distinguish: signatories, parties, former parties and non-parties. Now the signatories, former parties and non-committed parties have the same color, which is confusing.... Especially since the new commitment period (and the Kyoto protocol changes will not formally take effect in the next year or so...). I suggest we use three images: an infobox treaty-image with parties as described below (and not changed in the past weeks); and 1 of the old; and 1 of the new commitments (in which non-parties are grey, as it is only about the state parties to the protocol). How does that sound? L.tak (talk) 22:08, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

I guess there are a few schools of thought here: What the article is about should dictate what graphic goes on top. To date, the page has always displayed the most current status of the treaty participants at the top and has ignored historical positions: ie when Canada withdrew in 2011, we updated the graphic and didn't leave a historical graphic at all. Now we're into an extension so should we have versions for who signed, who withdrew when, who didn't sign? I think that's what I'm hearing which I'm ok with, but then what order to have them in. Most current first? That would seem logical so the reader gets the most current state of affairs but I could be wrong.I'm happy to do some updated graphics on this. I'm a bit slammed until Tues/Weds though. We can discuss until then and then get this whole page up to speed. We might have to reorg the body of the article somewhat given the latest developments. Thoughts?Justanonymous (talk) 22:19, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
 * The Article is about the Kyoto Protocol (First Commitment Period Only - ended in 2012) or
 * The Article is about the Kyoto Protocol (All of it, including the extension)
 * I like what you did in terms of order. That makes sense.  We might want to talk about the colors you mention and there is the question of Canada, should they be gray in the extension?  They withdrew from the Protocol so they're not a party but they also refused to sign up to an extension (they're in the documents) which implies that they're still a party member (of the UNFCCC).  We should clean that up as well.Justanonymous (talk) 22:23, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
 * (ec, so reacting on the previous statement) That might be a correct summary indeed (the two schools) and there is indeed a discrepancy
 * Either the first image is about the current (2013) system (but which will have no legal status and does not reflect the parties to protocol)
 * Or we have the first image about the Kyoto protocol as it is in effect (but which by definition handles an older period...)
 * That is a tough choice indeed. I think we should separate it by making a formal approach (image with formal parties to the Kyoto protocol, to be updated every time a country ratifies the new version), and 2 pictures about the commitments. Which of those three comes first is for me not a big problem, as long as the first treaty-infobox is about the formal treaty situation (but a box on top of it on commitments: why not?). L.tak (talk) 22:31, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

As for Canada: their denunciation will only take effect next week, so that's why they are formally still handled as a party (and they stay with UNFCC). I propose to keep that indeed at least on 1 of the maps (but no need to make it much different from US in the second commitment part, as they left just before that period even starts)... L.tak (talk) 22:34, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Is the table of 'Level and timing of proposed targets' really necessary
Under the section "Emission cuts" is a table 'Level and timing of proposed targets' which is taken from page 45 of Depledge 2000. It is a table of proposed emissions reductions offered or discussed by parties prior to the finalising of the Kyoto Protocol. I think this is too much detail. The actual QELROS in the KP are enough. I don't think this much detail (draft reductions) is necessary for the article. I 'd like to politely suggest the table be deleted. Mrfebruary (talk) 03:30, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
 * In my opinion, the table could be moved to "views on the Kyoto Protocol". I think that the negotiations section of the article should still refer to it - e.g., specific proposals made by Parties are contained in views on the Kyoto Protocol - so that people can refer to it if they want to. Enescot (talk) 02:01, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I see you have moved the table. Good work. Thanks.Mrfebruary (talk) 11:43, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Lede summary of the Doha agreements
I've rewritten the lede's summary of the Doha agreements. The previous revision is below:


 * On 8 December 2012, the UN Climate Change Conference agreed to the extension of the Protocol for eight years until 2020 by most developing countries but the extension will only cover 15% of the world's emissions due to lack of adoption from Russia, Belarus, Ukraine, Japan, New Zealand, the United States and due to the fact that developing countries like China (the world's largest emitter), India, Brazil and other developing countries don't have any targets under the treaty.

The paragraph implicitly criticizes the developing countries for not having targets. Reference to other aspects of the treaty, e.g., the Berlin Mandate ("[...] the share of global emissions from developing countries [will] grow to meet their development needs"), as well as other analyses (see the main article), show that this is biased. My new revision links to several western news agencies which contain commentaries on the Doha talks. These sources make it clear that there are a range commentaries on the Doha talks, e.g., developed country action being insufficient, or the issue of compensation for climate damages. Focussing only on developing country action is biased, and not supporting that analysis with a source is even worse. Enescot (talk) 04:43, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Enescot, thanks, I think this is better indeed. I have further changed it a bit (maybe a small step back to the previous version) for more balance (in my view)... L.tak (talk) 06:20, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Belarus and Ukraine's participation
In the lede, I'm a bit confused by the addition of Belarus and Ukraine to the list of countries who are not taking on second period commitments. The cited source (pp.6-7) lists them as countries which have second-round targets. Enescot (talk) 03:51, 11 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Understand the confusion. There is an issue regarding whether Belarus & Ukraine would receive credits from when their industries collapsed at the last minute of the session.  Their objections were ignored by the president of the session who steamrolled through the Russian/Ukraine/Bellarus objections to close the session quickly - so although they negotiated targets targets, Russia, Ukraine & Bellarus object to what the President ran through Read Final Turmoil section of BBC page.  They did not agree with the final document, they objected, and they will not sign up without those concessions. Hope this helps.  If that changes at a later date, and it might, we can reflect the change.Justanonymous (talk) 13:51, 12 December 2012 (UTC)


 * I also added a citation to Reuters to the page to make that clear. We can add the BBC link as well but already I think we're going citation-crazy on these pages.Justanonymous (talk) 13:53, 12 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the explanation. Enescot (talk) 05:46, 14 December 2012 (UTC)


 * I've found an article by Christina Figueres which states:


 * "In Doha, 37 countries - all EU members, Australia, Belarus, Croatia, Iceland, Kazakhstan, Norway, Switzerland and Ukraine - adopted legally-binding emission-reduction targets, bringing them collectively to a level 18 per cent below their 1990 baselines over the next eight years. The targets are underpinned by stricter accounting rules and are open to further strengthening by 2014."


 * Based on this, I've updated the article. Enescot (talk) 04:09, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

I think we should be cautious. Ms. Figueres is not a disinterested party, she has a vested interest as the conference leader in stating that Belarus and Ukraine are in because she has to claim "a win" and progress in the negotiations - that is why she specifically called out Belarus and Ukraine in her personally written paper. The reality is quite a bit more subtle and complex and we should reflect that in the Wikipedia article. For that we have to look at what Russia, Ukraine, Belarus, and Kazakhstan are saying. Here is the their response:

The fact that Belarus, Ukraine, Russia and Kazakstan objected at the end of the session, as they have a right to do, and their objections were ignored means that they they were drawn into the aggreement against their will -- a document that they negotiated in good faith. So Ms Figueres in the most technical language probably correct that Belarus and Ukraine negotiated targets - but Ms. Figueres can also be said to be acting in bad faith at this point with respect to committment by ignoring the objections of full member countries who have rights and whom she is sworn to defend as a UN bureaucrat - she's not a dictator and her word is not law. The article needs to reflect this significant disagreement among the parties. The number of citations regarding this point of view is overwhelming and I sincerely hope that the esteemed editors of Wikipedia will not steamroll me in trying to accurately reflect what is going on with Kyoto. Here are a few of the very recent and substantial references and a curt search in Google or any search engine will return a significant number more supporting the existence of a substantial disagreement here:
 * Reuters, December 10 - Belarus Negotiator Hints and Kyoto Exit
 * Bloomberg, December 14 - Ukraine May Join Russia to Shun Kyoto as Credits Fall
 * RTCC, December 13 - Belarus threaten to leave Kyoto Protocol after Doha controversy

With so many articles from very significant and reputable sources it's disingenous for us to simply state that there is agreement. If we need to call out Kazakhstan, Belarus, Ukraine and Russia specifically in the article and explain the controversy then I think we should but we can't simply take the an interested UN bureaucrat's statement as law when there is so much clear disagreement being reported by reputable media with substantial quotes from high level officials of the opposing goverments. Thank you for your consideration.Justanonymous (talk) 12:47, 18 December 2012 (UTC) Justanonymous (talk) 12:47, 18 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the additional clarification. Enescot (talk) 03:55, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Updated Map
I have updated a new map that takes into consideration the decisions from the Doha 2012 Conference and adjusted the colors and legend to be as clear as possible. Some have suggested that the decision from Doha is not in force and perhaps we should keep the old first committment period map at the top until the extension is ratified. However, the first committment map (which is now below the current top map) shows a treaty that will expire at the end of 2012. In effect, both maps on the page will (on Jan 1st) will show two views of the treaty that are not in force. It could take years to ratify this extension by 3/4 of the member countries. Therefor, I see the most current updated map view of country committments as the most valid view and that one that should be at the top and as countries ratify, we can update the ratification counts. We can keep the 2012 map as historical if we want or we can remove. Thoughts? Justanonymous (talk) 15:17, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree that it is good to put the most recent map first, but do not agree that the treaty will expire. It simply won't, as that is nowhere in the treaty; and all treaty mechanisms will still exists. I know that is not of much substance, but I do think that the first infobox of a treaty should be the infobox about the treaty; and not about a proposed change of that treaty. I hope you agree with the compromise to move the image up. We could even put two images in the top I believe, which would in my opinion be most ideal... Rgds! L.tak (talk) 15:26, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm good with what you've done. Frankly, I'm reading through the original documents and attempting to distill an accurate current state - no contention here, just perhaps a lack of understanding.  We have a UNFCCC treaty in force and we have the Kyoto Protocol which was a protocol applied to the UNFCCC treaty which required ratification that ran from 2005 to 2012.  In reading the protocol documents, they are clear that the committment period, the protocol, extends from 2005 to 2012.  There is a provision for an amendment to the protocol but it requires 3/4 vote by the parties.  It seems to me that at the end of the 2012 period, the protocol will have run its course, the only thing left will be a UNFCCC treaty, an expired protocol, and an amendment to the protocol that has not been ratified yet. I'm not an international lawyer per se and my reading comprehension could be off so we could use some more eyes on this to help us make sure we represent things correctly.  I'm not taking a position, I'm analyzing and in good faith trying to get to a position that we can present and viably defend on the Wiki.  Thx for the help.Justanonymous (talk) 15:40, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

This is part of the issue, Article 3 Paragraph 9 of the protocol states:

Relevant questions here are:
 * is the extension an extension of the first committment period? or
 * is the extension a second committment period?
 * is the extension valid under Article 3 Paragraph 9? or are they outside the protocol already? (it can be argued that the parties didn't start consideration of a second committment period - in good faith - 7 years ago, they were still wrangling with the first committment period)
 * if it's an extension to the current protocol, under what article is that extension undertaken? Not Article 3 para 9. Is the extension some form of annex? (because article 3 para 9 only deals with new commitment periods not extensions to current periods)

These questions, of course, don't require answers, they are just flowing through my mind as I read all of this in trying to figure out whether the protocol is still in force, whether they've extended the committment period or whether they have created a new committment period (don't think so), whether the protocol is expired, whether the parties are in violation of the protocol, or whether just the committment period of the protocol is expired but the protocol continues as you suggest. The only thing I'm comfortable about right now is that the UNFCCC treaty is still in force (but I haven't read those papers recently). I need to read more.Justanonymous (talk) 16:16, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Unclear (and too late probably) indeed... What is clear is that the amendment is in line iwth articles 20 (ratification) and 21 (opt out) and thus an amendment of the treaty. There is also no indication that the treaty stopped; just the commitment period stopped.... L.tak (talk) 22:06, 13 December 2012 (UTC)


 * It's not really correct to say that the Kyoto Protocol is being 'extended'. At 31 December 2012, the only thing that ends is the first commitment period. From my reading of the KP, it does not a have a stated date of termination. It was always the intention to have more commitment periods. It will take at least 3 years to prepare all the national GHG inventories up to 31 December 2012 and then parties have to 'retire units' to match their emissions (in what is called the 'true up' period and then report all of this back to the secretariat. So we will still be hearing about the Kyoto Protocol I would say at least until 2015 or 2016. A good reference on the detail is Kyoto Protocol reference manual on accounting of emissions and assigned amount Mrfebruary (talk) 01:47, 15 December 2012 (UTC)


 * From what I understand, the flexibility mechanisms will not expire without ratification – see p6 of PDF. This is relevant since the EU's 20% target is already binding under EU law, and a key part of EU's climate policy is the EU ETS, which is based on the flexibility mechanisms.


 * The UK government has issued a statement about the Doha talks which contains information on the Kyoto Protocol . I haven't read the entire statement, but my impression is that it is consistent with the summary presented in the article. In any case, most of the article's content is properly sourced. Enescot (talk) 03:29, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

This is great. Thank you! In reading your excellent links, it appears that the "extension" is formally a "second commitment period" running from 2013 to 2020. That helps quite a bit as it puts the "extension" within the language of the treaty. I was having trouble with he term extension. I suggest we adopt calling the extension as the "second commitment period" for consistency if everybody agrees. Justanonymous (talk) 03:38, 15 December 2012 (UTC)


 * With the current state of affairs, what should the current map look like? Should we color Belarus, Ukraine, and Kazakhstan differently as countries that have indicated they will not ratify or withdraw from Kyoto 2?  Happy to make the changes but would be good to have some input before I change.Justanonymous (talk) 13:24, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I would be hesitant to add new colours for "indicated no intention to ratify". There might be others and it will be very, very tricky to keep track of them. I think the image now is actually quite elegant (just that I would prefer the changeable sag format; and south sudan as non-party included).... When countries start to ratify the extention, we can slowly start filling up a new map with those facts (along with a progress indicating how far we are away from 75% ratification). L.tak (talk) 18:01, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

DW.DERussia Today

Bias in lede
I've already stated that I'm unhappy with the present revision of the lede. In my opinion, the focus on the cap applying to "only" 15% of global emissions is misleading and biased. Facts can be used in analysis, and analyses of this sort is especially insidious when it is simply presented as information. The use of the word "only" is clearly biased – editors of Wikipedia have no right to decide what proportion of global emissions the Kyoto targets should apply to.

Another "fact" is that China's/developing countries' cumulative per capita emissions are far lower than those of the rich countries, and are projected to remain so into the future. Or you could mention that most developing countries are still generally less developed than the rich countries, e.g., see the UNDP's Human Development Index. These facts are both relevant to the Berlin Mandate, which is explicitly referred to in the Kyoto treaty.

There is no mention in the lede of the principle of "common but differentiated responsibilities" or the Berlin Mandate on which the treaty is based. The requirement for Annex I countries to "take the lead" in reducing their emissions is reaffirmed in the text for the second commitment period, which states: "Emphasizing the role of the Kyoto Protocol in the mitigation efforts by Parties included in Annex I". There is no mention of how developing countries have continually and unsuccessfully pushed for deeper cuts by the developed countries.

Another misleading aspect of the lede is that it does not give adequate attention to the actions of developing countries to reduce their emissions. For example, King et al p15 state: "When other nation’s pledges are converted to a similar measure, i.e. intensity, it has been found that China’s target is comparable to that of developed countries such as the US and the EU".

There is no mention of the fact that several developed countries are not on course to meet their first-round targets. Countries who are on course to meet their first-round targets have often benefited from having (very) weak targets (e.g., the EU-27 and the former Soviet economies). According to King et al, of the Annex I Parties, only Norway and Japan have agreed to cuts that are consistent with the 2 degrees Celsius target. Japan's pledge is not binding and is conditional on the actions of others. Enescot (talk) 03:53, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
 * To me there are very few topics out there that are as complex and polarizing as this one. They can bring out the worst in people.  Sadly, the Kyoto Protocol second commitment period will only cover about 15% of world emissions - that is a fact that in some respects minimizes the impact of the Kyoto protocol but in other respects highlights how far we still have to go.  It's franky, in my estimation, it's infinitely more misleading to leave out the 15% figure because there will be some out there who will think that the world is going to be saved by Kyoto, as the headlines proclaimed "Kyoto Extended!"  Thankfully yes it was but sadly it's not as comprehensive as many would like it to be.  The 15% merits coverage - to some its a wart to others a beauty mark.  Per capita emissions etc to me are simply political swords that countries use as they negotiate these treaties to make one country look better than another - they are legitimate disagreements to the developing world the fact that their per capita emissions are low is a huge point, most environmentalists don't care where the carbon comes from only that it stops.  If we cover contentious topics like per capita emissions we need to wrap that statement as a political position that is not shared by all.  I respect your frustration and I can only say that we're trying our best together to make an article. I do urge that we don't start stripping out every statement out there because we'll just be left with the title, and then someone will take objection with that.  This is a powerful forum to present cohesive articles.  If anything, to me the lede and the article are too long, too disorganized, and just doesn't read like an article anymore.  Too many well intentioned edits have turned what used to be a great article into just a hodgepodge of statements and people arguing over whether the word "only" is biased or not.  I think we should work to truly write a great article instead of just dumping random statements with references and then attacking the poor copy editor that shows up and tries to tie it all up together.  My frustrations with Wikipedia exist at a different level from yours. That's my two cents.  So long as we're working to make it better, we should be ok on the other end.Justanonymous (talk) 19:31, 20 December 2012 (UTC)


 * I agree with the points Enescot is making about having the 15% figure in the lede. In my opinion the last paragraph of the lede would be fine in the body of the article as long as the broader views Enescot mentions above are also included. However it is too detailed for the lede and it makes the lede too long. I would support a much shorter summary paragraph mentioning decisions taken at Doha COP18. Mrfebruary (talk) 11:19, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
 * In good faith, if we rewrite the lead to make it clearer shorter and more succinct and the 15% drops to the body along with some other detail. We should carefully consider that this is not a political forum, it is a place to document the Kyoto Protocol with all it's warts and potential, taking into account the myriad of points of view and political positions on the topic.  If any of us cannot do this dispassionately, we should recuse ourselves and let someone more NPOV make the changes.  i'll move forward in good faith that you esteemed editors can make those changes keeping the article balanced with our policies and in the spirit of Wikipedia.Justanonymous (talk) 12:53, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I do add that these edits need to be made in good faith, please don't just drop the 15% from the lede unless there is a major rewrite of the lede, the 15% is sourced by multiple sources. An editor might not like it, but it is sourced.  Further, we should not expand upon the 15% in the lede, the leded is too long already.  We can expand in the body as needed if we want to go into the detail.  I found hundreds of sources right away out there that claim the 15%. It is eminently citable, here are a few sources using 15%:
 * Al Jazeera
 * Reuters
 * Huffington Post
 * Bloomberg
 * Lima Ohio Newspaper
 * Yahoo Finance

All of these sources can't be biased and I'm not citing all of them, there are hundreds reporting the 15%. They are reporting 15%. That is the consensus of the reporting out there, that is what should be in the lede, barring a major rewrite of the section, regardless of what a couple of editors might think. I get it, some don't like it, but they are the facts just like global warming, facts are facts and we can't cherry pick them. It's a tough political enviroment. Let's be fair and NPOV here, please. Can you explain how it's biased when virtually every major newspaper on the planet is using the figure? Thank you for the consideration.Justanonymous (talk) 14:21, 21 December 2012 (UTC)


 * I have just restored the tag "clarification needed" that you had unilaterally removed. Let's get some other opinions and try to get a consensus.Mrfebruary (talk) 23:13, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Might I remind the esteemed editor that s/he is editing unilaterally as well. If you want to contribute, why not add a section on the 15% in the body and start to provide substance with the multiple sources that I have provided.  I removed the clarification needed because there are 7 sources that I have listed plus the source cited.  Mrfebruary has provided zero support for his statement.  As such, I will remove the clarification needed because it is not and if we deem to need it we can add it in the body where it belongs and not in the lede where it does not.  If you have 20 sources out there that show disagreement by all means please add them, otherwise, please stop vandalizing the page.Justanonymous (talk) 23:33, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the support. Enescot (talk) 05:21, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Justanonymous, I would like to explain my last edit restoring the tag "clarification needed" placed by Enescot. I disagree that it was vandalism. Enescot has acted entirely appropriately according to Wikipedia etiquete under WP:BRD and WP:CN and and in particular WP:TPG in noting his concern with your edit and describing his concern on the talk page. Your response was to remove his tag. In the context, the tag should stay intact until the Talk page discussion about the edit is resolved. That is the purpose of Talk page discussions. I restored the tag "clarification needed" as the discussion is not resolved. Thank you. Mrfebruary (talk) 00:28, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Enescot reply to Justanonymous
I'm sorry to write such a long reply, but there are several points which I think need to be discussed. First off, here is the relevant sentence (labelled (1) for reference) of the revision which I edited :


 * (1) Collectively, these countries will reduce their emissions 18% below their 1990 level between 2013-2020 but collectively the treaty will only cover 15% of the world's greenhouse gas emissions

Point (A): As I've argued previously, using the word "only" implies that the cuts should apply to a wider proportion of global emissions. This is an implied viewpoint, supported by a fact. In my opinion, views on the treaty should be made explicit, e.g., "x has commented that the effectiveness of the treaty is constrained by ...". There is no consensus, politically or in other sources (e.g., the policy literature), as to what proportion of global emissions should be constrained by Kyoto Protocol targets.

Point (B): (1) is also inaccurate: it is the second-round targets that apply to less than 15% of global emissions, rather than the treaty itself. Many aspects of the Kyoto treaty, e.g., the CDM, reaffirmation of UNFCCC Article 3 ("equal but differentiated responsibilities"), technology transfer, apply to all Kyoto Protocol Parties. My revision (labelled (2)) :


 * (2) The emissions targets specified in second commitment period will apply to less than 15% of the world's greenhouse gas emissions.

My revision covers points A and B.

Point C: My clarification needed tag stated:


 * reason=the cited source (Harrabin, 2012) does not specify whether emissions are being measured annually or over a longer time period, which year/year's the figure applies to, or what metric is being used (presumably carbon-dioxide-equivalents)

This has nothing to do with my previous objections, but relates to the 15% figure being imprecise. Compare the 15% figure with the following sentence from the section on "Views on the Kyoto Protocol"


 * (3) In 2008, countries with a Kyoto cap made up less than one-third of annual global carbon dioxide emissions from fuel combustion

(3) specifies which year the "less than 1/3" figure applies to, and to which gases. Further information on (3) is provided in the cited IEA source. The 15% figure used in (2) will probably change over time, depending on future changes in national greenhouse gas emissions. Additionally, does the figure apply only to the Kyoto basket of gases? Does it include aviation and shipping? The figure probably applies to annual rather than cumulative emissions, but this is not stated in the cited source. This information is clearly relevant to the 15% figure, and could possibly be included as a footnote. I could probably look this stuff up myself (e.g., see pp15-16 of the recent UNEP report, or ) but at the moment, I am more concerned about the issue of bias which I mentioned earlier on. Enescot (talk) 05:24, 23 December 2012 (UTC)


 * I completely agree with the points made by Enescot.Mrfebruary (talk) 00:32, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not debating your logic.  There are hundreds of WP:RS articles stating 15%. If you want to remove "only" go for it and removed the clarification needed.  Both of you are utterly unable to find WP:RS to support your posiion or a number other than 15%, because that's the sad state that the world is in right now.  List your WP:RS sources here if you have them please, as I have done to support my edits.  Unilaterally remove the 15% in spite of at least 8 sources at your discretion.  I will advise that minds bigger than mine are watching and grading, like jimmy. I will not edit war though.  I leave this in both your good hands and assume good faith on all sides. I respect you both, your passion, and your contributions. Please do not modify the talk in any way--Justanonymous (talk) 04:16, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree with removal of "only" and that we should make clear there is a difference between the treaty (in force for over 90% of the countries in the world) and the CO2 commitments. That work has started, but can be much improved. Point C: tag or not: I will look into it today. For the rest: I agree that is very relevant, but maybe not so for the lede. I suggest to work on the sections first (fact-based) and then to decide if the lede needs specification (and FWIW: carbon dioxide equivalents are very precise; the odd gas that was not included there is not significant on a global scale: however discussions on aviation contribution and "what constituteds antropogenic emissions" are open to much interpretation...) Hope this helps; will work on it today a bit (and Justanonymous: you laid the ground work for this all, which is very good; don't let the commenting of others on the details give you the impression you're work is not respected or valued: it is!)... L.tak (talk) 09:41, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm sure you noticed this already, but the relevant information on emissions is available in the following sources: this UNEP report, pp15-16 and the EDGAR database. In any case, I might go ahead and work the totals out for myself. Enescot (talk) 04:07, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Edgar statistics
Based on the Edgar database (for which we know what it is), I have made some calculations for 2010, which can be found at this link. Feel free to specify and to correct of course... I find for 2010 for the parties with targets in 2012-2020: 13%, if I am excluding Ukraine, Kazakhstan and Belarus (because they objected to the final version): 12%. Under the Protocol were 85% of all global emissions, the remaining being US (13%) and Canada (1%). It gives me all kind of fancy ideas to report this, but it is also venturing into OR-territory (maybe a bar graph of the 10 most largest contributors -EU lumped- with colors for previous/present targets, and Kyoto party status). But the question at hand is: how to use this to source the "15%" in the lede? A somewhat weak solution: use 2005 as base year, which yields 15%; an alternative is to use 2010; keep the text (around 15%) and make a note: "Based on antropogenic CO2-equivalent emissions recorded in the EDGAR database, the countries with commitments in the period 2012-2020 had a cumulative emission of 13% of global emissions". What do you all think? L.tak (talk) 19:04, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, I have made a graph that I think would make the context of Kyoto clear (provisional legend, see the version uploaded first). It does contain also non-Kyoto countries on purpose because all relevant countries have some relationship with Kyoto (even as signatory or former party). We could in the legend at footnotes regarding their status in Kyoto (party, non party, commitments in period xxx etc); btw: do we believe the Congo-data? L.tak (talk) 20:29, 26 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks for doing all that work. I've had a go using the UNEP data which is derived from the EDGAR database. I've pasted my spreadsheet below as comma-separated values. I get roughly the same value as you: 13.378% of annual CO2-eq emissions in 2010.


 * The UK government cite a figure of 14%. I'll contact them for details about this figure.


 * The Congo data is used in the UNEP report, so I think it's probably accurate.


 * I think that the data could be added as a footnote in the lede. I think that the word "cumulative" should be avoided. Someone might think that cumulative emissions are being referred to, rather than annual emissions. My suggestion is: "data from UNEP/EDGAR show that countries with a second-round Kyoto target made up around 13% of global annual CO2-eq emissions in 2010 (cite ref)".


 * I think that the graph you've put together (including the labels) could be added to the lede. To stop the lede becoming too cluttered, the IEA bar graph and Kyoto 1st round map could be moved to another section of the article. Enescot (talk) 04:21, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

UNEP data
,, ,, ,,UNEP 2010 ,Australia,1.3 ,Belarus,0.3 ,Croatia,0.062 ,EU-27,10 ,Iceland,0.046 ,Kazakhstan,0.63 ,Norway,0.13 ,Switzerland,0.12 ,Ukraine,0.79 ,total,13.378

Enescot (talk) 04:21, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Emission below target
The article would benefit from a chart showing countries emitting GHGs below their Kyoto limits. For example, Ireland is now below its agreed 62 Mtonnes p.a.86.42.197.104 (talk) 16:06, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I'll have a look around for an appropriate source to back this up. I'll probably make some modifications some time to the "government action and emissions" section to keep it up-to-date. Enescot (talk) 05:02, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Australia
Just wondering: I removed the ratification of Australia from the revisions (now: implementation provisions) section, as I thought it not wise to have ratification data on individual countries (unless they trigger entry into force etc). What's the idea behind keeping it there? L.tak (talk) 08:27, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I've changed my mind about this, and I wouldn't be opposed to deleting the sentence that I restored, i.e., "On 3 December 2007, Australia ratified the protocol during the first day of the COP13 in Bali." However, I still think that Australia's process of ratification should be mentioned in the article. This is summarized in Kyoto Protocol ("The United States (under former President George W. Bush) and Australia (initially, under former Prime Minister John Howard) did not ratify the Kyoto treaty.[131] According to Stern (2006),[131] their decision was based on..."), and I think that this summary should be kept. I think that it is significant that the US had one supporter which agreed with its "Kyoto excludes developing countries" argument. Enescot (talk) 05:12, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Kyoto successor
As mentioned above (at "Kyoto protocol extension to 2017 ?"), figuring out the problems with the current Kyoto protocol allows us to make a better successor protocol.

The biggest problem seems to revolve around the fact that the countries decide on a average "allowed emission amount" per capita (which actually should exist at all). A acceptable GHG emission per capita would be 0 tonnes (or -alternatively, very close to that, say 0,001 tonnes or so (if you multiply this by the population -at present 7 billion people, expected to rise rapidly as time progresses- this still yields 7000 tonnes). However, if we agree to eliminate this by planting trees, we are still able to get to a zero emissions policy. The current protocol however has huge allowed amounts of emissions (between 3 and 10 tonnes) per capita and is as such extremely negligent.

Although 0,001 tonnes per capita would be acceptable, I think most people won't accept this and it's probably better to just get rid entirely of this emission reduction-positive approach with the successor and replace it with a emitted GHG-negative approach. Some prominent people like Ken Caldeira have opted for this aswell. Ken Caldeira stated for example that we need to make it against the law to produce devices that emit CO2 into the atmosphere. Obviously, it should be possible to still emit CO2, yet when emitting more than 0 tonnes of GHG, a sort of "fine" needs to be payed (carbon credits). This is then similar as what it is now, just the method we employ would be different. 109.130.144.44 (talk) 10:05, 29 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Regarding the article, we need to be discrete, there is a successor planned to Kyoto and there is an article out there that should be the main article for that with only a summary here and we also have an extension to the current Kyoto which we dont yet have a section for but which we are treating here. Unless we want this article to only be about kyoto first commitment period and then create another article for the extension. Justanonymous (talk) 14:21, 10 December 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm not suggesting to make this article only about the first commitment period. I also agree that we need to be discrete in what we say in the article. What I suggest is that we either mention the approach above at #Successor (either as a suggestion by people as Ken Caldeira to make the successor protocol completely different, or that we just mention it as an "alternative idea" to the Kyoto protocol's successor)


 * If that too is not acceptable by the other Wikipedians, we can also mention the above suggestion/idea at the Post–Kyoto_Protocol_negotiations_on_greenhouse_gas_emissions article, or atleast at the talk page of Post–Kyoto_Protocol_negotiations_on_greenhouse_gas_emissions.

109.130.145.148 (talk) 09:48, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree that information about alternative proposals for climate agreements should be discussed in other articles, but I only think a brief summary needs to be included in this article. There is already some information on alternative treaty designs in climate change mitigation and views on the Kyoto Protocol (e.g., Bill Nordhaus's carbon tax idea), climate change adaptation, and other sub-articles, e.g., carbon tax and economics of climate change mitigation. It might be worthwhile adding links to these articles. The problem is that there are a very large number of commentaries on climate change agreements, e.g., see . Perhaps a sentence could be added to the "successor" section along the lines of "The literature contains a wide range of commentaries and policy proposals concerning international climate change agreements". Enescot (talk) 04:49, 13 December 2012 (UTC)


 * I updated the Climate change mitigation article, and the Kyoto Protocol article. There is now a seperate section called "Alternatives_to_the_Kyoto_Protocol_and_successor" at the climate change mitigation article, which includes all the alternatives.

109.130.141.116 (talk) 09:14, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for making those changes. Enescot (talk) 05:13, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't get it. Straw bale and Timber framing is not an alternative to meta-design goals you give your architect when you hire her. There are lots of ways to build systems to reach target goals (e.g., carbon criminalization, carbon taxation). Kyoto protocols and things like them are efforts to establish target goals in the first place. One group is not an alternative of the other. You can start building, and many people do, without a clear plan. So any country could criminalize or tax carbon even without an internationally-agreed targets. On the other hand, if we establish post-Kyoto internationally-agreed targets, there are many ways (e.g. Socow's "climate wedges") to try to reach those targets. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 10:19, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

CDM
I don't understand. What exactly is the Clean Development Mechanism? How does it work? This article just doesn't make it clear. I've looked all over the web, but nobody seems to properly explain how the thing works. I found this page and I thought it would, but I discovered it was just as vague as all the other articles I read. It fails to explain:

(1) How exactly do people "cap" their emissions? does this mean they dispose of the carbon, or are they able to sell it or something?

(2) When people "trade" their caps, what exactly are they trading? Carbon?

(3) How does all this tie in to "certified reduction emission credits"?72.80.200.132 (talk) 18:57, 4 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Here's an analogy, using tire fires. (1) Everyone agrees to burn a maximum of two tires per year. (2) If you want to burn three tires, you pay me $100 and I burn at most one tire. (3) One "unit" is equivalent to the "ability" of burning one tire. TippyGoomba (talk) 06:09, 5 February 2013 (UTC)


 * You might want to look at clean development mechanism. These sources also contain information on the CDM


 * I should mention that I'm not at all familiar with the details of carbon trading. You're best off referring to the above sources for accurate information.


 * (1) in a developing country, someone proposes a project which is designed to reduce emissions, e.g., a project to improve energy efficiency. This project is reviewed to ensure that emissions savings are "additional", i.e., that the savings would not have occurred in the absence of project funding. If the project is approved, it can receive funding from a developed country. The developed country then receives credit for the emissions savings which are generated by the CDM project. Normally these transactions occur through the private sector, i.e., the developed country tells some polluting companies to reduce their emissions by X %, who can then go on to fund CDM projects to comply with their emissions target.
 * (2) The credits generated by CDMs (CERs) can be traded. CERs are essentially financial assets. Polluting companies need to have a certain number of CERs or other allowances to comply with their emissions caps (e.g., see the EU ETS). For instance, a company has to have x allowances/CERs to meet its emissions cap. If its emissions exceed its emissions cap, and the company fails to buy enough allowances/CERs to account for this, it will then (under the EU ETS) have to pay a fine.
 * (3) CDM projects generate CERs which can be traded on the international carbon market (see ). Demand in the carbon market is created by companies/countries who have binding Kyoto targets or binding regional targets. Enescot (talk) 05:34, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks, TippyGoomba, your analogy is the first thing I've heard that makes sense.72.80.203.156 (talk) 18:28, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

conference of parties article
The conferences of the parties of this protocol and of UNFCC are held together yearly and reported at the UNFCC page. I propose to make a separate article on that subject for ease of referring here (and because of the length there). Feel free to give your comments at Talk:United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. L.tak (talk) 11:38, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Revision of the lede
I've prepared a draft revision of the lede. In my opinion, the current revision of the lede is unbalanced. It does not mention a key principle of the Kyoto treaty, which is that developed countries should have binding targets and developing countries voluntary commitments.


 * The Kyoto Protocol to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) is een international treaty that sets binding obligations on industrialised countries to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases. The UNFCCC is an international environmental treaty with the goal of preventing "dangerous" anthropogenic interference of the climate system.[8] xxx countries (all UN members, except the Canada, South Sudan and United States), as well as the European Union are party to the protocol.


 * The original target set out in the Convention is for developed countries to reduce their emissions to 1990 levels by 2000. Parties to the UNFCCC later decided that this target was "not adequate", and subsequent negotiations lead to the Kyoto Protocol (Depledge, p.6). The Kyoto Protocol reaffirms the principles of the original Framework Convention ("Being guided by Article 3"), including the view that developed countries should "take the lead" in reducing their emissions (Article 3(1)).


 * As part of the Kyoto treaty, many developed countries have agreed to legally binding limitations/reductions in their emissions of greenhouse gases in two commitments periods. The first commitment period lasts from 2008-2012, and the second commitment period lasts from 2013-2020. 37 developed countries (and the European Union) have participated in the first commitment period, ''(I would remove this: Canada was included anyway in all but 15 days of the first period: although Canada withdrew from the treaty in 2012 ). 37 countries and the EU have agreed to participate in the second commitment period, although several (Belarus, Kazakhstan and Ukraine) have stated that they may withdraw or not ratify (i.e., in put into legal force) the treaty.


 * A number of developed countries are not on course to meet their first-round Kyoto targets. However, the overall cut of 4.2% below base year emissions (usually 1990) will probably still be met.


 * The Kyoto Protocol was signed in 1997. Since then, as part of the 2010 Cancun agreements, Parties to the UNFCCC agreed that the future increase in global average surface temperature should be limited to below 2 degrees Celsius relative to the pre-industrial level. Additionally, 76 developed and developing countries have made voluntary (non-binding) pledges to control their emissions of greenhouse gases.


 * Analysis suggests that meeting the 2 °C would require annual global emissions of greenhouse gases to peak before the year 2020, and decline thereafter, with emissions in 2050 reduced by 50% compared to 1990 levels (UNEP, pp.3, 23). Analyses by the United Nations Environment Programme and International Energy Agency suggest that current policies (as of 2012) are too weak to achieve the 2 °C target.

Enescot (talk) 05:10, 8 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I like it. It is a well-written overview that's not too long nor too detailed. I am in favour of your revision replacing the current lede. Mrfebruary (talk) 00:14, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I like it as well, but have some comments. I hope you don't mind me pasting them in your text above (in italics). Open question: i) should we have something in on emission trading schemes? ii) How can we speak about "on course" for a commitment period that has already ended? Suggestive question: shouldn't we state which % of antrophogenic emission fall under the scheme in its current and renewed form? L.tak (talk) 00:56, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks very much. Enescot (talk) 04:43, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I could add something on emissions trading, perhaps "Developed countries can use international emissions trading to meet their Kyoto targets."


 * From what I understand, Kyoto Parties have until 2015 to meet their first-round targets (EEA, p.21; UNFCCC, p.31). I agree that this should be clarified.


 * I think that there are a number of problems with specifying the proportion of global emissions covered by the Kyoto treaty. First of all, the Kyoto Protocol supports the original Convention's obligations, in that non-Annex I Parties are committed to reduce their emissions on a voluntary basis. Their mitigation policies have been summarized in various sources, e.g., UNFCCC p10.


 * As far as I'm aware, the proportion of global emissions covered by the Kyoto treaty is not referred to in any of the UNFCCC treaties or COP statements. It has only been referred to by some news agencies and some developed countries. As I've said before, I think this is an attempt to put a spin on the treaty, implying that an agreement can only be effective if it includes binding targets for developing countries. This does not represent a consensus view among either Parties to the UNFCCC or policy commentators (e.g., see Banuri and Opschoor, pp19-23).


 * In my opinion, a better way of explaining the issue of environmental effectiveness would be to mention the need to move to low-carbon technologies - "Meeting the 2 °C target would require substantial changes in policy at the global scale, with increased use of low-carbon technologies and significant improvements in energy efficiency." This sentence does not imply that binding targets for developing countries are the only option for achieving this aim. Enescot (talk) 04:43, 12 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Good work, we're making progress... The main discussion item left is the introduction of percentages. I feel we are repeating part of the discussion of last month here, and I do want to implement what we decided there (although I agree that discussion was a bit "news-y"). However, whether the COP et al comment on these percentages is only one part of our sources. What commentaries think about it is also relevant. The reason I think it should be in is in view of its relevance to the effect. In other words if we state quite some things about attaining the 2 and the 1 degree-goal, then that relevance should be weighed against commitments (and we have clear sources for that... L.tak (talk) 13:52, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

3rd draft revision
Changes since the last revision in italics:


 * The Kyoto Protocol to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) is an international treaty that sets binding obligations on industrialised countries to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases. The UNFCCC is an international environmental treaty with the goal of preventing "dangerous" anthropogenic interference of the climate system.[8] xxx countries (all UN members, except Canada, South Sudan and the United States), as well as the European Union are Parties to the Protocol.


 * The original target set out in the Convention was for developed countries to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels by the year 2000. Parties to the UNFCCC later decided that this target was "not adequate", and subsequent negotiations lead to the Kyoto Protocol (Depledge, p.6). The Kyoto Protocol reaffirms the principles of the original Framework Convention ("Being guided by Article 3"), including the view that developed countries should "take the lead" in reducing their emissions (Article 3(1)). The Protocol was signed in 1997 and entered into force in 2005.


 * As part of the Kyoto treaty, many developed countries have agreed to legally binding limitations/reductions in their emissions of greenhouse gases in two commitments periods. The first commitment period lasts from 2008-2012, and the second commitment period lasts from 2013-2020. The protocol was amended in 2012 to accommodate the second commitment period, but this amendment has as of January 2013 not entered into foce.  Developed countries can use international emissions trading to meet their Kyoto targets.


 * 37 developed countries (and the European Union) have participated in the first commitment period. They 37 countries and the EU * agreed to participate in the second commitment period, although  several three (Belarus, Kazakhstan and Ukraine) have stated that they may withdraw from the Protocol or not ratify (i.e., in put into legal force) the  treaty Protocol amendment'''.


 * A number of developed countries are not on course to meet their first-round Kyoto targets. However, the overall cut of 4.2% below base year emissions (usually 1990) will probably still be met by 2015.**


 * Since the entry into force, as part of the 2010 Cancun agreements, Parties to the UNFCCC agreed that the future increase in global average surface temperature should be limited to below 2 degrees Celsius relative to the pre-industrial level. Meeting the 2 °C target would require substantial changes in policy at the global scale, with increased use of low-carbon technologies and significant improvements in energy efficiency. Annual global emissions of greenhouse gases would need to peak before the year 2020, and decline thereafter, with emissions in 2050 reduced by 50% compared to 1990 levels (UNEP, pp.3, 23). Analyses by the United Nations Environment Programme and International Energy Agency [11] suggest that current policies (as of 2012) are too weak to achieve the 2 °C target.

Addition to section on "flexible mechanisms:


 * The first commitment period (2008-2012) has ended, but Kyoto Parties still have time to meet their targets by use of the flexibility mechanisms. A final review of the first commitment period will be carried out in 2015.

Enescot (talk) 04:43, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I made some -presumably non controversial- changes in bold... L.tak (talk) 14:01, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry for taking so long to reply. For reference, I've put asterisks next to your changes. As I see it, a problem with your change* is that it gives the impression that the same 37 countries have participated in both the first- and second rounds. I think that it would be better to list the participating countries in both rounds. I am aware that there is a map in the lede which shows the participating countries. However, this map may not be suitable for color-blind or users with other visual impairments.


 * I think that ** may also confuse readers. If the 2015 deadline is to be mentioned, I think that it is necessary to explain the flexibility mechanisms.


 * In response to the points you've raised above, I agree that the low proportion of emissions covered by the Kyoto treaty is important. The issue that concerns me is to do with neutrality. Cumulative emissions and per capita emissions are explicitly referred to in the Berlin Mandate, and the Berlin Mandate is explicitly referred to in the Kyoto treaty. If annual emissions are to be referred to in the lede, then I think that it is also appropriate to refer to cumulative and per capita emissions.


 * If binding targets are to be referred to, then I think that it is also fair to mention the voluntary actions taken by non-Annex I Parties in reducing their emissions. Enescot (talk) 05:11, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

4th draft of lede
I've prepared a new draft revision below which I hope addresses the issues we've discussed. Changes are italicized. I've also deleted quite a lot of text that was in the previous revision:


 * The Kyoto Protocol to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) is an international treaty that sets binding obligations on industrialised countries to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases. The UNFCCC is an international environmental treaty with the goal of preventing "dangerous" anthropogenic interference of the climate system.[8] 190 countries (all UN members, except Afghanistan, Andorra, Canada, South Sudan and the United States), as well as the European Union are Parties to the Protocol. The Protocol was signed in 1997 and entered into force in 2005.


 * As part of the Kyoto Protocol treaty, many developed countries have agreed to legally binding limitations/reductions in their emissions of greenhouse gases in two commitments periods. The first commitment period applied to emissions between 2008-2012, and the second commitment period applies to emissions between 2013-2020. The protocol was amended in 2012 to accommodate the second commitment period, but this amendment has (as of January 2013) not entered into legal force.


 * The 37 countries with binding targets in the second commitment period are Australia, all members of the European Union, Belarus, Croatia, Iceland, Kazakhstan, Norway, Switzerland, and Ukraine. Belarus, Kazakhstan and Ukraine have stated that they may withdraw from the Protocol or not ratify (i.e., in put into legal force) the ir second-round targets. Several developed countries who participated in Kyoto's first-round have not taken on new targets in the second commitment period, and are [I agree on the priniciple, but this sounds a bit akward... ideas for a rephrase? replace "and are" by "including"?] Japan, New Zealand, and Russia. Other developed countries without second-round targets are Canada (which withdrew from the Kyoto Protocol in 2012) and the United States (which has not ratified the Protocol).


 * International emissions trading allows developed countries to trade their commitments under the Kyoto Protocol. Developed countries They [three times "developed countries" is a bit overdone] can trade emissions quotas among themselves, and can also receive credit for financing emissions reductions in developing countries. Developed countries may use emissions trading until 2015 to meet their first-round targets.


 * Developing countries do not have binding targets under the Kyoto Protocol, but are still voluntarily [is this volunarily, or a rather a non-quantified treaty commitment?] committed under the treaty to reduce their emissions. Actions taken by developed and developing countries to reduce emissions include support for renewable energy, improving energy efficiency, and reducing deforestation. Under the Protoocl treaty, emissions of developing countries are allowed to grow in accordance with their development needs.


 * The treaty recognizes that developed countries have contributed the most to the anthropogenic build-up of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere (around 77% of emissions between 1750 and 2004 ), and that carbon dioxide emissions per person in developing countries (2.7 tonnes in 2009 ) are on average lower than emissions per person in developed countries (10.2 tonnes in 2009).


 * A number of developed countries have emphasized the importance of annual emissions [this sentence is vague... should that be "reducing annual anthropogenic emissions?"]. In 2010, countries with second-round Kyoto targets made up 13.4% of annual global anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions in 2010. Developing countries have emphasized the importance of binding targets for developed countries. Some developing country Parties (e.g., the Alliance of Small Island States) have indicated that existing policies are too weak to address climate change.

Enescot (talk) 05:11, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Good, all principle points taken into account now. I have no problem with the addition of addional numbers. My comments have mainly to do with variation in text; and the difference between emissions and anthrolopgenic emissions (which indeed also the media tend to forget...) L.tak (talk) 09:55, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

5th draft of lede
I've prepared a new draft which I would like to discuss. Text that I've revised from the previous draft is italicized.

"Developed countries can trade emissions quotas among themselves..." - For clarity, I think it is preferable to specify that the statement applies to developed countries.
 * This is just linguistics, but it does surprise me: why is "they" in view of the previous sentence unclear? Is there a grammatical ambiguity I am missing? I prefer to have not so many times these exact terms when can easily dispense with them.... last comment is "ratify the/their amendment". Formally the full amendment is ratified and it Will not enter into dorce before 75% ratifies, so i think (until it enters into force) the is more apt than their.. Can you agree with thise 2 changes? — Preceding unsigned comment added by L.tak (talk • contribs) 07:12, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
 * So that other users can follow this discussion more easily, I've posted my reply following the draft text below. Enescot (talk) 09:38, 10 February 2013 (UTC)


 * The Kyoto Protocol to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) is an international treaty that sets binding obligations on industrialised countries to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases. The UNFCCC is an international environmental treaty with the goal of preventing "dangerous" anthropogenic (i.e., human-induced) interference of the climate system.[8] 190 countries (all UN members, except Afghanistan, Andorra, Canada, South Sudan and the United States), as well as the European Union are Parties to the Protocol. The Protocol was signed in 1997 and entered into force in 2005.


 * As part of the Kyoto Protocol, many developed countries have agreed to legally binding limitations/reductions in their emissions of greenhouse gases in two commitments periods. The first commitment period applies to emissions between 2008-2012, and the second commitment period applies to emissions between 2013-2020. The protocol was amended in 2012 to accommodate the second commitment period, but this amendment has (as of January 2013) not entered into legal force.


 * The 37 countries with binding targets in the second commitment period are Australia, all members of the European Union, Belarus, Croatia, Iceland, Kazakhstan, Norway, Switzerland, and Ukraine. Belarus, Kazakhstan and Ukraine have stated that they may withdraw from the Protocol or not ratify (i.e., in put into legal force) their second-round targets. Japan, New Zealand, and Russia have participated in Kyoto's first-round but have not taken on new targets in the second commitment period. Other developed countries without second-round targets are Canada (which withdrew from the Kyoto Protocol in 2012) and the United States (which has not ratified the Protocol).


 * International emissions trading allows developed countries to trade their commitments under the Kyoto Protocol. Developed countries* can trade emissions quotas among themselves, and can also receive credit for financing emissions reductions in developing countries. Developed countries may use emissions trading until 2015 to meet their first-round targets.


 * Developing countries do not have binding targets under the Kyoto Protocol, but are still committed under the treaty to reduce their emissions. Actions taken by developed and developing countries to reduce emissions include support for renewable energy, improving energy efficiency, and reducing deforestation. Under the Protocol, emissions of developing countries are allowed to grow in accordance with their development needs.


 * The treaty recognizes that developed countries have contributed the most to the anthropogenic build-up of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere (around 77% of emissions between 1750 and 2004 [12]), and that carbon dioxide emissions per person in developing countries (2.7 tonnes in 2009 [13]) are, on average, lower than emissions per person in developed countries (10.2 tonnes in 2009).


 * A number of developed countries have commented that the Kyoto targets only apply to a small share of annual global emissions. Countries with second-round Kyoto targets made up 13.4% of annual global anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions in 2010. Many developing countries have emphasized the need for developed countries to have strong, binding emissions targets. At the global scale, existing policies appear to be too weak to prevent global warming exceeding 2 or 1.5 degrees Celsius, relative to the pre-industrial level.

Enescot (talk) 04:23, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

6th draft of lede
New text is in italics. My reply to L.tak's comments on the 5th draft follows the draft text below:


 * "(as previous rev.)


 * As part of the Kyoto Protocol, many developed countries have agreed to legally binding limitations/reductions in their emissions of greenhouse gases in two commitments periods. The first commitment period applies to emissions between 2008-2012, and the second commitment period applies to emissions between 2013-2020. The first- and second-round targets were agreed to in 1997 and 2012, respectively.


 * The 37 countries with binding targets in the second commitment period are Australia, all members of the European Union, Belarus, Croatia, Iceland, Kazakhstan, Norway, Switzerland, and Ukraine. Belarus, Kazakhstan and Ukraine have stated that they may withdraw from the Protocol or not ratify (i.e., in put into legal force) their second-round targets. Japan, New Zealand, and Russia have participated in Kyoto's first-round but have not taken on new targets in the second commitment period. Other developed countries without second-round targets are Canada (which withdrew from the Kyoto Protocol in 2012) and the United States (which has not ratified the Protocol).


 * International emissions trading allows developed countries to trade their commitments under the Kyoto Protocol. They can trade emissions quotas among themselves, and can also receive credit for financing emissions reductions in developing countries. Developed countries may use emissions trading until 2015 to meet their first-round targets.


 * (as previous rev.)"

(Enescot's reply to L.tak's comments on the 5th draft): I prefer the revision (5th draft: 4th paragraph, 2nd sentence, marked with a *) in which emissions trading is attributed to "developed countries" as part of the sentence. However, if you prefer to use "they" instead of "developed countries", then I agree to that.

I would prefer to avoid mentioning legal technicalities in the lede. In my opinion, the legal details of the amendment can be discussed as part of the main article. My understanding of the legal status of the second-round targets comes from. With this source in mind, I've prepared the 6th draft text. Enescot (talk) 09:38, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I feel this draft is further away from the best one than the previous one... Entry into force is a very important point in treaties and their amendments. That is much more than a technicality and should be mentioned. The the/their point (our previous discussion) at least would be correct after 2016 or so (so after 75% has ratified). I'll see if I can find a tweak there based on the fifth draft. Would that be ok to you? L.tak (talk) 10:28, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

7th draft of the lede
I have prepared a 7th draft, as said before based on the fifth. New text is in italics, based on the 5th draft. Note that now entry info force is changed to accommodate that also Russia may not ratify the amendment (which possible even although it has not second round targets). The "for them" part IMO opinion can be dispensed off, but I am ok leaving it in. L.tak (talk) 10:50, 10 February 2013 (UTC)


 * The Kyoto Protocol to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) is an international treaty that sets binding obligations on industrialised countries to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases. The UNFCCC is an international environmental treaty with the goal of preventing "dangerous" anthropogenic (i.e., human-induced) interference of the climate system.[8] 190 countries (all UN members, except Afghanistan, Andorra, Canada, South Sudan and the United States), as well as the European Union are Parties to the Protocol. The Protocol was signed in 1997 and entered into force in 2005.


 * As part of the Kyoto Protocol, many developed countries have agreed to legally binding limitations/reductions in their emissions of greenhouse gases in two commitments periods. The first commitment period applies to emissions between 2008-2012, and the second commitment period applies to emissions between 2013-2020. The protocol was amended in 2012 to accommodate the second commitment period, but this amendment has (as of January 2013) not entered into legal force.


 * The 37 countries with binding targets in the second commitment period are Australia, all members of the European Union, Belarus, Croatia, Iceland, Kazakhstan, Norway, Switzerland, and Ukraine. Belarus, Kazakhstan and Ukraine have stated that they may withdraw from the Protocol or or not put into legal force the Amendment with second round targets [for them]. Japan, New Zealand, and Russia have participated in Kyoto's first-round but have not taken on new targets in the second commitment period. Other developed countries without second-round targets are Canada (which withdrew from the Kyoto Protocol in 2012) and the United States (which has not ratified the Protocol).


 * International emissions trading allows developed countries to trade their commitments under the Kyoto Protocol. They can trade emissions quotas among themselves, and can also receive credit for financing emissions reductions in developing countries. Developed countries may use emissions trading until 2015 to meet their first-round targets.


 * Developing countries do not have binding targets under the Kyoto Protocol, but are still committed under the treaty to reduce their emissions. Actions taken by developed and developing countries to reduce emissions include support for renewable energy, improving energy efficiency, and reducing deforestation. Under the Protocol, emissions of developing countries are allowed to grow in accordance with their development needs.


 * The treaty recognizes that developed countries have contributed the most to the anthropogenic build-up of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere (around 77% of emissions between 1750 and 2004 [12]), and that carbon dioxide emissions per person in developing countries (2.7 tonnes in 2009 [13]) are, on average, lower than emissions per person in developed countries (10.2 tonnes in 2009).


 * A number of developed countries have commented that the Kyoto targets only apply to a small share of annual global emissions. Countries with second-round Kyoto targets made up 13.4% of annual global anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions in 2010. Many developing countries have emphasized the need for developed countries to have strong, binding emissions targets. At the global scale, existing policies appear to be too weak to prevent global warming exceeding 2 or 1.5 degrees Celsius, relative to the pre-industrial level.


 * (Note: Above draft text by L.tak)


 * I'm happy with the draft you've suggested. I agree that "for them" can be left out. Enescot (talk) 09:55, 18 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Yes that draft looks good. Well done both of you.Mrfebruary (talk) 10:47, 18 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks very much. Enescot (talk) 06:27, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
 * And it's implemented. Could use still some referencing; but for the rest I think it's done. Enescot, thanks for the patience and for taking the initiative; it was well worth it!L.tak (talk) 20:07, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for going ahead with the edit. Enescot (talk) 06:41, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Unnecessary reference to global warming
I am thinking about this phrase which looked completely out of place when I was reading the article.

At the global scale, existing policies appear to be too weak to prevent global warming exceeding 2 or 1.5 degrees Celsius, relative to the pre-industrial level.[30]

The Kyoto protocol as I understand it is effectively a contract between countries amounting to an agreement about reducing emissions of greenhouse gases. The Kyoto protocol is real, physical and verifiable etc. On the other hand, anthopogenic global warming is disputed and predictions of warming are just predictions from a computer model.

To go from a definite document, to estimates of emissions reductions, and start assuming particular climate models and estimating temperature rises without even giving dates, just seems like wish-washy nonsense. "The end is nigh" type predictions of ice-free North Poles in 2008 etc come and go and I think the article should be kept factual and verifiable and not get too mixed up in politics of the earth warming on one timescale and cooling on another or whose climate model is the best crystal ball for seeing the future, what it predicts, and when.

So I propose the sentence be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Crysta1c1ear (talk • contribs) 00:19, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
 * It's sourced. Your objections are WP:OR. See also WP:NOTFORUM. TippyGoomba (talk) 00:48, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

change of the lede
With this edit and one earlier one; a new lede was added. As the changes were very, very substantial (complete rewrite) and because the previous one was hammered out in detail on this talk page; I am reverting now (twice). Let me give some of the reasons: I hope that kicks off the discussion on what a better lede would be and welcome any suggestions for changes; on this page... L.tak (talk) 12:34, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
 * The new version suggests the Kyoto protocol is only about the commitment period until 2012; while with the Doha-amendment the convention was adapted; and thus never expired.
 * The treaty still has very many parties
 * the image with the new commitment period is very relevant...
 * An IP has placed his own version back (again). This is not working and I'd like to start a discussion here on what the lede should look like, rather than to impose a complete new version unilaterally... L.tak (talk) 18:45, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

US section
The section on the U.S. participation is yet another example of a Wikipedia article representing Wikipedia's bias against George W. Bush. The Byrd-Hagel legislation passed 95-0 (a fact I added to this article), meaning not a single democrat in the Senate signed.

The next paragraph goes on to cite one source to illustrate the idea that Bush single-handedly prevented U.S. participation, when the Senate clearly did that before Bush was even elected.

This article lacks neutrality, and I wish the claim of lack of neutrality represented on this article. Furthermore, I demand the same claim of lack of neutrality for the article "U.S. Presidential Election, 2000".

Wikipedia is quickly going from an online resource of knowledge to a liberal think tank. You care nothing for neutrality. You care only for liberal globalism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.232.215.42 (talk) 19:55, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Most of the section you seem to be referring to is sourced to Tyndall Centre Working Paper 12: The climate regime from The Hague to Marrakech: Saving or sinking the Kyoto Protocol?, with some other cites included. Do you have a suggestion for another source of similar weight that could be used? As you know we cannot publish original research or synthesis, but can only represent, with WP:DUE weight, what is reported in reliable sources. --Nigelj (talk) 21:32, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Do you seriously think anyone believes the nonsense that's written in Wikipedia?

It might work for a pub trivia quiz but no one trusts it on the serious stuff.

Reply: I consider George Bush a monster like his adversary Saddam Hussein, but this has nothing to do with passing off coercive social engineering backed by innuendo and pseudoscience as anything other than a religion. As such it is a destructive religion that sends men with guns (national means) out to visit the violence of irrational law on those whose progress has resulted from the abandonment of superstition, altruism and collectivism. I am delighted to see the Wikipedia used as the instrument of such documendacity. It will make it easier to convince others to quit funding the leeches that have infiltrated to make it into a medieval wayback machine. translator (talk) 19:11, 16 March 2015 (UTC)