Why do you immediately criticize Bush (that's the clear subtext!) without even saying what the protocol is? Sheesh! Also, it was never ratified by the U.S. Congress, so the fact is that the U.S. simply does not endorse it (presidents cannot sign treaties without the consent of Congress, I think). --Larry Sanger
I'll definitely add more information about the details about the protocol, but I'm in favor of adding stubs for the time being instead of perhaps adding a perfect article in half a year.
If I would criticize Bush I'd use much more scathing prose. As far as I can tell, this is pretty much objective. The US is the major producer of greenhouse gases, and the current administration doesn't seem to care. Remember, this is a view from outside the US.
The wording about the signing should probably be changed, though, to make it clear that Clinton only performed the first phase. My understanding is that the normal way for this kind of thing is for the president to sign and afterward get Congress to ratify it. It's also possible for a president to get "advance ratification" of some sort from Congress, but this wasn't done in the Kyoto case. I'm sure some American can specify this in more detail (but this perhaps isn't the right place).
The point is, you seem to have added the article not in order to say what the Kyoto Protocol was about, but in order to say who is stopping it from getting through, which you think it obviously should.
Please do not write on any more partisan topics, if you think this is unbiased. You really don't understand what the neutral point of view is, if you think it is unbiased. It might be "objective" if your opinions are correct, but unbiased it most certainly is not.
As to the name, see: http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/1997/global.warming/stories/treaty/
As I said, more information will be added (and indeed, has been added). The reason for the protocol has been at the top of the article all along.
I can agree that much of the current text would fit under a "History" heading, but I can't say that what is here isn't factual. What is a problem as of now is that the text about Bush takes up too much space, relatively, making him look more important in this than is really the case. Feel free to change this, of course, if you don't feel like waiting for me doing it.
Can I suggest this page be named back to Kyoto protocol (or better yet to Kyoto Protocol) -- calling it 'Climate Change-Kyoto Protocol' isn't its common name, or even its official name -- its an abbreviation used by the CIA World Factbook. -- Simon J Kissane
Does anyone know the names of the 2 countries that have ratified the Kyoto Protocol?
Also, why have so many countries signed but not ratified the Kyoto Protocol? Are they waiting for a critical number of signees, or what?