Talk:Kyoto Protocol/Archive 5

message: Something needs to said about the obligations of indiviual EU countries. For example, Spain, Italy and the UK have essentially blown off the treaty, and are expected to show big increases from the 1990 baseline. The deal is that these countries could, if offered,count other countries' underemission, toward their own totals. But that doesn't necessarily mean they will have that offer.207.53.228.88 08:52, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Positions of the individual EU countiries 

message: How are emissions measured? Are they calculated or actually physically measured from samples? -postglock 13:53, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I strongly suspect it's a mixture. Fossil fuel based emissions can be trivially (and fairly exactly) computed from the fuel consumed. But changes to land use like de- and reforrestation are harder to quantify. --Stephan Schulz 12:56, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  How are emissions measured? 

message: Some countries by hapenstance will need to do nothing, to meet their target.Some countries will do nothing, and miss their target. Some countries have no target. Some countries/groupings, like the EU,will pretend to do something... their CO2 trading scheme, for example, and miss their target.--CorvetteZ51 11:05, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You're welcome to your personal opinions on that but this talk page is not the place to discuss them (nor is anywhere on wikipedia) Nil Einne 12:41, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Canada, nothing...Japan,nothing...Russia,nothing...NZ,nothing...EU, dubious carbon trading system,unrelated to Kyoto....CorvetteZ51 08:42, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

text: How can this possibly work? No politician is going to vote for something that makes a few friends worldwide, but makes lots of enemies at home. The KP will never have any support from a national legislature-parliment. The only thing close to Kyoto-enacting-legislation is the EU trading system. In a time when the EU constitution treaty can't get adopted, how can it be expected to start turning down the screws on its member countries. As soon as the EU system starts to hurt, people will start complaining.CorvetteZ51 08:47, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

text: I find the situation in Germany, difficult to beleive.The European trading system, is in operation to a certain extent.IMO,it 'works' only because, as of now, either enough 'grandfather' credits are given away, or electric companies can raise their price. How much more can screws be turned, without there being political riots? In addition, think of the economic consequences for converting electric production converting from coal to natural gas. Instead of domestic coal that costs next to nothing,Germany must buy gas from Russia for ripoff prices... Its like a 7 cent/kwh tax paid by Germans that goes to Russia.I don't see people accepting that.CorvetteZ51 08:44, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: the Kyoto charade, changes nothing

message: It seems like the economist is publishing an edition dealing with the economic implications of GW.  Here is a link to an opinion piece in it.  
I do not know much about it, but I will buy the magazine and if there is anything good, I'll see if I can add it to the cost-benefit section.  If it is fine, of course. Brusegadi 16:50, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: The Economist

message: the U.S. economy does not want to earn
a pedestal (deceased) position. CorvetteZ51 11:35, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Upper Class Kyoto Twit of the Year Contest 

message: This current text is not clear whether China supports Kyoto or not.
:China insists that the emissions level of any given country is a multiplication of its per capita emission and its population. Because China has emplaced population control measures while maintaining low emissions per capita, it should therefore in both the above aspects be considered a contributor to the world environment. China considers the criticism of its energy policy unjust.
Kent Wang 22:12, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Position of China 

message: Members of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles are in the process of doing a re-review of current Good Article listings to ensure compliance with the standards of the Good Article Criteria. (Discussion of the changes and re-review can be found here). A significant change to the GA criteria is the mandatory use of some sort of in-line citation (In accordance to WP:CITE) to be used in order for an article to pass the verification and reference criteria. Currently this article does not include in-line citations. It is recommended that the article's editors take a look at the inclusion of in-line citations as well as how the article stacks up against the rest of the Good Article criteria. GA reviewers will give you at least a week's time from the date of this notice to work on the in-line citations before doing a full re-review and deciding if the article still merits being considered a Good Article or would need to be de-listed. If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact us on the Good Article project talk page or you may contact me personally. On behalf of the Good Articles Project, I want to thank you for all the time and effort that you have put into working on this article and improving the overall quality of the Wikipedia project. Agne 23:11, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: can I propose that if we are using footnotes, we should also adopt the use of Citation templates. These make the actual references section look much prettier and also tend to encourage better detail on the refrence.--NHSavage 20:17, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Oh I should say, I am also willing to do some leg work on this. They are harder on the editors but easier on the reader. At present we have footnote which then use URLs without a name - yuck.--NHSavage 20:34, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

text: I have done a big clean up. 3 references (25,26,48) have gone strange. I can't work out why and I am now going to bed. I have also commented out the refs after the footnotes as these are mostly duplicates. I will try and get round to checking them all soon. I will also start using the citation templates if no one objects in about a week.--NHSavage 22:06, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

text: I've sorted the strange references - it seems like the text inside the square brackets was too long! I really will go to bed now...--NHSavage 22:26, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Kudos, you did a great job! --Spiffy sperry 14:11, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Completed the citation formatting pretty much now. There are probably one or two typos etc in there and I have found that a few of the old references at the end are not used in the text so I'll see if I can see where they should slot in. Can I please encourage all editors to use the citation templates from now on. Once you get the hang of them they are not too hard and it means we get a much more useful references list. I'll keep an eye on things and of course even a wrongly formatted reference is better than no refernce.--NHSavage 21:18, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  GA Re-Review and In-line citations 

message: The Kyoto committment period ends in six years. Perhaps the successor treaty should be discussed. Keep in mind that there were ten years between the Kyoto conference and the beginning of the committment period. Perhaps a longer delay should be implimented. There would be less opposition if the numerical targets would take effect in 2100. I mean, who doesn't want to save the planet for the people of the 22nd C. CorvetteZ51 09:49, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe we will leave that to the UNFCCC.  No crystal balls here.  --Spiffy sperry 14:41, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Kyoto follow-on 

message: No legislation in sight. LOL. Keep in mind this isn't 1997 any more, with Kyoto taking effect ten years in the future, for anything to work by 2008, painful legislation would have to take effect very soon, politicians are unlikely to do that. CorvetteZ51 11:17, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Japan, 14 percent over target

message: The Kyoto deadbeats, led by the EU and includes the rest of the developed world except the United States, Australia, and Russia, need to hurry up and pass enacting legislation, none have done so.CorvetteZ51 14:21, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Kyoto deadbeats need to get moving, 2008 is beginning of committment

message: is there any reasons for Asia Pacific Partnership on Clean Development and Climate to have its own section in this article? It is not part of Kyoto. I would suggest it should be briefly mentioned in the opposition to Kyoto section instead. This article is too long IMHO anyway.--NHSavage 08:45, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Asia Pacific Partnership on Clean Development and Climate 

message: Under Description heading, third bullet:
Any Annex 1 country that fails to meet its Kyoto target will be penalized by having its reduction targets decreased by 30% in the next period.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyoto_Protocol
Correct me if I am wrong, but should not the reduction targets be increased by 30%? Since reducing the target would in effect not be penalizing the country.
The targets are emission levels (not reductions of emission levels), so reducing them means you have to emit less, which is a penalty. Not very intuitive, as we normally expect a bigger target to be "better". yandman 08:24, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possible error? 

message: There are a number of inaccuracies and NPOV problems in this section.  I will discuss them here first before making any changes.
"Rona Ambrose, who considers the emission trading concept to be flawed..." Actually Rona Ambrose has said more positive than negative things about emission trading.  The position of the Conservative party about federal government purchases of credits from countries like Russia, which do do result in actual cuts, is clearly negative.  But other types of emission trading, especially domestic but also foreign, are not contrary to their stated policies.
"Inheriting the ineffective policies of the previous government" has NPOV problems.  Of the programs where evaluations of effectiveness have been released, most were shown to be effective.  However, it is factual to say that the current government claims they were ineffective.  "The Liberal federal government had spent 3.7 billion dollars on Kyoto programmes, resulting in CO2 emissions 35 per cent above 1990 levels."  I don't think we can say that the spending was the cause of the increase, especially since the 35% figure (the correct number is 26.6%) comes from measurements made before that money was spent. Tono-bungay 17:55, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Canada has signed Kyoto and ratified it (there was some opposition to ratifying it at the time) now the Harper govt. is trying to pull out of it. Kc4 05:07, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Position of Canada section 

message: The words "exception" and "opposed" seem to be against the fact that the US and Australia SIGNED the Kyoto Protocol.
Australia for one, is not "opposed" to the treaty.  It signed the treaty, and was part of the COPs that negotiated the Protocol, and has stated publicly that it will indeed comply with the Protocol's target!  That can't really be defined as opposition to anything apart from ratification.  This is their official position: 
:"The Government has decided not to ratify the Kyoto Protocol because, while it has some positive elements, it does not provide a comprehensive or environmentally effective long-term response to climate change. There is no clear pathway for action by developing countries, and the United States has indicated that it will not ratify. Without commitments by all major emitters, the Protocol will deliver only about a 1% reduction in global greenhouse gas emissions."
It seems most sensible to simply say that the US and Australia have signed the treaty (which implies they were not necessarily "opposed" to it) but merely chose not to ratify it, for domestic reasons. --Mikenosilly 01:59, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think its fairly clear that, politically, the current US administration is strongly opposed to Kyoto. However, thats probably a fight for elsewhere, and your new wording looks good to me William M. Connolley 11:44, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes, and it is also fairly clear that the United States Senate will never ratify it, and the United States, will not abite by its conditions, either.  This will not change under any possible Administration in the forseeable future, whether Republican or Democrat; it's not even an openly debated topic in the upcoming Presidential campaign.  Something that people living outside the US might not know is that there is currently no serious political effort to ratify; in my opinion, because it is obvious to all that such an effort would be hopeless. Vegasprof 10:12, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Australia and US: 2 major countries that haven't ratified 

message: "Estimates indicate that even if successfully and completely implemented, the Kyoto Protocol will reduce that increase by somewhere between 0.02 °C and 0.28 °C by the year 2050 (source: Nature, October 2003)."
I've looked through Nature for that month and couldn't find an appropriate article or news item. I've also looked at reference #3, which has a different range than above for the extent to which Kyoto might reduce global warming if signatories were all to meet their targets. Would it be possible to see a more complete citation or a link?
: I couldn't find the paper either. Such a strong statement needs an accurate citation of a serious reference. A scientific paper has a title, author(s), not only a journal and a year/month of publication. If this is not a scientific paper, but news or editorial, I doubt it is appropriate to be quoted here. Moreover, I think the only quantified commitment in Kyoto is for 2012. How can this be compared with estiamtes in T increase for 2050 and 2100? --Galahaad 21:02, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Impact of Kyoto on temperature and sea level 

message: The article states under the Emissions Trading heading that 131 US mayors have pleged to meet the Kyoto guidelines, under the United States Position heading it says 194.  Which is it?DougRWms 06:27, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You missed the 3rd entry later in the article, where it says 320!  The project is headed by Seattle mayor Greg Nickels, whose website puts the count at 369, as of Jan. 18.  I'll try to update all instances in such a way to make future updates easier.  (change first to "hundreds", change second to "over 180" to match reference, change third to current count)  --Spiffy sperry 14:53, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  How many mayors? 

message: more truthful would be something like,
'changes in emission-levels during the Kyoto era.",
as the whole world maintains a business as usual
policy.CorvetteZ51 14:46, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Results of Kyoto to Date, misleading title

message: The editors should really invest a lot more time here. There are numerous studies that could be cited that are critical of the Stern Report. There are numerous policy papers put out by tax payer advocates and freedom advocates that are critical of Kyoto and take a very different view of its potential economic costs and benefits. Why do you only see fit to discuss the opposition to Kyoto in the most general terms? How about citing some of the criticism and the studies on cost and benefit that dispute Stern? How about putting more effort into balancing this article . . . or do you consider your buddy Al Gore to be right when he says "the science is settled"? Again . . . I want to assume good faith. I've tried . . . but evidence mounts that political views and agendas are on display.216.215.144.201 18:28, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion moved from article

message: Various reports from the IPCC have fairly detailed and interesting material on things like spill over effects from Annex I and non Annex I countries, both in terms of C02 industry relocation and GDP. In particular in the Mitigation report and in certain questions of the synthesis report (talking about the TAR here, since these aren't out for AR4 yet). Would it be an idea for someone to go through the reports and have a summary on what it says on various aspects of the Kyoto protocol in this article? I think that could be helpful, although it would be a bit of work. And I don't know if anyone has already done this anywhere already; having someone else's summary might be helpful in making our own summary here. Thoughts? --Codemonkey 09:25, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  How about an IPCC section? 

message: why is it used thirty times in the Wiki text? somebody, please fix the text. CorvetteZ51 07:11, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: some people may think the word 'targetis synonomise with'voluntary'. there is nothing 'voluntary' about Kyoto obligations. we need to get rid of weasil wordingCorvetteZ51 11:13, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: the word 'target' does not appear in the treaty 

message: I think that should be made clear.CorvetteZ51 11:13, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  the EU ETS is not linked to Kyoto. 

message: It said that once the ice caps of the likes of Greenland had started to melt, there would be no going back and that the process would be irreversible, as surface water absorbs the sun's heat whereas ice reflects it, and that it would eventually wipe out humanity, the irreversable state being reached after only about three degrees celsius rise that can only be prevented if greenhouse gas emissions are cut by 60%. Does Wikipedia have an article on this exact phenomenon?--h i s   s p a c e   r e s e a r c h 21:35, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Read an article in a newspaper today predicting the extreme adverse effects of global warming 

message: The People's Republic of China insists that the gas emissions level of any given country is a multiplication of its per capita emission and its population. China endorses this because of the advantage it would get within the new restrictions.
I'm not exactally a supporter of China but that seems much like someone's opinion (and a someone who doesn't like China at that)...I can't edit the article though; but that statement is a bit POV (if that's the right wikipedia term to use here.) 202.37.62.110 20:52, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The China Paragraph 

message: The article said that China's greenhouse emissions will be greater that U.S. in the year 2030.  I changed the article to reflect it's source which stated that China's emissions will exceed U.S. emissions in 2009.   Jdt2858 01:04, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  China's Emissions Excede U.S. in 2030? 

message: Can someone answer this question: why is there no box at the top of the page stating that
the article's NPOV has been questioned, since it obviously has? Vegasprof 01:01, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Obviously? Please detail the points in question and the POV aspects of each.  --Skyemoor 14:42, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, obviously.  Just read the talk page; you'll see that there are lots of complaints.  I could add my own, but that would be redundant. Not all sections of the article are POV, but some are.  The key thing I'm pointing out is not that the article is POV (it is) but that lots of POV complaints are on the talk page, and no POV box has been put up. Vegasprof 22:03, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I see no serious current POV complaints on the page. Everything older than a few weeks has likely been fixed or was not a problem in the first place. If you have any concrete problem, either fix it or point it out. If you need a POV tag, append it to the smallest possible subsection an explain your problem on talk. --Stephan Schulz 23:35, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the suggestion, Stephan, but I'd rather not, or at least, not right now.  Instead, let me point out that the string "POV" occurs 13 times on this talk page, not counting the times in this section.  People who've complained about the POV of the article include CorvetteZ51, "I grow weary, at the European leanings is this article," Lucid-dream (more than one place), Kiran90 in the Australia section, Tono-bungay in the Canada section.  Vegasprof 02:15, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I checked them out - most are several months old and long resolved. POV is not assigned to a topic, but to a (hopefully temporal) state of the article. --Stephan Schulz 07:01, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why no POV? 

message: Coming back to an old topic already discussed when the title was slightly different, I don't think that the title makes much sense.
1/ Kyoto protocol entered into force in February 16, 2005, so one can't really attribute the evolution of GHG emission between 1990-2004 to the treaty, at least not entirely.
2/ Now the stats for China and India have been included, and these countries are exempted from requirements in the protocol. Of course some people could argue that this is a result of the treaty, because it does not impose caps for their emission. But most probably, their increase in emissions was similar before the treaty exist, and they would have been the same without the existence of the treaty.
So I guess the title should be changed to something not necessarly implying connection between Kyoto and these numbers, except that these numbers represent the starting point for the race. --Galahaad 19:19, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: the 2005 date is near meaningless, it has nothing to do with emissions, only the start of the carbon-offset scam. The comittment period begins Jan 08. CorvetteZ51 23:28, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Results to date 

message: It's obvious that the United States Senate will never ratify the Kyoto Protocol, but the issue (raised above on this page) is whether the United States, having signed but not yet ratified the Kyoto Protocol, is obliged, under the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, not to obstruct it.  There is a long (140 page) paper of this issue at .  I'll admit that I only scanned parts of it briefly, but the summary makes it clear that the issue is murky.  The United States has not ratified the Vienna Convention, but the issue of whether the United States is bound by it is itself murky, and that some people might believe the signature on the Kyoto Protocol imposes an obligation, even if the government doesn't.  The paper states that this ambiguous situation is the fault of the United States' careless handling of the issue of withdrawal of its signature on the Kyoto Protocol, which the paper claims has happened before (although it doesn't list unratified treaties, it refers to them as " ... host of other signed-but-not ratified agreements,"  implying that there are lots of them).  The paper refers to the " ... looming risks we encourage through the cumulative body of signed treaties, ratified and otherwise," and recommends that the Executive Branch or Congress take definitive action to clarify what obligations the United States acknowledges.  Vegasprof 22:15, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: President Bush has informed the other parties of the UNFCCC that he does not intend to submit the treaty for ratification. As there is no one to take possession of a 'cancel the signature' document, there is nothing left to be done. CorvetteZ51 11:16, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties

message: there is some kind of a discrepency going on, there are big differences being reported in Aus's 'current emission ratio'. The numbers are, either 108, or 125, of the 1990 baseline. I'm guessing, but there is also some controversy as to...can Aus use 'land-use-emittted-carbon', ie slash-and-burn land clearing, in the 1990 baseline.,,as to the reason that two numbers are given. any comment welcome. CorvetteZ51 12:37, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Due to tricky accounting rules, Australia turns a 26.1% increase into a 5.2% increase, but the US is burdened by having a 15.6% increase somehow morph into a 21.1% increase. Year 1990 to 2004._See for yourself, direct from the UNFCCC. How is this fair?(look at the graphs on the lower right) http://unfccc.int/ghg_emissions_data/items/3800.php CorvetteZ51 12:20, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Its without/with LULUCF (Land use, Land use change and Forestry), thats "direct, human-induced, afforestation, reforestation and deforestation activities"  (page 8, 1.1.2). As for "fair" - what do you mean? Its accounting, and is covered in the Kyoto protocol article 3 para 3+4), and known to all parties. If i recall correctly, the reason that this is covered seperately is that its only the emissions without LULUCF that can be traded. --Kim D. Petersen 15:05, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

text:  How is it fair, for a certain country to be allowed an 25% increase, while others are obligated to reduce? Looks arbitrary. CorvetteZ51 10:17, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: How is it fair that at the baker I get bread, while he only gets money? It's part of the negotiated deal. --Stephan Schulz 10:29, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Would you like it if someone traded your house, for a piece if bread, at gunpoint?...The people negotiating for the U.S., were either naive, or eager-beaver-sellouts. Their clients, resent being soldout. A great disservice was done to humanity. CorvetteZ51 03:07, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Erm... quite a POV statement isn't it? Whats your argument that things where done at "gunpoint" like conditions? And calling US government representatives (who cannot do/accept anything) "naive", "eager-beaver-sellouts" is rather farfetched - and somewhat in the land of the black helicoptors. "humanity" is limited to the US?? (or how should i understand this?)--Kim D. Petersen 14:38, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

text: My opinion, Al Gore(with the support of President Clinton) could be aptly described as an eager beaver, who would take any deal offered, no matter how stupid. My 'gunpoint' analogy, is in response to the 'deal' analogy of Stephan Shultz. There was nothing voluntary about Gore's signing of the KP. the KP clearly defied the Senate, CorvetteZ51 07:46, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

text: see the Kyoto scam in action, go here.http://unfccc.int/ghg_emissions_data/items/3800.php Because of LULUCF, Aus can increase its 'usual'emissions 26%, and still be below its 8% increase-limitation, I suppose they are now torching koala habitat at a slower rate, but should they be rewarded?CorvetteZ51 13:23, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Australia, baseline controversy 

message: http://www.guardian.co.uk/china/story/0,,2106999,00.html
the article needs to be updated CorvetteZ51 00:40, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: See long discussion on [Talk:Global warming#Jumping_the_gun_with_.22China_the_no._1_emitter.22], the report is a preliminary estimate based on trend-analysis of incomplete data. While it may likely be correct (time will tell) its too early to state as fact. Please join the discussion at Talk:Global warming#Jumping_the_gun_with_.22China_the_no._1_emitter.22], for further information and/or discussion. --Kim D. Petersen 05:58, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  China passes the US 

message: The article should discuss the recent finding that Kyoto projects harm the ozone layer.  RonCram 14:03, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "All" projects or some subset? Specificity is needed, as well as the source, which many Kyoto detractors have long derided. --Skyemoor 02:22, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Kyoto Projects Harm Ozone Layer

message: I'm adding the emissions targets for the US and Australia (-7% and +8%) in Kyoto_Protocol#Increase_in_greenhouse_gas_emission_since_1990 with a note indicating they didn't ratify the treaty. I think it makes the overview more complete and is more useful than just putting "N/A". Please revert if you think it's not appropriate and sorry if this has already been discussed. --Kaicarver 19:44, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Targets for Australia and the US in table

message: "A private member's bill,[34] was put forth by Pablo Rodriguez, Liberal, aiming to force the government to "ensure that Canada meets its global climate change obligations under the Kyoto Protocol." With the support of the Liberals, the New Democratic Party and the Bloc Québécois, and with the current minority situation, the bill passed the House of Commons on 14 February 2007 with a vote of 161-113,[35] and is now being considered by the Senate. If passed, the bill would give the government 60 days to form a detailed plan of action. The government has flatly refused to abide by the bill, which may spark a constitutional crisis, lawsuit, or non-confidence motion once the bill becomes law, as is expected.[36]"
The Kyoto Protocol Implementation Act was given royal assent, and 60 days later the minority Conservative government controversially simply re-published their earlier environment plan.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/LAC.20070822.NATS22-4/TPStory/National
Tories' Kyoto response could spark fight
CP
August 22, 2007
Ottawa -- The Conservative government has thumbed its nose at the opposition's legislative attempts to force compliance with the Kyoto Protocol, simply republishing its own greenhouse-gas reduction plan as an official response.
http://www.canada.com/topics/news/politics/story.html?id=b2149e4f-e4a0-4512-bac9-d7cbb637f4d7&k=63430
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/LAC.20070823.KYOTO23/TPStory/National
99.245.173.200 08:25, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Canada private member's bill info out of date