From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Former good articleKyoto Protocol was one of the Natural sciences good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
In the news On this day... Article milestones
DateProcessResult
December 24, 2005 Peer reviewReviewed
June 5, 2006 Good article nomineeListed
June 12, 2009 Good article reassessmentDelisted
In the news A news item involving this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the " In the news" column on December 14, 2011.
On this day... Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the " On this day..." column on May 23, 2006, February 16, 2008, February 16, 2013, February 16, 2014, February 16, 2015, and February 16, 2020.
Current status: Delisted good article


Maps not very clear

THe maps are hard to understand since there is no legend. Why not use the same maps as many other language versions:

Kyoto Protocol participation until 2011:
  Signed and ratified.
  Signed, ratification declined.
  No position.
Kyoto Protocol extension period 2012-2020 participation
  Parties; Annex I & II countries with binding targets
  Parties; Developing countries without binding targets
  States not Party to the Protocol
  Signatory country with no intention to ratify the treaty, with no binding targets
  Countries that have renounced the Protocol, with no binding targets
  Parties with no binding targets in the second period, which previously had targets


Should a section be added about military exemptions agreed to by countries in Kyoto?

I've posted about this elsewhere, but I thought that it wouldn't hurt to post about it here. So, there was this new briefing book from the National Security Archive, saying it is about the "U.S. pursuit of military exemptions to the Kyoto Protocol." Within that post it says

The documents in this post expand that story by focusing on the advocacy by U.S. negotiators in Kyoto for national security exemptions during and after the climate change conference...Pentagon officials...were U.S. delegates in Kyoto...On December 11, 1997, the same day the Kyoto Protocol was adopted...the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) Conference of the Parties released a decision which enshrined the exemptions within the treaty...The decision stated that emissions “based upon fuel sold to ships or aircraft engaged in international transport,” i.e., bunker fuels, should not be part of national totals. It was further decided that emissions from multilateral operations following the United Nations Charter would not be included in national emissions totals but would be “reported separately”...This document summarizes the Third Session of Conference of the Parties in Kyoto from December 1 to December 11, 1997, including actions taken during the conference, and it lists carbon dioxide emissions of participants in 1990. On page 31 is a resolution entitled “Methodological issues related to the Kyoto protocol,” decided on the last day of the conference. This resolution urges the Subsidiary Body for Scientific and Technological Advice (SBSTA) to elaborate on the inclusion of emissions from bunker fuels in national emissions inventories. It decides that emissions from multilateral military operations pursuant to the United Nations Charter will be reported separately rather than “included in national totals” along with other related emissions then being included in national emissions totals of another country.

Maybe something about this could be added under the "Details of the agreement" section? It could be titled "Military exemptions." I think it could definitely be relevant, but I wanted to get your thoughts before doing anything to the page. Historyday01 ( talk) 22:24, 23 January 2022 (UTC) reply

What is the point of the Kyoto Protocol today if there is a Paris climate agreement

when will this protocol cease to exist if there is a Paris agreement that is cooler than this protocol helps to curb global warming, and the question is why the Doha amendment to the old protocol if it is already clear that the Kyoto protocol is no longer relevant at the present time Никита Холин ( talk) 18:40, 19 July 2023 (UTC) reply

The Kyoto Protocol expired on 31 December 2020. TuomoS ( talk) 18:21, 20 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Removed "further reading" list

I've removed the "further reading" list as I think it wasn't really adding value:

Economics
  • Weyant, J. P., ed. (May 1999). "The Costs of the Kyoto Protocol: A Multi-Model Evaluation". Energy Journal (Special issue). Archived from the original on 9 July 2010. Retrieved 8 August 2009. From this issue:

Some improvements to the structure

I've re-arranged the structure a bit to use more of the generic main level headings. Also, I have taken out some content about the background on climate change or greenhouse gas emissions that is now covered better in other Wikipedia articles (that content might have been important here before those other articles had been improved). I think more work is still require to streamline this article a bit more, to make it more focused. - I was motivated to work on this article based on work I was doing on the UNFCCC article and because the pageviews are surprisingly high (very similar to those for the the Paris Agreement, see here). EMsmile ( talk) 14:17, 15 January 2024 (UTC) reply