Talk:Kyoto Protocol

Template:WP1.0

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Paige Kremer, Sarias19 (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Graycake.

US section

The section on the U.S. participation is yet another example of a Wikipedia article representing Wikipedia's bias against George W. Bush. The Byrd-Hagel legislation passed 95-0 (a fact I added to this article), meaning not a single democrat in the Senate signed.

The next paragraph goes on to cite one source to illustrate the idea that Bush single-handedly prevented U.S. participation, when the Senate clearly did that before Bush was even elected.

This article lacks neutrality, and I wish the claim of lack of neutrality represented on this article. Furthermore, I demand the same claim of lack of neutrality for the article "U.S. Presidential Election, 2000".

Wikipedia is quickly going from an online resource of knowledge to a liberal think tank. You care nothing for neutrality. You care only for liberal globalism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.232.215.42 (talk) 19:55, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Most of the section you seem to be referring to is sourced to Tyndall Centre Working Paper 12: The climate regime from The Hague to Marrakech: Saving or sinking the Kyoto Protocol?, with some other cites included. Do you have a suggestion for another source of similar weight that could be used? As you know we cannot publish original research or synthesis, but can only represent, with WP:DUE weight, what is reported in reliable sources. --Nigelj (talk) 21:32, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Do you seriously think anyone believes the nonsense that's written in Wikipedia?

It might work for a pub trivia quiz but no one trusts it on the serious stuff.

Reply: I consider George Bush a monster like his adversary Saddam Hussein, but this has nothing to do with passing off coercive social engineering backed by innuendo and pseudoscience as anything other than a religion. As such it is a destructive religion that sends men with guns (national means) out to visit the violence of irrational law on those whose progress has resulted from the abandonment of superstition, altruism and collectivism. I am delighted to see the Wikipedia used as the instrument of such documendacity. It will make it easier to convince others to quit funding the leeches that have infiltrated to make it into a medieval wayback machine. translator (talk) 19:11, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Maps not very clear

THe maps are hard to understand since there is no legend. Why not use the same maps as many other language versions:

Kyoto Protocol participation until 2011:

  Signed and ratified.

  Signed, ratification declined.

  No position.

Kyoto Protocol extension period 2012-2020 participation

  Parties; Annex I & II countries with binding targets

  Parties; Developing countries without binding targets

  States not Party to the Protocol

  Signatory country with no intention to ratify the treaty, with no binding targets

  Countries that have renounced the Protocol, with no binding targets

  Parties with no binding targets in the second period, which previously had targets

NPOV Merger Proposal

To comply with WP:NPOV I propose merging Criticism of the Kyoto Protocol with Kyoto Protocol The violation of NPOV comes from a section of the NPOV policy:

• Segregation of text or other content into different regions or subsections, based solely on the apparent POV of the content itself, may result in an unencyclopedic structure, such as a back-and-forth dialogue between proponents and opponents.[1] It may also create an apparent hierarchy of fact where details in the main passage appear "true" and "undisputed", whereas other, segregated material is deemed "controversial", and therefore more likely to be false. Try to achieve a more neutral text by folding debates into the narrative, rather than isolating them into sections that ignore or fight against each other.

It's pretty easy to see that what is happening here is that the "Kyoto Protocol" article has templates and pictures and graphs and weighs in at a healthy 13,000 words. the "Criticism of Kyoto Protocol" is an enemic 2,000 words isolated by themselves. What I propose is not 13,000 words of criticism ( since that would be a gross violation of NPOV giving undue weight to crticism) What I propose is merging the two articles together for a single article that does not give undue weight to criticism but also does not unfairly represent it by isolating it in it's own article.

The main condern from the merger will likely be length. it is important to note that NPOV cannot be overruled by other policies (include WP:Article Size) or Editor consensus. So we have to find a way to honor NPOV and then deal with the length issue. I propose moving the Carbon trade specific content to the article "Carbon trade" this will leave a very tiny couple of paragraphs that can get put into Kyoto Protocol without burdening the length too much. Any feedback or suggestions are appreciated, The discussion won't entertain arguments that are not NPOV related since NPOV is our cardinal rule, our polestar, and our prime directive in this discussion. Bryce Carmony (talk) 04:14, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

• This proposal is based on a false premise that the Criticism article is NPOV. There is no evidence to support this claim. andy (talk) 08:31, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Andy, you aren't allowed to try and hide the merger from discussion by deleting the merger proposal. I'm putting it back up. answer these three questions.

• does Banning criticism from Kyoto Protocol article gives readers of the Kyoto Protocol a fair representation of all verifiable sources?
• Does banning criticism from Kyoto Protocol proportionately represent all views on the subject?
• Does banning criticism from Kyoto Protocol article show a lack of bias?

If you can answer all 3 of those questions I'd appreciate your feedback on it. until then I'm putting up the banner so that people can participate in the discussion. Bryce Carmony (talk) 08:58, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

The word we're looking for may be responses. If the main concern is length, then in order to have two NPOV balanced articles, the second one may be called Responses to the Kyoto Protocol, so that there can be criticism and 'praise' of the protocol in due measure (according to what's found in the reliable sources) in both, but the split occurs on the basis of the original plan and its implementation being in this article, and everything that has happened since in the other. --Nigelj (talk) 10:46, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Nigel, I'll be honest I really like that idea. "Response to the Kyoto Protocol" would be an awesome article. Every country is implementing it in different ways. every country is complying in it in different ways. every country has had different feelings about it. I think "Response to the Kyoto Protocol" would be so good a article of addressing all of that. I'm 100% in favor of that. if that article gets to big, we can break it into other sub-topics as well. I really appreciate your feedback I really like the idea. Bryce Carmony (talk) 11:27, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Just noticed this discussion. Good ideas all around. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 00:37, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

@Nigelj: Hmm, Responses is a bit too wide for the scope probably, as there are many responses that rightfully find their place in the main wiki at the moment (ratification, implementation etc). There is a section "Views of the Protocol", with a "main-link" to Views on the Kyoto Protocol. To me it sounds that is a perfect place (and name) for a pro-con discussion, so why not merge the criticism article with that article?.... L.tak (talk) 07:26, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Urgenda's climate case and klimaatzaak

In the Netherlands, Urgenda (http://www.urgenda.nl/en/climate-case/ ) won a lawsuit against the Dutch state for not doing enough against climate change. I'm wondering whether they reffered to their Kyoto protocol commitments, or any other commitments they took. The same goes for Klimaatzaak, a similar lawsuit being undertaken in Belgium.

If it referred to their Kyoto protocol commitments they didn't reach; it should be mentioned in the article. KVDP (talk) 11:32, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

The decision is available here and requires some close reading. The UNFCCC and the Kyoto protocol are not considered directly applicable towards people/organizations, but the Netherlands has a duty to take care of its people and their living environment (Constitution article 21). The judge decides that scientific international consensus dictates a reduction of 25-40%, and thus requires the state to do the minimum: 25%. L.tak (talk) 13:17, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Kyoto Protocol. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20100409000327/http://www.pbl.nl:80/en/dossiers/COP13Bali/moreinfo/Industrialised-countries-will-collectively-meet-2010-Kyoto-target.html to http://www.pbl.nl/en/dossiers/COP13Bali/moreinfo/Industrialised-countries-will-collectively-meet-2010-Kyoto-target.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 11:07, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Targets

Wow, what a mess. The table showing the GHG Annex I commitments is a mess. First, it is important. Hiding it is nonsensical. Second, the title is VERY confusing:"Annex I countries under the Kyoto Protocol, their 2008-2012 commitments (% of base year) and 1990 emission levels (% of all Annex I countries)". There are NOT two parenthetical fields for each of the 38 countries listed, despite the clear implication in the title that there are. Which of the two are actually represented in the actual parenthetical information is not obvious. I suggest that the table be totally reconstructed and should have the following (sortable) rows. Country name. Kyoto 2008-2012 ratification status. 2012 Target compliance status. Base Year. Base year equivalent emissions. 2012(?) equivalent emissions. It would probably be useful to also have base year(1990) GDP's and 2012 GDP's
A June 2016 news article claims a study done (ref below) claims most states met their targets, but there are reasons to doubt the report's accuracy and neutrality. Igor Shishlov et al. Compliance of the Parties to the Kyoto Protocol in the first commitment period, Climate Policy (2016) Abitslow (talk) 14:46, 13 June 2016 (UTC)