<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:georss="http://www.georss.org/georss" xmlns:geo="http://www.w3.org/2003/01/geo/wgs84_pos#" xmlns:media="http://search.yahoo.com/mrss/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Reports of the Accord&#8217;s Importance Exaggerated</title>
	<atom:link href="http://politicalclimate.net/2010/02/03/report-of-the-accords/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://politicalclimate.net/2010/02/03/report-of-the-accords/</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 24 Apr 2012 15:47:37 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.com/</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Peter Wood</title>
		<link>http://politicalclimate.net/2010/02/03/report-of-the-accords/#comment-7</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Peter Wood]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 04 Feb 2010 00:06:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://politicalclimate.net/?p=152#comment-7</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[I think it is useful to have a &#039;schedule&#039; (such as the chapeau of the accord) in which as many emitters list their targets and commitments. It is also useful to have conditional targets (along with conditions) placed into this schedule. If countries are able to commit to both conditional and unconditional targets, then we have a framework that could lead to countries choosing their targets cooperatively.

Unfortunately the way that these things are done in the accord is far too vague to work. It is hard to say what the accord&#039;s targets imply in terms of actual emissions, because issues such as LULUCF accounting, international trading, carryover of Kyoto AAUs, and definitions of &#039;business as usual&#039; are completely unspecified. Furthermore, the conditions that countries have specified for their conditional targets are completely vague, and it is impossible to be able to tell with much certainty from the accord schedule whether any of these conditions have been met.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I think it is useful to have a &#8216;schedule&#8217; (such as the chapeau of the accord) in which as many emitters list their targets and commitments. It is also useful to have conditional targets (along with conditions) placed into this schedule. If countries are able to commit to both conditional and unconditional targets, then we have a framework that could lead to countries choosing their targets cooperatively.</p>
<p>Unfortunately the way that these things are done in the accord is far too vague to work. It is hard to say what the accord&#8217;s targets imply in terms of actual emissions, because issues such as LULUCF accounting, international trading, carryover of Kyoto AAUs, and definitions of &#8216;business as usual&#8217; are completely unspecified. Furthermore, the conditions that countries have specified for their conditional targets are completely vague, and it is impossible to be able to tell with much certainty from the accord schedule whether any of these conditions have been met.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

