The Kyoto Protocol treaty has now entered into force for the nations who have joined it so far. Now is the time to start thinking about how to engage all nations, including large emitters, in conversations about what to do after the treaty's expiration in 2012. This is exactly what the European Commission did recently by providing its first strategy for a post-Kyoto era, which will be discussed by the European Council next March.
While the protocol represents only a modest reduction of carbon emissions in industrialized countries -- 5.2 percent between 2008 to 2012 relative to 1990 levels, with varying targets for individual countries -- real progress can be made in sustaining development efforts and preserving our planet.
But first, all countries must integrate climate concerns into policy planning, and improve their governance in key sectors such as energy, infrastructure and transport. We must act in accordance with the recognition that climate change and its effects on people in both rich and poor countries remains a threat to global security.
At the end of the day, the long-term approach is likely to include a rules-based system, an incentives system and investments in technology change. Increasingly, adaptation at the national level will be recognized as a major issue that will require appropriate funding. Dealing with the impacts of climate change and with emission reductions should not be mutually exclusive, but complementary.
Looking ahead to the post-Kyoto world offers us the chance to start a new dialogue and to look at new options on climate change. Nations could set the more ambitious goal of limiting the long-term change in the earth's temperature, and then assign emissions rights among countries in such a way that will eventually limit temperature increases to an acceptable level. This would require increasing investments in energy research and development for new and improved technologies -- a process that needs to be supported by stronger public-private partnerships.
Up to now, with only 15 percent of the world's population, rich countries have been responsible for more than 75 percent of global carbon dioxide emissions, and thus most of the environmental damage. However, it is the developing countries -- and thus the world's poor -- who are most vulnerable. It is unrealistic to ask poor countries, where more than 1.6 billion people do not have access to clean energy and technologies, to bear the costs associated with the much needed technological change.
Working with partners, the World Bank is supporting strategies to assist developing countries in meeting the costs caused by climate change. To date, over US$1 billion dollars in Global Environment Facility (GEF) grants, together with about US$8 billion in co-financing, have been committed to programs related to climate change.
While the regulatory mechanisms of both Kyoto and the European Trading Scheme have contributed to the establishment of an emerging market for carbon trading, interested parties are now concerned about the immediate future. Without a regulatory framework beyond 2012, the window of opportunity for initiating project-based transactions will close by next year or 2007.
Given the long lead time between project preparation and the first benefits of emissions reductions, project developers have only a few years to act before carbon payments cease to make a meaningful contribution to project finance in the current context. Developing infrastructure projects is a long process that requires three to seven years from identification, through licensing, financing and construction and finally to the first certification of carbon emission reductions.
Therefore, projects need to be operational at the latest by 2007. The bank has been instrumental in advancing carbon finance as a viable development tool, and in facilitating private-sector participation in the market. It is focused on representing the interests of its borrowing countries, helping them to develop assets for carbon trading according to their own priorities.
But, without a commitment by governments to limit greenhouse gas emissions beyond 2012, the carbon market will remain uncertain, and the private sector -- vital to the market's success -- is unlikely to expand its participation in a meaningful and sustained way. According to a recent World Bank-supported survey of companies interested in carbon finance, only one in five respondents declared that they were interested in buying post-2012 emissions reductions.
Now is the chance to look forward and enlist the global community -- with no exclusions, although with differentiated responsibilities -- in the pursuit of a more secure world, one that avoids the dire risks of environmental degradation and social conflict implied by inaction.
Ian Johnson is vice president for sustainable development at the World Bank.
Copyright: Project Syndicate
Concerns that the US might abandon Taiwan are often overstated. While US President Donald Trump’s handling of Ukraine raised unease in Taiwan, it is crucial to recognize that Taiwan is not Ukraine. Under Trump, the US views Ukraine largely as a European problem, whereas the Indo-Pacific region remains its primary geopolitical focus. Taipei holds immense strategic value for Washington and is unlikely to be treated as a bargaining chip in US-China relations. Trump’s vision of “making America great again” would be directly undermined by any move to abandon Taiwan. Despite the rhetoric of “America First,” the Trump administration understands the necessity of
US President Donald Trump’s challenge to domestic American economic-political priorities, and abroad to the global balance of power, are not a threat to the security of Taiwan. Trump’s success can go far to contain the real threat — the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) surge to hegemony — while offering expanded defensive opportunities for Taiwan. In a stunning affirmation of the CCP policy of “forceful reunification,” an obscene euphemism for the invasion of Taiwan and the destruction of its democracy, on March 13, 2024, the People’s Liberation Army’s (PLA) used Chinese social media platforms to show the first-time linkage of three new
If you had a vision of the future where China did not dominate the global car industry, you can kiss those dreams goodbye. That is because US President Donald Trump’s promised 25 percent tariff on auto imports takes an ax to the only bits of the emerging electric vehicle (EV) supply chain that are not already dominated by Beijing. The biggest losers when the levies take effect this week would be Japan and South Korea. They account for one-third of the cars imported into the US, and as much as two-thirds of those imported from outside North America. (Mexico and Canada, while
I have heard people equate the government’s stance on resisting forced unification with China or the conditional reinstatement of the military court system with the rise of the Nazis before World War II. The comparison is absurd. There is no meaningful parallel between the government and Nazi Germany, nor does such a mindset exist within the general public in Taiwan. It is important to remember that the German public bore some responsibility for the horrors of the Holocaust. Post-World War II Germany’s transitional justice efforts were rooted in a national reckoning and introspection. Many Jews were sent to concentration camps not
RSS