Talk:Kyoto Protocol

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

---

I'll definitely add more information about the details about the protocol, but I'm in favor of adding stubs for the time being instead of perhaps adding a perfect article in half a year.

If I would criticize Bush I'd use much more scathing prose. As far as I can tell, this is pretty much objective. The US is the major producer of greenhouse gases, and the current administration doesn't seem to care. Remember, this is a view from outside the US.

The wording about the signing should probably be changed, though, to make it clear that Clinton only performed the first phase. My understanding is that the normal way for this kind of thing is for the president to sign and afterward get Congress to ratify it. It's also possible for a president to get "advance ratification" of some sort from Congress, but this wasn't done in the Kyoto case. I'm sure some American can specify this in more detail (but this perhaps isn't the right place).

---

The point is, you seem to have added the article not in order to say what the Kyoto Protocol was about, but in order to say who is stopping it from getting through, which you think it obviously should.

Please do not write on any more partisan topics, if you think this is unbiased. You really don't understand what the neutral point of view is, if you think it is unbiased. It might be "objective" if your opinions are correct, but unbiased it most certainly is not.

As to the name, see: http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/1997/global.warming/stories/treaty/

--LMS

---

As I said, more information will be added (and indeed, has been added). The reason for the protocol has been at the top of the article all along.

I can agree that much of the current text would fit under a "History" heading, but I can't say that what is here isn't factual. What is a problem as of now is that the text about Bush takes up too much space, relatively, making him look more important in this than is really the case. Feel free to change this, of course, if you don't feel like waiting for me doing it.

--Pinkunicorn

---

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. -- Ed Poor

---

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: according to the CIA world fact book, which may be out of date, 21 countries have ratified or acceeded... all the countries listed under "parties" have done so... see the bottom of the article.

The reason they have sign but not ratified is two-fold: 1. ratification is a slow process... it needs planning, consultation, legislation, approvement by national legislature... 2. most countries are waiting for the COP to adopt the decisions, which will be binding on all the parties... they don't want to ratify until they know exactly what they are ratifying... -- SJK

The US opponents to the protocol say that the USA shouldn't be bound by it until China et al are also, yet they encourage China to increase carbon dioxide emissions. IOW, their intent is simply to destroy the protocol.

---

I'm not sure, but I think that in the paragraph regarding ratification, most if not all of the years should be changed from 2000 to 2002. For instance, the US EPA report or one like it was released very recently; June 2000 would be before GW Bush took office or was even elected. And didn't Japan and the EU ratify it only very recently as well? Wesley

You are right, Wesley. I occasionally make mistakes with details like that. It was this month, June 2002, in which the EU countries ratified it (16 of them, I think). Then Japan followed about a week later.

Can someone list the EU countries which ratified? List any holdouts?

---

Hey, one thing that might sound like a stupid question to some, but please don't dismiss it as rhetoric, because I really don't know the answer:

Supposing enough countries ratify the protocol, i.e., 55 countries responsible for 55% of the covered emissions. Does the treaty apply only to those countries that have ratified it? Or does it apply also to countries that abstain?

I ask this because the international criminal court that was instituted this year claims jurisdiction over the US even though the US did not ratify the treaty that created the court.

What will happen if (A) the US were to stay out of Kyoto, while (B) Kyoto's 55% provision kicked in and it became "binding"? That is, on whom would it be binding? What are the enforcement mechanisms?

I'm not debating: I really want to know. Tell me, so I can add it to the article (or better yet, just add it). Ed Poor, Friday, June 14, 2002

---

I know that various sub-national bodies have approved of the Kyoto protocol in some way, such as Montreal. Can someone think of a good way to word this? - montréalais

---

The Sierra Club said (9/4/02 [1] (http://www.sierraclub.org/currents/russia.asp)),

• "China and Russia, the world's second and third largest polluters, respectively, have announced that they will ratify the Kyoto Protocol, the 1997 treaty aimed at reducing the industrialized world's global warming emissions to five percent below 1990 levels."

and

• "China also announced that it has ratified Kyoto."

So which is it: China has ratified or will ratify it?

China's Ambassador to the United Nations Wang Yingfan deposited the instrument of approval of the Kyoto Protocol with the UN secretary-general on August 30. [2] (http://english.peopledaily.com.cn/200209/03/eng20020903_102567.shtml)

Is that the same as ratification? Should we add China to the list of countries (of which 55 are needed for Kyoto to take effect)? --Ed Poor

---

This is quite a long article and yet I still don't know what the protocol is or on which countries it has effect. I see that it won't affect India, China and Indonesia - are any other contries exempt? And what would they be exempt from? Are their any actual provisions? I'm confused. --rmhermen

---

Anonymous removed this qualifier:

or to countries that do not ratify it.

Does this mean the Kyoto Protocol will become some sort of international law, which applies to nations like America which refuse to ratify it? --Ed Poor

or to countries that do not ratify it. was removed because it is a vacuous statement. No treaty applies to non-signatories, any more than the laws of France apply to Spain.

Countries that have ratified it haev to obey by it. Countires that have not signed are urged tro sign it in the earth summit 2002 (the only good thing that came out of the whole thing) - fonzy

I thought Australia hadn;t singed it? The dirty 3 as greenpeace called it: USA, AUSTRALIA, CANADA (which has now signed it and ratityfying it i know) - FONZY

Australia has signed but not ratified - despite clear and consistent opinion polling showing that between 68% and 79% of Australians believe we should. There are many explanations and excuses offered, but the bottom line (in my view, at least) is that the current Howard government never does anything that GW Bush does not approve of. Tannin 17:15 Feb 3, 2003 (UTC)

---

Norway is one of the first industrialised countries to ratify the Kyoto Protocol on reductions in emissions of greenhouse gases. Ratification took place on 30 May 2002. [3] (http://odin.dep.no/md/engelsk/aktuelt/pressem/022021-070081/index-dok000-b-n-a) --Ed Poor

---

[4] (http://www.panda.org/goforkyoto/ratification_updates.rtf)

---

This goal may be achieved if Russia ratifies it. I don't Russia alone will suffice; the treaty requries 55 ratifiers, and Russia would only increase the number from 18 to 19. --Ed Poor

---

[5] (http://unfccc.int/resource/kpstats.pdf) says that 51 countries have ratified, with 37.1% of emissions. --Ed Poor

---

"For those States that ratify, accept or approve the Convention or accede thereto after the date of entry into force, the Convention shall enter into force on the ninetieth day after the date of the deposit by such State of its instrument of ratification, acceptance, approval or accession." (UNFCCC [6] (http://unfccc.int/resource/convkp))

Does this mean Kyoto already has a high enough number of countries? Because it includes "accession" as well as ratification?

 --Ed Poor

No: it requires an "instrument of accession", which AFAIK is something that some countries have instead of "instruments of ratification". I have no idea with UK's royal assent counts as ratification, accession, or what... Martin

---

Ed: I think you've got a slight misunderstanding: the Protocol requires that countries with 55 percent of the world's pollution have to ratify. Not that 55 countries have to ratify. Of course, with the USA having 38% of the pollution and not wishing to ratify, this is a challenge... ;-) Martin

Martin, about the 'slight misunderstanding' you mentioned above:

• "For the Protocol to come into force, the Protocol needs to be ratified by 55 countries, including the nations responsible for at least 55% of the developed world's emissions." -- Kyoto NOW! (http://www.rso.cornell.edu/kyotonow/kyotoprotocol), a grassroouts university group which favors the Kyoto Protocol
• "To come into force, the 1997 treaty requires 55 countries to ratify it. The 55 countries must also be responsible for at least 55 percent of greenhouse gas emissions." USA Today (http://www.usatoday.com/news/science/climate/2001-04-15-australia-warming.htm)

--Uncle Ed

Yes... it would appear that I'm an idiot. In my defence, I did use the magic get-out-of-incompetency free phrase of "I think" ... ;-) I guess with the 55 countries thing achieved so quickly, the 55 percent has dominated coverage. Martin

Not only that, but you seem to have landed on "Free Parking", so you get to roll again! --Uncle Ed

---

Serious Separation of Powers[?] constitutional issues would arise if regulations were created and then enforced by the Executive Branch for a treaty which has no legal force in the United States. In short, the President would be creating his own laws without formal passage/ratification by Congress.

I don't have a clue what this means! It sounds like an irrelevance, since Dubya is unlikely to create regulation for a Protocol which he dislikes.... Martin

I've just removed that section, pending someone explaing what the heck the point is. Martin

albeit at a 15 to 1 price ratio (embedded in the logic of the Protocol is the assumption that developed nations can pay 15x more to save a citizen's life than a developing one).

Can someone back that up? is the 15 an estimate of some kind? Martin