Talk:Kyoto Protocol

message: I've posted about this elsewhere, but I thought that it wouldn't hurt to post about it here. So, there was this  new briefing book from the National Security Archive, saying it is about the "U.S. pursuit of military exemptions to the Kyoto Protocol." Within that post it says 
The documents in this post expand that story by focusing on the advocacy by U.S. negotiators in Kyoto for national security exemptions during and after the climate change conference...Pentagon officials...were U.S. delegates in Kyoto...On December 11, 1997, the same day the Kyoto Protocol was adopted...the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) Conference of the Parties released a decision which enshrined the exemptions within the treaty...The decision stated that emissions “based upon fuel sold to ships or aircraft engaged in international transport,” i.e., bunker fuels, should not be part of national totals. It was further decided that emissions from multilateral operations following the United Nations Charter would not be included in national emissions totals but would be “reported separately”...This document summarizes the Third Session of Conference of the Parties in Kyoto from December 1 to December 11, 1997, including actions taken during the conference, and it lists carbon dioxide emissions of participants in 1990. On page 31 is a resolution entitled “Methodological issues related to the Kyoto protocol,” decided on the last day of the conference. This resolution urges the Subsidiary Body for Scientific and Technological Advice (SBSTA) to elaborate on the inclusion of emissions from bunker fuels in national emissions inventories. It decides that emissions from multilateral military operations pursuant to the United Nations Charter will be reported separately rather than “included in national totals” along with other related emissions then being included in national emissions totals of another country.
Maybe something about this could be added under the "Details of the agreement" section? It could be titled "Military exemptions." I think it could definitely be relevant, but I wanted to get your thoughts before doing anything to the page. Historyday01 (talk) 22:24, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Should a section be added about military exemptions agreed to by countries in Kyoto? 

message: when will this protocol cease to exist if there is a Paris agreement that is cooler than this protocol helps to curb global warming, and the question is why the Doha amendment to the old protocol if it is already clear that the Kyoto protocol is no longer relevant at the present time Никита Холин (talk) 18:40, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: The Kyoto Protocol expired on 31 December 2020. TuomoS (talk) 18:21, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  What is the point of the Kyoto Protocol today if there is a Paris climate agreement 

message: I've removed the "further reading" list as I think it wasn't really adding value:
* Ekardt, F./von Hövel, A.: Distributive Justice, Competitiveness, and Transnational Climate Protection. In: Carbon & Climate Law Review, Vol. 3., 2009, p. 102–114.
* Katy Longden, Roshni Pabari, Munir Hassan, and Dalia Majumder-Russel, "Climate Change: Mitigation and Adaptation (A Legal Guide)". Advocates for International Development (June 2012)
* Romain Morel, and Igor Shishlov, "Ex-post evaluation of the Kyoto Protocol: Four key lessons for the 2015 Paris Agreement". CDC Climat Research (May 2014)
* Sebastian Oberthür, Hermann E. Ott: International Climate Policy for the 21st Century, 1999, Springer.
;Economics
*  From this issue:
** 
**  EMsmile (talk) 13:35, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed "further reading" list 

message: I've re-arranged the structure a bit to use more of the generic main level headings. Also, I have taken out some content about the background on climate change or greenhouse gas emissions that is now covered better in other Wikipedia articles (that content might have been important here before those other articles had been improved). I think more work is still require to streamline this article a bit more, to make it more focused. - I was motivated to work on this article based on work I was doing on the UNFCCC article and because the pageviews are surprisingly high (very similar to those for the the Paris Agreement, see here). EMsmile (talk) 14:17, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Some improvements to the structure