Talk:Kyoto Protocol/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions about Kyoto Protocol. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Development from stub article

Criticize Bush without Protocol definition

Why do you immediately criticize Bush (that's the clear subtext!) without even saying what the protocol is? Sheesh! Also, it was never ratified by the U.S. Congress, so the fact is that the U.S. simply does not endorse it (presidents cannot sign treaties without the consent of Congress, I think). --Larry Sanger

Not the whole Congress ratifies treaties (I wish it were). Only the Senate need ratify a treaty, but it needs to be a supermajority of two-thirds. A President can sign his toilet paper if he wants to, but it won't get ratified and nor will Kyoto. mcornelius 19:36, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Will add more details

I'll definitely add more information about the details about the protocol, but I'm in favor of adding stubs for the time being instead of perhaps adding a perfect article in half a year.

If I would criticize Bush I'd use much more scathing prose. As far as I can tell, this is pretty much objective. The US is the major producer of greenhouse gases, and the current administration doesn't seem to care. Remember, this is a view from outside the US.

The wording about the signing should probably be changed, though, to make it clear that Clinton only performed the first phase. My understanding is that the normal way for this kind of thing is for the president to sign and afterward get Congress to ratify it. It's also possible for a president to get "advance ratification" of some sort from Congress, but this wasn't done in the Kyoto case. I'm sure some American can specify this in more detail (but this perhaps isn't the right place).

Less bias, please

The point is, you seem to have added the article not in order to say what the Kyoto Protocol was about, but in order to say who is stopping it from getting through, which you think it obviously should.

Please do not write on any more partisan topics, if you think this is unbiased. You really don't understand what the neutral point of view is, if you think it is unbiased. It might be "objective" if your opinions are correct, but unbiased it most certainly is not.

As to the name, see: http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/1997/global.warming/stories/treaty/

--LMS

More will be added

As I said, more information will be added (and indeed, has been added). The reason for the protocol has been at the top of the article all along.

I can agree that much of the current text would fit under a "History" heading, but I can't say that what is here isn't factual. What is a problem as of now is that the text about Bush takes up too much space, relatively, making him look more important in this than is really the case. Feel free to change this, of course, if you don't feel like waiting for me doing it.

--Pinkunicorn

Did signing reallly end in 1999?

The article says: "It was negotiated in Kyoto, Japan in December 1997, opened for signature on March 16, 1998, and closed on March 15, 1999." but the List of Kyoto Protocol signatories says: "The following non-annex-I countries have signed ... 2001: Argentina..." so, um, signing closed in '99, but still being signed in 2001?? Contradiction?

What are the consequences of not adhearing to the limits?

so if a country signs and ratifies the protocol but then exceeds the limits it has agreed to what would happen?

What are the Treaty's enforcement mechanisms? If a nation wishes to comply, it will cost millions or even billions of dollars. Unless the costs of not complying are greater, a nation has no real incentive to comply. What are these costs of non-compliance? How are they imposed? The treaty purports to be "legally binding" - how are these legal binds enforced? These are essential questions. They are not answered in the article, or in any media reports I have seen. I begin to suspect they have no answers. TimShell 03:46, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I suspect you're right. As a practical matter, enforcing "international law" is problematic. Who would enforce Kyoto? The UN? What could they do? Levy fines? Against whom? Certainly not the polluters themselves since they would be companies operating on sovereign soil. The best I think they could do is fine the goverment of the country and then leave it to them to pass on the fine on to the individual offenders. To me, the more telling question to ask is what happens if Kyoto is scrupulously adhered to and everything goes perfectly? If it does, the effect on global temperatures is still apparently negligible.--JonGwynne 15:36, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Rename to Kyoto protocol

Can I suggest this page be named back to Kyoto protocol (or better yet to Kyoto Protocol) -- calling it 'Climate Change-Kyoto Protocol' isn't its common name, or even its official name -- its an abbreviation used by the CIA World Factbook. -- Simon J Kissane

Call it what you like, Simon, as long as Kyoto Protocol redirects to it. I prefer common names, at least for links, but one thing I love about encyclopedias is that they always have the offical name. For example, Clive Staples Lewis for C.S. Lewis. -- User:Ed Poor

Errrr, I think the Wikipedia policy is to use the most common name (e.g. "George W. Bush" instead of "George Whatever BUsh, or whatever his full name is.") Which i think is best for agreeing upon, plus less cryptic. --69.212.99.174 14:40, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Who has ratified?

Does anyone know the names of the 2 countries that have ratified the Kyoto Protocol?

Also, why have so many countries signed but not ratified the Kyoto Protocol? Are they waiting for a critical number of signees, or what?

--Ed Poor

Ed: Signing just happened before ratification. As of the moment that I'm writing this and according to the List of Kyoto Protocol signatories page, 127 countries have already signed and ratified, including all EU countries, China, Russia, Japan, Canada, and Brazil.

(To keep things simple, I'm removing outdated discusssions regarding signing and ratification here, to reduce the 35 KB page size.)

--69.212.98.139 22:54, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Does treaty only apply to those who ratify?

Hey, one thing that might sound like a stupid question to some, but please don't dismiss it as rhetoric, because I really don't know the answer:

Supposing enough countries ratify the protocol, i.e., 55 countries responsible for 55% of the covered emissions. Does the treaty apply only to those countries that have ratified it? Or does it apply also to countries that abstain?

I ask this because the international criminal court that was instituted this year claims jurisdiction over the US even though the US did not ratify the treaty that created the court.

What will happen if (A) the US were to stay out of Kyoto, while (B) Kyoto's 55% provision kicked in and it became "binding"? That is, on whom would it be binding? What are the enforcement mechanisms?

I'm not debating: I really want to know. Tell me, so I can add it to the article (or better yet, just add it). Ed Poor, Friday, June 14, 2002

Phrasing for ratification by bodies within nations

I know that various sub-national bodies have approved of the Kyoto protocol in some way, such as Montreal. Can someone think of a good way to word this? - montréalais

China ratification

The Sierra Club said (9/4/02 [1]),

"China and Russia, the world's second and third largest polluters, respectively, have announced that they will ratify the Kyoto Protocol, the 1997 treaty aimed at reducing the industrialized world's global warming emissions to five percent below 1990 levels."

and

"China also announced that it has ratified Kyoto."

So which is it: China has ratified or will ratify it?

China's Ambassador to the United Nations Wang Yingfan deposited the instrument of approval of the Kyoto Protocol with the UN secretary-general on August 30. [2]

Is that the same as ratification? Should we add China to the list of countries (of which 55 are needed for Kyoto to take effect)? --Ed Poor

What is protocol and which countries are affected?

This is quite a long article and yet I still don't know what the protocol is or on which countries it has effect. I see that it won't affect India, China and Indonesia - are any other contries exempt? And what would they be exempt from? Are their any actual provisions? I'm confused. --rmhermen

What about countries which do not ratify?

Anonymous removed this qualifier:

or to countries that do not ratify it.

Does this mean the Kyoto Protocol will become some sort of international law, which applies to nations like America which refuse to ratify it? --Ed Poor

or to countries that do not ratify it. was removed because it is a vacuous statement. No treaty applies to non-signatories, any more than the laws of France apply to Spain.

Countries that have ratified it haev to obey by it. Countires that have not signed are urged tro sign it in the earth summit 2002 (the only good thing that came out of the whole thing) - fonzy

I thought Australia hadn;t singed it? The dirty 3 as greenpeace called it: USA, AUSTRALIA, CANADA (which has now signed it and ratityfying it i know) - FONZY

Australia has signed but not ratified - despite clear and consistent opinion polling showing that between 68% and 79% of Australians believe we should. There are many explanations and excuses offered, but the bottom line (in my view, at least) is that the current Howard government never does anything that GW Bush does not approve of. Tannin 17:15 Feb 3, 2003 (UTC)

Norway

Norway is one of the first industrialised countries to ratify the Kyoto Protocol on reductions in emissions of greenhouse gases. Ratification took place on 30 May 2002. [3] --Ed Poor

ratification_updates.rtf

[4]

SEWilco 08:01, 8 Nov 2003 (UTC): The UNFCCC site has the current ratification status (see the "full text" link at bottom of Kyoto Protocol)

How many ratifiers needed?

This goal may be achieved if Russia ratifies it. I don't Russia alone will suffice; the treaty requries 55 ratifiers, and Russia would only increase the number from 18 to 19. --Ed Poor

[5] says that 51 countries have ratified, with 37.1% of emissions. --Ed Poor

Convention applies to participants

"For those States that ratify, accept or approve the Convention or accede thereto after the date of entry into force, the Convention shall enter into force on the ninetieth day after the date of the deposit by such State of its instrument of ratification, acceptance, approval or accession." (UNFCCC [6])

Does this mean Kyoto already has a high enough number of countries? Because it includes "accession" as well as ratification?

--Ed Poor

No: it requires an "instrument of accession", which AFAIK is something that some countries have instead of "instruments of ratification". I have no idea with UK's royal assent counts as ratification, accession, or what... Martin

55% of pollution must ratify

Ed: I think you've got a slight misunderstanding: the Protocol requires that countries with 55 percent of the world's pollution have to ratify. Not that 55 countries have to ratify. Of course, with the USA having 38% of the pollution and not wishing to ratify, this is a challenge... ;-) Martin

Martin, about the 'slight misunderstanding' you mentioned above:

"For the Protocol to come into force, the Protocol needs to be ratified by 55 countries, including the nations responsible for at least 55% of the developed world's emissions." -- Kyoto NOW!, a grassroouts university group which favors the Kyoto Protocol
"To come into force, the 1997 treaty requires 55 countries to ratify it. The 55 countries must also be responsible for at least 55 percent of greenhouse gas emissions." USA Today

--Uncle Ed

Yes... it would appear that I'm an idiot. In my defence, I did use the magic get-out-of-incompetency free phrase of "I think" ... ;-) I guess with the 55 countries thing achieved so quickly, the 55 percent has dominated coverage. Martin

Not only that, but you seem to have landed on "Free Parking", so you get to roll again! --Uncle Ed

USA constitutional issue?

Serious Separation of Powers constitutional issues would arise if regulations were created and then enforced by the Executive Branch for a treaty which has no legal force in the United States. In short, the President would be creating his own laws without formal passage/ratification by Congress.

I don't have a clue what this means! It sounds like an irrelevance, since Dubya is unlikely to create regulation for a Protocol which he dislikes.... Martin

I've just removed that section, pending someone explaing what the heck the point is. Martin

albeit at a 15 to 1 price ratio (embedded in the logic of the Protocol is the assumption that developed nations can pay 15x more to save a citizen's life than a developing one).

Can someone back that up? is the 15 an estimate of some kind? Martin

China reduction claim

I've changed the claim for China from "China has reduced" to "China has claimed to have reduced" because if there's one thing I've learned from living in China it's that you can't trust any claims the Chinese government makes until you check them out in person. Keep in mind how little SARS there was in China until a military doctor blew the whistle.... --MTR (严加华) 19:24, 6 Aug 2003 (UTC)

The 17% figure is from a US NGO, Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), not the Chinese government. Martin 18:10, 4 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Largely irrelevant. The Chinese government will be the final source because they're a paranoid/schizophrenic government that doesn't allow "meddling" in their "internal affairs". Extracting any kind of country-wide facts from China is like extracting teeth from tigers. Using my example of SARS, it was a UN organisation that was propagating the unbelievably low SARS figures until one military doctor blew the whistle (and ended both his career and, likely, his life in the process).

What makes me suspicious of these claims? Observation. In the past two years here in China I have not seen a reduction in pollution. I have seen an increase. I have not seen a reduction in the habits and the behaviours that lead to pollution. I have seen an increase. There are more cars on the road now, not less. There are more people with air conditioners, not less. Factories belch out more smoke, not less. They run for longer (courtesy of a more stable electrical supply), not shorter. Everything around me--across two sizable provinces, I might add--shows me that pollution is on the rise. To hear of a 17%(!) drop is just plainly ludicrous. --MTR (严加华) 16:44, 26 Sep 2003 (UTC)

I strongly agree with you. What I've heard/read is that the Chinese government doesn't care about the pollution (to help the economy) except in Beijing where they want to clean the city up in time for the olympics in 2008. Mastgrr 13:04, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Well, that's an interesting point of view, which should be in the article, attributed to a named and reputable advocate who has challenged the NRDC stats. In the meantime, I've appropriately attributed the NRDC source. Worth reading. Martin 18:48, 26 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Full costs

moved to Talk:United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change

Intro

I'm guessing Ed, that you disliked "greenhouse gas emissions, which are generally believed to aggravate global warming". I'm going to claim that that's an undisputed fact: Kyoto opponents accept that greenhouse gases aggravate global warming. Certainly, there is some dispute over the size of the effect, and there is some dispute over the correct reaction to the effect. In any case, can we stick to facts first? Martin 19:14, 4 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Welcome to the "rocks, believed by some to be held down by gravity although some claim it's by leprechauns" school of NPOV.

Greenhouse gases cause global warming. Aggravate suggests there is something wrong with it. Everyone agrees that Earth's temp would be below the freezing point of water. There is disagreement about everything else. (Ed is on vacation from Global Warming, so I'm just guessing as to his reasons.) SEWilco 10:51, 7 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Ahh - a subtle, but important, point. Well spotted. :) Martin

Currently using "linked to", which is even less contentious (if such a thing were possible) than "cause". This is good. :) Martin 19:29, 8 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Argh... I HATE "linked to". It's so... empty of meaning. If we mean "cause", let's say "cause", or let's say whatever it is we mean. If we want to do the leprachaun-gravity thing, let's do that. Let's not use "linked to" and just be limp noodles about it. Graft 00:28, 9 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Anon is annoying me. No scientists dispute a link between greenhouse gases and global warming. Equally, no scientists dispute a link between solar activity and global warming. The debate is over the size of the effect, over predictions, over the dominant cause, and the correct response. The basic link is not disputed. Period. Martin 19:13, 11 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Source of Wealth

In turn, the money to pay for these credits is assumed to come from corporate taxes, providing an incentive to companies to upgrade to cleaner equipment.

Phrase seems too oriented to a privare corporate economy. Not all countries have corporate taxes, nor are corporations the same. Particularly when major industries or services are owned by the state. The source of wealth also varies. Some wealth is due to natural reasources, such as coal. Some wealth is created by construction with labor. SEWilco 03:24, 8 Sep 2003 (UTC)

I'd like to know what the person who wrote that sentence meant by it: who is making the assumption here? Kyoto advocates? The diplomats who negotiated it? The environmental scientists who advised them? It's a little vague. Martin

Leakage rate?

Re: the recent addition, can we clarify the offset? The leakage rate he attributes (Smith 1994) is only 30%. Graft 15:56, 12 Sep 2003 (UTC)

US, polluter

I don't know why we were calling the US "the world's largest polluter" in the section on ratification.

Did it mean pollution in general, like putting industrial waste in streams so we can't fish or swim in them? Or smokestacks belching noxious gases, so we get smog and people die in cities?
Or did it reflect the contention that CO2 is a "pollutant" (as America's own EPA had said until a few weeks ago)?

I'd rather see "world's largest emitter of CO2" (an undisputed fact), but I'd even settle for "world's largest emitter of greenhouse gases". --Uncle Ed 20:35, 26 Sep 2003 (UTC)

NPOV scientific grounds

Ed, you've been here for years and have a longer edit history than 99.9% of the people on Wikipedia. So you can't possibly be ignorant of what Neutral Point of View means - WHY would you insert this text?

A few individual practicing or retired scientists oppose the protocol on scientific grounds, but their views are largely dismissed by the Western media in general and Democrats and Greens in particular (see global warming controversy).

It contains almost no information - doesn't mention who the individuals are, and so I'd be hard-pressed to confirm or deny whether the second half is true, because I have no way of looking up said dismissals. In fact, about the only thing it DOES serve to do is to create a negative association, "Look at those Democrats and Greens who refuse to engage in reasonable debate with scientists."

If you're going to include this text, please refactor it to contain some useful information and avoid the smearing? Graft 15:27, 29 Oct 2003 (UTC)

But that's exactly the point: the Democrats and Greens DO refuse to engage in reasonable debate with scientists. Look, I took a few science courses in high school and college. I can do the math, too. There's not been a shred of an honesty involved in the whole public debate over global warming except for a handful of scientists who have dared to speak up (at great risk to their funding) and counter the environmentalist backlash. Do I need to document this better? Or are you aware of even one tiny scrap of scientific dialogue between warmers and skeptics? Get real, man! --Uncle Ed

Russian Economy

Because of the collapse in the Russian economy, Russia should have no problem meeting its commitments under Kyoto,

I removed the above because I don't understand how a collapsed economy would help meet Kyoto commitments. The Russian Federation is an Annex I country, so it would have spend to control emissions (except it is a "transition" country). Its economy should not benefit, including because is not an Annex II country, so it does not have to pay other countries, and as an Annex I country it won't get much money (unless a transition country gets additional payments). SEWilco 07:59, 8 Nov 2003 (UTC)

I reinstated with an explanation. A quick web search should find you plenty of details on this. Martin 19:27, 8 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Bush

In addition, President Bush explained that there are serious problems with the science of Kyoto that lead him to question its effectiveness.

Reference, please, to a statement where Bush takes that position.

Reference to SCIENTISTS saying there's serious problems; or reference to BUSH saying there's serious problems? If it's just the latter, I thought it was common knowledge that Bush disagreed with "the report issued by the bureaucracy", etc.

The latter. I though that Bush accepted the reality of global warming, et al, but questioned whether Kyoto was the fairest/most effective/best response. By "the science of Kyoto", do you mean the IPCC? Or is this saying that Bush stated that there are scientific problems with Kyoto (a subtly different thing to say). Martin 21:29, 10 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Here is a transcript of bush speaking on the subject. Yes global warming, no kyoto, as far as science goes. Graft 14:20, 11 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Actually, he seems non-committal on global warming. He only said that surface temps are up -- NOT that human beings are causing most of the increase; he attributed the latter view to the NAS without endorsing it. Subtle, isn't he? I guess his non-endorsement of the NAS report explains why he established a new group to study the whole thing all over again.

Note that "surface temperature rise" is not the same as "global warming". If study the matter, you will no doubt come across the idea that the upper atmosphere is supposed to rise faster than the surface -- a rise which no one has detected yet. Ask Dr. C. if ya doubt me, bro'. --Uncle Ed 14:30, 11 Nov 2003 (UTC)

(William M. Connolley 20:51, 11 Nov 2003 (UTC)) Even S+C currently have a northern hemisphere (NH) decadal trend of +0.146 ish (I forget what the sfc trend is...); Vinnikov and Grody recently published a re-analysis of the MSU data showing exactly what you suggest: a warming greater than the sfc trend [7]. But all this belongs, and is, on the satellite temperature record page.

Do us all a favor, doc, and imagine (just for a moment) that some of us don't remember what S+C stand for... --Uncle Ed

Failing to guess S+C is feeble, especially when you've just been talking about their data.

satellites and ...? Martin

Oh dear. Well, in that case: Spencer and Christy.

Daly letter

(William M. Connolley 16:44, 10 Nov 2003 (UTC)) The page references various experts quoted in a letter on dalys website: http://www.john-daly.com/guests/openletter.htm. One of them, K Green, is described as: "Dr. Kenneth Green, Chief Scientist, Fraser Institute, Vancouver, BC - expert reviewer for the IPCC 2001 Working Group I science report.". I can't find any evidence for this. Does anyone know what chapter he is supposed to be?

Whoops, I found him, under "NGO's". [WMC].

(William M. Connolley 19:30, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)) For interest... this page is Tim lamberts choice when looking up Kyoto http://cgi.cse.unsw.edu.au/~lambert/cgi-bin/blog/2004/10#razor

Russia and Science

(William M. Connolley 19:51, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)) SEW just added a bit of skeptic-science type stuff to the russian ratification decision. This can't go unbalanced, but rather than fight the greenhouse science wars on this page I would rather remove the text entirely (if it stays, the obvious counters are: the institutes clearly aren't that influential; and the "science" they are basing their views on has not been revealed).

SEWilco 20:11, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC) Then you'll have to add a lot more about the political pressures which caused the decision, to show that the decision was purely political rather than simply stating that it was.

(William M. Connolley 20:36, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)) I don't understand you. You added the assertion that the decision was PP - why should I be obliged to support it?

Russian ratification is a tradeoff

I wrote in a sentence about Kyoto Ratification being the price Russia paid to the EU for support in its bid to enter into the WTO. Before someone bashes this as idle speculation: I have it on very good authority, from a negotiator from one of the EU's member states. Ovvldc 09:28, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)

(William M. Connolley 10:47, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)) Thats nice, but you know its not good enough.

I'm talking about one of the negotiators involved in the process. ovvldc 4 July 2005 05:48 (UTC)

Russia (rewrite)

(William M. Connolley 18:13, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)) I think that the Russia section has accreted material as time has gone by and their position has shifted. Now that they have ratified (in all but name) I suggest greatly shortening the section (and removing all the scientific argument, which belongs either in GW or CL Ch), to:

On 22 October 2004 the Kyoto treaty was ratified by Russia's lower house of parliament, the Duma. It is anticipated that ratification by the upper house of parliament, and its signing into law by President Putin, should not encounter any obstacles. President Putin had earlier decided in favour of the protocol in September 2004, along with the Russian cabinet [8]. The issue of Russian ratification was particularly closely watched in the international community, as Russia's ratification would bring the accord into force.

The Kyoto Protocol limits emissions to a percentage increase or decrease from their 1990 levels. Since 1990 the economies of most countries in the former Soviet Union have collapsed, as have their greenhouse gas emissions. Because of this, Russia should have no problem meeting its commitments under Kyoto, as its current emission levels are substantially below its targets. Indeed, it may be able to benefit from selling emissions credits to other countries in the Kyoto Protocol, which are currently using more than their target levels of emissions.

I'm not sure whether the Ukranian stuff belongs along with Russia: The Ukrainian economy, like the Russian economy, is such that meeting Kyoto commitments should initially be easy, and Ukraine is expected to ratify the protocol.. Ukraine appears to have ratified already: [9].

(William M. Connolley 17:15, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)) I've now done this.

Fascism?

The first line claims that the Protocol is a form of fascism, which is not a term to be bandied around lightly, and it does not support the statement that the protocol *is* fascism. So, someone want to defend it? EDIT: It was fixed. Nevermind

(William M. Connolley 20:41, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)) It was just vandalism. Check the edit history (although maybe not now, the server is throwing up some slightly odd errors).

Images

Anyone have a global climate map, or an average temperature map to replace the generic globe? (or a project oceanfront map, should West Antartica collapse?) 132.205.15.42 18:06, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)

a little note about coming-into-force

(William M. Connolley 12:55, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)) I think the article is essentially correct in what it says, but I believe that russia has to actually depose the relevant documents with the approriate agency (un?) before the 90 day clock starts.

You're right, I'll make the appropriate change. -- ChrisO 13:06, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Greenhouse gases governed by Kyoto

I think we should make it clear that Kyoto Protocol is aimed at 6 greenhouse gases (ghg). Saying Kyoto wants to reduce CO2 and other ghg gives the impression that Kyoto governs all ghgs, including water vapors. __earth 07:31, Nov 6, 2004 (UTC)

Forget my remark. __earth 07:36, Nov 6, 2004 (UTC)

List of countries involved

Something like Kyoto Protocol signatories?

I've taken countries from the main page and put in list-form, but if someone who edits this page wants to decide if it's accurate, and whether to link to it?

55 countries ratified...when was this condition met?

Of the two conditions, the "55 parties" clause was reached some time ago.

Can anyone be more specific than "some time ago"?

Brianjd 06:10, 2004 Nov 7 (UTC)

May 23 2002, when Iceland ratified. Markalexander100 06:21, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Brazil - why is it not listed?

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

[...] 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. [...]

Who is vandal 140.247.123.226?

(William M. Connolley 22:28, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)) On 12 Nov 2004, 140.247.123.226 added:

About 50 percent of the people in the countries that have ratified the document will have to stop breathing because breath produces carbon dioxide which is the most deadly poison.

Oddly enough, said anon also added [10] to Lubos Motl. What a strange coincidence, no? Even weirder, the address resolves to Cambridge, MA.

Yeah, somebody from harvard. I got this when I traced the ip --> feynman.harvard.edu. Maybe we should send our regards to the harvard network admin. It would be fun to see such an honorable fellow being defensive. __earth 07:36, Nov 15, 2004 (UTC)

Hi! I would keep the comment about breathing because it expresses the nature of the protocol quite nicely. The Harvard admins won't really have time to study things like that. If someone edits Wikipedia from Harvard computers, she must first log the previous user out, and this obviously keeps the traces of the previous user. Thanks for your understanding.--Lumidek 12:51, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

(William M. Connolley 15:15, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)) In an edit comment, Lumidek wrote:

Off-topic discussion erased again. Yes, you are embarassing me because you behave as an informer of the communist secret agency. If you wish, I can write the comment on the web page myself and sign it.

Firstly, no, I don't want you to re-enter the text: it was silly. But could you clarify whether you deny or admit to have added the text as anon 140.247.123.226? As to secret agencies, it seems to me that I have been quite open whereas someone has been adding silly comments secretly/anonymously.

Obviously, it was written at Harvard, and it was written by someone who knows me well, to say the least, according to the edits of Lubos Motl. From this viewpoint, regardless whether it was someone else or myself, you may understand that it is natural to protect the person who made the edit. ;-) In fact, whatever I said would be irrelevant. If I said that it was me, you could think that I am just trying to protect one of my fans, and if I said it was not me, you would say that I am hiding myself. ;-) Wikipedia is designed to allow these anonymous contributions. If they're not appreciated, they're reverted, but it's ridiculous to be investigating one particular edit. Do you know how much time have we already wasted with it? And once again, the suffocation was a pretty good comment. --Lumidek 15:22, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

(William M. Connolley 15:27, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)) I note your refusal to answer the question. As to the suffocation being a sensible comment, I doubt that anyone would agree with that. I think it was just silly vandalism.

I like a good joke as much as the next man, but determined attempts to sidetrack the discussion of a serious article are to be avoided. Let's get back to work. --user:Ed Poor (deep or sour) 20:47, Nov 15, 2004 (UTC)

(William M. Connolley 21:31, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)) Thats an ambiguous comment, Ed. Are you prepared to unambiguously condemn the vandalism by 140.247.123.226?

I'm only talking about the joke: "About 50 percent of the people in the countries that have ratified the document will have to stop breathing." I'm saying that it's obviously a joke, that I thought it was funny, and that I don't think it should remain in the article. As for condemnation, I refer you to the ancient social scientist and Palestinian reformer Jesus of Nazareth who said, "Let him who is without sin cast the first stone." I'm not going to get into a rock-throwing contest with you. If you'd care to cross icicles with me, that's another matter. No! Just kidding! Geez, you gotta get out more, William . . . --user:Ed Poor (deep or sour) 15:49, Nov 16, 2004 (UTC)

In defense of William: a joke is a joke on the talk pages, but it really stops being a joke when it's placed in an article. Then it becoems vandalism. The point of Wikipedia is to avoid edit wars as much as possible, but the edit in question is demonstrates a degree of breathtaking over-simplification and ignorance that seems designed to provoke just such an edit war (plus, it's a really sad joke). It's not really what I would regard as civility.

Also, if the allegations are correct and the author of the edit is logging in anonymously for the purposes of vandalism then it also breaks the trust which is important for negotiating a cooperative, neutral consensus on this article. Cetainly, whomever the user may be is going to find it harder to prevent his edits from being reverted in future. --Axon 16:00, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Take it easy, Axon. If we start cracking down on vandalism and bias, Lumidek wouldn't be the first one "hauled into court". There's a more egregious violator prowling around, but I'm going easy on him because I'm a nice guy and I have hopes to win him to the "Wikipedia Way". Can we talk about the article now? --user:Ed Poor (talk) 16:56, Nov 16, 2004 (UTC)

I do take it pretty easy, ta. And who is this mysterious "egregious violator" you are referring to... Wikipedia seems full of mystery and strange goings-on today. --Axon 17:05, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

(chuckle) That is not an important question. Let's focus on improving the global warming series of articles. --user:Ed Poor (talk) 17:29, Nov 16, 2004 (UTC)

(William M. Connolley 17:43, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)) I note your refusal to condemn vandalism, and your attempt to excuse it. The reason of course is obvious: the vandalism fits your POV so you won't oppose it. Well, you go down a lot in my estimation. BTW, are you accepting the identification of Lumidek with 140...? L refuses to say one way or another: are you taking that as evidence of his guilt? Oh, and Axon: as far as Ed is concerned, I am the egregious violator. You can seee how far he has gone.

Golly, what's eatin' ya, champ? One joke isn't vandalism, and L all but admitted it was him. Whaddya tryin' to do, build a case to get him banned from Wikipedia? And please allow me some "nuanced qualifiers" like my buddy John Kerry uses. The refusal to condemn a PERSON for one stupid joke is not the same as "failure to condemn vandalism". Read yer Bible, chief: the moral of the "him who is without sin" story is Go and sin no more. Jesus wasn't "failing to condemn rule-breaking" but showing a one-time-only act of mercy to a PERSON who was being singled out. What part of this don't you get? --user:Ed Poor (talk) 20:21, Nov 16, 2004 (UTC)

(William M. Connolley 21:28, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)) I asked you to condemn vandalism, not the vandal. You still refuse to, and instead excuse it. Using your biblical example (though I'd rather not) J condemned sinning (which you refuse to) even though he loved the sinner.

For the record: vandalism has no place at Wikipedia. Contributors should not "vandalize" articles; those who do are subject to bans of increasing length. Lumidek and William, please do not vandalize Wikipedia. --user:Ed Poor (talk) 17:28, Nov 17, 2004 (UTC)

(William M. Connolley 18:21, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)) This is appalling. You are (apparently) incapable of distinguishing good-faith edits from clear vandalism. Your POV blinds you.

This is getting pretty ridiculous. Ed, stop being a jerk. WMC is not a vandal, and doesn't need to be warned against vandalizing Wikipedia. In turn I hope the good doctor will realize that his time would be better spent in other ways than pursuing this fruitless and frivolous quest? Graft 18:28, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

(William M. Connolley 18:38, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)) Hmm. I'll beg leave to doubt the "fruitless and frivolous" but otherwise will accept your wise intervention & consider the matter closed.

Future regulation

The Kyoto Protocol article really should distinguish between ghg's that it aims to regulate, and those it plans to take charge of later or just ignore altogether.

2012

What's with 2012? Does Kyoto lapse in 2012? __earth 04:16, Dec 18, 2004 (UTC)

(former) vice pres?

(William M. Connolley 19:28, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)) Someone changed the caption on Al Gore to add "former". This is a bit ambiguous. He is now former. He wasn't when he gave the speech. You wouldn't add "deceased" to pictures of George Washington. There must be a policy on this.

Minor update

Should the "agreement will come into force" part be changed since the treaty has now been enforced? The Nameless 10:39, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Emissions trading

The third paragraph under the "Emissions trading" header could use some work. For one thing, it cites a report by "Washington D.C.-based NGO"; is this the Natural Resources Defense Council or a different NGO? The rest of the paragraph is scattered and seems incomprehensible to me. Could someone who knows what it's talking about please clean it up? --LostLeviathan 15:35, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Effect of Kyoto

(William M. Connolley 21:34, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)) I've just removed "(a reduction of 0.15 Celsius degrees by 2100, out of a projected total change of 1.4 to 5.8 >!--from Intergovernmental_Panel_on_Climate_Change article--< Celsius degrees)". The reason is (apart from it being unsourced) that it must be wrong, because it has to be a range of values, since the climate sensitivity isn't known exactly. That leaves the article describing the effects as "very small", which is probably OK.

Why the Kyoto Protocol won't work.

Variations in CO2, temperature and dust from the Vostok ice core over the last 400 000 years

If you were to look at Geological records, there is evidence that the Earth has experienced global warming several times and they are followed by a glaciation period where the tempurature drops and glaciers form again.

Now eventually the earth will experience a global warming at a rate that will return it to prehistoric times, but the current pattern shows that it is still in the on-again, off-again glaciation period.

BRO_co03 22:06, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)

(William M. Connolley 22:45, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)) As the author of that picture, I can assure you that you're wrong. We're already at the top of those curves, and heading upwards. And our CO2 is already off the scale. But you might be happier at global warming.

Agree. Pre-historic times were not affected by our industries. Now we are pumping more C02 and other gases faster than nature can disintegrate them. It will eventually build up and melt the ice down in Antarctica.

However, I don't actually mind earth being a little warmer. Universe as a whole is dead cold, which seems kinda bleak for the outlook if you don't believe in God. :P 142.58.181.84 20:09, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Recent Revision

Why was the term 'Kyoto Protocol' changed to 'Kyoto Protocols'? It seems to me that there is only one Protocol, and the term is used in the singular throughout the article. Tkessler 16:30, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)

(William M. Connolley 19:56, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)) I can't see why either. I've changed it back to the singular.

Apollo 17 or Apollo 8?

I think that the photo of Earth is from Apollo 8, rather than Apollo 17. Can anyone confirm which flight it was?

Click on the image and you'll find a description and link to its source. You're probably thinking of the Apollo 8 "earthrise over moon" image. That one is easy to find and you'll see quite a few differences. (SEWilco 04:56, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC))

Cite Needed

There should be a source cited for this recent edit: "Opponents and sceptics believe that at an estimated cost of $100 trillion to lower the average global temperature by less than 1°C over 45 years it is not an intelligent solution to the threat from greenhouse gas emissions." Tkessler 05:46, Feb 21, 2005 (UTC)

This page contains that claim, and it's certainly published by a sceptic: http://junkscience.com/MSU_Temps/Kyoto_Count_Up.htm It doesn't seem to be a real scientific claim (at least no source is cited), but is simply a linear extension of a certain projected cost/benefit ratio. -starwed

The difference between reporting theory and reporting fact

Marco, you were concerned about the phrase talking about how greenhouse gasses "are believed to cause global warming". This statement is not intended to suggest that someone has proved that greenhouse gasses don't cause global warming, just that what is being discussed is theory rather than fact. For example, you might have a theory that I am an American based on my writing style and spelling of words like "color" or "liter". Your theory might indeed be correct and it might be very convincing. There might even be a broad consensus of people who all agree that I must be an American. But it is still just a theory. You couldn't state with absolute authority that I was an American unless you, for example, saw a copy of my passport and verified that it was mine. So, when discussing your theory, you would write: "Jon Gwynne, who is believed to be an American, edited the wikipedia article on the Kyoto Protocol in February of 2005." Just because you're saying that, it doesn't mean that there is necessarily anyone who thinks I'm not an American, just that you don't have absolute proof that I am. Whether I am American cannot be absolutely determined by you with the information you have. Whether I edited the article in wikipedia can be determined as an absolute fact and reported as such.

With that in mind, it is more accurate to write "greenhouse gasses are believed to contribute to global warming", not because there is any proof that they don't, but because the view that they do is a theory and not a proven fact. Scientific consensus cannot be substituted for conclusive proof. It is still possible for a majority to be wrong.

I point this out because I have had (and given) extensive training in, among other things, journalism and reporting. One of the most difficult things for people to do (not just here on wikipedia) is to clearly and accurately distinguish between fact and opinion in objective writing. Make no mistake, what we are doing here in wikpedia is reporting. Every single article should be written as though it were a news report, with the facts and opinions clearly separated and accurately characterized.

I hope this helps. --JonGwynne 17:14, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Many things reported unqualifiedly in the news media -- or indeed in encylopaedias -- are short of "absolute fact". A better question is, are they in a degree of dispute that ought to be noted here? Note that "anthropogenic GW deniers" don't (as far as I'm aware) dispute the basic science that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. (The very term 'greenhouse gas' itself implies the conclusion you're wishing to caveat.) Rather, they say human contributions may not be significant, or that GW is actually a great idea because it'll fend off the next Ice Age, or such formulations. Or, they aren't concerned with the science as such but the politics of how to deal with it (or not). Now, those views probably ought to be represented in the article in some form, but I don't think they go to the specific 'a greenhouse gas is a greenhouse gas' point here. Hope that also helps. Alai 21:42, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Open Letter to Canadian Prime Minister

The article says:

"In June 2003, an open letter[14] (http://www.john-daly.com/guests/openletter.htm) was written to Canada's then-future prime minister, Paul Martin, signed by 46 climate experts from six countries—Martin has yet to respond. A open letter previously (http://www.envirotruth.org/openletter.cfm) was signed by 27 climate experts and sent to then-current Prime Minister, Jean Chrétien."

What did this letter say? If the PM didn't respond, is it relevant? Peter Robinett 22:20, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)