Talk:Kyoto Protocol and government action
|WikiProject International relations|
Links from this article with broken #section links (check):
For the section on Pakistan, I think that some bits are written in an inappropriate tone:
(i) It was expected that the Protocol would help Pakistan lower dependence on fossil fuels through renewable energy projects. (ii)Although Pakistan was not a big polluter, it was a victim. (iii) Global warming had led to 'freak weather' in the country with record-breaking cold and heat, and droughts and floods.
Sentence (ii) is not written in an objective, scientific way, e.g., see the IPCC reports. The word "victim" is rather emotional. Also, saying that "it was a victim" suggests 100% certainty over attribution of human-induced effects causing impacts in the region. This is not scientifically valid. Similarly, sentence (iii) says that:
Global warming had led to 'freak weather [...]
I've added the "neutrality" and "clarification needed" tags to this section. In my view, the section is quite dreadful:
(i) As of August 27, 2008 China surpassed the United States as the biggest emitter in the world of CO2 from power generation, according to the Center for Global Development. On a per capita basis, however, the emission by the power sector in the U.S. is still nearly four times that in China. The top ten power sector emitters in the world in absolute terms are China, the United States, India, Russia, Germany, Japan, the United Kingdom, Australia, South Africa, and South Korea. If the 27 member states of the European Union are counted as a single country, the E.U. would rank as the third biggest CO2 polluter, after China and the United States. In per capita terms, emissions from the U.S. power sector are the second highest in the world. The production of electricity in the U.S. produces about 9.5 tons of CO2 per person per year, compared to 2.4 tons per person per year in China, 0.6 in India, and 0.1 in Brazil. The average per capita emission from electricity and heat production in the E.U. is 3.3 tons per year. Only Australia, at greater than 10 tons per year, emits more power-related emissions per person than the U.S does.
(ii) In March 2008, Canadian economists Jeff Rubin and Benjamin Tal discussed a number of reasons why a carbon tariff against China was likely.
- China’s GHG emissions have increased by 120% since the beginning of the decade, while U.S. emissions have increased 16% over the same period;
- China now exceeds the United States as the single largest GHG emitter, and accounts for more than a fifth of global GHG emissions;
- China relies more heavily on coal-fired power plants, the most GHG-intensive energy source, than do most OECD countries. Between now and 2012, the increase in Chinese coal-based emissions will exceed the entire level of coal-based emissions in the United States.
(iii) In June 2007, China unveiled a 62-page climate change plan and promised to put climate change at the center of its energy policy and insisted that developed countries had an “unshirkable responsibility” to take the lead on cutting greenhouse gas emissions and that the principle of "common but differentiated responsibility", as agreed up in the UNFCCC, should be applied.
(iv) China stated the criticisms of its energy policy were unjust. It is unfair to compare among different countries, since China alone makes up one-fifth of the world's population and the per capita emission in China was low compared to the emission in the industrialized world. Even after one combines the population of the E.U., the U.S., Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Japan, and South Korea, China would still outnumber them by a few hundred million. A comparison of yearly emissions also neglects the cumulative amount generated by developed countries. Studies of carbon leakage also suggest that nearly a quarter of China's emissions result from production of goods exported to developed countries.
None of the paragraphs directly addresses the Chinese participation in Kyoto agreement. All paragraphs are biased interpretations of Chinese energy policy.
As of August 27, 2008 China surpassed the United States as the biggest emitter in the world of CO2 from power generation, according to the Center for Global Development. On a per capita basis, however, the emission by the power sector in the U.S. is still nearly four times that in China. The top ten power sector emitters in the world in absolute terms are China, the United States, India, Russia, Germany, Japan, the United Kingdom, Australia, South Africa, and South Korea. If the 27 member states of the European Union are counted as a single country, the E.U. would rank as the third biggest CO2 polluter, after China and the United States. In per capita terms, emissions from the U.S. power sector are the second highest in the world. The production of electricity in the U.S. produces about 9.5 tons of CO2 per person per year, compared to 2.4 tons per person per year in China, 0.6 in India, and 0.1 in Brazil. The average per capita emission from electricity and heat production in the E.U. is 3.3 tons per year. Only Australia, at greater than 10 tons per year, emits more power-related emissions per person than the U.S does.
Nothing in here is directly related to Kyoto.
This is a biased analysis of Chinese energy policy, with no reference to the Kyoto agreement. I say biased because it is based on one analysis. It is particularly biased in the sense that the US and China are, by inference, considered to be the only important countries in relation to the Protocol.
This does refer to the UNFCCC, but not directly to its Protocol. How does Chinese policy directly relate to the Protocol? This paragraph does not answer this question.
This is another paragraph that does not directly address anything to do with the Kyoto agreement. Rather, it is a rhetorical interpretation of equity issues. To be included, these issues should be directly related to parts of the Kyoto agreement. Another thing is the rather sloppy usage of the term "carbon leakage". Carbon leakage can be interpreted (as is done in the IPCC report) as the spillover effect of emissions reductions in Annex B countries on non-Annex B countries. The article, however, uses the term carbon leakage to refer to attribution of emissions, i.e., attributing emissions by consumption versus production. These are two completely different uses of the term "carbon leakage". Therefore it is necessary to say which one you're referring to, hence the "clarification needed" tag.
I should also add that if you are to refer to the latter usage, you should offer a balanced description of equity issues relating to emissions attribution – e.g., sovereign responsibility of governments over their own emissions. It should also be made absolutely clear that emissions attribution is an equity issue. It should not be raised, as the article does, purely as a rhetorical device. To do so is misleading and biased. Enescot (talk) 17:20, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
I've put in the neutrality tag to the section on the Bush administration. It strikes me as being biased towards criticism of Bush's policy. As I recall, US economists were generally unsupportive of the Protocol. Presumably some senators of states that were big emitters were not keen on the Protocol either. The views of US industry are also not covered. Enescot (talk) 13:17, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted section criticizing China
I've deleted the entire section criticizing China's policy on mitigation. As I've stated before, I think it's unjust to have an entire section dedicated to criticizing China. Also, I don't see the direct relevance of any of the information. All criticisms should be of the form: "X criticized China for not capping its emissions under the Kyoto agreement...". General criticisms of Chinese mitigation policy are not relevant. They should be moved to the article on climate change mitigation.
Criticisms by Canadian economists of China's energy policy do not strike me as being noteworthy. If they are to be included, they should be put in the section on Canada. Similarly, any US-based criticism of China should also be moved to the US section. Obviously the implicit goal of criticisms are blame China for developed country inaction. I do not see implicit criticisms as being acceptable. Any criticisms should be explicit, e.g., "several economists in rich countries have blamed China for the Kyoto Protocol failing to cut global emissions etc."
I should note that the sections on rich countries do not have the strong criticisms of their policies which some countries/interest groups have made. Criticisms of US policy in this article are entirely inward looking, yet for China, criticisms are all from external sources.
All the information I've deleted on China's GHG emissions is already contained in the main article on the Kyoto Protocol. In my view, the Kyoto Protocol article's bit on emissions is presented more objectively (as a list without comment) than the information on emissions previously contained in this article, i.e.., "China's total emissions are X, but the US's emissions are Y, etc." It's pathetic to get into game of comparison between the US and China. It's an example of editors concentrating on US-centric views on climate change (3% of the world's population), and ignoring the views of people living in other countries. Enescot (talk) 00:20, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
removing POV tag with no active discussion per Template:POV
I've removed an old neutrality tag from this page that appears to have no active discussion per the instructions at Template:POV:
- This template is not meant to be a permanent resident on any article. Remove this template whenever:
- There is consensus on the talkpage or the NPOV Noticeboard that the issue has been resolved
- It is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given
- In the absence of any discussion, or if the discussion has become dormant.
- This template is not meant to be a permanent resident on any article. Remove this template whenever:
Since there's no evidence of ongoing discussion, I'm removing the tag for now. If discussion is continuing and I've failed to see it, however, please feel free to restore the template and continue to address the issues. Thanks to everybody working on this one! -- Khazar2 (talk) 23:51, 1 July 2013 (UTC)