Talk:Opposition to the Kyoto Protocol

1990 base line[edit]

Something important has been left out, the baseline year of 1990 is controversial.--CorvetteZ51 09:09, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Someone has added it. I'm surprised by "Further, the EU would appear to be able to nearly meet its target with little effort." Why? As far as I know, EU states have individual quotas, so the new eastern block members might improve the overall quota, but not France, Italy, or Britain.--Stephan Schulz 08:40, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, back again. The EU has a global quota of 8% that is split internally (apparently by a seperate binding treaty). However, the 8% quota is only for the 15 then-current countries of the EU, not the former eastern block countries that joined later [1]. So again, the sentence above seems to be off.--Stephan Schulz 08:49, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

rv: why[edit]

I reverted the anon/Corvettes changes. They just look POV, and are completely unsourced. Come on, at least add some refs to respectable newspaper articles when you write this stuff. William M. Connolley 09:17, 4 February 2006 (UTC).[reply]

WMC, why are you here? go write something for the supporters of KP article. People who oppose the KP, should write about opposing the KP.

Yes, let's have as many unbalanced articles as possible! It'll even out in the end, I promise!--Stephan Schulz 11:02, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

look, the KP exempted international aviation, where is your ref that it didn't.

Look, the international aviation exemption currently is in, although I'd like to have some some source for the European "Micro" countries (would that be Luxembourg, Lichtenstein, and Monaco?) pushing for this. --Stephan Schulz 11:02, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

lots of un-reffed stuff here BTW. if I deleted it all, there wouldn't be much left. --CorvetteZ51 10:44, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect[edit]

It becomes obvious that this article is just a POV fork; Corvettes comments above are revealing. The article is unreferrenced and full of weasel words, and largely duplicates stuff in the KP article, so I've redirected it there. William M. Connolley 11:34, 4 February 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Tarret strips out most of the opp section (only) back on 20-Dec-05, then you speciously claim it's all weasel works and duplicates and bury it with a redirect. Clever. At least somewhat more subtle than the average POV vandals. Allenc28 06:49, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

this page is about opposition[edit]

not support --207.53.228.220 17:03, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is an opposition section on the KP page; the KP page is not about *support* either. There is no need for an opp page; this is just a POV fork, as above William M. Connolley 17:11, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]