Talk:List of parties to the Kyoto Protocol

Initial thoughts
(William M. Connolley 20:35, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)) I've been filling out the table, based on http://www.climnet.org/EUenergy/ratification/calendar.htm. A couple of things to straigthen out:
 * non-annex-I countries are listed en bloc. I think thats because non-annex-I don't have to do anything.
 * The CAN page lists Romania in 2001 as the first annex-I country to ratify. I don't understand that.

Brazil - why is it not listed?
Can someone please tell me why Brazil is not listed here?


 * http://www.brazil.org.uk/page.php?cid=1203
 * http://www.brasembottawa.org/eng_news_env_kyoto_protocol.htm

''[...] Brazil has traditionally demonstrated its commitment to the objectives of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. The country hosted the United Nations Conference on the Environment and Development ("Earth Summit" or Rio 92), when the said convention was signed, Brazil being its first signatory. [...]''

''[...] With regard to the Kyoto Protocol, the country has been making a systematic contribution to its success. CDM, for example, was the result of a Brazilian suggestion for setting up a Clean Development Fund, under which any country that did not achieve its reduction targets would become liable to a kind of financial penalty, with the resulting funds being invested in developing countries. [...]''


 * (William M. Connolley 13:39, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)) No particular reason. I've added it now: I guess I just missed it before. Its on the CAN list - you could have added it yourself.

Chinese entries
I'm going to modify recent changes to the article made by Instantnood. "In accordance with the provisions of Article 153 of the Basic Law of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of the People's Republic of China of 1990, the Government of the People's Republic of China decides that the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change and the Kyoto Protocol to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change shall apply to the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of the People's Republic of China." SchmuckyTheCat 08:07, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) that it only applies to the mainland is incorrect. Reader's Digest is a crap source in any language and is contradicted by the PDF file from the UN (last updated two weeks ago) that states it applies in Hong Kong.
 * 2) removing Hong Kong and Macau from the list of "non-signing".  They can't sign a UN treaty because they aren't UN members, China is.  To list them gives the impression they could have signed it.  Also remove Hong Kong, because Kyoto will apply to it (but not Macao, for now).
 * Thanks. Could you please provide a link to the PDF document? As for UN membership, Hong Kong has ratified the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) in 1976, which is insured by the Basic Law to be remained in force and implemented through laws. The PRC has not ratified the ICCPR, and Hong Kong submits its own report to the UN, although it isn't a UN member state. &mdash; Instantnood 08:18, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
 * RING RING, BANANAPHONE! HELLLO! It's on the bottom of the article under the caption "references". SchmuckyTheCat 08:28, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Thank you. &mdash; Instantnood 08:43, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Please also note Niue and Cook Islands are on the list, although neither is sovereign state nor UN member. &mdash; Instantnood 08:51, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I don't know about Cook Islands, but Niue retains its sovereignty and lets New Zealand take care of things in free association. Please stop with the analogies. SchmuckyTheCat 15:49, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Cook Islands conducts some sort of diplomatic relations. Nevertheless the key here is they're not UN members nor sovereign states (which was in response to what you said " They can't sign a UN treaty because they aren't UN members, China is. "). &mdash; Instantnood 16:21, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I do not care about Niue and Cook Islands. On this treaty who is answering for Hong Kong and Macao? China is.  Maybe HK and MO have been consulted and made the decision but who answers to the treaty and to the UN? CHINA.  There is no place for HK and MO to be listed independently of their parent nation. China China China. SchmuckyTheCat 17:09, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Alright. You've effectively disregarded what you said: " They can't sign a UN treaty because they aren't UN members, China is. "  - i.e. UN membership as a prerequisite to sign. &mdash; Instantnood 17:38, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Contradictory basis or not, the end result is the same. China answers for Hong Kong. SchmuckyTheCat 18:44, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Why couldn't Hong Kong sign it? Is it because Hong Kong is not a UN member, as you've suggested?  &mdash; Instantnood 19:07, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I don't care enough to find out why just to answer you. The issue is moot, China speaks for Hong Kong on this treaty. SchmuckyTheCat 19:25, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
 * So you don't care what you've said, right? &mdash; Instantnood 19:39, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Serbia and Montenegro
S&M or Yugoslavia is entierly missing (not signed, not accepted, not ratified, not entered into force) from the PDF list at the link at the bottom of the page. But it is stated as "accepted 12.3.2001" here:. So, what's its status realy? 212.36.8.100 10:51, 30 December 2005 (UTC)


 * The date above is for "Ratification of the Convention", not "The Kyoto Protocol". Compare with USA's entry, which shows ratification for the former, but not the latter.  I'm going to move Serb. & Mont. to the "not signed" list.  --Spiffy sperry 14:59, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

MAP
the map of signed/unsigned agreements needs to be labeled to allow quick acess to this information, rather than having to read through the text, or to drag up a world map to relate to country positions. not everyone is well orintated with political boundries.

RoNa_CaBiLlO

--155.205.200.30 00:44, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Fiji
Why did Fiji bother to sign if they were going to ratify it the same day? Nil Einne 12:25, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Style? &mdash; Nightst a  llion  (?) 21:14, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Croatia - ratification
This list: , retrieved on 1.6.2007 shows Croatia as only signed, but not yet ratified. It also includes statement "last update 11.5.2007" - the nearest change is Angola's 8.5.2007 ratification. Supposed Croatia ratification as currently stated in the article is 27.4.2007, wich is before 11.5.2007 and 8.5.2007, so it seems that if Croatia has REALY ratified it WOULD be included in the official list already. So, I think that we should move Croatia to "not yet" until there is a firm confirmation (maybe the news was about Croatia INTENDING to ratify in the FUTURE - not that it has ALREADY ratified?). Alinor 18:53, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
 * It definitely has already ratified; what has not yet happened is that Croatia has not deposited its ratification with the UN yet. &mdash; Nightst a  llion  (?) 10:30, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Ah, yes, haven't tought of that possibility :). It would be nice to have some link in such cases when there is a deviation/omission in the official list. Alinor 20:04, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
 * You're certainly right, but I'm afraid I can't find the source... :( &mdash; Nightst a  llion  (?) 15:52, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Never say never: I found it! &mdash; Nightst a  llion  (?) 15:54, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Alinor 20:45, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

U.S.A. Signing
I think the U.S. should be removed from the 'Signed, but not intending to ratify' list and placed on the 'not signed or ratified' list. Why should the U.S. be listed as a signer when Al Gore's signing of the treaty was legally meaningless as, under U.S. law, a treaty has to be voted for by 2/3 of the U.S. Senate. The U.S. Senate voted down the treaty 95-0 six months before Al Gore signed the treaty. The fact that Al Gore signed the document isn't meaningful as he had no authority to represent the U.S. in that regard.

Links pertaining and backing up argument:

http://144.16.65.194/hpg/envis/doc97html/globalus1212.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyoto_Protocol


 * I think you are confused - Gore was never prez so couldn't have signed - do you mean Clinton? Get your demons in order... As for the substance: signed but not intending to ratify seems to be exactly correct William M. Connolley 09:20, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

No, I'm not confused. Yes, Clinton was president, but he didn't sign the document, Al Gore did when he was Vice President, in 1998. This was six months after the senate voted down a proposal to sign it 95-0. Hence, the document was never signed by anyone with the authority to represent the United States in any such capacity.

"On November 12, 1998, Vice President Al Gore symbolically signed the protocol. Both Gore and Senator Joseph Lieberman indicated that the protocol would not be acted upon in the Senate until there was participation by the developing nations.[57] The Clinton Administration never submitted the protocol to the Senate for ratification."

"the U.S. Senate unanimously passed by a 95–0 vote the Byrd-Hagel Resolution (S. Res. 98),[55][56] which stated the sense of the Senate was that the United States should not be a signatory to any protocol that did not include binding targets and timetables for developing as well as industrialized nations or "would result in serious harm to the economy of the United States"."


 * How very curious - but thanks for correcting me. However, the substance remiains the same: the US *did* sign but not ratify it William M. Connolley 19:41, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

I would have thought the same thing if I hadn't read it. I would still argue that the U.S. didn't sign the treaty. One individual decided to sign it without the U.S. giving that individual any authority in the matter. It's no different than if any other environmental activist had signed it, even if they were a U.S. citizen.

It is amazing how ignorant some poeple in this world are. A quick search on the internet and you have your "fact" answer. NO Al Gore did not sign the Kyoto Protocol. Clintons Deputy U.S. Ambassador to the UN, Peter Burleigh, signed it on behalf of the U.S. And to say " I would still argue the US didn't sign it" is pure ignorance. Why don't you uninformed sheep pick up a book to educate yourselves intead of listening to the biased media before opening your mouths or putting finger to keyboard. Try this on for starters. "The politically incorrect guide to global warming and environmentalizm" by Christopher C Horner. Sporto100 (talk) 13:50, 4 June 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sporto100 (talk • contribs) 13:13, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

This article drips of input from media types and environmentalists trying to dramatize and extract something from nothing to push a biased point. To be accurate you have either signed the treaty or not. You have either ratified it or not. This article even blatantly contradicts itself. The first section reads "Signing is optional, indicating an intention to ratify the Protocol If Wikipedia is supposed to be a factual, non-biased source of information then get rid of the speculative notes and world map with USA in bright red.  I note Kazakhstan has also signed and not ratified the treaty yet they are given a nice neutral yellow.  Lets keep this factual, scientific and accurate.  Ohh sorry.  I forgot this was about the Kyoto Protocol.  Sporto100 (talk) 13:50, 4 June 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sporto100 (talk • contribs) 13:39, 4 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I see no contradiction; most democratic governments signed the Protocol intending to progress to ratification once it had achieved a mandate at home. Obviously the Clinton administration was (almost uniquely) unable to pass appropriate legislation during its term in office. However, if you feel it reasonable to compare the USA's current situation with Kazakhstan, you should also make yourself aware that the latter's government has clearly indicated they wish to ratify and has been staking steps to do so, participating fully as an Annex I country. This would explain the 'nice neutral yellow'. However, AIUI when I last looked their situation had become complicated and delayed by legal technicalities. Ephebi (talk) 12:49, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Add another color for 'signed and ratified, but exempt'
China and several other countries should be in another color, signifying that they have signed and ratified the treaty, but are exempt from it. Just because China signed and ratified it doesn't MEAN anything, if they can continue to be the second most polluting country in the world. Redwood Elf (talk) 07:10, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
 * NO: That claim does not hold true if you look at emission intensity per head of population, as an average chinese emits a small fraction when compared to an average westerner. It has even been argued that their one child policy has made a significant difference in "tonnes of carbon averted". Kyoto's impact on China is in the same condition as all other Annex I countries, from India to Papua. Annex I is basically the developing world, excluding those industrial "Economies in transition" (mainly former soviet bloc countries.) This was a key issue at the time of agreeing the protocol to the treaty, as it was important to recognise the "common but differentiated" goals of the developed and developing world and not use the protocol as an excuse to hold back economic development. Being an Annex I country that has ratified the protocol does not mean that they can continue regardless; they must track their emissions through a national carbon registry, and have the option to participate in CDM projects that create additional emissions reductions. Ephebi (talk) 14:41, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
 * If China is not exempt, where is THEIR listing on the "What countries promised, and how they're doing" Chart? Redwood Elf (talk) 21:47, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
 * if you re-read the article you will see that there is a difference between Annex I and annex II countries, which would seem to be your confusion. All those Annex I countries, China included, ratified the Protocol to the treaty. However they were classed as developing countries that must monitor their output but have no obligation to reduce it, while they claw their way up to a better standard of living. Ephebi (talk) 00:10, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
 * So how, exactly, does that make the polution in China "OK" environmentwise? What were all the news stories about atheletes showing up for the Beijing Olymics wearing filter masks to protect their health until they could compete? I'm all for reducing pollution anywhere in any way possible, just on health grounds and global warming can go pound sand...nobody likes to breathe smog. I say, make a NEW treaty, based on measurable polution levels, and keep every country to the same standard. Redwood Elf (talk) 21:34, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
 * That's a great idea. But I'm afraid you're opinion does not matter at the moment - I'm pretty sure the events in Copenhagen will clear this issue up. --haha169 (talk) 19:07, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Australia to now sign
Following the recent change in Australian government on 24 November 2007, the position of Australia has changed. Labor leader Kevin Rudd has stated that Australia will immediately ratify the Kyoto protocol. Somebody might like to consider change their position on the page and the map. --RolandG (talk) 14:04, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Not wanting to make a new title I will add this here: The Turkish parliament voted on Feb. 5th to ratify the protocol. This should be added to the page. Source: http://yle.fi/uutiset/ulkomaat/2009/02/turkki_liittyy_ilmastosopimukseen_528543.html .ABC101090 (talk) 22:28, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

What's the total?
The lede here says 187 states have signed and ratified the Kyoto Protocol, but in the table I see 188. Someone has just updated Kyoto Protocol from 186 to 187. Is there something about some of these not being 'states' by some definition (e.g. the EU?) (in which case that is not clear), or is it just sloppy updating? --Nigelj (talk) 17:22, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Updated it. Alinor (talk) 10:24, 30 October 2010 (UTC)


 * The EU is categorized as "regional economic integration organization" and is a full Party to both the UNFCCC and the Kyoto Protocol.77.24.223.15 (talk) 20:05, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Should Canada be changed to "Signed, but not intending to ratify"?
I don't know too much about the situation in Canada. Under the listing it says that the current government has no intention to ratify, so shouldn't they be moved to the other section and be coloured red on the map? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.227.239.249 (talk) 15:54, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Afaik, they both signed and ratified. What happened lately is that they retired their commitment. They should thus still be in signed/ratified - but with a note that they (intend? officially) to withdraw. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 16:46, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on List of parties to the Kyoto Protocol. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090311060854/http://bianet.org/english/kategori/english/107396/turkey-will-sign-the-kyoto-protocol to http://www.bianet.org/english/kategori/english/107396/turkey-will-sign-the-kyoto-protocol
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090220201737/http://www.turkishweekly.net/news/64683/turkey-39-s-participation-in-kyoto-protocol-published-in-official-gazette.html to http://www.turkishweekly.net/news/64683/turkey-39-s-participation-in-kyoto-protocol-published-in-official-gazette.html

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 19:39, 24 December 2017 (UTC)