Talk:United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change/Archive 1

Global warming no longer a matter of belief
Hi, I find the language of the first paragraph unbearable: The treaty aimed at reducing emissions of greenhouse gas, pursuant to its supporters' belief in the global warming hypothesis.

Today, this is no longer a "hypothesis" with a however limited number of "supporters", it is a globally accepted scientific explanation of an ongoing measurable climate change. Even hardline industry supporters no longer dare to deny this. Even Bush had to recognize. The only argument is about how serious it is and how best to combat it. --Johannes Rohr 11:55, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

It is important to be precise. The IPCC is said to represent scientific consensus, and it is certainly the most heavily peer-reviewed document in history. However, it is easily attacked, and lack of precision amongst IPCC proponents opens the door to more criticism from climate change contrarians.

With the emergence of complex ecological problems, such as climate change, there is a need to be more clear about what constitutes science and what constitutes policy, and how we manage the interface between them. It is no longer relevant to cling to old positivist notions of 'science as truth' or 'science as objective'. Decision support tools like the IPCC which seek to straddle the science-policy nexus represent a new form of applied science, created by the urgent need to act in the face of uncertain data.

More recent conceptions of science and science policy recognise that in situations of great uncertainty or great complexity (which are roughly equivalent in pragmatic terms) science can not be evaluated in terms of what is true or what is false. The problem can be resolved by increasing quality assurance through a broad process of participation; this is the realm of post-normal science. The IPCC, through the review process, is attempting to do just that. Using inclusive language, such as 'the belief', can facilitate that process of engagement. Or do we only want to preach to the converted?

It is known that the scientific community has a way of manufacturing a consensus around prevailing paradigms. The peer review process, funding circles and policy frameworks can all lead to the perpetuation of a dominant viewpoint. Whether the science behind the IPCC is good or not, it is highly probable that the consensus is to some extent inflated by the current dominance of the idea.

Given the enormous effort required to open the doors of the scientific community and put climate change on the agenda, it would be unwise to shut those doors behind us. If the history of science has taught us anything, it is that we are frequently very wrong. 203.134.61.65 06:37, 22 June 2006 (UTC)Kirstyn Lee

COP6 and COP7
I'ev proposed merging the COP6 to the section of the same name in this article. Its' only a stub and there's no point keeping it.--NHSavage 14:31, 5 November 2006 (UTC) Ditto COP7.--NHSavage 14:37, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Merge with World Climate Conference
I OPPOSE this proposal. The first of these conferences was about the science and lead to the formation of the World Climate Programme. The second seems to have been more of a political event but only lead to a ministerial declaration. It was not until the Earth Summit that any treaty was negotiated. I would propose that Earth summit and United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change should include each other in their See also sections but remain seperate.--NHSavage 09:41, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

oppose They refer to different conferences, I'm going to remove the tag. --Calibas 05:13, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Conflict with Earth Summit page
Page Earth_Summit says: "Both Convention on Biological Diversity and Framework Convention on Climate Change were set as legally binding agreements."

Page United_Nations_Framework_Convention_on_Climate_Change says: "The treaty as originally framed set no mandatory limits on greenhouse gas emissions for individual nations and contained no enforcement provisions; it is therefore considered legally non-binding"

Not sure which is right.

71.34.84.47 03:58, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Numbering
If the List on right with the countries of the UNFCCC are going to be in alpahbetical order, they shouldn't be numbered. the order obviously doesn't matter. It makes the list seem like the nations at the top are more important. Lee1019 (sorry I didn't login). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 208.40.206.203 (talk) 13:08, 7 May 2007 (UTC). 

100,000 tons of carbon dioxide
The conference is releasing the equivalent of 100,000 tons of carbon dioxide. source. So I added a criticism section to the article. Grundle2600 (talk) 04:15, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Yvo de Boer
Why "Yvo de Boer" deridects here if he's not mentioned in the text? ..Dubhe.sk (talk) 12:25, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Wikiproject Earth
Hello i have recently proposed the Wikiproject Earth. This Wikiproject`s scope includes this article. This wikiproject will overview the continents, oceans, atsmophere and global warming Please Voice your opinion by clicking anywhere on this comment except for my name. --IwilledituTalk :)Contributions —Preceding comment was added at 15:33, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Crit section rm: why
I removed:


 * ''A November 25, 2007 article in Times Online reported that it was estimated that that year's conference would release the equivalent of 100,000 tons of carbon dioxide. Greenpeace calculated those emissions were equivalent to a new coal power plant running for about 20 hours.

A December 18, 2007 article in the Sydney Morning Herald revealed new information that brought this total even higher. According to the article, a special custom air conditioning system was installed specifically for the conference. The air conditioning system used hydrochlorofluorocarbons, an outdated refrigerant gas that is especially bad for the problem of global warming. According to the article, the air conditioning used during the conference released the equivalent of 48,000 tons of carbon dioxide. The article stated, "... the refrigerant is a potent greenhouse gas, with each kilogram at least as damaging as 1.7 tonnes of carbon dioxide. Investigators at the Balinese resort complex at Nusa Dua counted 700 cylinders of the gas, each of them weighing 13.5 kilograms, and the system was visibly leaking." ''

This is all deeply stupid. There *are* criticisms of the UNFCCC and its undelying rationale, but this is just trivial sniping. In addition, CFCs are indeed potent GHGs, but you cannot possibly just assume that all the stuff leaked out - the system would stop working if it did. I'm also very dubious about it being "visibly leaking". Though its perfectly true that all/most commercial systems are more or less designed to leak. But... thats not the point. The real crit of UNFCCC is as to its purposes and implementation, not about how much CO2 is emitted by its conferences William M. Connolley (talk) 20:08, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

What is conservation?
It says in the article: "Annex I countries agree to reduce their emissions (particularly carbon dioxide) to target levels below their 1990 emissions levels. If they cannot do so, they must buy emission credits or invest in conservation. ". What is conservation, and would somebody please add an explanation or a link to the article. Velle (talk) 11:29, 23 December 2008 (UTC)


 * valid point. The term conservation is not appropriate here; its all about the mechanisms for clean de-carbonized development. I've changed it to suit. Ephebi (talk) 13:10, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Article probation
Please note that, by a decision of the Wikipedia community, this article and others relating to climate change (broadly construed) has been placed under article probation. Editors making disruptive edits may be blocked temporarily from editing the encyclopedia, or subject to other administrative remedies, according to standards that may be higher than elsewhere on Wikipedia. Please see General sanctions/Climate change probation for full information and to review the decision. -- ChrisO (talk) 16:02, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Map
I'm sorry, with this number of countries, at this scale, I don't find the map very useful. I can see only Brunei, East Timor, Somalia, Iraq, French Guiana, Taiwan, Western Sahara (possibly the West Bank?) as non-signatories - and this can only really be seen in the high definition version, certainly not the thumbnail on the page. In any case most of these are either not fully independent and functioning states or clearly have other priorities. A (short) list of non-signatories would be more useful than the map, IMO. Rd232 21:32, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
 * So how does one learn if a country is a participant if there is no list? At what number should lists be omitted and the whole world assumed?  Do you have a mechanism to ensure that a non-participation list is kept up to date as the existence of countries changes?  (SEWilco 03:36, 30 July 2005 (UTC))
 * Er, what? I didn't say anything about not having lists - just that I don't think the map is very useful. Maybe a negative list has issues, but no more so than other lists. (Countries don't come and go that often.) Rd232 08:09, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

Hi, now that everyone but Andorra and Holy See has ratified, the map is no longer useful, I suggest deleting it. And Andorra is planning on ratifying very soon —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.237.74.227 (talk) 17:43, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Please specify or give a non-limitative list of who are those parties in the MOP - Meetings of Parties
These parties are mentioned in the chapter: "Conferences of the Parties"

"From 2005 the Conferences have met in conjunction with Meetings of Parties of the Kyoto Protocol (MOP), and parties to the Convention that are not parties to the Protocol can participate in Protocol-related meetings as observers."

But who are they? I suggest start pointing to them by creating a non-limitative list to allow kicking-off a list, getting those who know more to work out the list more, untill eventualle we come to a list of the names of the people, representing the organisations and companies that make up these parties. --SvenAERTS (talk) 10:27, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

UNFCCC members - date of membership
This section includes almost all countries in the world. I think it would be more useful if it shows the date, when the state became member/observer (as some joined as late as 2009/2010 and some were from the initial meeting). Page history may be helpful to find the such dates (and hopefully sources in the edit-comment line). Alinor (talk) 08:17, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

COP17 South Africa
In an attempt to prevent an edit war, I again removed Cape Town from the page and replaced it with Durban. There are numerous articles available to support this. I added the ref to Greenpeace. Hopefully the unknown user won't see the need to vandalise. GetDownAdam (talk) 01:16, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

I understood that a treaty has no legal effect until it is "ratified". I have been told that no major country has ratified the global warming treaty.

Please clarify:
 * 1) What does "ratify" mean?
 * 2) Which countries have ratified the global warming treaty, in the sense that they are legally bound to follow it?

Ed Poor -- There is no "the global warming treaty". There are two global warming treaties -- the UNFCCC, and the Kyoto Protocol. All major countries, including the US, have ratified the UNFCCC. Only a few minor countries have ratified Kyoto.

The UNFCCC does not set out specific obligations -- it merely sets out a framework, by setting out basic principles and establishing institutions to work towards a solution. The Kyoto Protocol sets out specific obligations. The Kyoto Protocol is a protocol to the UNFCCC (a protocol is a treaty which supplements the provisions in another treaty, and you have to be a party to the other treaty in order to sign the protocol.)

Ratify means becoming legally bound by the treaty. All signature means is there is some intention to become a party, but it does not actually make a state a party -- only ratification does that. Exactly how ratification is done varies from state to state -- in the US, for example, it needs a vote of Congress. Once a country has completed the internal procedures, it deposits instruments of ratification (i.e. a legal document) with the depositary (the body which keeps track of signatures and ratifications, and which keeps the original copies of the treaty). Then, a certain number of days after depositing those instruments (often a month or two; the exact number is contained in the treaty), it becomes a party. Only once it has become a party is it legally bound by the treaty -- SJK


 * I think I get it. All the US ratified is the "framework" thing, which says global warming merits serious study. It's the Kyoto Protocol which requires emissions reductions, and I guess that's what the US Senate voted 95-0 against, right? Ed Poor


 * No. The framework doesn't say it merits serous study, it says that all countries should reduce green house gases whether or not there is enough scientific evidence to be absolutely certain (cf. Article II of UNFCCC). So to say "we shouldn't reduce green house gases just yet because we're not sure about the scientific evidence" goes against the framework.--69.212.98.139 22:32, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Also, the US Senate never voted on the Kyoto Protocol. Maybe you were being sarcastic, but if you believe what you say, you've seriously been mislead. --69.212.98.139 19:08, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Yes, basically -- SJK

Okay, I gotta get going. No doubt all my changes will be deleted over the weekend :-( but that's okay. It's apparently the consensus of wikipedians (and politicians) that the "science is settled" -- but like Galileo, I say it still moves, he he. Ed Poor

(copied from Talk:Kyoto Protocol)

Annex I and Annex II
Signatories to the Kyoto Protocol are split into two groups: Annex I countries (industrialised countries) and Annex II countries (developing countries).
 * I've heard a lot about this, but the Protocol text does not have references to "Annex II" within itself. There are references to "Annex II of the Convention", but the Convention (UNFCCC) is the parent document.  The Protocol only seems to refer to
 * "Annex I" - developed countries
 * "Annex II of the Convention" - another group which includes developed countries
 * "developing countries" - everyone else who signed Protocol

--SEWilco 21:31, 31 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Technically, it's "Annex I to the Convention" (see Article 1) and "Annex II to the convention". Everyone shortens this to "Annex I" and "Annex II". Martin 18:20, 4 Sep 2003 (UTC)


 * I gave those phrases as hints for searching the documents. My question is about "Annex II" references.  Look at Annex I and Annex II ; note that Kyoto only has Annex A, so its references to the parent document are apparent.  The obvious problem with referring to Annex II as developing countries is that most in I are in II, including the USA.  If you look at the references to "Annex" in the entire document, you see references to both Annexes as lists of countries, but the developing countries are referred to as "other countries" or "developing countries".  So I'm puzzled why there are so many references to Annex II as if that is a list of developing countries; maybe there was an older Annex II and the number got reused for this newer list. SEWilco 20:51, 5 Sep 2003 (UTC)


 * From a link on the UNFCCC main page, [here's] an example of use of the "Annex I" phrase and not using the "Annex II" phrase. (SEWilco 05:49, 6 Sep 2003 (UTC))

I fixed the Annex II references. SEWilco 18:35, 7 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Full costs

 * The agreement also confirms the commitment by participating developed countries to pay the developing countries their full costs due to possible or actual climate change.

Firstly, this was originally placed in Kyoto Protocol, when it should have been placed here.

Secondly, they're the "agreed full costs" - note key word there: the developed countries don't have to pay diddly if they don't agree that any costs have been incurred.

Thirdly, they are the costs due to implementing article 12: not the costs due to global warming. Martin 18:26, 4 Sep 2003 (UTC)


 * (SEWilco 05:38, 6 Sep 2003 (UTC))
 * You're right about the commitment. Several paragraphs here belong under UNFCCC.  This agreement basically has the numbers which are to be used in the UNFCCC.
 * The "agreed" amount is not between two countries.
 * Read Article 4 (Commitments) Paragraph 3 again.
 * The "Article 11" (Financial Mechanism) "international entity" is what the developing country agrees with.
 * The Financial Mechanism was to be defined in the first meeting
 * and under ISSUES' is Financial mechanism'',
 * which says that the Council of the Global Environment Facility (GEF) is designated as an operating entity. So they deal with the money.
 * Apparently UNFCCC parties get one vote, and is open to a [tyranny of the majority] situation.
 * The "agreed full costs" is not only Article 12. Again, in Article 4, Paragraph 3, there is a reference to Paragraph 1, with quite a list, but note 1(e) covers adaptation, protection, and rehabilitation. (and it applies to "climate change", not mere "global warming", so it is not required that global warming be proven)


 * Oops. Full costs of man-made change.  In UNFCCC Article 1, "climate change" is defined as having the meaning of climate changed caused by humans.  I forgot that words in political documents don't mean what they say. SEWilco 18:32, 7 Sep 2003 (UTC)

COPs
The article is a tad skeletal. About as bony as a truckload of sardines. I added some COP summaries from a U.S. Congress paper. (SEWilco 08:58, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC))

Burning embers image used in article assailed as non free and slated for deletion
FYI, the "burning embers" diagram used in the article (taken from IPCC TAR) has been assailed as non-free and is slated for deletion on Dec 8. Discuss here, if you wish NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 08:43, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

potential resource for acronyms
Climate Talks: VIPs Need ESP for UN ABCs by Alex Morales Dec 2, 2011 Bloomberg.com 99.190.82.160 (talk) 08:02, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

NYT resource regarding COP18
Regarding United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, a potential resource ... Qatar, a Greenhouse Gas Titan, to Host U.N. Climate Meeting November 29, 2011, 11:08 AM New York Times by JOHN M. BRODER

99.190.86.5 (talk) 07:35, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Split
I think it is a good idea to have a separate article on the meetings/conference of the parties to UNFCC and to the Kyoto protocol, as this section is getting -even in its summary form- very long and is thus obscuring other items a bit. Futhermore, the section in practice hancles the combined conference (kyoto and unfcc) and it would be helpful to have both refer to the article regarding this set of conferences. What should remain here should be a 5 line summary regarding the conferences, with a "main-template-link" to the new article; as well as a link to the most recent or future conference... What do you all think? (will post this also at Kyoto Protocol, as it is relevant for that page too...) L.tak (talk) 11:38, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I think that's a good idea. Enescot (talk) 06:57, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I have proceeded now. I have renamed to a name which is closer to the common name, but feel free to further tweak! L.tak (talk) 23:09, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

"Commentaries and analysis" section
I'm very unhappy with this section of the article (United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change). It think that it's heavily biased towards the views of developed countries. Here is one viewpoint that I think is not represented (UNDESA, 2009; p.154 of PDF):


 * "Most developing countries are reluctant to accept binding emissions targets [...] Developing countries believe that developed countries have yet to demonstrate their leadership in tackling the climate challenge and that being held to specific emission levels regardless of the economic consequences would be tantamount to putting a cap on their growth and fostering the perpetuation of unacceptable levels of poverty and inequality."

"Criticisms of the UNFCCC Process"
In my opinion, this section of the article (United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change) is heavily biased towards rich country views. Here are some perspectives that could be used to make the section more balanced:


 * "there is little doubt that the funding gap is the single largest constraint on progress in climate negotiations"

– UNDESA (2009, p.205 of PDF, 2nd paragraph)


 * "the problem at Copenhagen was not the UN procedures. It was what was seen to be the blatant disregard for these procedures and the resulting (strongly felt) disrespect that were at the root of the problem


 * [...] one should also be careful not to dismiss these concerns and feelings out of hand as the antics of a few disgruntled small obstructionist countries [...] it was not (just) ALBA countries – which since have become a convenient scapegoat – who raised the objections, but Brazil, India, and most strongly China"

- Müller (2010, p.30 of PDF)


 * "If negotiations were in good faith and properly managed, two years would have been enough to determine the mechanisms for new, additional, adequate and predictable resources to meet the needs of the developing countries. Of course, no such discussions took place"


 * "[...] Rich-country leaders want to sneak by on minimalist commitments eked out of recalcitrant parliaments back home, not ones consistent with global needs or international obligations."

- Sachs (2009, p.1, 3rd paragraph)

Enescot (talk) 09:45, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Changes to lists of parties
Several changes I recently made were reverted:
 * 1) Moving the "Parties" section to after the "Treaty" section. I think it makes more sense to describe the contents of the treaty before describing which states are Annex I or II.  This is the common layout for other treaties (ie Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty, United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, Moon Treaty, etc.)  Starting with the minor, technical details before a broad overview of the treaty has been provided is confusing to the reader.
 * 2) Merging the 4 lists of parties into one. Why do we need several lists of countries when one will suffice?  No additional information is provided by making four lists, and it makes the article look extremely cluttered with flags.  The table in my version was WP:SORTable, so if a list of Annex II states is desired, one only has to click on the sort button.  TDL (talk) 23:28, 26 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the post. As a note to other editors, I was the one who reverted TDL's original edit.


 * On point 1, I've changed my mind. I agree that the list of Parties could be moved to later on in the article.


 * On point 2, the table sort function does not work unless Javascript is enabled. I would therefore prefer it if we keep the separate Annex I, II and EIT lists of parties. In my view, the flags do not clutter the article.


 * Enescot (talk) 11:22, 4 July 2013 (UTC)


 * OK, I've gone ahead and implemented point 1. As a potential compromise on point 2, I've attempted the following: retain the Annex I list, with footnotes indicating Annex II and EIT states, and split the main list to  List of parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change.  TDL (talk) 18:59, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Burning embers diagram
I think that the burning embers diagram which is used in this article (United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change) should either be updated or removed. The most recent revision of the diagram is available here (fig. 19-4). In my opinion, it would be better to delete the image because it is not free. Reasons for concern and effects of global warming both discuss climate change impacts. Another option would be to replace the image with a table that gives brief examples of climate change impacts at different temperatures (e.g., 1.5 degrees C, 2 degrees). Enescot (talk) 08:28, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I think the image is free (see here). Would it be ok if I just upload the newest version of the image to thumb|350px|upright|alt=Refer to caption and image description|Burning embers diagram. on wikimedia commons? Then we don't have to change all links... L.tak (talk) 19:26, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi. The IPCC license does not appear to allow derivative works of the image. Therefore it doesn't seem to be suitable for upload on Wikimedia Commons . It might be okay on Wikipedia as non-free content, but I do not think that the image "significantly increases readers' understanding of the topic". In my opinion, it would be sufficient to delete the image and replace it with text. Enescot (talk) 03:33, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
 * L.tak does seem to have linked the AR2 rules. The image is from AR3, and that I agree that license says no derivatives.  NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 09:33, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 18 one external links on United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. 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 http://web.archive.org/web/20130801031800/http://edition2a.intellimag.com/?id=ssee-july2011 to http://edition2a.intellimag.com/?id=ssee-july2011
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110124034306/https://unfccc.int/essential_background/convention/background/items/1362.php to http://unfccc.int/essential_background/convention/background/items/1362.php


 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110124034306/https://unfccc.int/essential_background/convention/background/items/1362.php to http://unfccc.int/essential_background/convention/background/items/1362.php
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110124034306/https://unfccc.int/essential_background/convention/background/items/1362.php to http://unfccc.int/essential_background/convention/background/items/1362.php
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://report.mitigation2014.org/drafts/final-draft-postplenary/ipcc_wg3_ar5_final-draft_postplenary_technical-summary.pdf
 * Corrected formatting/usage for https://ipcc-wg2.gov/AR5/images/uploads/WGIIAR5-Chap18_FINAL.pdf
 * Corrected formatting/usage for https://ipcc-wg2.gov/AR5/images/uploads/WGIIAR5-TS_FINAL.pdf
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg3/en/ch1s1-2.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://report.mitigation2014.org/drafts/final-draft-postplenary/ipcc_wg3_ar5_final-draft_postplenary_technical-summary.pdf
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://report.mitigation2014.org/drafts/final-draft-postplenary/ipcc_wg3_ar5_final-draft_postplenary_chapter6.pdf
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://report.mitigation2014.org/drafts/final-draft-postplenary/ipcc_wg3_ar5_final-draft_postplenary_chapter6.pdf
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://report.mitigation2014.org/drafts/final-draft-postplenary/ipcc_wg3_ar5_final-draft_postplenary_chapter6.pdf
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://report.mitigation2014.org/spm/ipcc_wg3_ar5_summary-for-policymakers_approved.pdf
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://report.mitigation2014.org/spm/ipcc_wg3_ar5_summary-for-policymakers_approved.pdf
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://report.mitigation2014.org/drafts/final-draft-postplenary/ipcc_wg3_ar5_final-draft_postplenary_chapter1.pdf
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20130801031800/http://edition2a.intellimag.com/?id=ssee-july2011 to http://edition2a.intellimag.com/?id=ssee-july2011
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140327000317/http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=12877 to http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=12877
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131102030225/http://www.pbl.nl/sites/default/files/cms/publicaties/500114012.pdf to http://www.pbl.nl/sites/default/files/cms/publicaties/500114012.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 23:55, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

The link to the framework agreement doesn't work. I have yet to find a link that does - I hope to shortly.Twr57 (talk) 13:55, 15 April 2017 (UTC) Deleted dud link. Substituted one that works - not in quite the same place, so not so elegant. Twr57 (talk) 15:24, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Reasons for not ratifying UNFCCC
Look at this paragraph here:


 * The failure to achieve meaningful progress and reach effective-CO2 reducing-policy treaties among the parties over the past eighteen years have driven some countries like the United States to never ratify the UNFCCC's largest body of work — the Kyoto Protocol, in large part because the treaty didn't cover developing countries who now include the largest CO2 emitters. However, this fails to consider the historical responsibility for climate change since industrialisation, which is a contentious issue in the talks, and the responsibility of emissions from consumption and importation of goods

The tone of this suggests that the countries which have ratified are in the right and the opposition from the United States and other countries are in the wrong. The opposition is being explained in terms of cause-and-effect (their opposition is caused by failing to consider some aspect) rather than being open to the possibility of these countries having legitimate reasons for not ratifying.

The support can just as easily be explained in terms of cause-and-effect on the same level. If the goal is to reduce CO2 emissions then historical responsibility is irrelevant since we can't go back in time in a magical time machine to reduce emissions in the past. But if, on the other hand, the point of the treaty is not to reduce climate change, but to facilitate global wealth redistribution, then and only then would historical responsibility become relevant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.137.100.23 (talk) 18:43, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. 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/20140929140547/http://report.mitigation2014.org/drafts/final-draft-postplenary/ipcc_wg3_ar5_final-draft_postplenary_chapter13.pdf to http://report.mitigation2014.org/drafts/final-draft-postplenary/ipcc_wg3_ar5_final-draft_postplenary_chapter13.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120113033748/http://www.smithschool.ox.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/Climate-Negotiations-report_Final.pdf to http://www.smithschool.ox.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/Climate-Negotiations-report_Final.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151210193240/http://www.cop21.gouv.fr/en/ to http://www.cop21.gouv.fr/en/
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg3/en/contents.html
 * Replaced archive link https://web.archive.org/web/20141020014746/http://ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg2/ with https://web.archive.org/web/20140416051047/http://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg2/ on http://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg2/
 * Replaced archive link https://web.archive.org/web/20140629152007/http://mitigation2014.org/report/final-draft with https://web.archive.org/web/20141029121005/http://mitigation2014.org/report/final-draft on http://mitigation2014.org/report/final-draft/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120113033748/http://www.smithschool.ox.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/Climate-Negotiations-report_Final.pdf to http://www.smithschool.ox.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/Climate-Negotiations-report_Final.pdf
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.pbl.nl/sites/default/files/cms/publicaties/500114012.pdf

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) 14:36, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Best way of citing UNFCCC documents?
Does anyone have ideas on the best way of citing UNFCCC documents? &diams; J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:43, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
 * The best way is any ol' way anyone is willing to take time to do, provided other eds can perform WP:Verification. Anything that reduces the willingness of editors to do this is a bad way.  But if one of those eager eds wanted to really go the extra mile, their might be a "best" way to polish the apple, I suppose.  I don't know what it is, and don't particularly care, as long as eds are doing good work in whatever way works for them. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 02:03, 24 September 2019 (UTC)


 * So the short answer is you don't know, and don't care. So don't bitch if you don't like whatever I come up with. &diams; J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:29, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
 * No, that's not what I said, but that's OK. I don't think you can really hear where I am coming from.  Carry on. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 00:37, 25 September 2019 (UTC)  For others, this conversation has been playing out over months at multiple venues.NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 00:59, 25 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Your own words are: "I don't know what it is, and don't particularly care". As to "whatever way works", that is what I am asking: what works best, "apples", "apricots", or "bananas"? But I forgot! you don't care. So don't complain later if I do things "my way". &diams; J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:03, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

I am sure there is no "best" way, but several are acceptable. I see a pretty consistent style on this page (with variations mainly based on absence/presence of certain information such as editors etc). Is there anything you propose to change? L.tak (talk) 20:18, 25 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Not so much to change anything here as to compare the differences and see what might be learned for future use. E.g., I suspect the "absence/presence of certain information" is more a matter of what an editor thought should be included rather than what was available (or not), or how that information should be characterized. Like, should authorship be attributed to "UNFCCC", or "Conference of the Parties"? And so forth. What I have come up with so far is something like:
 * Some other variations are possible – e.g., bold "Cancun", as that is a key word here – and there is a question about the proper date. For a short-cite this uses . &diams; J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 00:07, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Some other variations are possible – e.g., bold "Cancun", as that is a key word here – and there is a question about the proper date. For a short-cite this uses . &diams; J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 00:07, 26 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Alternately:
 * Which could be cited with something like this: Decison 1/CP.16 in. (This version reflects the realization that some of these reports contain multiple Decisions, which are thus like chapters in a book.) See also at Global warming.
 * Which could be cited with something like this: Decison 1/CP.16 in. (This version reflects the realization that some of these reports contain multiple Decisions, which are thus like chapters in a book.) See also at Global warming.


 * The reason for being particular about this kind of detail is amply illustrated in this article, where full citations of UNFCCC documents are found in "Sources" under two different headings ("UNFCCC", and the rather cryptic "COP"), and cited through the text with either a full citation in a note, or no full citation at all. These kinds of problems not only make verification harder, they make it harder to see just what is being cited, or if there is any duplication. &diams; J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:55, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Agree to the extent that citation must make verification possible, as I said in my first comment in this thread. It is NOT important that it be pretty or uniform, only that it works.  The rest is gravy NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 00:58, 27 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Perhaps if you spent more time in the trenches actually doing verification you would better appreciate that merely "possible" is quite inadequate, and that incomplete and incorrect citation impedes and discourages verification. As you have declared that you "don't particularly care", it is a bit amazing that you object to my trying to find a better way. Your comments here are unuseful. &diams; J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:54, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Like I said, you can't hear me. Carry on NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 11:05, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

Moving back to content: a few comments (if we really want to make this consistent, which I like, but don't think is absolute necessity): Hope that helps! L.tak (talk) 17:57, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
 * The publisher or author can never be UNFCCC or its full name, as conventions just exist, they don't publish or author anything. However a "Conference of the Parties" is a body which does make decisions. And the UN and many others publish. Using COP would be helpful, if the abbreviation is properly explained.
 * for titles, there is no need to be extremely lengthy: "Report of the Conference of the Parties on its sixteenth session, held in Cancun from 29 November to 10 December 2010" has many redundant elements, which are also explained in the text (we have COP's pages for almost all COPs, so we can also cite)
 * for ID I would place the word "document" as the status of this identifier becomes unclear
 * When decisions of the COP are concerned I would try to find direct links, and not chapters in volumes with lots of information...