Talk:Post–Kyoto Protocol negotiations on greenhouse gas emissions

Poznań

Resolved

The text suggests the 2008 meeting in Poznań has already taken place. That is not the case and the information provided is therefore incorrect. The meeting will be held from 1-12 December. Please also note the correct spelling of Poznań. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.11.30.98 (talk) 19:53, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

What should we do with the duplicate information between this article and UNFCCC?

This article is in a sorry state, given that its importance has been assessed ats "High". Most sections deal with events in 2007, with basically the only information being that "it will (sic!) set up the stage for the Bali convention". I started by at least changing the future to past tense and adding links to existing articles, but I realize that it needs a bigger rework. Maybe we could group chapters into years? — Sebastian 16:56, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

There is a huge overlap between this article and the second half of United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, and it is clear that we need to combine the information in some way. Whether it is better to dissolve this article, or merge the content from the other article into this one, is a different question; there are probably good arguments for either. I prefer dissolving this article for the following reasons:

• The term "Post-Kyoto" is only relevant from the present point in time. Historically, these are just one episode in a series of conferences which are combined in the UNFCCC article. It is as if we had a special article for "the 20th century from 1920 till 2000".
• This article has been largely written as a crystal ball, which means that there are many words, but hardly any encyclopedic content. If we do want to flesh out some of it, it would make more sense to write it into individual articles, as already happened with half of the sections.

— Sebastian 17:44, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Don't merge - the UNFCCC and its secretariat have a different shelf-life to the negotiations. The negotiations are a combination of preliminary national positions, proposals, bilateral agreements and understandings, and open agreements - some inside the FCCC and some outside the FCCC - that will hopefully result in a unified Copenhagen Protocol to add to the Framework Convention. Or maybe not. Once we have an agreed protocol, with an agreed duration, then it may make sense to splice it inside. Until then it reads better to keep the crystal ball gazing outside the main UNFCCC article. Ephebi (talk) 23:24, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

My apologies, I realize that the headline I gave this section, "Reorganize this article or merge into UNFCCC?" was misleading. Actually, the decision is not between merge / don't merge. 12 of the 15 conferences covered in the UNFCCC article fit exactly the title of this article: Post-Kyoto Protocol negotiations on greenhouse gas emissions. I don't think that such a large overlap is justified. To keep it tidy, we need to cut the duplicate text from one of the two articles. The question is rather: Where do we want to keep it?

The only crystal ball in this article is COP-15. COP-15 is covered in both articles already, so it doesn't make a difference. You seem concerned that adding the details of the 2009 round will negatively influence the overall article. But there is a better way to address this: We can easily keep the 2009 details in an article dedicated to the 2009 round. That could be either the COP-15 article or a special article for the preparations. You further point out correctly that some of the preparations are outside the FCCC. Keeping those in this article isn't a very neat solution though, as there seems to be no agreement among experts whether those are considered part of the "Post-Kyoto Protocol negotiations". An article dedicated to the current round would be a neat solution for this problem, as well. — Sebastian 05:46, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

• I'm no longer clear on what you're proposing here? Is it a problem with the literal wording that could - at first glance - mean either "after the Kyoto COP" or "post-2012 compliance period"? This article explains the difference and the rational in the lead paragraph. The only only COPs which have seriously considered the post-Kyoto/post-2012 protocols were Bali & Poznan. (However, from a pedant's point of view, calling it "Post-Kyoto Protocol compliance period" is more accurate, as in fact the Kyoto Protocol does not die when the compliance period ends on 31 Dec 2012. The trueing up and accounting mechanisms mean that the parties will still be complying with the protocol until mid-2014. But in reality most people will only see the 5-year compliance period from 2008-2012 as being important, and so it is common parlance is to refer to the next round of negotiations as "Post-Kyoto") Ephebi (talk) 09:30, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

• I'm sorry that I didn't reply to this for a whole year. As the heading of this section says, this is not primarily about proposing something, but about a problem. The problem is not some wording in the lead, but the fact that most of this article is duplicated information. — Sebastian 17:08, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Don't merge! At best I guess we can link this in UNFCCC, but this merits it's own page. Elncid (talk) 11:11, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm not saying that merge is the only solution. But how would you solve the problem that most of this article is duplicated between the two articles? What do you mean by "we can link this in UNFCCC" - replace the text there with a link to this article? That has problems, too: It would mess with the good article to keep the bad one intact. — Sebastian 17:08, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

I go with "merge." There are too many separate articles that cover pretty much the same material. You could argue that they sre different in detail, but here's the question, if somebody wants to learn about climate negotiations, how do they know which article to go to? Merge 'em. Lulu71339 (talk) 15:22, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

The most important problem with this article is that it is called "Post-Kyoto", while actually, one of the main issues of contention within the negotiations is the question on whether the Kyoto Protocol should be continued or not. So this article title seems to prejudge the outcome of one of the most difficult questions under negotiation. or "Negotiations on a new climate agreement post 2012" would be more appropriate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.159.119.164 (talk) 09:50, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

I do not think they should be merged. UNFCCC is a distinct, defined entity. PKPNGGE in my opinion is an awkward catch-all. There may be plenty of information in it that could be copy-pasted to UNFCCC, and then PKPNGGE could be deleted. If there are other greenhouse gas negotiations going on, they would be eligible for their own articles in accordance with Wikipedia rules. DanielM (talk) 19:36, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Global warming is totally fake so who cares? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.183.22.225 (talk) 19:55, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

See also Convention on Biological Diversity; also has COP, and is related to Effects of global warming, see Holocene extinction

Per "View History" User:97.87.29.188 comments were Convention on Biological Diversity also has COP, and is related to Effects of global warming, see Holocene extinction for inclusion of "Convention of Biological Diversity" in "See also" section. So it was "argued" in contradiction to User:Arthur Rubin's comments. 209.255.78.138 (talk) 15:21, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Now, there's an argument, for the first time. However, there's no basis for that argument, as things related to the same thing are not necessarily related to each other. What should be done is to make COP 10 a disambiguation. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:30, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Still no credible argument why things related to the same thing should be considered related to each other. See also six degrees of separation. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:33, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

What are you, Arthur, a symbiote or a parasite? 99.155.151.13 (talk) 23:12, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

As you should know, it's symbiont. And you have made it clear that you are not interested in helping Wikipedia, making you a parasite here.

As for the matter at hand, the WP:ALSO suggests that the "See also" section be only for links which could be in the body of the article, if expanded. You haven't made a case that Convention on Biological Diversity should be in Post-Kyoto Protocol negotiations on greenhouse gas emissions, or Post-Kyoto Protocol negotiations on greenhouse gas emissions be in Convention on Biological Diversity; only that they are both related to (different) COPs (Conference of the Parties) and to effects of global warming (although the Convention is only tangentially related). — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:27, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

No, Arthur. We, as both humans, are both symbiotic and parasitic within the Biosphere. Please focus on the topic of the articles and its related wikilink articles. Your overemphasis on the foreground, to the lack of background: Look. 99.155.144.186 (talk) 05:37, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

WP:AGF yet? 99.190.81.3 (talk) 03:18, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

WP:AGF is not a suicide pact. You have demonstrated your failure to edit according to Wikipedia policies and guidelines; whether that's due to a lack of WP:COMPETENCE or an intentional disregard of the rules is irrelevant. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 11:34, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

This Suicide pact? Please help me understand what you are intending to communicate, I don't understand the sentence above. 99.112.215.224 (talk) 17:26, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Read the second sentence in my comment. Your edits are non-constructive, and should be reverted on sight, even if you were editing in good faith. However, note the grammar in that last sentence, particularly the underlined word. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:03, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

So you want me to ignore your comment "WP:AGF is not a suicide pact." then? 108.73.112.139 (talk) 01:26, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

You have clearly demonstrated either unwillingness or inability to follow Wikipedia policies and guidelines. It doesn't matter which. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 09:49, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

I think he/she/it wants a yes or no answer to the question. Why not just simply answer Arthur? Your hostile sounding comments make me edgy. Wikipedia:Civility 216.250.156.66 (talk) 19:51, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't really care whether you want a yes or no answer; it's only relevant whether constructive editors want a yes or no answer. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:12, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

If you, User:Arthur Rubin, don't really care whether anyone understands what you are attempting to communicate, why do you write anything? IMHO, a group of editors can only be constructive if, and only if, there are good communications. ... Two-sense. 99.19.40.168 (talk) 01:00, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

If you were interested and able to follow Wikipedia policies and guidelines, this argument wouldn't have happened. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 03:24, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Friendly reminder, you User:Arthur Rubin are not the embodiment of Wikipedia policies and guidelines. 99.19.46.34 (talk) 03:32, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Ownership of articles. 99.119.128.35 (talk) 23:14, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Tendentious editing also Mr. Rubin. 99.181.155.158 (talk) 05:02, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

(OD) Remember WP:Civility. 01:43, 8 November 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.87.29.188 (talk)

Add Presidency of Barack Obama and related Politics of global warming (United States).

Add Presidency of Barack Obama and related Politics of global warming (United States). 99.190.87.126 (talk) 06:15, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Why? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 06:45, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

This article is now called "Climate change policy of the United States". Just an FYI. 216.250.156.66 (talk) 00:35, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Also see Foreign policy of the Obama administration regarding Climate change, Environmental policy of the United States, and Energy policy of the United States. 216.250.156.66 (talk) 19:45, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

resource

Obama's envoy for climate change casts doubt on Kyoto protocol; Todd Stern hints progress at climate talks in South Africa may stall with insistence on limits on greenhouse gas emissions by Fiona Harvey, environment correspondent guardian.co.uk 19 September 2011 21.38 BST 97.87.29.188 (talk) 23:36, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

See Todd Stern, and 2011 United Nations Climate Change Conference. 99.112.214.32 (talk) 01:02, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

resources

• http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-12-06/australia-joins-new-zealand-seeking-pollution-curbs-beyond-kyoto-countries.html
• http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-12-06/eu-new-zealand-can-t-be-world-idiots-on-climate-envoy-says.html

99.190.82.160 (talk) 07:19, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Human Rights

The benefits of strong, early action considerably outweigh the costs. According to Stern report each tonne of CO2 we emit causes damages worth at least $85, but emissions can be cut at a cost of less than $25 a tonne. The private persons make the wins while the costs are socialised. Does this not conflict with the universal human rights? ( ref Stern report: the key points 30 Oct 2006)

2013 United Nations Climate Change Conference negotiate the rights to climate change emissions. As James Hansen pointed out in 2008, the organizations with high emissions should be charged in the International Court of Justice. In minimum why does the negotiators not put all the companies to pay all the consequenses of their emissions? Experts have continuously stated very strong warnings at least since year 1970. Watti Renew (talk) 16:08, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

• See: James Hansen: September 2012: A New Age of Risk: Presentation given at Columbia University on Sep. 22. Watti Renew (talk) 16:17, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Removed sections

I removed these sections as they have no reason to be at this page:

United Nations Climate Change Report

July 2014 UN report set actions for the biggest 15 economies to keep warming below 2C. America, Australia, Brazil, Britain, Canada, China, France, Germany, India, Indonesia, Japan, Mexico, Russia, South Africa, and South Korea account for 70% of global emissions.

Emission decline demand in the EU 80 % from year 2000 to 2050

To limit global warming in 2°C with 70% confident level Swedish emissions should decline 70% and EU emissions 80% from year 2000 to year 2050. This is in 37 years from now. How could the bought emission rights from China help to cut emissions anywhere while China increase its emissions annually? Why is there no obligation to cut emissions also at home? Professor Christian Azar, Swedish lead author of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) (Institutionen för energi och miljö, Fysisk resursteori, Chalmers) have written that we are not credible if we do not cut the emissions also in our own country in Europe.

KVDP (talk) 16:45, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

References

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Post–Kyoto Protocol negotiations on greenhouse gas emissions. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080612113122/http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2007/06/14/europe/EU-GEN-Sweden-Environment-Conference.php to http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2007/06/14/europe/EU-GEN-Sweden-Environment-Conference.php
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/frontpage/2007/1215/1197543946992.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:40, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

How is this article useful?

I think it is useless. If you think it is useful how do you think it is useful and to who?Chidgk1 (talk) 16:02, 5 January 2020 (UTC)