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
Congratulations to China’s working class — they have officially entered the “Livestock Feed 2.0” era. While others are still researching how to achieve healthy and balanced diets, China has already evolved to the point where it does not matter whether you are actually eating food, as long as you can swallow it. There is no need for cooking, chewing or making decisions — just tear open a package, add some hot water and in a short three minutes you have something that can keep you alive for at least another six hours. This is not science fiction — it is reality.
A foreign colleague of mine asked me recently, “What is a safe distance from potential People’s Liberation Army (PLA) Rocket Force’s (PLARF) Taiwan targets?” This article will answer this question and help people living in Taiwan have a deeper understanding of the threat. Why is it important to understand PLA/PLARF targeting strategy? According to RAND analysis, the PLA’s “systems destruction warfare” focuses on crippling an adversary’s operational system by targeting its networks, especially leadership, command and control (C2) nodes, sensors, and information hubs. Admiral Samuel Paparo, commander of US Indo-Pacific Command, noted in his 15 May 2025 Sedona Forum keynote speech that, as
In a world increasingly defined by unpredictability, two actors stand out as islands of stability: Europe and Taiwan. One, a sprawling union of democracies, but under immense pressure, grappling with a geopolitical reality it was not originally designed for. The other, a vibrant, resilient democracy thriving as a technological global leader, but living under a growing existential threat. In response to rising uncertainties, they are both seeking resilience and learning to better position themselves. It is now time they recognize each other not just as partners of convenience, but as strategic and indispensable lifelines. The US, long seen as the anchor
Kinmen County’s political geography is provocative in and of itself. A pair of islets running up abreast the Chinese mainland, just 20 minutes by ferry from the Chinese city of Xiamen, Kinmen remains under the Taiwanese government’s control, after China’s failed invasion attempt in 1949. The provocative nature of Kinmen’s existence, along with the Matsu Islands off the coast of China’s Fuzhou City, has led to no shortage of outrageous takes and analyses in foreign media either fearmongering of a Chinese invasion or using these accidents of history to somehow understand Taiwan. Every few months a foreign reporter goes to
RSS