Talk:Kyoto Protocol

Wording issue?

I'm not sure if this is right or wrong so I'm putting it here and letting someone else decide. In the introduction, we have this:

The Protocol was initially adopted on 11 December 1997 in Kyoto, Japan, and entered into force on 16 February 2005. As of September 2011, 191 states have signed and ratified the protocol.[5] The only remaining signatory not to have ratified the protocol is the United States. Other states yet to ratify Kyoto include Afghanistan, Andorra and South Sudan, after Somalia ratified the protocol on 26 July 2010.

I'm not sure if it's poor wording or what, but to me that says that the US, Afghanistan, Andorra and South Sudan all have to ratify, so I don't understand why the sentence singling out the US. Perhaps it means that the US has signed but not ratified, while the other countries haven't signed, in which case would it be worth re-writing? Or maybe it's just too early for me, I don't know. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.162.179.159 (talk) 22:30, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Biased maps and other stuff

Problem with maps

The colour schemes are biased in all the introduction's maps. Red, I take to be a sign of disapproval and green approval. Whether or not you approve of a country's Kyoto obligations is a matter of opinion. It is, however, inappropriate to implicitly express those views through a map. Additionally, as the "negotiations" section and "kyoto protocol and government" action sub-article makes clear, the issue of whether or not a country is doing "well" or not is a highly complex matter.

I've retained the first graph. Apart from the colour scheme, it appears to be reasonably objective. I'm a bit confused by the distinction between "undecided" countries and "countries who have no intention of ratifying". No citations are provided to support this distinction.

I've removed the second map that classified Kyoto Parties emission reduction commitments either as a reduction, no reduction, or no commitment at all. First of all, it is biased to concentrate only on emission reduction commitments. The UNFCCC places a wide variety of commitments on all Parties. An objective classification would break countries down as being either Annex I (ratified), Annex I (not ratified), Annex I EIT, or non-Annex I. It was also too vague in specifying either a reduction or no reduction. It is necessary to specify the exact commitment level. Such information would be better presented as a bar graph.

My removal of the third map is also due to my concern over implicit bias. The treaty's classification of countries is between Annex I, Annex I EIT, and non-Annex I. To classify countries according to whether or not they have an emission reduction commitment is implicitly analytical, and, in my view, not acceptable. Enescot (talk) 04:36, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

I went ahead and modified the image to use blue instead of red and edited the corresponding descriptions. I hope this helps with some of the NPOV disputes. If I went about doing the change in the proper manner or not I would more than grateful to know.Abhinav777 (talk) 15:20, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks very much for making the changes. Enescot (talk) 15:32, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

I will have to disagree with your point of view. The classification of whether countries have agreed to make a reduction in the emissions is really what points out one of the central points in the Kyoto protocol - where the in the world goverments have agreed to tip the development into a reduction rather than expansion of GHG. Of course their are many details behind the Annex B in the protocol left out of this map, but as the title states that is not the scope - only the commitment to reduction. It would be great to make a map where annex I countries and non-annex I countries are categorized independently since this plays a big role in whether caps restricts their emission-development, however since the map need to be in black, grey and white this is not practical. You could make a diagram - however this would leave out the great world overview of the regional parts that have shifted their development to a comitted reduction. Then again the real world emission figures are something different.

The Kyoto protocol is of course not simpel by far - in example the mechanism for calculating emissions on top is not directly comparable between the countries since their base years vary by many yars in some cases, which some arguably benefit from. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Flemmong (talk • contribs) 13:22, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

I still stand by what I said earlier - concentrating only on emissions reductions ignores other important aspects of the UNFCCC and Kyoto treaties, e.g., equity. I also feel that the map is unnecessary since a bar graph is already included showing the Annex I countries emission reduction commitments. I think that my change of the map to greyscale is an improvement since the map no longer gives the impression of approval of certain countries (green) or disapproval (yellow/red). I certainly agree that it would be better to distinguish between Annex I and non-Annex I countries. I think that categorizing non-Annex I Parties with those of Annex I Parties with caps and ratification (e.g., Sweden) is not at all helpful. An option would be to use shading in the map (e.g., hatches or lines). This would allow the map to retain neutrality (in my opinion), be readable to those with color blindness, and allow there to be more categories of countries. Enescot (talk) 13:25, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't see anything wrong with having a map of emissions reductions, even if there are slight base level inconsistencies. I don't think that having a graph of a given metric mean that we're explicitly or implicitly focusing only on that part of the Kyoto Protocol. As long as that's not the only visual included on the whole page, I don't see a problem. If the whole point of Wikipedia is to provide accessible information to the public, the more visuals like maps (which enable quick, easy understanding) we can provide, the better. Besides, the bar graph with the 36 'Kyoto' countries is, arguably, difficult to read, less visually pleasing than a map, and maybe less likely to be clicked on. So why not have a map of emissions reductions? *Regarding the grayscale map, if anything, this map suffers from grouping so many countries of different statuses into the pale gray category. Regarding map color schemes, how far should we be taking the idea that map colors create biases? I mean one could even argue that the different shades of gray have certain biased connotations. Also in the map, what is called 'dark gray' looks pretty much like black to me, so why is it called dark gray? Perhaps there are still some limitations to the grayscale map. Regarding use of colors, are we being overly vigilant about inherent biases of different colors...I mean, should we stop using the colors red and blue in U.S. elections because of the connotations these colors have? Finally, arguing that classifying countries by reduction commitments is biased b/c it's implicitly analytical doesn't seem like a valid concern to me. This is a major consideration within the treaty that need not be de-emphasized. Indicators of implementation, compliance, and effectiveness are hugely important features of any treaty and its not fair to say that displaying these indicators prominently of the Wikipedia page of a treaty is biased. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.16.112.128 (talk) 03:46, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Deleted text

from "Government actions and emissions" section

[...] [non-Annex I countries] are not obligated by the limits of emissions in the Kyoto Protocol (p. 4). Fast growing economy countries like China, South Africa, India and Brazil are still in this non-obligated group [...]

This text is unsourced and I've deleted it. It's also implicitly analytical. Any analysis should be explicit, attributable and placed in the "views on the protocol" section.

[...] As the Non-Annex 1 countries are not obligated to any commitment on emissions some critics argue that their signatures on the protocol have been free and unsignificant.[...]

Unsourced analysis and in the wrong section.

From the "Views on the Protocol" section

[...]Australia, under former Prime Minister Kevin Rudd, has since ratified the treaty. it took effect in March, 2008. Despite ratification, Australia has thus far not implemented nany national legislation to bring itself into compliance.[...]

The second sentence is unsourced and inaccurate, so I've removed it.

Time wasting vandalism

When I look at this article, it appears to be often subject to vandalism. Some vandalism has obviously not been spotted, e.g., "Human-induced warming of the climate is expected to continue" has been vandalized, it used to read "Human-induced warming of the climate is expected to through the 21st century." There also appears to be other uncorrected examples of vandalism in the article. Enescot (talk) 04:36, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Text Query

Is the text at the top of the 2nd paragraph in the section 2012 emission targets and "flexible mechanisms" supposed to be highlighted in blue? I don't about you but it looks a trifle odd...Willbat (talk) 04:50, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Oops, I see why now. Please disregard the above statement. Willbat (talk) 05:06, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Map colors and -150% ???

Map (File:Kyoto36-2005.png) appears still or again in red/green (with both colors very similar in brightness). I suggest that a) out of considerateness to red/green color-blind persons (as suggested by 72.71.243.114 , 17 September 2010) AND b) 'cause red/green usually signify dis/approval (as explained by Enescot, 24 April 2011) this ought to be improved.

(If I read correctly) Map shows "percentage change..." and, iianm, Latvia is shown to have achieved about -150. I do not understand how "net annual national GHG emissions" could be reduced by 150%, and if this is not an error, an explanatory note would be very-nice-2-have. Wda (talk) 16:07, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

I've replaced the color versions of the map and bar graph with greyscale versions. The data for the bar graph are available in the World Bank Technical Report (PDF) referred to in the article - Table A1:2, p75 of 100 of PDF. It shows that Latvia's emissions (including land use, land use change, and forestry activities - LULUCF) in 1990 were 5,772 Gt CO2. In 2005, emissions had fallen to -3,552 Gt CO2, presumably through LULUCF activities, i.e., net emissions were below zero compared 1990 levels. It may also be due to the allocation of sink credits (see Dessai, 2003, p15 of 27 of PDF), but I don't know this for sure. Enescot (talk) 05:37, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

hot air?

The "Green Investment Scheme" talks about trading 'hot air'. If this is a technical term, it should be explained; it it is vandalism it should be fixed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.230.129.199 (talk) 16:49, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out. I've updated the article with an explanation of the term. Enescot (talk) 13:24, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Copyvios?

This article seems to be full of text copied and pasted from the cited sources. Here's one example: Between 2001, the first year CDM projects could be registered, and 2012, the end of the Kyoto commitment period, the CDM is expected to produce some 1.5 billion tons of carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e) in emission reductions.., in this section, taken word for word from here on page 262. --Johnsemlak (talk) 02:34, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

I added the above text, and I do not think that I have infringed copyright. As I understand it, short excerpts from copyrighted sources are acceptable. The cited source is several hundred pages long, and the text used in the article is a very small proportion of the source. Enescot (talk) 12:56, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Hartwell paper moved

I've moved the reference to the Hartwell paper to the article on views on the Kyoto Protocol#Criticism. I don't see that it deserves prominence over other viewpoints. The IPCC report offers the widest summary of academic views on the Kyoto Protocol. It's the most widely reviewed and approved report. It's already referred to in this article (Gupta et al 2007).

I also think the existing revision gives a reasonably balanced summary of views on the Kyoto Protocol. I don't think the Hartwell paper improves balance. In fact I think it makes things more unbalanced. In terms of academic viewpoints, we already have reference to Gupta et al, Grubb, World Bank, Stern and Liverman. Apart from the World Bank, the other sources are used to give an impression of generalized viewpoints on Kyoto, rather than individual views. That is appropriate for a section that is intended to be a summary of most viewpoints. Enescot (talk) 04:57, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree that the full edit is more appropriate where you moved it, but because it deserves a similar prominence as other views I am restoring just a couple of lines considering the attention it has received in the press.---Mariordo (talk) 05:12, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Enescot reply

Hello

To start off, I should say they I hope you don't view my criticisms as rudeness. Because of the concerns I specified earlier, I've put in some tags regarding the paragraph. I disagree that this article deserves mention of this paper in this top-level article. I'm not in favour of using newspaper attention as a criterion for notability. In my opinion, the judge of quality should be expert analysis, along with other guides to notability, e.g., many environmental groups have said X, various countries have said Y, business groups... etc. If newspaper notability is to be used, it is biased to concentrate only on the english-speaking media. In my view, this bias towards english-speaking-rich-country views is not acceptable for a subject that affects all regions of the world.

Use of expert analysis

In my opinion, expert analysis should be used to present an overview of the views of experts. It should not be used to cite support for one particular viewpoint. Doing this means that the article does not present a balanced treatment of the subject. To present a balanced view would require a complete description of various expert views. That would require a huge amount of space. While you may have the view that this Hartwell analysis is more notable than others, my criterion for assessment of notability is the IPCC report. Newspapers are not experts when it comes to assessing the quality of a study. Also, relying on a literature assessment is I feel a far more "encyclopedic" way of assessing the merits of a study than using newspapers.

A logical continuation of newspaper notability could lead to a serious reduction in the quality of this article. For example, there's probably all kinds of rubbish about Kyoto produced by the Wall Street Journal or broadcast on Fox News. So if you are to use newspapers as sources for notability, I think the quality goes down, because newspapers are rubbish, and secondly, it's far harder to judge notability and bias.

So, for example, we could have lots of notable articles on Kyoto from US newspapers, or UK newspapers, or Australian newspapers. But the subject, the Kyoto Protocol, is international. It would be biased to concentrate only on notability based on views in these countries. Was the Hartwell paper mentioned in Japanese newspapers? French newspapers? African newspapers? Chinese newspapers? That would perhaps be notable, at least on the assumption that newspapers editors have a clue what a "notable" study actually is. As I've stated, I think they have no clue whatsoever.

So for balance, we would need at least to have some viewpoints from media in developing countries. For developed countries, we should avoid bias towards english-speaking countries.

Fair use of media stories

Another major problem with the newpaper notability criterion is that it is highly unscientific. It would be more encylopedic and rigorous to cite research into how the Kyoto Protocol has been reported by the media in various countries. That would hopefully prevent any bias towards some views of the media over others. I think that would be a more objective and sensible use of media reporting in this article than the newspaper notability criterion.

Previous revision

If I can contrast this with the earlier revision that I wrote, I think this was relatively unbiased. I mean this in the sense that I attempted to be as inclusive as possible of all world viewpoints. Gupta et al was approved by the IPCC, and as part of that literature assessment, contributing experts had to come from different countries:

Gupta et al.. (2007) assessed the literature on climate change policy. They found that no authoritative assessments of the UNFCCC or its Protocol asserted that these agreements had, or will, succeed in solving the climate problem.

This is an important statement, since it is based on a literature assessment. It is not based on the views of any one particular study. The assessment by Gupta et al has been approved by a large number of governments as being fair and balanced.

The World Bank is an international institution, I therefore think it's appropriate to use the World Development Report in this article. The other academic sources I used were all used to convey general viewpoints, e.g., many environmentalists think X, rather than being used to promote particular views on Kyoto. The Liverman source includes at least one developing country viewpoint, I believe. If anything, the previous revision was biased towards english-speaking country viewpoints. This bias, in my view, is made even worse by your addition.

Failure to cut emissions

I've also put in a dubious tag for their claim that the Kyoto Protocol has failed to cut emissions. Assessing cuts requires a baseline against which the effectiveness of policy is judged. Defining this "no-policy" baseline is extremely difficult, therefore any analyses are highly uncertain. Any academic study into Kyoto (or any other policy, for that matter) will make it clear how difficult it is to assess the effectiveness of policies to reduce emissions. To make the statement that Kyoto has "completely failed" is wrong for two reasons:

• it implies too great a degree of certainty over the ability to judge the effectiveness of Kyoto
• it is a POV statement, which is not balanced in the article.

On the second point, my criticism goes back to my earlier criticism of only citing one academic study into climate change policy. By citing only the Hartwell paper, you are only putting forward one view on what policy should be. Some might view emissions growth in developing countries as a good thing, since emissions are linked with social and economic development. You could also point to how the emissions reduction trajectory implied by Kyoto could set us off for deeper cuts in the future. On the other hand, there are any number of other criticisms you could make of Kyoto - its use of cap-and-trade instead of a carbon tax, the targets are too expensive, not enough attention is given to adaptation etc. These are all summarized by Gupta et al.

Policy recommendations

Two criticisms here:

1. Their policy proposals do not deserve priority over policy proposals
2. The section is called "views on the Kyoto Protocol". I don't see why policy proposals should be included in this section. If they are to be included, they should be put in the "successor" section on post-Kyoto agreements.

(1) The issue of recommending policy I think is inappropriate. There are a very large number of policy proposals on climate change, put across by governments, NGOs and academic analyses (see Gupta et al 2007). I see no reason for the recommendations of this group of academics to have priority of any other of the analyses by other groups. As I stated earlier, I think that newspapers are no judge of quality or notability. I also do not see why their support for a particular climate policy deserves mention over the policy suggestions made by national governments or regional bodies, e.g., the Copenhagen Accord, the G8's 2 degrees C policy objective, the views of developing countries, vulnerable nations etc.

(1 and 2) On the issue of the the "failure" of Copenhagen, this is an opinion that needs balancing. Frankly I don't see why Copenhagen should be mentioned in a section that is entitled "views on the Kyoto Protocol". Copenhagen did not agree on any second round Kyoto commitments. It is therefore difficult for me to see how Copenhagen is relevant to this section. Enescot (talk) 08:06, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Mariordo's reply - I will be brief:

• This paper was produced by academics and practitioners from several fields, under a collaboration of the Mckinder Programme of the Study of Long Wave Events (London School of Economics) and the Institute for Science, Innovation and Society (Oxford University). Among the authors is Mike Hulme, from the School of Envrironmental Sciences, University of East Anglia (yes, the same involved in Climategate and some of the hacked e-mails are from him) and he is founding Director of the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research. Also Roger A. Pielke, Jr., professor in the Environmental Studies Program and a Fellow of the Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences, at the University of Colorado at Boulder. Therefore, these guys have sufficient credentials and expertise to have credibility (and they are not "deniers"), and proof of it is that The Economist, Science (Journal), BBC News, and the New York Times among others provided coverage and criticism to their paper. There has been already enough notability to merit the inclusion of the Hartwell Paper.
• I believe you are confusing the nature of the paper, it is about policy not about science. In fact, your tag requesting "opinion needs balancing" is absolutely ridiculous, you are questioning the paper content itself, when clearly it is their opinion (right or wrong, whether you agree or not) as already stated. The Hartwell paper is proposing a different approach, and do not agree with the Kyoto approach, that's it. And because it is an alternative proposal beyond than simply criticizing Kyoto (which they do), it properly belongs to the view section. As for balance, NPOV mandates we have other points of view, and this article is about Kyoto, and the Hartwell paper precisely offers other POV from a view of experts who believe another policies should be pursued given their perceived failure of Copenhagen (though most commentators agree it was a failure).
• If an article about the Hartwell paper gets created (I do not think there is enough notability yet for a full article), this eventual article would be the place to included reactions and criticisms to the paper. If you do it here (the sources I already provided include some) then you will have to extend the discussion in the Kyoto article, which I believe it is not appropriate as it would give undue balance to the Hartwell paper as compared to the other views already presented in the section.

Also I would like to hear other opinions, but I am removing the repeated and unnecessary tags and leaving the others until more regulars give us their take.--Mariordo (talk) 17:23, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

I will be briefer. There is a page called 'Views on the Kyoto Protocol'. The Hartwell paper is just another policy critique of the Kyoto Protocol. The most substantive description of it should be on that page where it can be read alongside the many other perspectives on the KP. Given there is a page 'Views on the Kyoto Protocol', some care is needed on deciding what is summarised on the the main KP page to avoid undue weight. So, I agree with Enescot's original action in moving the bulk of the material to 'Views on the Kyoto Protocol' and in my opinion his edit should not have been reverted. Mrfebruary (talk) 12:56, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Restored thread

I've restored this thread because another editor removed the "undue weight" template and "unbalanced opinion" tag from the relevant paragraph. In my opinion, use of the tag and template is justified, and I've restored them.

So long as the template and tag remain in the article, I think this thread should remain open for discussion. I'll try and remember to stop the thread being automatically archived by User:MiszaBot I. Enescot (talk) 13:23, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Canada's withdrawal

I've removed the following section and summarized its contents for this article. A longer summary is contained in Kyoto Protocol and government action#Canada:

Canada's environment minister, Peter Kent, informed a day after the 2011 United Nations Climate Change Conference that Canada will withdraw from the Kyoto accord. Canada’s protocol target was to cut emissions 6% by 2012 on 1990 levels, but emissions have risen by a third (over 30 %). Options were to buy carbon credits, face Kyoto sanctions or quit the accord, as Canada did. Kent said that the carbon emission permits would have cost £8.7bn for the taxpayers.[43] Canada's high emissions were in part due to the lucrative and highly polluting tar sands.[44]

James Hansen demands that the US and Canadian governments must agree that the unconventional fossil fuels, tar sands and tar shale, will not be developed.[45]

Executive Secretary of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) Christiana Figueres demanded Canada to reduce its climate gas emissions regardless the partnership in the protocol. She said: Canada has the legal obligation to comply the UN climate regulations.[46]

In my opinion, the section is too long for the article and lacks objectivity. I don't think Canada deserves special attention compared to the other Kyoto Parties. My summary is contained in the section on "Annex I Parties with targets:"

The emissions reductions in the early nineties by the 12 EIT countries who have since joined the EU, assist the present EU-27 in meeting its collective Kyoto target.[48]:25 At the end of 2010, the EU-15 was on track to achieve its Kyoto target, but three EU-15 Member States (Austria, Italy and Luxembourg) were not on track to meet their burden-sharing targets.[49]:8 Other countries not on course to meet their Kyoto target include Liechtenstein,[49]:8 Switzerland,[49]:8 Australia, Canada (see below), New Zealand and Spain.[48]:25 In order to meet their targets, these countries would need to purchase emissions credits from other Kyoto countries.[48]:25 As noted in the section on Intergovernmental Emissions Trading, purchasing surplus credits from the EIT countries would not actually result in total emissions being reduced. An alternative would be the purchase of CDM credits or the use of the Green Investment Scheme.

Canada's environment minister, Peter Kent, informed a day after the 2011 United Nations Climate Change Conference that Canada will withdraw from the Kyoto accord.

In my longer summary in Kyoto Protocol and government action#Canada, I've removed mention of Hansen's views:

James Hansen demands that the US and Canadian governments must agree that the unconventional fossil fuels, tar sands and tar shale, will not be developed.[45]

In the cited source, Hansen is not commenting specifically on the Kyoto treaty, nor on Canada's withdrawal Enescot (talk) 15:18, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Note: The Hansen source I refer to above is [1], and does not refer to Canada's withdrawal from the Kyoto treaty (it was written in 2009). Enescot (talk) 15:24, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

11.12.17 map colors

I replaced the map in the intro because of the biased color scheme (see Talk:Kyoto Protocol#Biased maps and other stuff). I'd prefer a greyscale map since this might be better for printouts or people with color-blindness. However, I haven't worked out how to do this yet. Enescot (talk) 15:20, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

I think this new version is no improvement at all, is much less legible with less distinction between the colours, and can't see how it is supposedly less "biased". If is claimed that red and green have symbolic meaning than blue and brown equally have. Blue in maps is read as water, brown is close to grey. Furthermore I don't see why a suggested 1960s style greyscale map would be desirable. --Elekhh (talk) 23:20, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

As I argued in a previous thread (Talk:Kyoto Protocol#Problem with maps), I interpret red as a sign of disapproval, and green as a sign of approval. Another editor has pointed out that the maps may be difficult to read for those with color blindness (Talk:Kyoto Protocol#Map colors). In my opinion, a black and white map which uses patterns and shading would be the most obvious solution. To repeat my earlier point, a black and white map might also be more useful for people who do not own a color printer.

There might be some confusion in using blue for the countries if the ocean was also blue, but seeing as it isn't, I don't see what the problem is. As for grey being close to brown, I agree that having the greatest level of contrast between the colors is desirable. Personally I think that the contrast between blue, brown and grey is acceptable, but I would be happy for different set of colors to be used. Enescot (talk) 16:08, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't see any bias in red for disapproval and green for approval, quite the contrary: that's what the map represents (members and non-members). Colour maps get printed very well on B/W printers as greyscale, and I don't think you are really suggesting changing all Wikipedia to B/W? In the previous version the two colours dark-red vs light-green were distinct enough IMO for the B/W viewers, and if not, one could simply further enhance the brightness/darkness of each. --Elekhh (talk) 22:54, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

You haven't mention the issue of reading the map for those with color blindness. I don't know if my replacement map is any better in this respect, and that's why I'd prefer a black and white map. If colors are to be used, I don't see why they have to be red and green. Enescot (talk) 12:23, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Actually I addressed that, as I wrote above that contrasting levels of brightness can be used ("dark-red vs light-green"). The purpose of a map is to communicate information quickly and efficiently, and the green-red (pro - contra) combination in this instance does the job the best IMO. In terms of testing colour-blindness usability, you can simply convert the images into grey-scale. In your version the light-blue and light-brown become the same level of grey. Also note that there are specific management solutions through computer software (see Color blindness#Management). In any case I don't see the advantage of depriving 95% of (non-colour blind) readers from the benefits of colours. If green is so unacceptable, an alternative I can imagine is using blue instead (for signatory countries as light blue = colour of UN), and keep US/CAN in dark red. --Elekhh (talk) 06:14, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree that my version is unsatisfactory when converted to grey. However, this also applies to the previous red/green version, where the shade for Canada is almost identical to the shade used for the Annex I Kyoto Parties. For this reason, I'm not convinced that color versions of this map are suitable for greyscale printers.

Since I haven't been able to produce a greyscale version of this map, I'd be happy to switch the colors of the existing map. I'm happy with using light blue for the Kyoto Parties, but I'd prefer a more neutral color than red to be used for the US/Canada (perhaps a dark blue or dark green?). I'm also assuming that you'd apply different colors for the US and Canada? Enescot (talk) 13:29, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

IPCC citations

I'm thinking of changing the IPCC citations in this article. A description of the change I intend to make is on Talk:Effects of global warming#IPCC citation change, and more detailed info is available on Talk:Intergovernmental_Panel_on_Climate_Change/citation. Basically the change would make it quicker and easier to cite the IPCC reports, since a lot of repetitive information contained in the citations would be removed. I'd probably make the changes gradually, and not change all the IPCC citations at once. Enescot (talk) 15:04, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Good idea. It will make the citations easier to read. Mrfebruary (talk) 03:07, 28 December 2011 (UTC)