Talk:Kyoto Protocol/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 9

Opened for Signature

The little panel at the right says:

"Opened for signature December 11, 1997 in Kyoto, Japan"

The Status of the agreement sections says:

"opened for signature on March 16, 1998"

One of them is wrong.(Should be the 1998 one)

Methane

I removed the trees-cause-methane bit; its too new. The paper was only published a week or so ago. We shouldn't be adding science that is so new. Secondly, its been wildly over-hyped in the press; see RC for something better [1]. Thirdly, the offsetting stuff is nonsense, as the papers authors have now clarified [2]. William M. Connolley 11:23, 22 January 2006 (UTC).

The paper is not too new, methane budget calculations should definitely be considered in question now. However, I agree that the impact of trees needs to be studied further, although the Lowe was correctly quoted, and his statement may well be true for mature forests if not new ones.--Silverback 12:29, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

The paper was published on 12th Jan! Please don't be silly. William M. Connolley 13:49, 22 January 2006 (UTC).

What does that have to do with it? It is peer reviewed and published and commented upon by reputable scientists. As long as we don't go beyond the paper and the comments, it is appropriate material. We should be more concerned about material that is too old and superceded or should be qualified than "too new".--Silverback 14:30, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, one single paper that does not have the support from other independent sources which confirm this finding. Personally I don't think that paper should be included.

---

How about Farming rice creates methane?

Most of the east, the so-called undeveloped nations (one of which is planning to put a man on the moon) have rice as a staple food, they grow an immense amount of it. And it releases one of the top 3 greenhouse gasses, from what I've read.

Unless you could give me a citation of some sort I highly doubt growing rice releases significant amount of GHG compare to other sources such as oil extraction and industrial burning of fossil fuel.

The articles seems to have changed since this point (since I can no longer see any dicussion of the sources of methane) but agriculture (rice paddies and animal manure) are a primary source of methane. Methane is produced by anaerobic respiration, which occurs when vegetable material rots in anoxic irrigation systems.

position of the United States

the first paragraph is completely incorrect. President Bush has withdrawn the US's signature.

Ref? William M. Connolley 09:54, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps the author is refering to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, UNFCCC, to which the US is a party {was ratified in the early 1990s}--CorvetteZ51 09:06, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

WMC, there is often a 'word war' as to the meaning of 'the US administration 'SIGNS' a treaty', and the ambiguous process of unsigning a treaty, not that 'signing' ;a treaty really means anything. The best ref I could find is. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/1248757.stm --CorvetteZ51 10:39, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

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)

>has neither ratified nor withdrawn from the protocol< Please enlighten me, what steps are necessary for the US to withraw from the protocol? --CorvetteZ51 12:28, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

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)

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).

I grow weary, at the European leanings is this article. The only power the US president has about treaties, is his plenary power to reject a treaty that is submitted to him, or is pending in the senate. The US is not a signatory, the former Clinton administration is. The only obligation resulting from signing the treaty,is that Clinton administation must act in good faith toward the other 'signatories'. Non-cosequential,is not the same as non-binding. In addition to being non-binding, the 'signature' does not imply that there will be, a Senate vote, any Senate debate, or nnything else. Should it have happened that Gore somehow forgot to sign the treaty, no consequence, President Clinton could still have chosen to send the treaty to the senate. --CorvetteZ51 09:11, 4 February 2006 (UTC)CorvetteZ51 09:28, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

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)

SS, Why is something that is meaningless, so vitaley important to you?, unless you are trying to fool people who have only casual interest in this subject. I restate my point ... Gore signs, or does not sign. NO DIFFERENCE. Means nothing. Clinton could {have} still submit the treaty, to the senate. If the article clearly states that 'signing' is only symbolic, I think that would be an improvement. Ciao. --CorvetteZ51 10:31, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

The Image caption says America and Australia have signed it but arnt adhearing to it. Later on, it says they havent signed it. Ref, someone? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 58.162.103.251 (talk • contribs) September 9, 2006.

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)

The paragraph:

[b]The U.S. government has attempted to suppress reports by experts that find dangerous effects of global warming. A government official blocked release of a fact sheet by a panel of seven scientists at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration that finds that global warming is contributing to the frequency and strength of hurricanes.[/b]

Uses:

^ Schmid, Randolph E.. "Agency Blocked Hurricane Report", Environmental News Network, 2006-09-27. Retrieved on 2006-11-05. http://www.enn.com/today.html?id=11336

As it's source. A link that is broken.

The statement that the US gov't is trying to cover up scientific reports about hurricanes is a strong statement and should have a strong source to back it up - not a broken link.

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)

Cost Benefit Analysis

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)

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)

---

One thing about this section, it's totally abstract. No actual dollar amounts for costs and no actual benefits are listed. This is not a cost-benefit analysis, it's an abstract discussion about the difficulties of doing a cost-benefit analysis.

This is bizarre. Kyoto has some very real non-abstract costs. These can be counted.

As for the benefits, it's not clear that there are any unless you are selling emissions credits.

I'll see if I can add some meat to this section. 64.172.115.2 16:47, 2 June 2006 (UTC)Rich

Exemptions

So why are some countries exempt from parts of the Kyoto Protocol? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 161.31.226.45 (talk • contribs) .

Because its hard to say "Well, yes, we can produce 10X amount of CO2 per capita and live life in luxury, because we started polluting first and created the problem. Sorry, you have to do with X, wether that means you starve or not...". It's called "shared but different responsibility". BTW, Please sign your posts with 4 tildas (~~~~)--Stephan Schulz 07:18, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

10X? Are you sure? According to the Article ...

According to the information from the U.S. EIA, Chinese energy-related usage produced 3.541 billion metric tons of CO2, while the U.S. produced 5.796 billion metric tons. DOE China, DOE USA

By my math China produces 61% as much CO2 as the US, and they are growing rapidly, so I expect it to meet and even exceed the US production in 5 or 10 years.

If CO2 is bad, how is Chinese CO2 benign?

Kyoto is not about fixing global warming, it's about fixing blame and extorting money. Some think this a good thing, but clearly some disagree.

It's also not clear that Congress has the authority to impliment Kyoto, unless you believe that the federal government can not only create new powers and authority by treaties to foreign nations or the UN while at the same time giving said powers and authority to a foreign government or the UN, which is not in any way responsible for or to the US, or accountable for or to the US. Personally I don't see being a vassel state of the UN as being a good thing (or a Constitutional thing).

It's called "shared but different responsibility".

Most signatories to Kyoto are under no obligation, even in principle, to reduce or cap greenhouse gasses, they have no responsibility whatsoever.

64.172.115.2 21:24, 2 May 2006 (UTC)Rich

Well, 10X was a figure of speech. But it's not far of. Chinese population is more than 4 times the US population, so by your numbers its about 7X (per capita, of course) compared to China. And China is already a fairly advanced country compared to most states in the world. Yes, Chinese CO₂ emissions are, pound for pound, as bad as US emissions or Europeran emissions. But China is expected to become an Annex-1 country (i.e. one that controls its emissions) fairly soon. As for the US internal problems: There is no doubt in my mind that the federal gouvernment can make and implement international treaties. See article 2, section 2, paragraph 2 of the US constitution: "He (the president) shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; ". How this relates to "giving power to a foreign government" is unclear to me. Of course any treaty is a give-and-take. And again: Nobody is going to shut down central heating on October 5th and hunt down people who heat their home with a stove after that. Implementation of Kyoto is left to the individual countries. At least in Europe, there is a mixture of taxes on fossil fuels, coupled with incentives to develop renewable energy sources. This would be a reasonable thing to do even without Kyoto or even without global warming, given that fossil fuels are a finite, rare, and expensive resource. --Stephan Schulz 22:01, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, 10X was a figure of speech. But it's not far of. Chinese population is more than 4 times the US population, so by your numbers its about 7X (per capita, of course) compared to China.

Color me confused. Can you explain to me the climate science that uses the metric "per capita"? WRT global warning, "per capita" is irrelevant. As I said, Kyoto is not about global warming. If it was, CO2 emissions would be the only metric that counts, and it's what all the fuss is about, is it not?

Don't be more dense than you can help. Please. Reread my original answer. This is both a moral and a practical problem. You cannot ask people who barely manage to live (and often even fail in that) to reduce their resource consumption. Even if you could, it's a lot harder to make a reasonable cut in a small base.

We were talking about China and India. And we are not talking about consumption, but CO2 emissions (which comes primarily from cars and power plants). Please try to focus. And I don't buy it even then since Kyoto shows that the economic damage it does to the so-called developed nation is not an issue. If hurting us is OK, and clearly under Kyoto it is, then that sets the tone of the debate. Harm done is not an issue anywhere.

We were talking about "some countries exempt from parts of the Kyoto Protocol" (your choice of topic). And you do realize that consumption and production are linked, do you? <snip>

WRT Kyoto, this is not true. A great deal of the production takes place in one country, while the consumption takes place in another. Except for fossil fuels (and perhaps other things that are consumed during use), I claim that greenhouse gasses are produced by production, not consumption. And the greenhouse gases are emitted in the country where they are produced, not the country where they are consumed. 64.172.115.2 16:31, 2 June 2006 (UTC)Rich

<endsnip>To talk about basic needs (food and housing): The production of fertilizer is extremely energy intensive. As is the production of cement, necessary for building houses. In fact, that releases extra CO2 even above the one linked to energy usage. The rest of you comment is somewhat incoherrent - what's your point?

Energy production is necessary for our daily lives in the US, yet Kyoto demands that we cut it my 30%. Transportation is a vital necessity to anyone here who likes to eat and earn a living. Since vital necessities in the US are on the block, don't cry to me that they need cement elsewhere. Let them find a substitute or do without, exactly as Kyoto demands of the US. There is no difference. Why you laud extremely destructive actions in the US while demanding that they not take place elsewhere on humanitarian grounds is beyond me, there is no evidence that you are a humanitatarian. 64.172.115.2 20:40, 2 June 2006 (UTC)Rich

Excuse me? Kyoto doesn't demand that you cut energy production by 30% nor that you have to cut back on transportation. --Kim D. Petersen 20:18, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

You want to save the planet, don't you?

Actually, I'm sure the planet will be fine. It is, after all, a huge ball of mostly molten rock, and has a couple of billion years to go. A temporary surface infestation with homo sapiens is unlikely to affect it in the long term. Before you ask: I'm also not concerned about life (give it a few million years, and it will just evolve to whatever environment is left) or even the human race. We are very adaptable, and likely to survive even under fairly bad conditions. What I do care about is sustainability of western civilization. Part of being civilized is the ability to take a warm shower whenever I want to, or to use my Powerbook to access the internet. Things like that requires a reasonably stable economy. Whatever resources we spend to fix ecologic trouble, to deal with refugees (economic or other), or to fight for dwindling resources, is lost to other causes, like warm showers and scientific research (two things I rather care about). Another part of being civilized is compassion for other humans. "Life, liberty, and the pusuit of happiness", and all that. We in the developed countries can probably cope with the changing environment. We have the resources. People in developing countries are not so lucky. They are most likely to pay for our wasteful life style. I think its both economically and morally reasonable to use some of our resources to find a way to maintain our level of comfort, and, indeed, to extend it to others, before we are forced to spend them just to survive..

None of the so-called developing nations (do developing nations put men in space?) are willing to commit even in principle to limiting or capping CO2 emissions. But why should they, they joined Kyoto for the money they'll get by selling emissions credits. There is no evidence a single one of em cares about anything *but* the money (that's why Russia signed).

I notice you strong opinion and lack of source. By ratifying Kyoto, China and India have commited in principle to limit emissions in the future.

You're terribly confused, no Annex II country has made any commitment whatsoever to reduce or even cap emissions. 64.172.115.2 16:15, 11 May 2006 (UTC)Rich

If CO2 is the problem, Chinese CO2 is exactly much of a problem as US CO2 and Indian CO2. By the numbers in the original Kyoto accord, Chinese and Indian CO2 emissions exceeded US CO2 emissions, and both are exempt.

Kyoto is about politics, not climate. My understanding is that none of the climatologists on the UN staff were even consulted in it's drafting.

And the only way new powers can be created in the Constitution is through the Amendment process.

Well, it's a good thing that the right of the gouvernment to enter treaties is an old, well-established power.

<whoosh>

I don't know what kind of argument you are trying to make. But in the end it is your opinion vs. the SCOTUS, and I know their interpretation.

This would be a reasonable thing to do even without Kyoto or even without global warming, given that fossil fuels are a finite, rare, and expensive resource.

Funny, how many billions of barrels of oil do we waste recycling paper, which is not even in short suppy? My understanding is that except for aluminum, it takes more energy and resources to recycle than create new materials.

This is totally irrelevant to the topic at hand.

Wasting billions of gallons of a non-renewable resource doing what makes no sense to do and creating who knows how much CO2 in the process just goes to show exactly how divorced GW advocates are from reality. Waste is bad but sensless waste is criminal.

Again, what are you trying to say? The scientific opinion on global warming has nothing to do with recycling. Reasonably recycling is a way to avoid emissions. Apparently you do not believe that most recycling is reasonable...all I can say is get informed.

If it were true, that would be an argument not to recycle (although there are other things to consider, e.g. availability of primary resources and waste disposal).

Aluminum is the only thing that makes sense to recycle. Recycling takes about 5% of the energy needed to refine from ore.

...and breakeven is at 100%. So if you can recycle for the same amount of energy you need for primary production, it still pays off due to the secondary benefits. There is a lot of room between 95% and breakeven....

And I got news for ya, the disposal proplems for recycled paper are identical to those of non-recycled paper.

"Whoosh" indeed. Recycling paper solves the disposal problem for the recycled substance....

Recycling adds enormous costs and resource usage to the cycle. And recycling paper is a cost, it does not pay for itself.

In Germany, it does indeed pay for itself. Companies are making good money doing it, and cities are selling licenses to collect used paper.

However, your understanding is wrong. Easy, that one. --Stephan Schulz 23:05, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Saying it is so is not sufficient to make it so. And summary dismissal is not a compelling form of argument. We need to do what makes sense. 64.172.115.2 16:53, 5 May 2006 (UTC)Rich

Well, as far as I can tell you have no coherent argument. To quote yourself: "Stay focused". This article is about the Kyoto treaty. You asked why certain countries are exempt from certain obligations and I answered the question.--Stephan Schulz 19:00, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

64.172.115.2 22:32, 2 May 2006 (UTC)Rich

Deadline for cuts could be clearer

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)

There is no deadline, only a 'committment period', from 2008-2012. Rules for applying 'emmission credits' for past over-emmissions, are up in the air. --CorvetteZ51 15:36, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Garbage. The main greenhouse gas is C02, and the USA produces 30% of the global human-derived C02 via power generation and internal combustion transportation.

The reason countries like Sudan & Kenya are exempt is because, comparitively speaking, they have virtually no emmissions to begin with. - Randall

Postions Sections

Moved the per capita statement on emmisions from the Position of the US to the Postion of China section. This is clearly what China's postion on Kyoto is, and not the US's. Do not revert unless you can site where the per capita emmisions arguement was used as a justification for the US not joining the Kyoto Protocal. Each of the "Positions" sections should state the positions of the various countries and the facts used to support each postion. In this way we keep this article balanced and NPOV. If we add counter-arguements to some Positions sections and not others, it becomes NPOV. Lucid-dream 16:54, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Um, no, each section should have *relevant* to that countries position - not just stuff in support. The piece you have moved is a kixture of various countries, but mostly US. I notice you *didn't* move In 2003 Chinese energy-related usage produced an estimated 3.541 billion metric tons of CO₂.... So I'm reverting it. Please *dont* instruct people on how to respond to your changes William M. Connolley 17:06, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I am reverting your change, as they would create a NPOV position on the countries section and also would create inconsistencies between the postions of the countries. BTW, This passage I moved in was added by an anonymous user several weeks back and without discussion on the talk page. As for the other passage, you are right, that also needs to be moved, and I have done so Lucid-dream 19:00, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Yet another excuse for removing some text you don't like William M. Connolley 06:43, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Please refrain from spurious assumptions on my motives. I am trying to make this article more NPOV and balanced. Lucid-dream 15:56, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

After some consideration about the contentious paragraph, I think it ought to be stripped altogether from the positions sections, or at least heavily rewritten. It consists of facts, but the context is that they are facts supporting or opposing the US position, and thus don't feel NPOV. As I said in Position of the US, the feeling is very argumentative, not encyclopedic. I think the Bush statement above it summarizes the US position -- which these facts are arguing about -- quite succinctly. While I do think there is room for some rebuttal of the US position on the page, I don't think sentence-by-sentence 'equal time' is appropriate to an encyclopedia. Compare the way the Position of Europe section is rebutted in the last paragraph. This section is about the US position and so any rebuttal included here should be general criticisms of that position, not point-by-point. The only thing I would regret is losing the citations of the numbers from the EIA, although those links are at the bottom of the page. I haven't made this change, but I'll make it in a day or so (Trying to pull some of the rebuttal out into a last paragraph) unless consensus is against me. Threlicus 18:53, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree, the whole Positions section needs a re-write. Either we state the official postions of each nation (with facts supporting that position) and the rebuttal within that same Position, or we just state the official postion of each country with the rebuttal in OTHER countries positions. Right now it is a mish-mash, with detailed rebuttal in the US position but none in China and other countries. This makes it a very NPOV unbalanced section. Unfortunatley my attempt to have conistency in this section has been vandalized Lucid-dream 15:13, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

It seems rather unlikely that one politicians statement would actually sum up the true position. What is there iis hardly a detailed rebuttal - just a few counter-figures William M. Connolley 16:08, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, I agree that Bush's statement isn't be a complete summary of the US position, but then I'm not suggesting deleting everything else in the section either. I think the contentious paragraph doesn't add much to Bush's statement. It's got confirming figures for his facts, and then something which is a point-by-point rebuttal of the position. I don't think a section about the position of a country is well served by saying: "Important politician X says A. He's wrong because of B. He also says C, but that's flawed because of D, although scientist Y points out E". Exaggerated, I'll admit, but that's what it feels like this is headed to. I would rather have this be closer to: "X says A and C, and Y points out E in support. (different paragraph) X's position is not universally accepted; dissenters point to B and D." Incidentally, I don't think moving the paragraph wholesale to Position of China is right, either, although some of the facts cited might belong there. I prefer the current state of affairs to putting it under China, as the paragraph as it stands now is clearly most relevant to the position of the US. Threlicus 15:05, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

I was looking at it again and thinking about how to rewrite it and realized part of the reason I don't like it -- there's a very similar paragraph about the US goal of reducing carbon intensity down below, with an immediate sentence citing Krugman about how that wouldn't help. Argh. I'm going to try a bit of a rewrite to hopefully satisfy everyone. I decided to completely cut the EIA cite and per-capita rebuttal, and worked on condensing some of the other rebuttal parts. I think I managed to keep the other relevant facts previously there in the article, but I'm sure it can still be improved. I suggest that if someone wants to get the argument about per-capita carbon in, they should find a cite of someone making the argument and put that alongside the Krugman cite. I've put the cut paragraph here for reference:

According to information from the U.S. EIA, in 2003 Chinese energy-related usage produced an estimated 3.541 billion metric tons of CO₂, while the U.S. produced an estimated 5.802 billion metric tons. DOE China, DOE USA However, on a per capita basis the Chinese emit 1/10th the CO₂ that Americans do and Americans emit more than twice the CO₂ as their counterparts in similarly developed countries like Germany, France, and the United Kingdom that have ratified the treaty and agreed to further reduce emissions. UN Statistics Division

Threlicus 16:12, 22 June 2006 (UTC)\

Enacting Legislation

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)

a US president can cancel a treaty

http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Goldwater_v._Carter so what are US obligations as a one-time signatory now that President Bush has indicated his wishes to not participate in the Kyoto Protocol?--CorvetteZ51 16:17, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

No, the president cannot unilaterally cancel a multilateral treaty. At best, he can have the US withdraw from it. But there is a difference between a presidents wishes and informal indications of the same, and an official act of the president. As far as I know, there has been no official withdrawal of the US from Kyoto, just an informative statement that the gouvernment will not seek ratification from congress. So formally the situation is unchanged. Since there are no practically relevant constraints from an unratified Kyoto treaty, I suspect Bush refrains from the negative publicity such an act would entail. Also, in this way he keeps the door open for the (theoretical) case that he or a subsequent gouvernment eventually wants to support Kyoto.--Stephan Schulz 16:50, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

a US president can cancel the US's participation in a treaty, so a US president can certainly cancel the US's participatin in a 'not yet to be' treaty.SS, is Bush'e press secretary, official enough for you?Paraphrasing, only one of the 55 countries has ratified,there is nothing to withdraw from.Note that this transcipt is from the US Department of State.http://www.usemb.se/Environment/briefing.html--CorvetteZ51 11:02, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Your first sentence is probably right. Its something different from your original claim. The treaty would not be canceled even if the US cancels its participation in it. The 1 of 55 nations claim is from 2001 and totally out of date. As you can see at List of Kyoto Protocol signatories, now 160 nations have signed and ratified, with 3 still intending to ratify, and the US and Australia as the two nations who have signed, but do not currently plan to ratify it. And no, a press conference is not "official" enough. It's an indication of the opinion of the president, and fine as a source for this. But it's not an official diplomatic note and has no official diplomatic effect. Even internally, cancelling a treaty would require at least an offical presidential decree. However, this is irrelevant, as an unratified treaty has no legal force in the US (and negligible effective force in international law).--Stephan Schulz 11:46, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

when President Bush annonced his lack of intent to submit the protocol to the Senate, only one country had ratified. as such, the protocol was not in force,thus having no legal standing. as Ari Fleischer said, there was nothing to withdraw from. To whom, would you send a diplomatic note?--CorvetteZ51 14:36, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually, being in existance and being in force are two seperate things, especially for an international treaty. If you want to bail out, you send your notes to all the signatories, unless the treaty establishes a different way (e.g. a central secretariat).--Stephan Schulz 16:24, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Why do you think 'international',or lack thereof,has some effect on the US? The US is not party to the Vienna conventionon multilaterals, BTW. --CorvetteZ51 01:32, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

It's an international treaty and hence gouverned by international law, wether customary or codified.--Stephan Schulz 07:11, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

190 or whatever other countries can't adopt laws in the name of the Onited States. The US has not consented to this. In any case,which of the numerous versions of 'International Law' would apply?Please be as specific as you can, with statute number.--CorvetteZ51 19:32, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

What are you talking about? Nobody has claimed that someone has adopted any laws on behalf of the Onited (or United) States. The Kyoto treaty is in force. It has been signed, but not ratified by the US, and hence the US is under no obligation to follow it. It has not, however, formally withdrawn from the treaty (which means that it could still ratify it and would not have to renegotiate conditions in the unlikely event they decide they want to join after all). The US president probably could withdraw the US from the treaty, but he has not done so. He cannot cancel the treaty, as it is a multilateral treaty. And "customary international law" is different from codified international law in that it is not codified, just like common law originally was not codified.--Stephan Schulz 20:21, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Can you point to some precedent, as to what is necessary for Bush to do, or could have done in the past, to 'unsign'. Did Gore sign with a pen or a pencil?, pencil would be easier to unsign.--CorvetteZ51 01:39, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

The president doesn't need to cancel it since it is not in force for the US. President Clinton also did not submit the treaty and the US Senate had by a 95-5 vote, indicated it would not pass the traty. The US isn't a participant and the signing in Kyoto was just grandstanding for political purposes.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 148.63.236.141 (talk • contribs) 09:06, July 5, 2006 (UTC).

Actually, the vote was 95-0 (5 senators - Byrd, Grams, Reid, Feinstein, and Harkin - did not vote) --Spiffy sperry 15:48, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

The amended treaty is in force, among its signatories. The US is not a party to it, i.e., the U.S. Senate has not ratified Kyoto, so the U.S. is not obliged to follow the Kyoto emissions targets. All the other countries, the ones which ratified the Kyoto Protocol, are bound by international law to abide by the treaty. The U.S. is not, since it "signed" but did not "ratify" the treaty.

The U.S. at this point can:

1. unsign the treaty - the other nations will still follow it
2. do nothing - same as above
3. ratify the treaty - same as above, plus the U.S. has to follow it

While Bush remains in office, #2 seems most likely. If the next president is a Democrat and the Senate gets a majority of Democrats, there's a chance of #3 (ratification).

Nice to see that someone gets it!

But Americans are probably too selfish to destroy their economy just to lower the earth's temperature by a fraction of a degree. Not with extra carbon dioxide being so good for American agriculture. --Wing Nut 20:35, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

....or at least part of it ;-) --Stephan Schulz 20:42, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Mitigation of climate change

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)

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)

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)

Position of US

"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)

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)

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)