Talk:Views on the Kyoto Protocol

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Climate change, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Climate change on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Climate changeWikipedia:WikiProject Climate changeTemplate:WikiProject Climate changeClimate change articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
If you are looking for ways to improve this article, we recommend checking out our recommended sources and our style guide

International relations Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject International relations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of International relations on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.International relationsWikipedia:WikiProject International relationsTemplate:WikiProject International relationsInternational relations articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Tip: Anchors are case-sensitive in most browsers.

This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.

[[greenhouse gas#Cumulative and historical emissions|historical emission]] The anchor (#Cumulative and historical emissions) is no longer available because it was deleted by a user before.
[[Greenhouse gas#Regional and national attribution of emissions|per-capita emissions]] The anchor (#Regional and national attribution of emissions) is no longer available because it was deleted by a user before.
[[carbon tax#Carbon taxes compared to carbon emission trading|carbon tax]] The anchor (#Carbon taxes compared to carbon emission trading) is no longer available because it was deleted by a user before.

Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. | Reporting errors

Supporters edit

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The Tom Wigley links appear to be..not dead..but not useful. Here is a summary of his studies. It's a lot more nuanced than the WP. The effect of the Kyoto Protocol on global warming On the Record Tom M.L. Wigley Spring 2006 'Now retired, Tom Wigley was an NCAR Senior Scientist when this statement was published in 2006. Kyoto Protocol implications for carbon dioxide, temperature, and sea level' Mrfebruary (talk) 00:31, 15 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

Dubious sources edit

Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The parroting of quotes concerning how horrible George Bush is from a source called US Liberals quite simply has no place in an encyclopedia that is supposed to be unbiased. The section concerning the actions of Clinton and Bush administrations is taken, word for word, from a piece written by an individual, Deborah White, who served as a delegate for the California Democratic Party, amongst other things. Her ridiculous take on the actions of George Bush vs. those of Bill Clinton is uncritically copied and used as the ONLY source for an entire section of the entry. That her view is hopelessly biased goes without saying. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.141.154.75 (talk) 22:24, 24 March 2012 (UTC)Reply

Describing some problems of the Kyoto protocol edit

Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

This section could be implemented (perhaps a bit revised); the problems noted can not be resolved neither in the Kyoto protocol nor a successor:

One of the biggest problem seems to revolve around the fact that the countries decide on an average "allowed emission amount" per capita (which many believe should actually actually not exist at all). Many people, including prominent ones such as Ken Caldeira believe that an acceptable GHG emission per capita would be 0 tonnes (or -alternatively, very close to that, say 0,001 tonnes or so ^[1] The current protocol however has huge allowed amounts of emissions (between 3 and 10 tonnes) per capita and is as such extremely negligent.^[2]

Although 0,001 tonnes per capita would be acceptable, it can be expected that most people won't accept this and a better approach might be to just get rid entirely of this emission reduction-positive approach with the successor and replace it with an emitted GHG-negative approach. Obviously, it should be possible to still emit CO2, yet when emitting more than 0 tonnes of GHG, a sort of "fine" needs to be payed (carbon credits). This is much similar as what it is now, except for the method we employ.

See Talk:Climate_change_mitigation#Removed_section:_Making_the_emitting_of_CO2_illegal Atleast the top section should be mentioned here, the bottom section is allready briefly described at Climate change mitigation#Making_the_emitting_of_CO2_illegal

81.242.237.135 (talk) 08:00, 21 February 2013 (UTC)Reply

References

^ if you multiply this by the population -at present 7 billion people, expected to rise rapidly as time progresses- this still yields 7000 tonnes. This latter figure however, is still low enough to be eliminated ie by planting trees to sequester the carbon, hence still allowing a zero emissions policy.
^ See per capita emissions and carbon dioxide emissions from fuel combustion between 1990-2009 for the Kyoto Annex I and non-Annex I Parties.png total emissions; the average emissions are 8 to 10 tonnes per capita emissions for Annex-1 countries and 1,5 to 3 tonnes for non-Annex 1 countries. As the second graph clearly shows, multiplying this with the (huge) population makes:7500 to 9000 million tonnes for the Annex I Kyoto Parties per year and 7000 to 15000 million tonnes for the non-Annex I Parties per year

External links modified edit

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Views on the Kyoto Protocol. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 18 January 2022).

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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:24, 21 July 2016 (UTC)Reply

Add topic

[1] you multiply this by the population -at present 7 billion people, expected to rise rapidly as time progresses- this still yields 7000 tonnes. This latter figure however, is still low enough to be eliminated ie by planting trees to sequester the carbon, hence still allowing a zero emissions policy.

[2] See per capita emissions and carbon dioxide emissions from fuel combustion between 1990-2009 for the Kyoto Annex I and non-Annex I Parties.png total emissions; the average emissions are 8 to 10 tonnes per capita emissions for Annex-1 countries and 1,5 to 3 tonnes for non-Annex 1 countries. As the second graph clearly shows, multiplying this with the (huge) population makes:7500 to 9000 million tonnes for the Annex I Kyoto Parties per year and 7000 to 15000 million tonnes for the non-Annex I Parties per year

[1]

[2]