Talk:Views on the Kyoto Protocol

Supporters
The Tom Wigley links appear to be..not dead..but not useful. Here is a summary of his studies. It's a lot more nuanced than the WP. The effect of the Kyoto Protocol on global warming On the Record Tom M.L. Wigley Spring 2006 'Now retired, Tom Wigley was an NCAR Senior Scientist when this statement was published in 2006. Kyoto Protocol implications for carbon dioxide, temperature, and sea level' Mrfebruary (talk) 00:31, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Dubious sources
The parroting of quotes concerning how horrible George Bush is from a source called US Liberals quite simply has no place in an encyclopedia that is supposed to be unbiased. The section concerning the actions of Clinton and Bush administrations is taken, word for word, from a piece written by an individual, Deborah White, who served as a delegate for the California Democratic Party, amongst other things. Her ridiculous take on the actions of George Bush vs. those of Bill Clinton is uncritically copied and used as the ONLY source for an entire section of the entry. That her view is hopelessly biased goes without saying. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.141.154.75 (talk) 22:24, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Describing some problems of the Kyoto protocol
This section could be implemented (perhaps a bit revised); the problems noted can not be resolved neither in the Kyoto protocol nor a successor:

One of the biggest problem seems to revolve around the fact that the countries decide on an average "allowed emission amount" per capita (which many believe should actually actually not exist at all). Many people, including prominent ones such as Ken Caldeira believe that an acceptable GHG emission per capita would be 0 tonnes (or -alternatively, very close to that, say 0,001 tonnes or so 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, it can be expected that most people won't accept this and a better approach might be to just get rid entirely of this emission reduction-positive approach with the successor and replace it with an emitted GHG-negative approach. 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 much similar as what it is now, except for the method we employ.

See Talk:Climate_change_mitigation Atleast the top section should be mentioned here, the bottom section is allready briefly described at Climate change mitigation

81.242.237.135 (talk) 08:00, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 one external links on Views on 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/20110124034306/https://unfccc.int/essential_background/convention/background/items/1362.php to http://unfccc.int/essential_background/convention/background/items/1362.php
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20090126201600/http://www.columbia.edu:80/~jeh1/mailings/20081229_DearMichelleAndBarack.pdf to http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/20081229_DearMichelleAndBarack.pdf
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20090106094410/http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/20081229_Obama_revised.pdf to http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/20081229_Obama_revised.pdf
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20100528030007/http://news.sciencemag.org:80/scienceinsider/2010/05/do-you-heart-the-hartwell-paper.html to http://news.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/2010/05/do-you-heart-the-hartwell-paper.html
 * Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/5nCeyEYJr to http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/sternreview_index.htm

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) 11:24, 21 July 2016 (UTC)