Talk:Kyoto Protocol/Archive 1

message: ===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)
thread_title: Development from stub article

message: 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)
thread_title: Criticize Bush without Protocol definition

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: What are the consequences of not adhearing to the limits?

message: 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)
thread_title: Rename to Kyoto protocol

message: 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)
thread_title: Who has ratified?

message: *Talk:List of Kyoto Protocol signatories
*"Current positions of governments" section in main article
*"Last modified on: 23 September 2004 — KYOTO PROTOCOL — STATUS OF RATIFICATION" (PDF file)
--69.212.98.139 22:54, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: See also (countries that have signed and/or ratified):

message: SEWilco 08:01, 8 Nov 2003 (UTC)
thread_title: ratification_updates.rtf

message: 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)
thread_title:  Leakage rate? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  US, polluter 

message: :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)
thread_title:  Russian Economy 

message: (William M. Connolley 16:44, 10 Nov 2003 (UTC)
replies: text: Whoops, I found him, under "NGO's". [WMC].
(William M. Connolley 19:30, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Daly letter

message: (William M. Connolley 19:51, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Russia and Science 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Fascism? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Images 

message: (William M. Connolley 12:55, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: You're right, I'll make the appropriate change. -- ChrisO 13:06, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  a little note about coming-into-force 

message: 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)
thread_title:  55 countries ratified...when was this condition met? 

message: (William M. Connolley 19:28, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  (former) vice pres? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Minor update 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Emissions trading 

message: (William M. Connolley 21:34, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Effect of Kyoto 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Why the Kyoto Protocol won't work. 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Recent Revision 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Apollo 17 or Apollo 8? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  The difference between reporting theory and reporting fact 

message: 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)
thread_title: Open Letter to Canadian Prime Minister