Talk:Kyoto Protocol/Archive 4

message: the first paragraph is completely incorrect.
President Bush has withdrawn the US's signature.
: Ref? William M. Connolley 09:54, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Summary: The first paragraph of our article is entirely correct. The USA has signed but not ratified the treaty (and does not currently plan to ratify it). As a consequence, it is non-binding. No-one has "withdrawn" a signature.--Stephan Schulz 11:32, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

text: That may depend on the actual text of the treaty. However, normally an official diplomatic note to the UN and the other members of the treaty would probably do it. A president talking to the press doesn't.--Stephan Schulz 13:14, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Sigh. It looks like Corvette is on a mission. He has now inserted The signature of the US administation is non-cosequential. The protocol is non-binding over the United States until ratified. (the bit in bold). This article isn't for all the tedious details of US govt machinery. The following sentence *already* says, effectively, the same thing (and even spells it correctly :-). William M. Connolley 13:06, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

text: What do you complain about? That someone has fixed your misspelling? The US in not unique in that a treaty needs ratification before it comes into force. Signing is mostly a symbolic gesture. But the US (represented by someone from the Clinton administration) has signed. BTW, I have some trouble parsing the part after "..." - what are you trying to say?--Stephan Schulz 09:20, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

text: It is important to me that this article (indeed, any article, but my time is limited) is correct and usable. It correctly states "The US has signed, but not ratified the treaty.". It also states that the treaty is not binding unless ratified. It now also states that it is non-consequential, which is, strictly speaking, wrong. This discussion, for example, is a consequence of that signature. What exactly are casually interestes people being mislead about? In fact, what exactly are they mislead about without that second sentence? --Stephan Schulz 10:43, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

text: It would be wrong to say that the signature is of no consequence.  Under both international customary law and the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, both of which the US State Department has acknowledged, if a treaty has been signed by parties but is pending ratification, then those parties which are pending ratification are obligated to "refrain from acts which would defeat the object and purpose of [the] treaty."  What effect this clause would have on US actions is questionable, but until the treaty is outright rejected the US is still under some obligations.  The signature is not merely symbolic.
This section cites numbers on CO2 emissions from the US Energy Information Agency for the US and China. I've fixed the numbers and added a note that they are 2003 estimates, but I'd also like to point out that they disagree wildly with the endpoints of the graph :Image:Carbon_Emission_by_Region.png that is included earlier in the article. I think the difference is just measuring mass of CO2 versus measuring mass of C (and presumably including CO emissions also?) but it would be nice if someone more knowledgeable clarified the apparent discrepancy. Assuming we keep the reference to the Chinese and US numbers in this section -- the whole paragraph seems argumentative rather than explanatory to me, on both sides.
Threlicus 14:38, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I think the caption is correct.  The article does say "Australian Prime Minister, John Howard, has refused to sign the Agreement", although the status document indicates they have signed and not ratified.  Someone familiar with Australian politics should look into this for the correct wording (i.e., who signs and who ratifies treaties). Where does the article say US hasn't signed?  --Spiffy sperry 15:52, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

text: The link works for me. The linked article claims that it is based on an article in Nature, which would be a much stronger source (and possibly have less spin).--Stephan Schulz 21:07, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  position of the United States 

message: Corrected some blatant misrepresentation of cost benefit analysis. It's Econ Cost-Benefit Analysis 101. FWBOarticle
: I think you got carried away with excess detail. This isn't the discount rate article; I trimmed it William M. Connolley 20:15, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Why is it that supposedly neutral trimming somewhat eliminated much contents (including the one i didn't add) which put Kyoto in rather bad light. :D Lastly, only dupliction of argument and information (due to poor attribution) deserve trimming. New info or argument should not be a target of deletion. This is evolving encycropedia afterall.  FWBOarticle
where does the money go that is fined to the countries?
The Nature article seems to have lapsed into the website's pay archives, and is inaccessible. Does anyone have a mirror of the original article? If not, I suggest that a more thorough summary of the study be given.Jackson744 01:09, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cost Benefit Analysis 

message: In the section Details of the agreement, it says how emissions need to be cut compared with 1990 levels. But it's not entirely clear what the deadline for cuts is. Is it 2010? The section in brackets "(but note that, compared to the emissions levels that would be expected by 2010 without the Protocol, this target represents a 29% cut)" implies it is.
I'm assuming someone reading this talk page will simply know the answer and be willing to fix it.
Maffew 07:53, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deadline for cuts could be clearer 

message: Since the Kyoto Protocol was opened for signature
in December 1997, Annex I countries have embraced the protocol
by passing/considering national laws ensuring 
national compliance with their emsission reduction targets.
* Canada
: C-288, pending in Parliment.
* European Union
: an emissions allowance trading scheme, unrelated to
: Kyoto targets, is in place
* Russia
: is currently below their Kyoto target 
* New Zealand
: ?
* Japan
: ?
* United States
: has not ratified the Kyoto Protocol
* Australia
: has not ratified the Kyoto Protocol
--CorvetteZ51 16:31, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Enacting Legislation 

message: Despite its refusal to submit the protocol to Congress for ratification, the Bush Administration has taken some actions towards mitigation of climate change.
:In what way are "Climate Action Report 2002", the G-8 meeting in June 2005, and the Asia Pacific Partnership on Clean Development and Climate actions towards mitigation? And who says so?
:Might these not be sneaky ploys by an anti-science Bush administration to evade taking any action? --Wing Nut 13:30, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Being the guy who wrote that sentence in an effort to NPOV and make less-argumentative that section -- I agree that 'actions' may not the be the best word, but I think the section needs some lead-in and tie-in. If you can come up with a better way to say it, feel free, but I would rather have the slightly off wording than nothing at all. Threlicus 20:33, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Fair enough: I can't always come up with good wording either! It's close enough the way it is. :-) --Wing Nut 20:39, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Mitigation of climate change

message: "Despite its refusal to submit the protocol to Congress for ratification, the Bush Administration has taken some actions towards mitigation of climate change" This is inaccurate, the protocal was submitted to the Senate by Clinton where it was defeated 95-0. This was before the Bush Administration. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 192.146.101.26 (talk • contribs) 10:39, July 12, 2006.
:You are incorrect.  The Protocol was not submitted to the Senate by Clinton, and it has not been submitted by Bush.  The 95-0 vote was a Senate resolution, expressing the sense of the Senate, which passed on July 25, 1997, well before Kyoto negotiations finished in December 1997.  It was a somewhat like a "preemptive strike". --Spiffy sperry 17:52, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not a preemtive strike at all. The Senate had a draft of the Treaty. The Byrd-Hagel resolution, SRes 98 of 1997, stated the wishes of the Senate to both the UNFCCC in Kyoto and the US administration.--CorvetteZ51 02:36, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You describe SRes 98 correctly, but the Kyoto Protocol still has never been submitted to the Senate by the President, which was why I reverted 192's edits. --Spiffy sperry 14:19, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Position of US